What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

**harrybarracuda** · 14-06-2015, 05:11 PM

I really don't see the point in sending troops to their deaths to fight these boys. They are impossible to fight against because they can hide in plain sight and they don't mind dying themselves.

The only real answer is to carpet bomb every square inch where they are found and accept that there will be civilian casualties.

**panama hat** · 14-06-2015, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Neverna

And what has that Guardian article from February got to do with your claim that European countries are "blocking the due process"? Zilch.

It has nothing to do with it. It is quite evident that ES's is exactly that - post up absolute contradictory bullshit and when someone bothers to read his crap he talks about shooting things into eyeballs and starts off on another tangent

**Horatio Hornblower** · 14-06-2015, 05:35 PM

You may find Germany is the second highest contributor to nato.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Germany helps in the easy part, policing the roads in safe areas etc. They are not involved in hardcore battle like US and UK forces. Which is the important thing. Where there are casualties. Body bags shipped back to home.

About the cost... Whatever they say in Bundestag, it mostly covers their overpriced helmets and BMW SUV's etc. Germany should just hand over the same money to NATO for more efficient use.

Whatever good Germans do in Afganishtan deserves applause. But the fact is that they are not facing the enemy on the front line, like US/UK/AUS etc do.

I have noticed you have some fetish with passports and Yugoslavia. Stop shooting that stuff into your eyeballs. Just 30 min ago you posted incoherent off-topic post in another thread to me citing my same sentence several times without any comment. What was that about? Never mind, I don't care.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

I seem to notice Germany never helps in any difficult situations

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

the government is lame duck every time there is some crisis

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

You take benefit of EUR but accept no responsibility.

You really do talk shit . . .

With a contingent of 5,350 soldiers and policemen, Germany is one of the main contributors of troops to coalition operations in Afghanistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...in_Afghanistan

All in all, over the years more than 100,000 German soldiers and civilians have contributed to the efforts aiming at the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan.
With currently up to 5,350 troops, Germany is the third largest troop contributor. The German Bundestag voted on January 28 to extend the troop’s mandate with a sound majority.

With $1.6 billion spent and an additional $2.8 billion pledged through 2013, Germany is the third largest bilateral donor of foreign assistance. In addition, Germany contributes some 20 percent to the EU assistance to Afghanistan totalling over $2.5 billion.
Germany has been NATO’s lead nation for the stabilization of Afghanistan’s northern region since 2006.
Germany was the first country to leave Kabul to establish a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT).

German Missions in the United States - Engagement in Afghanistan

Every time you post you write incoherent and false crap . . . (exception being your last post on the Greek thread)

It's so easy to disprove your nonsense . . . why not make it a bit tougher for everyone else and actually do some research

As for your dodgy Yugoslav past - how many tens of thousands of your countrymen worked and lived in Germany for decades - still do . . .to support themselves and their families in the pigsty you call home?

**hazz** · 14-06-2015, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I really don't see the point in sending troops to their deaths to fight these boys. They are impossible to fight against because they can hide in plain sight and they don't mind dying themselves.

The only real answer is to carpet bomb every square inch where they are found and accept that there will be civilian casualties.

given the ego's and narcissism present in middle eastern culture, and its ability to royally fuck most things up....

surly it would be a mater of slowly and relentlessness assassinating their leaders and let the middle and junior ranks fight it out for the top jobs, to the point their spend all their time and energy killing each other

**harrybarracuda** · 15-06-2015, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I really don't see the point in sending troops to their deaths to fight these boys. They are impossible to fight against because they can hide in plain sight and they don't mind dying themselves.

The only real answer is to carpet bomb every square inch where they are found and accept that there will be civilian casualties.

given the ego's and narcissism present in middle eastern culture, and its ability to royally fuck most things up....

surly it would be a mater of slowly and relentlessness assassinating their leaders and let the middle and junior ranks fight it out for the top jobs, to the point their spend all their time and energy killing each other

Well that's kinda what they're doing already.

