The war on ISIS.

[A2K78]

In the United Kingdom (I'm British, not a Subject, so I don't recognise the UK...) crime is comparatively low, particularly "hate" crime.

Clearly we can manage with fewer police officers* and so the numbers shrink and shrink. And so crime goes up, and eventually the police reduce their shrinkage, then crime drops and we can clearly manage with fewer police officers* and so the numbers shrink and shrink. And so crime goes up, and eventually the police reduce their shrinkage, then crime drops and we can clearly manage with fewer police officers* and so the numbers shrink and shrink. And so crime goes up, and eventually the police reduce their shrinkage, then crime drops.


*If you're a politician with an eye on the budget, that is

I dont't buy into the idea that crime in the UK is low like crime here in the america is said to be on the decrease. Why? like here in america I'm quite sure there tons of un-reported and under-reported acts of crimes, that include murders. With that mind when some government agency say that crime is on decrease I take it as a sign that they are lying

 

[TenEightyOne]

Forgive me for asking, but how is european immigration control in anyway related to a militaristic group of fighters wanting to turn Iraq into an Islamic state?

There are several hundred German, French, British and other euros fighting with ISIS. Should they survive, they will come home bearing their passports, and bring a bunch of their new Islamic fundamentalist fighter friends with them. Then you go "BOOM".

Partly this although, @Dotini, going boom is unlikely. Remember that the US has never had home-turf terrorist activity of any particular length or scale other then 11-9, which while utterly utterly appalling was very small scale in comparison to the many years of bombings, firings, kidnappings, beatings and killings of the long-term in-UK terrorism.

When you look at Islamists (a word I find a little strange) 'regaining' their states from Western-approved control they will naturally muster forces from around the world.

Dotini's point about crossflow is a very important one. For once I think he's actually under-egged the pudding

Either through diaspora or design the call to- and flow of hatred from a minority gradually seeps like a fart into the clean lives of others.

I dont't buy into the idea that crime in the UK is low like crime here in the america is said to be on the decrease. Why? like here in america I'm quite sure there tons of un-reported and under-reported acts of crimes, that include murders. With that mind when some government agency say that crime is on decrease I take it as a sign that they are lying

I dont't buy into the idea that crime in the UK is low like crime here in the america is said to be on the decrease. Why? like here in america I'm quite sure there tons of un-reported and under-reported acts of crimes, that include murders. With that mind when some government agency say that crime is on decrease I take it as a sign that they are lying

I didn't say it was low and I didn't compare it to America, It think you're looking at something else.

In the UK we have a specific Detection datum, that does indeed get cooked, officers will naturally add multiple detections for soluble crime and try to compound detections for the insoluble. Be careful using words like "tons" in statistical arguments, that's weight-on-the-Earth. The same goes for "lying", rearranging the numbers isn't the same thing. That's why you should make your own drills into the figures, always look for what you can't see

 

[Akira AC]

So changing the degree of immigration control, or even just suggesting it, is racist?

Again, is just a trivial concept.

I never said stricter immigration control would fix terrorism, but it most certainly won't make it worse unless you're singling out certain groups on purpose. But if you were to just allow in immigrants who can contribute to society and the economy, that speak good English and have useful skill set/qualifications, and put in place some sort of cap so that you didn't get any issues with unemployment, that wouldn't discriminate against anyone (sort of).

Already has, and such thing was already broken.

9/11 was executed by Saudis with student visas, they were well educated, "westernised", Marwan al-Shehhi had a couple of scholarships going in Germany, apart from speaking English flawlessly.

Also, if local population is not competent enough to actually compete in a competitive market, then the problem is from the local population for not being competent enough, that's like the whole point of capitalism, increase the competence on an equal ground for everyone to make the most out of things, breaking such freedom of competence is categorization, and thus, another form of racism by categorize them and then not letting them compete in a free environment.

As for controlling transit of people from one country to another, people have as much of a right to freedom of travel as I have the right to just walk into someone else's home. They only have the right to enter if the country allows it, saying anyone can go anywhere if they want to is nonsense.

And that's how it works, and people from Iraq or any middle east country have to go through a lot of crap to get a visa to even visit the US.

I don't understand why people have the conception of building a safe heaven for their race, is ridiculous. Osama Bin Laden was killed and it didn't stopped terrorism from happening everywhere, US got into Afghanistan thinking that they would go there and get rid of Al Qaeda, only to find themselves just as the Russians were in the late 80's, after all the killing ... which fuels more anti western sentiment.

The US alone has nearly 200 million inhabitants, UK and France have roughly 60 million each, even if you get rid of all the foreign population you would still have both Muslims, and extremists. So again, even if you get rid of all the immigrants you would still have the same problem.

