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.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If there isn't a cute hashtag does it really warrant any feigned interest? How can one pretend to do something online if there isn't a hashtag?!

Change your facebook profile picture obviously.

1 like = 1 jihadist stopped. #SupportFranceAndStopTerrorismByDoingNothingAndUsingRidiculouslyLongHashtags


EDIT : We bombed Raqqa tonight, so things can only go deeper into violence.

 LordofHats wrote:
To be fair, I think beheading is the all time human favorite method of execution. Lacking chemistry, electricity, and gunpowder, it's the most efficient option

Well we did use to combine burning at the stake and explosive collars for a slightly more merciful death.................

 LordofHats wrote:
Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.

Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.

So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.

Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.

So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.

We'll just have to find a puppet from the west. Because that never leads to bad things happening.

 d-usa wrote:
We tolerate gun owners, despite the actions of their murderous majority.

They weren't born holding on to their guns, but they choose to own them. How many must be mowed down by their bullets before we realize that gun ownership is not compatible with the west and that owning guns is a deranged ideology that breeds violence. Sure, I know some peaceful gun owners, but they are just a perversion of gun owners. You don't know the truth of being armed until you killed your first human.

Some day we will realize that our PC constitution is outdated and we will get rid of the scourge of gun owners who love to kill.

Or maybe we don't paint the majority with a brush tainted by the few.

Your analogy is cute but flawed. Its usually the guys with guns that do the scourging. "Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" is not just an epic movie line.
So can we keep that topic out of this one please?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Given the actual topic at hand, perhaps the discussion of the most efficient ways to kill people might just be a tad tasteless, no?

Thank you.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.

Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.

So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.

We'll just have to find a puppet from the west. Because that never leads to bad things happening.

Can we also arm the new regime so it can turn on us again?

 LethalShade wrote:
Here we go, our politicians are already starting to use the attacks to discredit our government.

*Sigh*

How do you mean?

The calls for a 3 month state of emergency?

 whembly wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
Here we go, our politicians are already starting to use the attacks to discredit our government.

*Sigh*

How do you mean?

The calls for a 3 month state of emergency?

Nope. They're just openly criticizing everything they can criticize, half-ignoring the government calls for the Union Sacrée (Sacred Union, a political truce between the different parties). I mean, they have the right to criticize the government, of course, (And there is a lot of things to criticize) but there are more important things to do at the moment than preparing the next election.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/991322/man-pushes-muslim-woman-into-oncoming-underground-train-in-london/

Violence begets violence.

Have any of you ever see creepy cartoon showing support to the equally creepy ISIS like this before?

 d-usa wrote:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/991322/man-pushes-muslim-woman-into-oncoming-underground-train-in-london/

Violence begets violence.

Fear begets violence

 Lone Cat wrote:
Have any of you ever see creepy cartoon showing support to the equally creepy ISIS like this before?

Spoiler:

So basically some ISIS supporters. Can't believe somebody doesn't alert the government to look into possible terrorists posting crap like that esp. considering people liked and possibly favorite'd it.

For those that don't have twitter the number on the left is basically how many clicked the 'share' button and the number on the right is how many 'liked' it.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If there isn't a cute hashtag does it really warrant any feigned interest? How can one pretend to do something online if there isn't a hashtag?!

Change your facebook profile picture obviously.

1 like = 1 jihadist stopped. #SupportFranceAndStopTerrorismByDoingNothingAndUsingRidiculouslyLongHashtags

First world causes at their best (like 'cause' bracelets for giving barely any money). If I had any money (being poor sucks) I'd probably send some in a relief effort if it's even needed. Not sure how to legitimately help france without signing up to the military or to help with relief somehow. Certainly the families of the dead will need support for this.

Oddly enough my half sister was in france when this happened but she was about 7 hours south of Paris. Not only was she visiting Europe when this happened but was in france on the day. I'm not sure how much more the case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time could apply aside from being in the city and where the attacks took place. Oddly enough she's in Spain now so despite the 'lockdown' she was able to get out of the country pretty easily as a tourist. That's probably a cause for concern though.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.

Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.

So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.

Yeah that's one of issues. In my post I'm more referring to changing the international stance away from removing Assad, but if the course of remove Assad were to be continued one of the issues is what replaces him, especially since removing him will not end the conflict in Syria with ISIS.

On the one hand I don't really like the idea of abandoning the rebels who oppose Assad and ISIS. They want a lot of the things many of us want. At the same time though, are they more useful than Assad right now? Assad is only a threat to the people of Syria, but ISIS is clearly a threat to everyone west of the Indus River.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Have any of you ever see creepy cartoon showing support to the equally creepy ISIS like this before?

Spoiler:

So basically some ISIS supporters. Can't believe somebody doesn't alert the government to look into possible terrorists posting crap like that esp. considering people liked and possibly favorite'd it.

For those that don't have twitter the number on the left is basically how many clicked the 'share' button and the number on the right is how many 'liked' it.
.

Viewers 'liked' this post because the tweeting member denounced the cartoonist in question. Actually this member said 'Look at his transgression (cartoonist)!' . It is denounciation. he's actually attacking a cartoonist who drawn this.

While Thai (military junta) government is basically claimed that they have no love to the ISIS. their key supporters (especially the cartoonists in question, whom a full supporter to the Junta himself) are! Simply because France... as a member of E.U. shown no regards to the 22nd May 2014 Coup. suspended all negotiations with the Junta government 'until the free and fair election is held'. U.S. also responded the same.. Only China 'recognizes' the Junta as legitimate government. With this situations abroad. the Cartoonist viewed that 'The Free World is the Enemy of the State' and they MUST SUFFER. I don't think he cares about who's attacking his 'enemies'. he cares only that the prepetators had the attacks executed successfully. With the incident fully involved with the ISIS (their leadership later arrogantly claimed responsibility). this means the Cartoonist called the ISIS 'Ally'.

Also the earliest OFFICIAL announcement on this incident also berated 'Liberal Democracy is weak and inheriting to the social rift, proning toterrorists attack to any country adopting this political system.' and arrogantly promoted their brand of 'proper political system that instills unity to national citizenry'. so alerting government about this pro ISIS cartoonist helps nothing, since the NCPO is internationally desperate. the regime might see ISIS as their saviour that they can prevent full scale rebellion at home (which they believe that these Free World Allies will instigate any preexisting Anti-NCPO factions to wage war against them). Yet they don't think the ISIS will defeat the Free World Allies.

EDIT: But if you asking me wheter does ISIS supporters exists in Thailand, or Is there any Thai citizens ISIS sympathety here? I'd say 'Yes there are!' Most likely those with this political alignment also supports the Junta and hateful towards anyone opposing 'The Holy Reform' .... not just being simply 'Anti-Shinawatra' as they were. many new groups opposing the Junta, yet not related to the preexisting Red movements shown up, (And the Junta military garrisons are quick to catch them). Yet there are creepier irrenditism remarks sprang up only few hours after the incident.. like this one
'This is the Karmic Retribution to the French campaign to conquer Siam (resulting in 1893 Crisis) '

https://www.facebook.com/siripoj.laomanacharoen/posts/1205965269419607?hc_location=ufi

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Now would seem to be a time to consider the practicality of removing Assad, which is unfortunate. The guy is a tosser and it would be really nice to have him gone.

Gonna need to put thought in that one. Total douche and turd decision.

So who would you replace Assad with? Nature abhors a vacuum and without a solid plan you risk strengthening ISIS.

Ideally the international pressure makes Assad realize that he is bones, he takes the smart way out and makes a deal with Russia letting him spend the rest of his life as a rich man, he holds his office long enough as a "nice guy" until they can have fair elections, he hands off power to the newly elected government peacefully, and everybody goes home "happy".

How to make that scenario happen? No freaking idea.