**Exit Strategy** · 15-06-2015, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Neverna

The USA and the UK ARE bombing Iraq and the USA IS bombing Syria. No one is stopping them.

Air campaign is different thing that many countries already participate in.
Article from September 26, 2014, by now list of countries bombing ISIS has no doubt grown.
Anti-ISIS coalition has mobilized up to 62 nations and groups | National Post

Originally Posted by Neverna

As for boots on the ground, domestic politics (in the USA and the UK) is the main impedance to that process at the moment

I didn't speak about domestic politics. Just pointed out obvious way to solve ISIS problem (in thread named: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS? ).

Besides freezing ISIS funds ASAP (which corrupted politicians are preventing that?)

To Hurt ISIS, Squeeze the Cash Flow
From NY Times By THE EDITORIAL BOARD MARCH 3, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/op...flow.html?_r=0
...
But more needs to be done. Governments must follow through with a United Nations Security Council mandate to make the financing of terrorist groups a crime. They must also freeze the assets of terrorist groups and their benefactors, share intelligence and crack down harder on illicit oil sales by figuring out who is trading and buying the oil and how they’re doing it. Stopping the revenue flow must be central to any serious effort to defeat ISIS.
...

Then let the Section 20 of Strike Back handle cutting the head of the snake

(Ie. special forces IRL). Then regular "boots on the ground" to take down remaining, by then confused, leaderless ISIS fighters.

Originally Posted by Neverna

And what has that Guardian article from February got to do with your claim that European countries are "blocking the due process"? Zilch.

It shows that other countries, especially countries in the region, are ready to fight ISIS. They are not blocking it.

**Neverna** · 15-06-2015, 06:54 AM

And neither are European countries.

**Exit Strategy** · 15-06-2015, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

You may find Germany is the second highest contributor to nato.

Funding NATO as organization (in part, money for paper clips and bureaucracy) has nothing to do with military power member countries possess, paid from national budgets.

NATO Official site: Funding NATO
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
...
Within the principle of common funding, all 28 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget
...
Germany being rich country with largest population in Europe, their share of funding is what is it according to contract.

From same link
...
Indirect – or national – contributions are the largest and come, for instance, when a member volunteers equipment or troops to a military operation and bears the costs of the decision to do so.
...
This is countries like US and UK who have strongest militaries and largest military budgets, most professional soldiers and most advanced technology.

But it is not only about money. What matters is who does the hard work and how efficiently, who is involved in actual battle. By doing the real fighting armed forces from US, UK and some other countries are now battle-hardened, light years ahead in their capabilities in real war situation.

Biggest cost is in the blood and deaths.

Now, who does the actual hard work? Who's at the front line?

For example, Afganishtan. And do please compare list below to size of population of each country. (Germany 80 million). You will find that much smaller countries contribute more to actual fighting per capita than Germany.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalit...in_Afghanistan

Number of killed in Afghanistan
USA: 2,259*
UK: 453
Canada: 158*
France: 88
Germany: 57
Italy: 53
Poland: 44[2]
Denmark: 43
Australia: 41
Spain: 35*
Georgia: 29
Netherlands: 25
Romania: 23
Turkey: 15
Czech Republic: 10
New Zealand: 10
Norway: 10
Estonia: 9
Hungary: 7
Sweden: 5
Latvia: 4
Slovakia: 3
Finland: 2
Jordan: 2
Portugal: 2
South Korea: 2
Albania: 1
Belgium: 1
Lithuania: 1
Montenegro: 1

TOTAL: 3,393

79.9% from US and UK
1.6% from Germany (with far larger population than UK)

That is the real contribution.

**panama hat** · 15-06-2015, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

I seem to notice Germany never helps in any difficult situations

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Germany helps in the easy part

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Biggest cost is the blood and deaths.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Where there are casualties. Body bags shipped back to home.

Aside from being ghoulish and ill-informed . . .

Now, who does the actual hard work?

