Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Technically, no. Effectively, maybe. (there's a new album title for someone) " It'll be Radiohead's new album maybe | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's rather scary and sounds a lot like a declaration of war" Indeed it does, however, I think the news report says it does not invoke section 7. I've no idea what that means, potentially that it it is not an open declaration of war, rather a precursory measure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't bombing the fuck out of somewhere, which is happening already, constitute war anyway?" No....war has to be formally declared. In the Falklands in 1982 when the UK and Argentina shot the fuck out of each other (history, children...) war was not declared it was 'merely' a 'conflict'.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are people frightened to actually say the war word? It looks like a war,it feels like a war but lets not call it that just yet Will calling it a war unleash something that we'll instantly regret?" In the legal terms yes! Under international law acts of war are considered different to those of peacetime | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't bombing the fuck out of somewhere, which is happening already, constitute war anyway?" yes it does | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are people frightened to actually say the war word? It looks like a war,it feels like a war but lets not call it that just yet Will calling it a war unleash something that we'll instantly regret? In the legal terms yes! Under international law acts of war are considered different to those of peacetime" I see,thanks I'm going to delve into acts of war | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't bombing the fuck out of somewhere, which is happening already, constitute war anyway? No....war has to be formally declared. In the Falklands in 1982 when the UK and Argentina shot the fuck out of each other (history, children...) war was not declared it was 'merely' a 'conflict'. "Fair comment, it was obviously a bit more than a skirmish, but I'm sure François Hollande called a "war with jihadist terrorism", so it must be in his eyes anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't bombing the fuck out of somewhere, which is happening already, constitute war anyway? No....war has to be formally declared. In the Falklands in 1982 when the UK and Argentina shot the fuck out of each other (history, children...) war was not declared it was 'merely' a 'conflict'.
Fair comment, it was obviously a bit more than a skirmish, but I'm sure François Hollande called a "war with jihadist terrorism", so it must be in his eyes anyway."But did he file the necessary paperwork? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all?" Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't bombing the fuck out of somewhere, which is happening already, constitute war anyway? No....war has to be formally declared. In the Falklands in 1982 when the UK and Argentina shot the fuck out of each other (history, children...) war was not declared it was 'merely' a 'conflict'. "It was a war after we won you gotta hedge as a politician | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't bombing the fuck out of somewhere, which is happening already, constitute war anyway? yes it does " No it doesnt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't bombing the fuck out of somewhere, which is happening already, constitute war anyway? No....war has to be formally declared. In the Falklands in 1982 when the UK and Argentina shot the fuck out of each other (history, children...) war was not declared it was 'merely' a 'conflict'.
It was a war after we won you gotta hedge as a politician"It wasn't a war as we were never 'at war' with Argentina | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't bombing the fuck out of somewhere, which is happening already, constitute war anyway? No....war has to be formally declared. In the Falklands in 1982 when the UK and Argentina shot the fuck out of each other (history, children...) war was not declared it was 'merely' a 'conflict'.