Media gives the people the illusion of security but it doesn't really exist, the police force is not enough to cope with all the crime, some institutions are not design to cope with the amount of illiteracy they have to rid of, in summary the systems are not design to cope with the demands, is just an illusion that they can.

 

[Zenith]

A Marine I know had this to say about the US-trained forces.

I went to an Iraqi Army basic training graduation once. There was a near-riot - I am not exaggerating - when it was announced that the newly minted soldiers would be stationed fifty or eighty miles from their homes.

After the soldiers were calmed down by an Iraqi general, I spoke to a few of them about why they were upset. They tried to impress upon me how much their lives would suck if they had to be so far away from their families.

I didn't have much confidence in the Iraqi Army's will to fight after that. Their retreat from ISIS, leaving much of Iraq in a zone of danger, is no surprise to me - but it is saddening.

 

[Keef]

Hmm... an Abrams was penetrated in the turret front?

If it were that turret wouldn't be attached and it wouldn't look like a tank anymore.

 

[Carlos]

http://rt.com/usa/166100-isis-security-threat-9-11/

Mike Rogers, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, told Fox News that there are “thousands” of American and European volunteers and mercenaries fighting for ISIS, which “has the capability to tap people with Western passports to send them back to Europe and the United States for terrorist activity.”

I know some European people went to Syria, it was on Dutch telly a couple of times. It also reported their passports were taken away so they couldn't leave Syria. But American, European people and mercenaries fighting for ISIS... I can't believe any of it...

“Why did we deal with Stalin?” Graham asked on CNN. “Because he’s not as bad as Hitler. The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure that Baghdad doesn’t fall. We need to co-ordinate with the Iranians and the Turks need to get into the game.”

The Turks will only 'get into the game' if they feel the ISIS will damage sanctuaries. I don't believe the Turks feel they have any gains by having other motivations, because to me the motivations given are pretty retarded. What a douche, using 9/11 as an excuse (again). So yeah let's bomb bomb bomb because that's really helping. If the US is making it rain in Iraq soon, it's the same story over and over again. Any idea how long it take citizens of Iraq the rebuild of a bombed city? Would you return to a deserted bombed down city? They don't have the resources we have and what future do they have? Their future is already non existent, bombing isn't making it any better and or the chance of this happening again any smaller.

 

[Rage Racer]

@Zenith
Yep. They are full of ammo but they surrender, even though they know that these ISIS thugs don't take prisoners. Those who don't die in a fight, get slaughtered slowly and painfully. Pathetic.

If it were that turret wouldn't be attached and it wouldn't look like a tank anymore.

Uhm... I don't think so. The Abrams' ammunition is stored mostly in the back of the turret, and this compartment has blowout panels on the top. Even if this part was hit and ammo cooked off, this wouldn't cause the Jack-in-the-box effect.

But, actually, a HEAT rocket makes this kind of holes in the armor even if it doesn't penetrate through.
Seems like the crew thought "Aah, we're hit! Bail out! We surrender!" and left almost undamaged tank.

But American, European people and mercenaries fighting for ISIS... I can't believe any of it...

Sounds to me like "cool stories" about American PMC's fighting on Poroshenko's side in Ukraine.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@RageRacer, is the front of the turret 'padded' in an early-stage reactive-type armour? I know it's not the sort of padding you have on a couch (maybe Chuck Norris does...) but I mean a 'softer' armour?

My first guess looking at the Abrams pic was that it was a sniper round that had passed a first stage of the turret. I have no idea though and you're definitely more of an expert than me

At first-scroll I couldn't see if anyone had posted this BBC story; "Russia and Ukraine's Mystery Tanks". Interesting stuff, especially the satellite pics. Who doesn't love satellite pics of military manoeuvrings?

 

[Rage Racer]

@RageRacer, is the front of the turret 'padded' in an early-stage reactive-type armour? I know it's not the sort of padding you have on a couch (maybe Chuck Norris does...) but I mean a 'softer' armour?

Nope, the reactive armor is a part of TUSK (tank urban survival kit) and is mounted on the sides. And not on all tanks. There's clearly no RA on the Iraqi Abrams shown before.

Russian tanks (T-90, T-80U, T-72B, etc.) do have reactive armor on the turret, but Abrams doesn't.

'Soft' armor? 'Softkill' active protection system, you mean? It works against guided AT missiles (not RPGs) and it guides missiles away, not destroys them directly.
However, I doubt that Iraqi soldiers could use all these systems properly

The 'standard' armor is the Chobham - a composite armor formed by spacing multiple layers of various alloys of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar (thanks, Wiki). A sniper round couldn't make such a hole in this.

At first-scroll I couldn't see if anyone had posted this BBC story; "Russia and Ukraine's Mystery Tanks". Interesting stuff, especially the satellite pics. Who doesn't love satellite pics of military manoeuvrings?