You really cannot hold 'fair elections' when the Gov't does not have control over even half the population at this point. Huge areas controlled by DaIsh and other groups would be left without a voice in how the new gov't is formed.

I'm not saying you couldn't hold the elections anyway, but you end up either accepting a split country or you still have a civil war going on. Likely both to be honest.

 CptJake wrote:
You really cannot hold 'fair elections' when the Gov't does not have control over even half the population at this point. Huge areas controlled by DaIsh and other groups would be left without a voice in how the new gov't is formed.

I'm not saying you couldn't hold the elections anyway, but you end up either accepting a split country or you still have a civil war going on. Likely both to be honest.

That falls under the "how to make it happen, no idea" part of my plan!

Jake raises a good point. Can we really form a new government prior to removing ISIS? Election day is a potential terrorist field event.

 LordofHats wrote:
Jake raises a good point. Can we really form a new government prior to removing ISIS? Election day is a potential terrorist field event.

Well, once Assad realizes that a peaceful exit is his best future he will work together with the rebels, Russia, and the USA to defeat ISIS.

It's a plan with no chance of it happening, but it's a plan

I suggest we leave Assad alone. We were happy to before the Arab Spring, he survived the fire.

 Orlanth wrote:
I suggest we leave Assad alone. We were happy to before the Arab Spring, he survived the fire.

Our biggest lesson over the last 15 years should really be that stable dictatorships are better for our national interest and security than unstable democracies.

It's a terrifying world where America's Finest News Source is better at predicting the future than America's politicians. :(

From 2003:

http://www.theonion.com/multiblogpost/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mideast-regio-11534

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
It's a terrifying world where America's Finest News Source is better at predicting the future than America's politicians. :(

From 2003:

http://www.theonion.com/multiblogpost/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mideast-regio-11534

I swear I've seen that exact same argument on Dakka.

Any major change in the political structure of a country (which also determines its social structure, to an extent) is going to lead to disruptions in the quality of life that people have come to expect. In every case, there will be those who fall from a position of relative comfort to one of discomfort.

These are the sorts of people that get recruited by extremists. The ones who feel as if they have lost everything, have no prospects, who think "things were better under the old ways!" and similar ideas are how groups like ISIS, or the Klan, recruit new members and stay relevant, *especially* if the political change is instigated/perpetuated by those viewed as "outsiders" (whether those "outsiders" are actually foreign powers or just different factions within one's own nation).

Let's be honest here, American-style capitalist democracy is actually pretty terrible in avoiding these scenarios, because capitalism *requires* a lower class, which leads to significant economic inequality, which is a powerful contributing factor to many other forms of inequality and injustice. And, as the saying goes, when justice dies? People are bound to follow.

So, however it shakes out, if "regime change" is the goal, those involved in the changing have to make damned sure they have the will and the capital to see it through to the end. They *must* remain to act as the defenders of the new order and, if that new order is meant to be a liberal democracy? To ensure that the precepts of liberal democracy are actually being carried out, and the grievances of the people are being addressed.

It is *not* enough to simply go in and kill a lot of people, because that will not solve anything other than the most immediate of problems, while creating many more (and basically ensures that you'll be back in 10 to 20 years to do it all over again once the next few generations of extremists, pissed that you left their country in ruins and killed their fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, have blown up your shopping malls, your nightclubs and your theme parks.

