Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Clearly for peace talks to work, all the middle eastern countries should be represented, and the US should be kept out of it, and never told the location of the talks. Then if the grown up nations can work out a peaceful solution, the US can be told about it and told to agree or face sanctions.

So hanging gays, stoning adulterers, keeping people as slaves, not allowing women to drive, not allowing women out of the home without an escort, death for apostasy/heresy/blasphemy, lashings and mutilations as punishment are just some of the features of "grown up nations"?

Break down of Da'Ish targets hit so far:

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/4817-targets-how-six-months-of-airstrikes-have-hurt-isil-or-not/

sirlynchmob wrote:
What do you do when your side doesn't want peace?

You make it sound as though America has never wanted peace before.

Let me ask you this; what does peace with ISIS look like?

This entire war is a farce. ISIS was created by the USA so they could get public backing for invading Syria. The US withdrew from Iraq knowing that it was going to leave a power vaccum and then started supplying weapons and training to "Syrian Rebels" which we are still doing today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html

http://patriotupdate.com/2014/09/isis-using-weapons-obama-gave-syrian-rebels/

http://cir.ca/news/global-efforts-to-aid-syrian-rebels

All of these hacking threats and bs we are hearing on our media is 100% propaganda. It's sad that so many people are eating it up.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Let me ask you this; what does peace with ISIS look like?

A few billion dollars a year less in debt and borders looking almost exactly the same as they did 10 years ago.

dereksatkinson wrote:
This entire war is a farce. ISIS was created by the USA so they could get public backing for invading Syria. The US withdrew from Iraq knowing that it was going to leave a power vaccum and then started supplying weapons and training to "Syrian Rebels" which we are still doing today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html

http://patriotupdate.com/2014/09/isis-using-weapons-obama-gave-syrian-rebels/

http://cir.ca/news/global-efforts-to-aid-syrian-rebels

All of these hacking threats and bs we are hearing on our media is 100% propaganda. It's sad that so many people are eating it up.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Let me ask you this; what does peace with ISIS look like?

A few billion dollars a year less in debt and borders looking almost exactly the same as they did 10 years ago.

Hey! Its dereksatkinson! Nice to see you back we were missing a few laughs on this forum.

Let me guess, its all the fault of the potato farmers in Cyprus, right?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
What do you do when your side doesn't want peace?

You make it sound as though America has never wanted peace before.

Let me ask you this; what does peace with ISIS look like?

America has wanted peace before, but doesn't seem to want it anymore.

That would be one of the first topics of discussion for the peace talks.

step 1, start having peace talks,
step 2, cease fire.
step 3, hear everyones concerns and listen to what they want.
step 4, lots of compromises.
step 5, peace

Repeat as needed.

If the peace talks decide that ISIS would get Iraq, and all nations would pull back into their own borders and america would never meddle in their affairs again, I'd sign off on that.

Then woe be to the nation that breaks the treaty.

Is that seriously how you think ISIS would roll, sirly? Do you honestly believe it would work out with "lots of compromises"?

I don't know if that is idealism or naivete. Where do you compromise with hanging gays, stoning adulterers, keeping people as slaves, not allowing women to drive, not allowing women out of the home without an escort, death for apostasy/heresy/blasphemy, lashings and mutilations as punishment. (to quote Dreadclaw)

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
What do you do when your side doesn't want peace?

You make it sound as though America has never wanted peace before.

Let me ask you this; what does peace with ISIS look like?

America has wanted peace before, but doesn't seem to want it anymore.

That would be one of the first topics of discussion for the peace talks.

step 1, start having peace talks,
step 2, cease fire.
step 3, hear everyones concerns and listen to what they want.
step 4, lots of compromises.
step 5, peace

Repeat as needed.

If the peace talks decide that ISIS would get Iraq, and all nations would pull back into their own borders and america would never meddle in their affairs again, I'd sign off on that.

Then woe be to the nation that breaks the treaty.

Would you advise us to start the peace talks before or after they finish burning prisoners alive and beheading reporters and humanitarian workers?

And do you think that the foreign negotiators should have "dibs" on the sex slaves or would that be a bit too much to ask?

And how far or near the sites of the children that were buried alive should the piece talks be held? Or on the other hand do you think that the crucified bodies would enhance the background?

 curran12 wrote:
Is that seriously how you think ISIS would roll, sirly? Do you honestly believe it would work out with "lots of compromises"?

I don't know if that is idealism or naivete. Where do you compromise with hanging gays, stoning adulterers, keeping people as slaves, not allowing women to drive, not allowing women out of the home without an escort, death for apostasy/heresy/blasphemy, lashings and mutilations as punishment. (to quote Dreadclaw)

See, your bigotry is showing and this is why I'd advise against inviting americans.

Good luck bringing back gas chambers, electric chairs and firing squads.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oklahoma-considers-gas-chamber-execute-death-row-inmates-28841797

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/utah-firing-squad_n_6200000.html
republicans say the darndest things. ""We have to have an option," Ray told reporters Wednesday. "If we go hanging, if we go to the guillotine, or we go to the firing squad, electric chair, you're still going to have the same circus atmosphere behind it. So is it really going to matter?""

If america is so concerned about any of the things you mentioned, why do they free associate with saudi arabia? SA would behead one of our dakkaites, but that doesn't stop the US from working with them. The US and the world has compromised with the middle east before, nothing you state is new or relevant. The US also freely trades and associates with China another one not know for scoring well on human rights.

Dodging the question. Answer me directly, please.

Where do you compromise on ISIS' actions?

 curran12 wrote:
Dodging the question. Answer me directly, please.

Where do you compromise on ISIS' actions?

The point when they offer us cheap oil in exchange for turning a blind eye? <shrugs> It works for the Saudi's...

 curran12 wrote:
Dodging the question. Answer me directly, please.

Where do you compromise on ISIS' actions?

I suspect it falls somewhere between, "running amok across the bones of women & children" and "building a new world-wide caliphate over the ashes of human civilization"

But then I'm probably going to be lumped into the 'evil Islamist hating, no-good war criminal' crowd according to sirly...

 curran12 wrote:
Dodging the question. Answer me directly, please.

Where do you compromise on ISIS' actions?

I did, freedom of religion right? Autonomy?

Why do you think you shouldn't compromise for peace when your own states are trying to bring back most of what you find objectionable. Why do you compromise with other countries following the same religion the same way, yet refuse to do so for ISIS. The saudis do all that you're against (are you against them?) yet look at how many of your leaders went to the kings funeral.

Quit being a hypocrite, we know what jesus says about them.

As much venom as you have for people wanting to go to war with ISIS, I am genuinely curious.

You have an organization that, regardless of other organizations, boasts its brutality. I want to know how you or anyone finds a position to compromise with it without utterly crushing their position.

Please focus on my question and not what you want to make me appear to be. Throwing names at me is not going to make me change the question nor am I going to rise to your bait.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Dodging the question. Answer me directly, please.

Where do you compromise on ISIS' actions?

I suspect it falls somewhere between, "running amok across the bones of women & children" and "building a new world-wide caliphate over the ashes of human civilization"

But then I'm probably going to be lumped into the 'evil Islamist hating, no-good war criminal' crowd according to sirly...

I don't see how "Hating Islamism" can be construed as evil.

Hating non Islamist moderate Muslims, sure.

sirlynchmob wrote:
That would be one of the first topics of discussion for the peace talks.

step 1, start having peace talks,
step 2, cease fire.
step 3, hear everyones concerns and listen to what they want.
step 4, lots of compromises.
step 5, peace

Repeat as needed.

If the peace talks decide that ISIS would get Iraq, and all nations would pull back into their own borders and america would never meddle in their affairs again, I'd sign off on that.

Then woe be to the nation that breaks the treaty.

You have described the process to peace, not what it looks like. Allow me to ask again; what does peace with ISIS look like?

 curran12 wrote:
As much venom as you have for people wanting to go to war with ISIS, I am genuinely curious.

You have an organization that, regardless of other organizations, boasts its brutality. I want to know how you or anyone finds a position to compromise with it without utterly crushing their position.

Please focus on my question and not what you want to make me appear to be. Throwing names at me is not going to make me change the question nor am I going to rise to your bait.

which organization is that? the US or ISIS, it really is hard to tell you two apart now days. If you'd read my posts I've answered your question before you even asked it.

We have treaties with muslim nations, it's not unheard of, nor outside the realm of reason. Compromise is the best solution. What do you want, Will you settle for this. "A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece." LUDWIG ERHARD.

Now answer my question, why do you just care about the actions of one group, while ignoring the same actions in others. ISIS & Saudi are so akin in ideologies I'd say they're near identical. But trading, visiting, negotiating and forming treaties with one is fine, but just not the other. so if you really are against all the things you claim, what should the US do about Saudi Arabia? do you continue to negotiate with them, or cut off all ties because of how brutal they are?

speaking of the impossible, if peace is so far outside the realm of reason, how do you crush a ideology? What is your end game here? If you're out to crush the ideology, are you going to invade and crush the saudis as well?

the klan is dead? maybe someone should tell them that.

There are very few left. What the hell does a Canadian know about it?

pro lifers are extremists, they have wanted posters for doctors, and have blown up buildings. how about terrorists instead of extremists then?

So the Pope is an extremist? Wow, climb off the nutso wagon.

It has nothing to do with hate,

You seem to know something about hate yourself.

Seriously, christians turn a blind eye to all the evils their religion is doing, yet call on muslims to confront theirs. Lead by example man and take off the blinders.

We have.
The Klan, which wasn't a religious organization no matter how much you hope it would be, was effectively destroyed by the DOJ and the FBI (good riddance). No mainstream denomination would have anything to do with the Klan or any supremecist organization.
Nigerians hunting witches. Well thats just stupid, but thats ignorance, not a religious motivation.
There have been very few criminal activities by prolifers and have been declaimed by pro-life movements.

Try harder.

EDIT:
Do Christians have things to work on? You betcha.