It was a war after we won you gotta hedge as a politician
It wasn't a war as we were never 'at war' with Argentina"You've never heard a British politician call it a war? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal Saudi Air Force 70 F-15 fighter bombers 50 Typhoons 80 Tornado ground attack aircraft Saudi Army 175,000 troops (versus the UK 89,000 regulars) Any chance of looking at these joining in before we send ours ? My point being that now this is a WORLD problem and a WORLD mandate, why is it often the western world that take the action when there are countries with far bigger resources that sit on the sidelines maybe sending a cursory number of troops and the odd air force mission to 'help' ? My comments are not limited to Saudi Arabia, rather they are just an example " Very valid point. The longterm solution to the middle east must come from the middle east. Dont forget if it wasn't for the regions natural resources we probably wouldn't be there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. " 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all?" It was the Security Council, which is controlled by a small number of 'super-powers' not by the UN General Assembly. A Security Council resolution is to effectively make a war legal or to take away any doubt of legality. The UN as an organisation doesn't declare war. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. " Rule of law - hilarious!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. Rule of law - hilarious!!! " I think you meant to type, oh shit your right thanks for pointing that out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bush and Blair couldn't get a UN resolution for Iraq, that's where the claim of illegality comes from. If war is war, with no concept of legality then Iraq wasn't illegal. I don't think many people would agree with that. " I don't think that's true. There have been war crimes without declarations of war (Rwanda for example) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. Rule of law - hilarious!!! I think you meant to type, oh shit your right thanks for pointing that out. " No, you've made that point before and been shot down on many accounts. I just couldn't be bothered to repeat the argument since nothing is going to change your opinion and it's not an opinion very many people share so they don't need convincing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. Rule of law - hilarious!!! I think you meant to type, oh shit your right thanks for pointing that out. No, you've made that point before and been shot down on many accounts. I just couldn't be bothered to repeat the argument since nothing is going to change your opinion and it's not an opinion very many people share so they don't need convincing. " there was never an argument because its a fact. have a go, I am open to reason. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bush and Blair couldn't get a UN resolution for Iraq, that's where the claim of illegality comes from. If war is war, with no concept of legality then Iraq wasn't illegal. I don't think many people would agree with that. I don't think that's true. There have been war crimes without declarations of war (Rwanda for example) " A war being illegal and being guilty of war crimes are two different things. Rwanda was a civil war where war crimes were committed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bush and Blair couldn't get a UN resolution for Iraq, that's where the claim of illegality comes from. If war is war, with no concept of legality then Iraq wasn't illegal. I don't think many people would agree with that. I don't think that's true. There have been war crimes without declarations of war (Rwanda for example) A war being illegal and being guilty of war crimes are two different things. Rwanda was a civil war where war crimes were committed." They are but I'm just saying you can have a war crime with or without a UN resolution... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bush and Blair couldn't get a UN resolution for Iraq, that's where the claim of illegality comes from. If war is war, with no concept of legality then Iraq wasn't illegal. I don't think many people would agree with that. I don't think that's true. There have been war crimes without declarations of war (Rwanda for example) A war being illegal and being guilty of war crimes are two different things. Rwanda was a civil war where war crimes were committed." how come the un doesn't call them conflict crimes then?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bush and Blair couldn't get a UN resolution for Iraq, that's where the claim of illegality comes from. If war is war, with no concept of legality then Iraq wasn't illegal. I don't think many people would agree with that. I don't think that's true. There have been war crimes without declarations of war (Rwanda for example) A war being illegal and being guilty of war crimes are two different things. Rwanda was a civil war where war crimes were committed. how come the un doesn't call them conflict crimes then? "Because war crimes are war crimes whether the war is legal or not. You could in theory have an illegal war that does not commit war crimes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bush and Blair couldn't get a UN resolution for Iraq, that's where the claim of illegality comes from. If war is war, with no concept of legality then Iraq wasn't illegal. I don't think many people would agree with that. I don't think that's true. There have been war crimes without declarations of war (Rwanda for example) A war being illegal and being guilty of war crimes are two different things. Rwanda was a civil war where war crimes were committed. how come the un doesn't call them conflict crimes then?
Because war crimes are war crimes whether the war is legal or not.