The question remains, as it has for nearly twenty years now, is whether or not the people and the governments of the West have the will to actually see it through. Personally? I don't believe that they do. We have too many extremists in our own midst, and I mean natives, home-grown extremists, with access to the internet and social media, making posts (in relation to current events, things like "Islam is the problem" and "Kill all of them" and "Only let the Christians in") which are used by groups like ISIS to further their message that the West has declared war on all Muslims everywhere... which, again, feeds into the fears and uncertainties of the marginalized, which is, again, how such organizations recruit.

an article that points the fingers at everyone:

http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-attacks-hard-solution-to-islamic-extremism/#1

The extremists will keep going in their steady inexorable dominion of the whole Muslim world, including the immigrant communities in Europe and North America. The hawks will talk about going to war with Islam as if we could solve this problem by throwing enough bombs at it. And the totalitarian progressive left will silence anyone who dares to question their narrative that Islam is a problem-free religion.

mind you, at least they're offering something close to a roadmap:

A) We need to admit Islam has a huge problem with violence. We need to condemn that violence, without making any excuses for it.
B) We need to acknowledge that there’s a lot of people in the Islamic world who want to change that, and stop throwing them under the bus.
C) We need to channel a lot of resources into helping these people to be stronger, louder and more popular than they are right now.

unfortunately my money is on the status quo being maintained, until there is another attack that reaches four digits of victims. Stay safe, everyone

As a rebuttal to the article, Islam, itself, doesn't have a problem with violence. There's one and a half billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of them live like, well, regular people, doing the 9-to-5 thing, like most people in the western world. Are they particularly devout Muslims living every moment of every day in accordance with the Quran?

Of course not but, then again, most Christians don't live by the Bible every second of every day (or even every day of the week), they have their sins, their vices, their all-too-human weaknesses. Some like to drink, some like porn, some like gakky game shows. Nobody's perfect.

Adding together the total populations of Boko Haram, al Qaeda, and ISIS, you end up with a total population that represents 0.003% of Muslims worldwide. Trying to claim that this tiny percentage represent Muslims worldwide is like trying to claim the Klan speaks for the entirety of the American South-east (I'm from there. Let me assure you, it most certainly does *not*).

 Psienesis wrote:
As a rebuttal to the article, Islam, itself, doesn't have a problem with violence. There's one and a half billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of them live like, well, regular people, doing the 9-to-5 thing, like most people in the western world. Are they particularly devout Muslims living every moment of every day in accordance with the Quran?

Of course not but, then again, most Christians don't live by the Bible every second of every day (or even every day of the week), they have their sins, their vices, their all-too-human weaknesses. Some like to drink, some like porn, some like gakky game shows. Nobody's perfect..

Some of us at the same time.

 Psienesis wrote:
Adding together the total populations of Boko Haram, al Qaeda, and ISIS, you end up with a total population that represents 0.003% of Muslims worldwide. Trying to claim that this tiny percentage represent Muslims worldwide is like trying to claim the Klan speaks for the entirety of the American South-east (I'm from there. Let me assure you, it most certainly does *not*).

Indeed, from the article:

it’s really the Wahabis who are the problem. They are only 22 percent of Muslims, but have a huge amount of power in the Muslim world. And they are responsible for the 87 percent of terrorism.

You did read the article right? That's ok if you skimmed it.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Besides who takes guns to a theatre. The Donald perhaps?

John Wilkes Booth

I was gonna say Holmes but Booth works.

Both support the point that you only bring guns to the theatre to cause mischief, professional bodyguards excepted.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
That was a different situation. Home rule was justifiable and necessary, the partition occurred on sectarian grounds due to a majority of orange in six of the counties of Ulster.

Oh, and before I forget again Ulster is 9 counties and is comprised of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, as well as the six that comprise Northern Ireland.

Just as well I didnt forget that in my comments, got you covered.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You also conveniently ignore the Catholic majorities of Derry, Tyrone, Armagh, and Fermanagh in your historical revisionism. So out of six counties in Northern Ireland (not Ulster) there was only two with a Protestant majority.

Actually thats BS. Protestants were a two third majority at the time of partition. It is considerably less now due to differences in the birth rate

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Partition was a face saving measure by the British government who had been thoroughly embarrassed by the Irish rebels and wanted to save face while poisoning the well behind them as they were forced to quit the field.

More nonsense from you. Northern Ireland remained because the Orangemen (in particular) said so, and because the 1922 treaty at the time made efforts to accommodate them. The 1997 treaty reinforced this.
Where is this leprechaun dream of 'forced to quit the field'?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Tighten security in the US. That's the icing on the cake

For that there actually needs to be effective border control. The exploits of cartels and coyotes shows this to be lacking.

Border control for the US is pretty much impossible. However Jihadists have to go a long way to get to the Americas in general, and cant effectively arrive en masse. The US has problems with 'home grown' radicals as with any nation in the west, but doesnt have large Islamic immigrant concentrations that there are in Europe.

Some folks in their rush to legitimise terrorism or at the least terrorist apologists ignore the fact that only 13% of the population of Northern Ireland want a United Ireland's and that's a huge nationwide poll published last week.....so I doubt there are too many counties with a true nationalist never mind republican majority. Partition was made possible because of the unionist people's sacrifice in ww1. Catholic people have served in many capacities in the British armed forces with considerable distinction. Including both world wars and as members of the udr and ruc. The number of Catholics who supported the IRA in 1916 was more miniscule and the numbe who supported them during the troubles was pretty tiny too. The fascist cult of Sinn Fein just like to rewrite history and the world let them away with it to keep their bombs and bullets at bay. Which to be honest is probably worth living with when you look at their brothers in ISIS and what they are doing.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I suggest we leave Assad alone. We were happy to before the Arab Spring, he survived the fire.

Our biggest lesson over the last 15 years should really be that stable dictatorships are better for our national interest and security than unstable democracies.

Better for the local populace also. Assad wasn't particularly bad, you could live quite safely in Syria so long as you weren't actively trying to depose him. You could be critical of the regime and more than get away with it, a Saddam he was not.
Sure he had rough edges, but a lot of our own western politicians have those, yet we get all high and mighty about our own righteousness,

I have never believed he went mental and started shooting Turkish aircraft either. This was always laid at his door but was far more likely to be the work of rebel forces. Assad is not a crazy and knows it would do himself no good to take pot shots at the Turks.

Gaddafi had to go, and we had blood debts to call in. The UK and France especially wanted him out and quickly arranged for the rebels to gain the upper hand. Egypt was a mess from the beginning, Mubarak's removal was opportunistic, has solved nothing and only served to feth the country. Only Tunisia's spring has appeared to have worked out as intended.

Putin made the right call throughout. I do not see why the UK needed to have any policy of Assad at all, He wasn't our problem, and its a problem we need not have been party to. Even now the talk is about the eventual removal of Assad, time to wake up. Assad is staying, Russia says so and we all need Russia's help right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:

Some folks in their rush to legitimise terrorism or at the least terrorist apologists ignore the fact that only 13% of the population of Northern Ireland want a United Ireland's and that's a huge nationwide poll published last week.....so I doubt there are too many counties with a true nationalist never mind republican majority. Partition was made possible because of the unionist people's sacrifice in ww1. Catholic people have served in many capacities in the British armed forces with considerable distinction. Including both world wars and as members of the udr and ruc. The number of Catholics who supported the IRA in 1916 was more miniscule and the number who supported them during the troubles was pretty tiny too. The fascist cult of Sinn Fein just like to rewrite history and the world let them away with it to keep their bombs and bullets at bay. Which to be honest is probably worth living with when you look at their brothers in ISIS and what they are doing.

QFT, mostly.
The support for an independence process in 1916-22 was very substantial. It was major issue prior to that, and had a lot of support in the mainland UK. Irish Home Rule was an issue Gladstone tried to settle, but couldn't get the bill through. Wellesley was also in favour of full Irish independence but likewise was blocked.

The main problem is not from the Irish, who understand the issues clearly, but Irish Americans, who are divorced from the reality and are hoodwinked into believing hogwash version of Irish history that doesnt stand up to any scrutiny, but is unchallenged and thus believed anyway.

The whole idea that the UK was kicked out of Ireland by a heroic uprising and made Northern Ireland to save face is part of the ahistorical bollocks that many over there are spoonfed.