Hey Frazz.. some would say religious motivation comes from ignorance...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Hey Frazz.. some would say religious motivation comes from ignorance...

They would be ignorant.

Pfffft, Fraz, come on. There are plenty of examples of crappy actions by christian groups. I mean, I think turning it into a pissing contest between the two religions is really dumb, but trying to say that any bad christians aren't real christians is exactly what annoys people when they say all muslims must answer for the bad ones.

 Da Boss wrote:
Pfffft, Fraz, come on. There are plenty of examples of crappy actions by christian groups. I mean, I think turning it into a pissing contest between the two religions is really dumb, but trying to say that any bad christians aren't real christians is exactly what annoys people when they say all muslims must answer for the bad ones.

I'm not but those examples are just...stupid.

 Frazzled wrote:

the klan is dead? maybe someone should tell them that.

There are very few left. What the hell does a Canadian know about it?

pro lifers are extremists, they have wanted posters for doctors, and have blown up buildings. how about terrorists instead of extremists then?

So the Pope is an extremist? Wow, climb off the nutso wagon.

It has nothing to do with hate,

You seem to know something about hate yourself.

Seriously, christians turn a blind eye to all the evils their religion is doing, yet call on muslims to confront theirs. Lead by example man and take off the blinders.

We have.
The Klan, which wasn't a religious organization no matter how much you hope it would be, was effectively destroyed by the DOJ and the FBI (good riddance). No mainstream denomination would have anything to do with the Klan or any supremecist organization.
Nigerians hunting witches. Well thats just stupid, but thats ignorance, not a religious motivation.
There have been very few criminal activities by prolifers and have been declaimed by pro-life movements.

Try harder.

EDIT:
Do Christians have things to work on? You betcha.

FYI, the FBI says the klan and skin heads are growing in numbers again. Moving on.

As you claim those christians doing evil things are not based on your religion because the moderates have said they weren't religiously motivated, Then surely the ISIS being disowned by the moderate muslims are clearly not acting on religious motivations. Because clearly judging an entire religion based on disowned extremists is wrong.

so two questions if you don't mind. In your opinion, what actions are christians currently doing in the name of their religion & god that you are against? What actions have christians done in the name of their religion & god this last year makes you proud to be one? No googling, just off the top of your head.

FYI, the FBI says the klan and skin heads are growing in numbers again. Moving on.

Since the 1970s the Klan has been greatly weakened by internal conflicts, court cases, a seemingly endless series of splits and government infiltration. While some factions have preserved an openly racist and militant approach, others have tried to enter the mainstream, cloaking their racism as mere "civil rights for whites." Today, the Center estimates that there are between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members, split among dozens of different - and often warring - organizations that use the Klan name.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan

Because clearly judging an entire religion based on disowned extremists is wrong.
*I would take that as a maxim. Same as for atheists. I don't hold atheists guilty for what Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did, or the Unabomber.

so two questions if you don't mind. In your opinion, what actions are christians currently doing in the name of their religion & god that you are against?
*What? I reject your assertion that I prove a negative.

What actions have christians done in the name of their religion & god this last year makes you proud to be one? No googling, just off the top of your head.
*Off the top of my head the money my church alone gave 8 aid groups including one for a school for orphans in Africa.

 jhe90 wrote:
Killing leadership is less effective.

But logistics, supply lines, fuel, support, to keeps troops in the field if reduced is weakening them. If they want to use heavier weaponry it needs support. Not cut basic guys with a pick up but guys with a pickup are easier for Kurds etc to deal with.

There tanks will require huge logistical support, artillary needs movers and support trucks carrying ammo.

Cut there logistics and you reduce there ability to bring in heavier firepower. They do have captured hevey weapons.

The key would be to kill the middle managment.

Killing the big boys will only make them martyrs and further their cause. If we start killing the Financiers, trainers, recruiters, facilitaters, and technical experts...then we will start to see real progress. Just like any major insitution its the middle managment that really keeps it going, and in this case, are probably the smartest of the group.

This will require some really intresting wet work.

Recruiting in the U.K? maybe you get some radioactive material slipped into your drink.
Sending money from SA? maybe someone strangles you to death while your taking a gak
Traning bomb makers in Berlin? Maybe you get a .38 to the back of the head while you are eatting dinner.

Once we start hitting these guys, and they realize that they are not safe anywhere, thats when I believe a group like ISIS will start to collapse.

 Supertony51 wrote:
Sending money from SA? maybe someone strangles you to death while your taking a gak

Surely there are...cleaner...ways.

Tywin Lannister's death scene (books, not show) comes to mind...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/12/isis-on-doorstep-fighters-reportedly-seize-iraqi-town-near-base-holding-us/

This is a big moment... let's see if their dumb enough to truly poke this bear.




Rule 1, if you think someone is trolling flag the post don't be rude and "call them out", motyak

edit

 djones520 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/12/isis-on-doorstep-fighters-reportedly-seize-iraqi-town-near-base-holding-us/

This is a big moment... let's see if their dumb enough to truly poke this bear.

Supertony? Or SirLynchey?

Rule 1 edit, motyak