You could in theory have an illegal war that does not commit war crimes. "the point is the un refers to it as war with no official declaration of war. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. Rule of law - hilarious!!! I think you meant to type, oh shit your right thanks for pointing that out. No, you've made that point before and been shot down on many accounts. I just couldn't be bothered to repeat the argument since nothing is going to change your opinion and it's not an opinion very many people share so they don't need convincing. there was never an argument because its a fact. have a go, I am open to reason. " It's not a fact. A state is not a bit of land with some desperate people on it. A state is a state when it is recognised by other states as being a legitimate state. Think of it as a club where the existing members are allowed to make up the rules about who gets in (it's politics afterall). Hence why so much of the camp David agreements focused on simply getting Egypt to recognise Israel as a state (thus becoming the first Arab country to do so). Even today, only ~83% on the UN actually recognise Israel so it's still a contraversial subject (to those that don't). Not a single state recognises ISIS, it's not a UN member and has no chance of every becoming one hence why it's not a state. It's a terrorist organisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. " I disagree, civil war is still a war, and that's between state and people. But can a civil war be global in scale with multiple States? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bush and Blair couldn't get a UN resolution for Iraq, that's where the claim of illegality comes from. If war is war, with no concept of legality then Iraq wasn't illegal. I don't think many people would agree with that. I don't think that's true. There have been war crimes without declarations of war (Rwanda for example) A war being illegal and being guilty of war crimes are two different things. Rwanda was a civil war where war crimes were committed. how come the un doesn't call them conflict crimes then?
Because war crimes are war crimes whether the war is legal or not.
You could in theory have an illegal war that does not commit war crimes.
the point is the un refers to it as war with no official declaration of war. "Because the UN Security Council is the vehicle through which countries can set out the grounds for war and either have it sanctioned or vetoed by the other members. The UNSC is the process, not the declarer, of war. That is done by individual countries or multinational agencies like NATO. The process was designed to stop countries using force just because they wanted to (i.e. the Nazis). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. Rule of law - hilarious!!! I think you meant to type, oh shit your right thanks for pointing that out. No, you've made that point before and been shot down on many accounts. I just couldn't be bothered to repeat the argument since nothing is going to change your opinion and it's not an opinion very many people share so they don't need convincing. there was never an argument because its a fact. have a go, I am open to reason. It's not a fact. A state is not a bit of land with some desperate people on it. A state is a state when it is recognised by other states as being a legitimate state. Think of it as a club where the existing members are allowed to make up the rules about who gets in (it's politics afterall). Hence why so much of the camp David agreements focused on simply getting Egypt to recognise Israel as a state (thus becoming the first Arab country to do so). Even today, only ~83% on the UN actually recognise Israel so it's still a contraversial subject (to those that don't). Not a single state recognises ISIS, it's not a UN member and has no chance of every becoming one hence why it's not a state. It's a terrorist organisation. " 8 million people, it HAD half of syria and a third of iraq is not desperate people on a strip of land. isreal is clearly a country weather its recognised by other states or not. your examples prove my point. any more? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. Rule of law - hilarious!!! I think you meant to type, oh shit your right thanks for pointing that out. No, you've made that point before and been shot down on many accounts. I just couldn't be bothered to repeat the argument since nothing is going to change your opinion and it's not an opinion very many people share so they don't need convincing. there was never an argument because its a fact. have a go, I am open to reason. It's not a fact. A state is not a bit of land with some desperate people on it. A state is a state when it is recognised by other states as being a legitimate state. Think of it as a club where the existing members are allowed to make up the rules about who gets in (it's politics afterall). Hence why so much of the camp David agreements focused on simply getting Egypt to recognise Israel as a state (thus becoming the first Arab country to do so). Even today, only ~83% on the UN actually recognise Israel so it's still a contraversial subject (to those that don't). Not a single state recognises ISIS, it's not a UN member and has no chance of every becoming one hence why it's not a state. It's a terrorist organisation. 8 million people, it HAD half of syria and a third of iraq is not desperate people on a strip of land. isreal is clearly a country weather its recognised by other states or not. your examples prove my point. any more? " At this stage I think any reasonable person would read what is written and not agree with you and therefore I'm done. Israel had countries recognise it the day it declared independence. Nobody recognises ISIS. It doesn't support your point at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, the United Nations has given the go ahead for any country to attack Islamic State. Does that constitute official declaration of war, or is this not what that means at all? Sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. ISIS isn't a state and neither is the UN. War is between states. 