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Number of killed in Afghanistan
USA: 2,259*
UK: 453
Canada: 158*
France: 88
Germany: 57

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

And do please compare list below to size of population of each country. (Germany 80 million). You will find that much smaller countries contribute more to actual fighting per capita than Germany.

How many ways to move the golaposts in one fell swoop . . . well, many smaller 'swoops', every time he gets proven wrong

I think the guy was refused refugee or immigrant status in Germany . . . too many thick Yugoslavs there already, didn't need another one. Fdidn't get gud passport but now hev gud passport but wife has not gud passport.
Must googel Yes?

**Exit Strategy** · 15-06-2015, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Neverna

And neither are European countries.

Check your history books. With previous campaigns there has always been some France, Germany or Belgium

against real action. Yes many europeans are doing good work with air strikes, etc, but that's as far as many euro govts are willing to go.

**Exit Strategy** · 15-06-2015, 07:44 AM

So you claim these figures from Wikipedia are wrong. They can be found from many other, official, sources - this is very public data. What have I told you about shooting that stuff into your eyeballs... must be pretty potent. As for all your incoherent unrelated crap, some day I am Dutch (and if I was, what would be your problem with that - btw Dutch contributed 2-3 times more per capita to Afganishtan campaign than Germans when you take look at the list below. I think it was use of the term "per capita" that confused you. It simply means, per person) or Bulgarian or now Yugoslavian (I guess you have been using your stuff so long that you haven't noticed that country does not even exist anymore) refugee denied by Germany. Oh and thanks for your red with weird message again, your reds seem to come regularly almost every day. Every red you send proves I'm right considering your mental state. Rinse and repeat...

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalit...in_Afghanistan

Number of killed in Afghanistan
USA: 2,259*
UK: 453
Canada: 158*
France: 88
Germany: 57
Italy: 53
Poland: 44[2]
Denmark: 43
Australia: 41
Spain: 35*
Georgia: 29
Netherlands: 25
Romania: 23
Turkey: 15
Czech Republic: 10
New Zealand: 10
Norway: 10
Estonia: 9
Hungary: 7
Sweden: 5
Latvia: 4
Slovakia: 3
Finland: 2
Jordan: 2
Portugal: 2
South Korea: 2
Albania: 1
Belgium: 1
Lithuania: 1
Montenegro: 1

TOTAL: 3,393

79.9% from US and UK
1.6% from Germany (with far larger population than UK)

That is the real contribution.

END OF

Originally Posted by panama hat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy I seem to notice Germany never helps in any difficult situations Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy Germany helps in the easy part Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy Biggest cost is the blood and deaths. Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy Where there are casualties. Body bags shipped back to home. Aside from being ghoulish and ill-informed . . .
Now, who does the actual hard work? Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy Number of killed in Afghanistan
USA: 2,259*
UK: 453
Canada: 158*
France: 88 Germany: 57 Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy And do please compare list below to size of population of each country. (Germany 80 million). You will find that much smaller countries contribute more to actual fighting per capita than Germany. How many ways to move the golaposts in one fell swoop . . . well, many smaller 'swoops', every time he gets proven wrong
I think the guy was refused refugee or immigrant status in Germany . . . too many thick Yugoslavs there already, didn't need another one. Fdidn't get gud passport but now hev gud passport but wife has not gud passport.
Must googel Yes?

Stalker
Amateur
คนโง่ยาบ้าฝรั่งขี้นก

**panama hat** · 15-06-2015, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

So you claim these figures from Wikipedia are wrong

Where do I do this?

Come on, Yugo-boy . . . for once, just once back up your nonsensical lies.
Where do I 'claim' these figures are wrong?

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

END OF

Indeed. End of your ludicrous statements

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Amateur

Yes, indeed . . . End of.

I'll try again in case you missed it:

Come on, Yugo-boy . . . for once, just once back up your nonsensical lies.
Where do I 'claim' these figures are wrong?

