Thread: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

ISIS has surely enraged enough countries in the world to warrent their demise.

What will it take to get rid of these assholes?

This is the OP, n'est-ce pas?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

So are you saying that Libya under Gadaffi did NOT have free education, health care, water, and power and that Libya did not have control over its own oil, banking and money?

I think what I wrote is clear enough: "Libya" didn't control anything: Qadhafi and Co. controlled everything. I hope the distinction isn't lost on you.

Please indicate which post you think is the OP.

Originally Posted by birding

Could it be that democracy is not the best government for everyone.

Ah, democracy eh. Yes a concept which appears to be difficult to obtain.

Originally Posted by ENT

^ Racist homophobi

Can you imagine what it's like living with his 40 ex-virgins, all on the rag at the same time.

Have some heart for the disadvantaged, please.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by birding

Libya in particular was doing well under Gadaffi the people had free education and health care, water and power. The country had control over its own oil, banking and money

Not precisely accurate: Qadhafi and family had total control of everything and suppressed the rights of those who might have sought leadership positions in government. Effective opposition was non-existent, either dead or in exile. Had an opposition been allowed to rule under, say, a Qadhafi reign, it is likely that Libya would not be in the straits it is today. The same holds true for Syria: Assad and Co. killed or ran off possible contenders for power. The only groups left to rally opposition were/are radical Islamists. Thus, even an Arabized form of democracy was not given a chance in either country as it was seen for the threat that it was to entrenched families and their cronies. A well-oiled democracy depends on widespread education and participation: both anathema to Arab regimes.

Yes precisely accurate do you really need links as proof ?

Yes Gadaffi had control and that would appear to be what is needed for ME countries.

The Saudi royal family has complete control, the Emir of Qatar has complete control the Sheikh's have complete control in the UAE any dissent in these countries is punishable with death.

Gafaffi was different he was involved in a campaign to sell his oil for gold and to put in place a pan African currency based on gold this would have sidelined the US$ and French franc (used in some north Africa countries) that was why France was so keen to get involved for it would have diluted their interest in that part of the world.

You are introducing facts again. You know it will not end well.

It's a new punter, allegedly, one has to take time to rub their noses in the dirt. He's only just started the walk of shame to the gallows. Give him a bit of rope.

Originally Posted by birding

Gafaffi was different he was involved in a campaign to sell his oil for gold and to put in place a pan African currency based on gold this would have sidelined the US$ and French franc (used in some north Africa countries) that was why France was so keen to get involved for it would have diluted their interest in that part of the world.

He was using his own military against his people, you window licker.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by tomcat

A well-oiled democracy depends on widespread education and participation: both anathema to Arab regimes

Boloocks, Bollocks, Bollocks it primarly depends on not having corrupt politicians.

Non-corrupt politicians or leaders is something unheard of in the Muslim world. When you believe in something as ludicrous as Islam you need a shepherd.
When the shepherd dies (peace and blessings be upon him) he leaves a vacuum and his sheep's all seem to run to the slaughterhouse.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

When you believe in something as ludicrous as Islam you need a shepherd

strikingly similar to Christianity and Judaism then...:" all we like sheep..."

Originally Posted by tomcat

Bollocks,
Bollocks, Bollocks
Boloocks, Bollocks, Bollocks.

I take it boloocks is the intensive form then...

Originally Posted by birding

Gafaffi was different he was involved in a campaign to sell his oil for gold and to put in place a pan African currency based on gold this would have sidelined the US$ and French franc (used in some north Africa countries) that was why France was so keen to get involved for it would have diluted their interest in that part of the world.

Please: leave Gafaffi out of this. Qadhafi had numerous schemes to enhance his Pan-African dreams and his own influence. Money bought friends in Burkino Fasso, Niger and the like, but no greater glory for his imperial visions. BTW: the French franc is not used for currency anywhere in North Africa.

[/QUOTE]


Difficult to leave Gadaffi out when talking about the damage that has been done by western intervention by the west in Arab affairs killing him off was an integral part of the strategy.

Check that link and once again you will find you are wrong :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cies_in_Africa

Qadafi was slaughtering his own citizens with military weapons.

It was the right thing to do to depose.

It was the wrong thing to do to depose him and leave the tribes to descend into civil war.

Having said that it seems to have quietened down a lot in the last year, bar a few local terrorist incidents.

Of course Trump is going to eradicate that, so we can all sleep easily.

Originally Posted by birding

Gafaffi was different

Originally Posted by tomcat

Please: leave Gafaffi out of this

Originally Posted by birding

Difficult to leave Gadaffi out

...sorry, attempting a little joke with the spelling of Qadhafi's name...

Originally Posted by tomcat

BTW: the French franc is not used for currency anywhere in North Africa.

The interest of France was enhanced due to the possible use of a Gold Dinars suggested by "Gandalf". Which would probably reduce their small contribution to the African man in the street, but only as you say Central and Western Africa.

The African knows exactly which side of the North, West or Central African border takes which of his wedges of coloured paper.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

ISIS has surely enraged enough countries in the world to warrent their demise.

What will it take to get rid of these assholes?

This is the OP, n'est-ce pas?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

So are you saying that Libya under Gadaffi did NOT have free education, health care, water, and power and that Libya did not have control over its own oil, banking and money?

I think what I wrote is clear enough: "Libya" didn't control anything: Qadhafi and Co. controlled everything. I hope the distinction isn't lost on you.

Please indicate which post you think is the OP.

Yes..

It's good to see than ameristan is at last working with Russia and it's allies in removing ISIS from the planet.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2...h-coordinates/

"Russia has received coordinates of Daesh targets in Al-Bab, Aleppo Province, from the US via the 'direct line,' the Russian Defense Minsitry said Monday.The United States has provided coordinates of the terrorists' targets in the city of Al-Bab in Aleppo province for Russian airstrikes. After the reconaissance check, Russia and two coalition jets have conducted joint airstrikes on the Daesh targets in the region
.
"On January 22, the Russian command center at the Hmeymim airbase has received coordinates of Daesh targets in Al-Bab, Aleppo province, via the 'direct line' from the US-led coalition headquarters. After further data verification with the assistance of unmanned aircraft and space reconaissance, the Russian Aerospace Forces and two jets of the international coalition have conducted airstrikes on the terrorists' targets," the statement said."

Although some in the amerstani administration have called it fake.


Pentagon denies cooperation with Russia in Syrian airstrikes - Washington Times


"The Trump White House and the Pentagon on Monday sent mixed signals over potential U.S. military cooperation with Russian forces in Syria, amid claims by Moscow that American commanders had provided intelligence to their Russian counterparts in the civil war.

Reflecting the evolving U.S. posture toward Moscow under the new president, White House press secretary Sean Spicer, in his first official briefing Monday, suggested that President Trump would be willing to work with Moscow to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, something the Obama administration resisted.

But Mr. Spicer made the remarks amid vehement denials by the Defense Department that any joint operations with Russia in Syria were even being considered by top military brass."

Others have pointed out that rather than giving the impression that amerstani military are engaged with Russian military actions some have identified the ameistani fake news.


"The U.S. military seems to deny:

Any involvement or participation of American assets on the ground in country, in support of a series of Russian airstrikes against the northern Syrian town of al-Bab was “100 percent false,” said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway.

The U.S. coalition spokesperson also said it is:

"not coordinating airstrikes with the Russian military in Syria"

"The DoD only denied it coordinated airstrikes or helped with "assets on the ground". It does not deny the transfer of coordinates. The Russians do not claim U.S. airplanes took part in the mission - only "coalition jets". Turkey is part of the U.S. coalition and coordinates airstrikes with the Russian forces in Syria:

Earlier, Russian and Turkish combat planes have carried out a new series of joint airstrikes against Daesh targets in war-torn Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Monday. "The Russian and Turkish planes carried out joint airstrikes against Islamic State terrorists in the outskirts of the town of al-Bab in Aleppo province on January 21," the ministry said in a statement.

The Russian statement is likely as correct as the DoD statement."

I think it's time to change the thread title to:

"WHAT WILL TRUMP DO TO ERADICATE RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM".

"When will ameristan take the first step in their decades and begin it's "war" with terrorisim?"

That may be the first step just aknowledging their past failures to achive one thing.

The "War on Terrorism" begins with economic and political development in the countries so afflicted: refugees, suicide attackers, plane bombers, etc. are all symptoms of desperate hopelessness. Build schools that train students for a future rather than a parrot cage; build university campuses that foster innovation; develop national institutions that are unaffected by changes in the political class; build economies that will hire people at wages that afford them a life they might consider comfortable...Islamic fanaticism has no answer for such personal and economic growth...

Originally Posted by OhOh

.
"On January 22, the Russian command center at the Hmeymim airbase has received coordinates of Daesh targets in Al-Bab, Aleppo province, via the 'direct line' from the US-led coalition headquarters. After further data verification with the assistance of unmanned aircraft and space reconaissance, the Russian Aerospace Forces and two jets of the international coalition have conducted airstrikes on the terrorists' targets," the statement said."

Although some in the amerstani administration have called it fake.

Pentagon denies cooperation with Russia in Syrian airstrikes - Washington Times

The Americans were probably confused by the word "coalition", unaware or unable to comprehend that other than Americans or their allies can, could or would use the word to refer to other than the US or their allies, although in this case, it probably includes NATO member Turkey.