8 million people, land mass the size of the uk, oil fields, taxes, the rule of law, embassies, an army. whether the world likes it or not that's acountry. Rule of law - hilarious!!! I think you meant to type, oh shit your right thanks for pointing that out. No, you've made that point before and been shot down on many accounts. I just couldn't be bothered to repeat the argument since nothing is going to change your opinion and it's not an opinion very many people share so they don't need convincing. there was never an argument because its a fact. have a go, I am open to reason. It's not a fact. A state is not a bit of land with some desperate people on it. A state is a state when it is recognised by other states as being a legitimate state. Think of it as a club where the existing members are allowed to make up the rules about who gets in (it's politics afterall). Hence why so much of the camp David agreements focused on simply getting Egypt to recognise Israel as a state (thus becoming the first Arab country to do so). Even today, only ~83% on the UN actually recognise Israel so it's still a contraversial subject (to those that don't). Not a single state recognises ISIS, it's not a UN member and has no chance of every becoming one hence why it's not a state. It's a terrorist organisation. " IS isn't a de jure state, but it could definitely be argued that it's a de facto state to some degree. That's not to say everyone living there is with IS, of course they're not, in the same way that not everyone living in Afghanistan was with the Taliban. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vast majority of people living in land currently controlled by ISIS do not support ISIS, or have any wish to support them. They just have no available means of either resisting them or escaping their influence. Just a fact that's worth considering, when people are bandying around a figure of 8,000,000 people being part of the Islamic 'State'. The best estimates of actual IS troops are between 100 and 200 thousand fighters, including forced conscripts who are unreliable at best. So let's start to be realistic about what kind of a threat they actually represent." CIA estimates are just 20,000 - 50,000 fighters but yeah there are some estimates floating around in the 200k region | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The CIA figures are considered to be wildly optimistic, based on the population of the land they currently control. ISIS simply couldn't control the populations of these areas with a force so small." Fair point, well made | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vast majority of people living in land currently controlled by ISIS do not support ISIS, or have any wish to support them. They just have no available means of either resisting them or escaping their influence. Just a fact that's worth considering, when people are bandying around a figure of 8,000,000 people being part of the Islamic 'State'. The best estimates of actual IS troops are between 100 and 200 thousand fighters, including forced conscripts who are unreliable at best. So let's start to be realistic about what kind of a threat they actually represent. CIA estimates are just 20,000 - 50,000 fighters but yeah there are some estimates floating around in the 200k region " It's not surprising given their numbers that they'd rather target people not trained to fight. The casualties stated of military personnel against them seems quite low, maybe because countries have mainly resorted to dropping bombs on their territory, I don't know and can only guess. However, the death toll of civilians that they've claimed is through their actions is considerably high, ergo, they just seem to be playground bullies, but the scale of the actions they're claiming is enough to cause countries around the world to unite against them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's not surprising given their numbers that they'd rather target people not trained to fight. The casualties stated of military personnel against them seems quite low, maybe because countries have mainly resorted to dropping bombs on their territory, I don't know and can only guess. However, the death toll of civilians that they've claimed is through their actions is considerably high, ergo, they just seem to be playground bullies, but the scale of the actions they're claiming is enough to cause countries around the world to unite against them." the iraqi army fled and lost a third of its country. tbf they are fight armies and trained militias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The vast majority of people living in land currently controlled by ISIS do not support ISIS, or have any wish to support them. They just have no available means of either resisting them or escaping their influence. Just a fact that's worth considering, when people are bandying around a figure of 8,000,000 people being part of the Islamic 'State'. The best estimates of actual IS troops are between 100 and 200 thousand fighters, including forced conscripts who are unreliable at best. So let's start to be realistic about what kind of a threat they actually represent. CIA estimates are just 20,000 - 50,000 fighters but yeah there are some estimates floating around in the 200k region It's not surprising given their numbers that they'd rather target people not trained to fight. The casualties stated of military personnel against them seems quite low, maybe because countries have mainly resorted to dropping bombs on