Interesting, but would belong in the Ukrainian crisis thread.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hahaha, that's where I thought I was, @RageRacer! It's my age, you know. Back in my day TV was three channels and the internet was delivered to your house every morning etc. etc... damn.

 

[Carlos]

Thursday, June 19
05:30 GMT:
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on Thursday said she was deeply concerned about 150 Australians learning the "terrorist trade" fighting alongside Sunni militants in Iraq and Syria.

The country's top diplomat was briefed by her intelligence analysts this week on the number of Australians, some dual citizens, taking up arms alongside rebel groups.

"It is extraordinary. There are about 150 Australians who have been or are still fighting with opposition groups in Syria and beyond," she told ABC radio.

"In Syria it seems that over a period of time they have moved from supporting the more moderate opposition groups to the more extreme and that includes this brutal extremist group, ISIS." (AFP)

 

[Dotini]

Would it surprise anyone to learn that these "western Islamists" are receiving US sponsored and delivered training in Jordan and/or Turkey before being filtered into Syrian opposition groups, then finally on to ISIS in Iraq?

 

[Carlos]

Would it surprise anyone to learn that these "western Islamists" are receiving US sponsored and delivered training in Jordan and/or Turkey before being filtered into Syrian opposition groups, then finally on to ISIS in Iraq?

No it doesn't, sadly..

Today people wanted to held a party in favour of ISIS, at the Iraqi embassy.... Our gov said no (luckily) but it surprises me there are more people here who support ISIS than I thought.

 

[Dotini]

Today people wanted to held a party in favour of ISIS, at the Iraqi embassy.... Our gov said no (luckily) but it surprises me there are more people here who support ISIS than I thought.

Pro-ISIS support in the general population is likely motivated by anti-Assad, anti-Iran and anti-Shiite sentiments. Shia are considered heretics by radicalized majority Sunni.

But support of ISIS by states, whether Saudi Arabia, Turkey , Gulf statelets or the US military or CIA, remains to be fully explained. Part of the explanation may be a desire to support both sides of the conflict in order that the outcome may be controlled and manipulated.

Another part of it may be to reverse the tide of battle against Assad in Syria by erasing the border with Iraq and giving the rebels a strong economic and military basis in Iraq.

 

[Rage Racer]

ISIS has seized a chemical weapons plant. RLY?

 

[Dotini]

ISIS has seized a chemical weapons plant. RLY?

Just a leftover WMD plant from Saddam. Decommissioned, rendered useless, declared not dangerous.

Supposedly the real problem is that ISIS has captured virtually everything between Aleppo and Baghdad.

But Obama does not want Maliki, just reelected, and would prefer balance, i.e., war, between Shiite and Sunni.
So the US will neither strongly oppose ISIS nor strongly support the Iraq government. It's unbelievably satisfying when your enemies are killing each other.

 

[zzz_pt]

I can't undestand why the USA (the proponents of the Iraqi invasion) doesn't want to play a part in the resolution of a problem that they contributed for. They invade Iraq claming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that would be a threat to them. We all know that nonsense was just an excuse to go after Iraqi oil and other ways of making money. Unfortunatly the strategy didn't work out well and Hussein's regime who kept this jihadists ISIS away from the country doesn't exist anymore. Thousands and thousands of innocent people died or were injured or had to leave their homes and now, the ones who stayed are being killed by a greater threat.

Between two evils we should chose the one that causes less harm to the majoraty of the people. The Iraqi case is an example of a wrong choice.

In Syria for example, I can't bear the regime of Bashar Al Assad but we know that his regime is dealing with ISIS and other jihadists sects. Should USA invade Syria as they did with Iraq? Probably they already know the future result seeing what's happening in Iraq at this very moment.

On a side note, the problem between the countries is not a cultural one. Is, IMO, a religious one. Religion, specifically islam in this area of the world, is what keeps them in dark ages mentality. Western world has already gone throw this in the real Dark Ages but we move on and the catholic church changed as well. Islam is on its period of dark ages today. The role of UN, NATO and western people in general is to stop this to happen a second time in history.​

 

[MrGrado]

Everybody stop fighting please. I don't like refugees.

 

[Carlos]

In this image released by the US Navy, sailors direct an F/A-18C Hornet on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush during flight operations in the Arabian Gulf on June 17, 2014. (AFP Photo / Maggie Keith)

The only thing I've read so far that I actually liked:

It is now an offence in Britain to belong or invite support for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS) and the four other proscribed groups, or even to wear clothing or carry items in public indicating support. (AFP)

 

[TenEightyOne]

America won't be sending troops.

They're sending 300 "military advisers" though, I don't know how "troopish" they are, but I'd take a bet...

Everybody stop fighting please. I don't like refugees.

I feel more and more sorry for you. As a planet we've collectively created the highest ever number of refugees since World War II.