Time to backtrack AGAIN and switch topics for you to get out of admitting you're wrong. Again

**Exit Strategy** · 15-06-2015, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy So you claim these figures from Wikipedia are wrong Where do I do this?

Read your previous posts, if you can understand them.

Originally Posted by panama hat

How many ways to move the golaposts in one fell swoop . . . well, many smaller 'swoops', every time he gets proven wrong

Originally Posted by panama hat

your nonsensical lies.

I mentioned facts with reliable links to public information anyone can check. None of that can be proven wrong, since it is the truth.

Anyone is free to check the facts and decide what they think.

You copy many paragraphs of my post without comment and then tell your unrelated story about refugees with personal insults.

Well, I don't actually know what the "golaposts" are, but I think, as you bolded one part of my post, you are arguing that Germans had a major share in Afganishtan campaing and smaller countries did not. My wikipedia article, official public data available, shows casualties that come from being on the front line, doing the hard stuff, while I suppose Germans were driving in BMW SUV's sightseeing and taking photos in areas already made safe by US, UK, Canada etc.

Casualties
79.9% from US and UK
1.6% from Germany (with far larger population than UK)

Don't you get blind from shooting that stuff into your eyeballs? Or you shoot only to one eyeball, so you can still see with your other eye. Very clever of you.

Rinse and repeat.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalit...in_Afghanistan

Number of killed in Afghanistan
USA: 2,259*
UK: 453
Canada: 158*
France: 88
Germany: 57
Italy: 53
Poland: 44[2]
Denmark: 43
Australia: 41
Spain: 35*
Georgia: 29
Netherlands: 25
Romania: 23
Turkey: 15
Czech Republic: 10
New Zealand: 10
Norway: 10
Estonia: 9
Hungary: 7
Sweden: 5
Latvia: 4
Slovakia: 3
Finland: 2
Jordan: 2
Portugal: 2
South Korea: 2
Albania: 1
Belgium: 1
Lithuania: 1
Montenegro: 1

TOTAL: 3,393

79.9% from US and UK
1.6% from Germany (with far larger population than UK)

That is the real contribution.

END OF

Stalker
Amateur
คนโง่ยาบ้าฝรั่งขี้นก

**MrG** · 15-06-2015, 10:56 AM

What everybody is missing here is that the coalition to go into Afghanistan cobbled together by Bush/Cheney was a political face saving maneuver to begin with. A joke.
It was an American problem, but they got as many as they could to sign on in support of their phoney war on terror. After ignoring evidence handed over by American intelligence officials (thank you, Candi) and overseeing the biggest terrorist attack in history, I guess they had to beat the chest as loud as they could.

**Boon Mee** · 15-06-2015, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by MrG

What everybody is missing here is that the coalition to go into Afghanistan cobbled together by Bush/Cheney was a political face saving maneuver to begin with. A joke.
It was an American problem, but they got as many as they could to sign on in support of their phoney war on terror. After ignoring evidence handed over by American intelligence officials (thank you, Candi) and overseeing the biggest terrorist attack in history, I guess they had to beat the chest as loud as they could.

Believe you meant Condi?

**Exit Strategy** · 15-06-2015, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Believe you meant Condi?

I believe he didn't know what he meant

Ignoring actual situation in Afganishtan and why the international coalition went there, just by saying

Originally Posted by MrG

It was an American problem

**Horatio Hornblower** · 15-06-2015, 03:50 PM

Bloomberg and Wiki are the exits bible

**Exit Strategy** · 15-06-2015, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Bloomberg and Wiki are the exits bible

Wikipedia is easy place to start, if it looks fishy check other sources, finally find and check official sources. I don't care enough of this forum nor have time to find out every official link for you - you can do it yourself.

Bloomberg data and terminals are like industry standard, trusted by millions of professionals.

I'm not religious.

What's your bible?

**Neverna** · 15-06-2015, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Originally Posted by Neverna

And neither are European countries.

Check your history books. With previous campaigns there has always been some France, Germany or Belgium

against real action. .