their territory, I don't know and can only guess. However, the death toll of civilians that they've claimed is through their actions is considerably high, ergo, they just seem to be playground bullies, but the scale of the actions they're claiming is enough to cause countries around the world to unite against them." Well nobody likes them! Even the taliban had 3 countries recognise it! ISIS killed a Chinese person the other day, if the USA,China and Russia can agree they don't like you then you are pretty fucked really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well, they are still estimates with a huge possible variance. Which is one of the reasons all this confident talk about going to war against ISIS as if it's going to be a walk in the park is so thoughtless...we don't even have any real idea about the size of the force we might be encountering." Yes, that is a very good point, which is why I raised the question, because I don't know if the UN decision means that there is enough basis to assume war, however the exception of section 7 (I still haven't googled that) means that there is insufficient actual data to make a confirmed decision. Fair enough, this is not the place to expect a definitive answer to such questions, as most people on here will just have speculation from alternative sources and experience, however, it's useful to see responses to gauge my own position on such topics | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's not surprising given their numbers that they'd rather target people not trained to fight. The casualties stated of military personnel against them seems quite low, maybe because countries have mainly resorted to dropping bombs on their territory, I don't know and can only guess. However, the death toll of civilians that they've claimed is through their actions is considerably high, ergo, they just seem to be playground bullies, but the scale of the actions they're claiming is enough to cause countries around the world to unite against them. the iraqi army fled and lost a third of its country. tbf they are fight armies and trained militias. " If memory serves, most of them fled because of scare tactics. I don't know for sure, but I think there were a lot of captured soldiers whom IS beheaded and tossed the heads at the people they were fighting. Most people would run at the prospect of being killed in such a barbaric fashion, so I'm not sure that's a true indicator of their fighting potency | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's not surprising given their numbers that they'd rather target people not trained to fight. The casualties stated of military personnel against them seems quite low, maybe because countries have mainly resorted to dropping bombs on their territory, I don't know and can only guess. However, the death toll of civilians that they've claimed is through their actions is considerably high, ergo, they just seem to be playground bullies, but the scale of the actions they're claiming is enough to cause countries around the world to unite against them. the iraqi army fled and lost a third of its country. tbf they are fight armies and trained militias. If memory serves, most of them fled because of scare tactics. I don't know for sure, but I think there were a lot of captured soldiers whom IS beheaded and tossed the heads at the people they were fighting. Most people would run at the prospect of being killed in such a barbaric fashion, so I'm not sure that's a true indicator of their fighting potency" If my memory serves, our politicians thought it would be a good idea to disband the Iraq army so the best fighters could go join ISIS. I'm guessing a large proportion of the current Iraq army were getting their first taste of combat so I wouldn't pass judgement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's not surprising given their numbers that they'd rather target people not trained to fight. The casualties stated of military personnel against them seems quite low, maybe because countries have mainly resorted to dropping bombs on their territory, I don't know and can only guess. However, the death toll of civilians that they've claimed is through their actions is considerably high, ergo, they just seem to be playground bullies, but the scale of the actions they're claiming is enough to cause countries around the world to unite against them. the iraqi army fled and lost a third of its country. tbf they are fight armies and trained militias. If memory serves, most of them fled because of scare tactics. I don't know for sure, but I think there were a lot of captured soldiers whom IS beheaded and tossed the heads at the people they were fighting. Most people would run at the prospect of being killed in such a barbaric fashion, so I'm not sure that's a true indicator of their fighting potency If my memory serves, our politicians thought it would be a good idea to disband the Iraq army so the best fighters could go join ISIS. I'm guessing a large proportion of the current Iraq army were getting their first taste of combat so I wouldn't pass judgement. " That's a good point very well made | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also worth remembering that ISIS' goal is a united war against them" They'll also use it as a recruiting tool. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's also worth remembering that ISIS' goal is a united war against them They'll also use it as a recruiting tool. " Well that's the party line. Usually these Nobel goals coincide with the leaders becoming powerful, wealthy and getting special privileges... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"War brings a certain degree of rules and conventions. This doesn't seem like war." It seems worse than war.....  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