 

[samurai8juice]

I threw in my two cents in before, and ill throw it in again.

In my own opinion and my point of view, we should have never gone to the Middle East. There has never been a prolonged peace in the Middle East in a long time. So why should the U.S. stroll in a foreign country, when that country is in the middle of a war. Do we think we will choose the right side in the end? Do we think we can be the "peacekeeper" in a war which it seems neither side wants peace? Plus, the U.S. has been terrible at choosing sides in history. Supporting Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden at the beginning to then turn on them at the end. Either the U.S. is bad at choosing sides, or we are easily manipulated.

But from another perspective, yeah, we shouldn't have gone over there. But, the U.S. had to if we wanted to be selfish and protect the United States and only the United States from constant threats and/or attacks. Who knows, maybe ISIS would have happened 5-10 years early and have taken over Iraq if we never went over there.

I want to type abit more, but I decided not to.

All I can say is this. 90-100% of us in this thread can agree on one thing, the United States(and any other country that joined in) wasted the last 5-10 years in Iraq, IF ISIS takes over Iraq and establishes a new Government. (And then the U.S. will re-invade and we will have to disrupt another threat etc.)

 

[mister dog]

IMO They should commence helping the iraqi's out with airstrikes asap, before ISIS takes over Baghdad.
Standing at the sidelines discussing possible options but being hesitant to act (UN anyone? ), will only make things worse, and that's what ISIS was counting on before they started crossing the border i'm sure.

 

[Mark T]

There needs to be a global response, not just airstrikes from the US. In this situation ISIS need to be shown that the world isn't going to stand for their extremism. Take them out, shut them down.

 

[Carbonox]

There needs to be a global response, not just airstrikes from the US. In this situation ISIS need to be shown that the world isn't going to stand for their extremism. Take them out, shut them down.

Won't that do more harm than good, potentially stirring up the Islamists we got at Europe right now?

 

[Mark T]

Won't that do more harm than good, potentially stirring up the Islamists we got at Europe right now?

You can't have a group like ISIS roaming Iraq stealing hundreds of millions of dollars, taking over chemical weapons factories and hijacking oil refineries. They don't have any limits, they're already sending out recruitment campaigns to those living in Europe calling for Muslims to come forward and fight. If you leave them in place they will continue to radicalise young Muslims, butchering anyone who doesn't conform to their ideology as they go.

Action needs to be swift and ideally it should be those nations surrounding Iraq that intervene with US/UK assistance.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's lose-lose. Intervene and it stirs up the Islamists. Do nothing and the Islamists thrive. The only people who can respond to this are muslims themselves and the sooner intelligent muslims realise this the better for all of us.

 

[Rage Racer]

You know, we remember the Syrian war and controversies about Assad, FSA, political and economical causes of the conflict. But in 2014, it all became clear. The so-called Free Syrian Army, backed by the West, is now flushed out, and all of its units have revealed their true face - they joined the islamists. Yes, yes - those who slaughter civilians, cut throats, hang children and pride about that. They are active in Syria for a few years already, and there are lots of them in the whole Middle East. Around 100.000 thugs.

Of course, this area is pretty far away from the most of us, and not many people care about it. But, such countries as Syria and Iran are ones of the last strongholds of humanity and common sense in the zone of this Wahhabi/Salafi trash. There are normal people who don't cut unarmed people while calling Allah to bar. Syrian Army and IRGC fight not only for their people and lives of their families, but also for stability and safety of the whole region from the islamistic plague. Every Wahhabi/Salafi militant killed by them is a life saved - not only of Syrians, but maybe of our citizens too, of Europe and Russia. Because there are islamists from all over the world - and they could be doing something else, like bombing Russian soldiers in Caucasus, or NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, or even perform terrorist acts in other countries. So, secular Syria and Shii Iran are doing kindness to the world - they are cutting this carcinoma out of the planet's body. Now (I hope), America will join exterminating the ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, otherwise (IMO) this country will fall.

 

[Dotini]

Now (I hope), America will join exterminating the ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, otherwise (IMO) this country will fall.

Very logical, in a romantic sort of way, but it can't happen in a politically correct vision. Our exterminating days were over once we did in the North American Indians. I would settle for the US cutting funding for ISIS/ISIL by sanctioning Saudi Arabia, etc.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Look guys, so long as Shia's and Sunni's exist, they will always go at each other. America stepping in will only give them a common enemy. It doesn't help that Iran is supporting Shias and the Wahhabists in Saudi are throwing their weight behind the Sunnis.

 

[Mark T]

I think it's true that this an issue that really needs to be resolved by the Muslim community and the surrounding Islamic states. The problem is that all the Islamic states with power are quite extreme themselves. They have oppressive laws and generally support one particular sect of religion. I don't think there is a long term solution, maybe a secular government which enforces equality irrespective of religious sect would help matters.