History? Previous campaigns? We are talking about now and this particular campaign.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Originally Posted by Neverna

And neither are European countries.

Yes many europeans are doing good work with air strikes, etc, but that's as far as many euro govts are willing to go.

That's as far as ANY country is prepared to go. But if you know differently, by all means post up something to support your opinion.

**harrybarracuda** · 15-06-2015, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Believe you meant Condi?

I believe he didn't know what he meant

Ignoring actual situation in Afganishtan and why the international coalition went there, just by saying

Originally Posted by MrG

It was an American problem

Well then it's going to be again, because as soon as the US are fed up having their arses kicked and go home with the rest of the 'coalition', the talitubbies will be taking over again and we'll be back to square one, minus a couple of trillion dollars - a large chunk of which was disbursed into Bush and Cheney (+ pals') bank accounts.

Oh, and a nine figure sum in UAE banks and real estate nicked by Karzai and his chums.

Has to be one of the biggest fuck ups in history, unless you were one of the beneficiaries rather than one of the casualties.

**panama hat** · 15-06-2015, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

just by saying

. . . just by saying what?

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

I don't care enough of this forum nor have time to find out every official link for you

Ah, there's the rub . . . he really doesn't check what he writes . . .

**OhOh** · 17-06-2015, 11:07 AM

Killing a few ISIS leaders always goes down well with the sheeple.

"

Algerian Qaeda commander believed killed in Mali - June 28 2012
Islamist militant Mokhtar Belmokhtar 'killed in Mali' - March 3 2013
Mokhtar Belmokhtar: Top Islamist 'killed' in US strike - June 15 2015

"

Excuse me, it is the same leader, "killed" 3 times. Oh well many of us don't have such a good memory these days.

**OhOh** · 18-06-2015, 08:48 AM

Somebody has pressed the "Drones don't Work" button. Must be time soon for the "More boots on , but not touching, the ground.

"'America has taken on a foe 5,000-strong. It has killed 10,000 of them. There are only 20,000 left'"

'America has taken on a foe 5,000-strong. It has killed 10,000 of them. There are only 20,000 left' - Telegraph

"They say the missions, which have become an increasingly dominant feature of US military strategy in recent years, “profoundly violate domestic and international laws”."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...lots?CMP=fb_gu

Do the US think they can squeeze another Vietnam VICTORY

, into the next 15 months

**Neo** · 18-06-2015, 11:53 PM

^

Forty-five former US military personnel, including a retired army colonel, have issued a joint appeal to the pilots of aerial drones operating in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere, calling on them to refuse to carry out the deadly missions.

In a joint letter, the retired and former military members call on air force pilots based at Creech air force base in Nevada and Beale air force base in California to refuse to carry out their duties. They say the missions, which have become an increasingly dominant feature of US military strategy in recent years, “profoundly violate domestic and international laws”.

“At least 6,000 lives have been unjustly taken by US drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, the Philippines, Libya and Syria.
These attacks are also undermining principles of international law and human rights,” the authors write.

Among those who signed the letter are retired US army colonel Ann Wright, who resigned in 2003 over the invasion of Iraq. She is joined by several anti-war veterans and former members of diverse ranks from the air force, army, navy and marines.

The new protest comes as the US military is facing a crisis in its armed drone program as a result of a steady decline in the numbers of trained pilots available to fly the missions.

KNOWDRONES

**RPETER65** · 19-06-2015, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

What everybody is missing here is that the coalition to go into Afghanistan cobbled together by Bush/Cheney was a political face saving maneuver to begin with. A joke.
It was an American problem, but they got as many as they could to sign on in support of their phoney war on terror. After ignoring evidence handed over by American intelligence officials (thank you, Candi) and overseeing the biggest terrorist attack in history, I guess they had to beat the chest as loud as they could.

So you don't think going into Afghanistan to take out the Bin Ladin organization was of any importance to the western world? I suppose you are in agreement with those who think 911 was pulled off by the American government.

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

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions