US official: Airstrikes killed 10,000 Islamic State fighters

[Neurath]

I am shocked at the number of misinformed, short sighted, Dudley do rights there are worried about killing evil mass murderers to save the innocent. Anyone who thinks it is wrong to slaughter as many of these scum must be suicidal themselves. Isis members are currently moving around the world to every town, village and area they can find by whatever means they can use. They will be waiting for the signal to strike and then start cutting the heads off of anyone who is not familiar with the Koran and can prove they are not Christians. By the time we all realise whats going on there will not be enough weapons and decent people left to eradicate the problem. The only way is to eradicate them now and as many as possible in as shorter time as possible.

Or we could worry about collateral damage, do absolutely nothing and just wait with our heads on blocks.

Well done to all the pansy governments of any country who are letting them just wander in. Stupid idiots. Do you really think that a show of kindest is going to turn them back into normal people when they have been brainwashed to kill regardless of personal risk right from birth.

I thought I was paying tax in my country for a government who would protect the innocent. Wrong!

Sounds like you missed your calling to work with Radio Television Libre des Mille Colllines

[NeverSure]

I've said this before but the last time the Western allies outright won a war was WWII. After that came rules of war and conventions and fear of prosecution and other sanctions.

The allies bombed Germany night after night before there was navigation beyond pilotage and dead reckoning and sometimes they missed the whole city. They didn't care who or what they hit because they knew they had to get the German people to demand a halt to the war.

The leader of Japan sat down and signed a formal surrender and don't forget that the Japanese had their own beliefs that brought Kamikaze pilots.

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

The US has not won a war since and neither will it because it refuses to win. It doesn't actually have wars. It has PC engagements. End of.

[lostoday]

I've said this before but the last time the Western allies outright won a war was WWII. After that came rules of war and conventions and fear of prosecution and other sanctions.

The allies bombed Germany night after night before there was navigation beyond pilotage and dead reckoning and sometimes they missed the whole city. They didn't care who or what they hit because they knew they had to get the German people to demand a halt to the war.

The leader of Japan sat down and signed a formal surrender and don't forget that the Japanese had their own beliefs that brought Kamikaze pilots.

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

The US has not won a war since and neither will it because it refuses to win. It doesn't actually have wars. It has PC engagements. End of.

Who won the Persian Gulf War 1991?

[Naam]

Most probably were half of them just bystander, women and children.

While bombing them also all the goods, houses, animals etc of many families destroyed.

So most probably by killing 5.000, they turned 20.000 people who didn't care and just wanted to have a good life into sympathizers.

It is just amazing how little the USA learned since they supported the Islamists in Afghanistan when it was against the Soviets.

With all these billions of taxpayer money spent, they could have made the region rich which automatically reduce all fanatic tendency.

Or they could have invested it into alternatives to the oil from this region. Without western money they would ride their camels like 2000 years before. Just need a fence around.

Or just not doing anything would be better....Saddam Husein, Gaddafi and Assad took care of the problem.

Any actual facts for any of this ignorant blather or is it just rhetoric from the comfort of an armchair ?.

I personally would rather die in the cause of a fight to rid the world of these scumbags than be butchered in the Town square in cold blood by some power-crazed pervert who now has my daughter as a sex slave.

Freedom isn't free.

from my perspective it's you who presents blather and rhetoric from the comfort of an armchair

[Naam]

I am shocked at the number of misinformed, short sighted, Dudley do rights there are worried about killing evil mass murderers to save the innocent. Anyone who thinks it is wrong to slaughter as many of these scum must be suicidal themselves. Isis members are currently moving around the world to every town, village and area they can find by whatever means they can use. They will be waiting for the signal to strike and then start cutting the heads off of anyone who is not familiar with the Koran and can prove they are not Christians. By the time we all realise whats going on there will not be enough weapons and decent people left to eradicate the problem. The only way is to eradicate them now and as many as possible in as shorter time as possible.

Or we could worry about collateral damage, do absolutely nothing and just wait with our heads on blocks.

Well done to all the pansy governments of any country who are letting them just wander in. Stupid idiots. Do you really think that a show of kindest is going to turn them back into normal people when they have been brainwashed to kill regardless of personal risk right from birth.

I thought I was paying tax in my country for a government who would protect the innocent. Wrong!

Isis members are currently moving around the world to every town, village and area they can find by whatever means they can use.

today i went to a French bakery in Pattaya to buy my favourite type of baguette where i saw indeed half a dozen shady types sampling French pâtisserie. no doubt they must have been ISIS terrorists

[sunshine51]

I've said this before but the last time the Western allies outright won a war was WWII. After that came rules of war and conventions and fear of prosecution and other sanctions.

The allies bombed Germany night after night before there was navigation beyond pilotage and dead reckoning and sometimes they missed the whole city. They didn't care who or what they hit because they knew they had to get the German people to demand a halt to the war.

The leader of Japan sat down and signed a formal surrender and don't forget that the Japanese had their own beliefs that brought Kamikaze pilots.

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

The US has not won a war since and neither will it because it refuses to win. It doesn't actually have wars. It has PC engagements. End of.

Who won the Persian Gulf War 1991?

Who won? Well I was there as a journo & must admit...mighty USA sure had all the get go.

However...it was also an allied operation so there wasn't a single winner although the US

had the most bang in the theatre.

Just like WWII...the US didn't win that on their own either It was an allied effort. Again, once

the US became involved after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US had the most bang plus they

had the benefit of developing nukes before the Germans did. Had the Germans succeeded

in developing nukes earlier we all may be speaking German today.

Edited June 5, 2015 by sunshine51

[lostoday]

I've said this before but the last time the Western allies outright won a war was WWII. After that came rules of war and conventions and fear of prosecution and other sanctions.

The allies bombed Germany night after night before there was navigation beyond pilotage and dead reckoning and sometimes they missed the whole city. They didn't care who or what they hit because they knew they had to get the German people to demand a halt to the war.

The leader of Japan sat down and signed a formal surrender and don't forget that the Japanese had their own beliefs that brought Kamikaze pilots.

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

The US has not won a war since and neither will it because it refuses to win. It doesn't actually have wars. It has PC engagements. End of.

Who won the Persian Gulf War 1991?

Who won? Well I was there as a journo & must admit...mighty USA sure had all the get go.

However...it was also an allied operation so there wasn't a single winner although the US

had the most bang in the theatre.

Just like WWII...the US didn't win that on their own either It was an allied effort. Again, once

the US became involved after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US had the most bang plus they

had the benefit of developing nukes before the Germans did. Had the Germans succeeded

in developing nukes earlier we all may be speaking German today.

Or if the USA and Allies had not won the Persian Gulf War we might be speaking whatever language it is that they speak in Iraq.

[Steely Dan]

You can't kill an ideology with air strikes. Sadly the West is nowhere near even comprehending the ideology they are facing. ISIS are a product of Islamic belief, they attract followers based on this belief, not due to Western interference. The ideology can't be defeated without changing Islam, or indeed eradicating it.

Have to disagree. Western governments are well aware of the attraction to some of literal interpretation of the Koran and the announced Caliphates by DAESH and its partners.

Cannot eradicate radical Islam solely by military means, no matter how many extremist followers are destroyed. Why our governments appear to invest very little effort in counter propaganda, assist the the sects whose core philosophy does not support radical Islam and so on, I do not know.

The British did a good job of countering Wahhabism in India during the 18th & 19th centuries.

Wahhabism of course was a direct reaction to the ascendancy of Western colonialists and the decline of the Caliphate. If the British did a good job as you put it of countering Wahhabism centuries ago it seems all the more baffling that the British government of today chooses to allow large numbers from the former colonies to settle in the UK whilst simultaneously forgetting to counter any dangerous ideologies they may hold. Instead it would appear their spiritual guidance is left to Wahhabi Imams funded out of the coffers of the oil states.

[rijit]

FULLY arm the kurds.

[thaibeachlovers]

Most probably were half of them just bystander, women and children.

While bombing them also all the goods, houses, animals etc of many families destroyed.

So most probably by killing 5.000, they turned 20.000 people who didn't care and just wanted to have a good life into sympathizers.

It is just amazing how little the USA learned since they supported the Islamists in Afghanistan when it was against the Soviets.

With all these billions of taxpayer money spent, they could have made the region rich which automatically reduce all fanatic tendency.

Or they could have invested it into alternatives to the oil from this region. Without western money they would ride their camels like 2000 years before. Just need a fence around.

Or just not doing anything would be better....Saddam Husein, Gaddafi and Assad took care of the problem.

It's amazing how little the USA learned from Vietnam. Still making the same basic mistakes they made there.

[Travelman868]

Most probably were half of them just bystander, women and children.

While bombing them also all the goods, houses, animals etc of many families destroyed.

So most probably by killing 5.000, they turned 20.000 people who didn't care and just wanted to have a good life into sympathizers.

It is just amazing how little the USA learned since they supported the Islamists in Afghanistan when it was against the Soviets.

With all these billions of taxpayer money spent, they could have made the region rich which automatically reduce all fanatic tendency.

Or they could have invested it into alternatives to the oil from this region. Without western money they would ride their camels like 2000 years before. Just need a fence around.

Or just not doing anything would be better....Saddam Husein, Gaddafi and Assad took care of the problem.

I used to be very Liberal but it is not possible to treat these people as normal human beings. Their ONLY object is to go see Allah and take many innocents with them.

IS and the like want to form an Islamic State, fine then what. Do we think they will then sit back and treat their people humanly ? Of course not, they will then embark on getting "their brothers and sisters" around the world to cause more problems.

I do however believe that it is a good idea that as many as possible (Islamists) are in one place.

[thaibeachlovers]

FULLY arm the kurds.

I doubt the Turks will allow that.

[mania]

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

[simple1]

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

[Naam]

I've said this before but the last time the Western allies outright won a war was WWII. After that came rules of war and conventions and fear of prosecution and other sanctions.

The allies bombed Germany night after night before there was navigation beyond pilotage and dead reckoning and sometimes they missed the whole city. They didn't care who or what they hit because they knew they had to get the German people to demand a halt to the war.

The leader of Japan sat down and signed a formal surrender and don't forget that the Japanese had their own beliefs that brought Kamikaze pilots.

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

The US has not won a war since and neither will it because it refuses to win. It doesn't actually have wars. It has PC engagements. End of.

Who won the Persian Gulf War 1991?

Who won? Well I was there as a journo & must admit...mighty USA sure had all the get go.

However...it was also an allied operation so there wasn't a single winner although the US

had the most bang in the theatre.

Just like WWII...the US didn't win that on their own either It was an allied effort. Again, once

the US became involved after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US had the most bang plus they

had the benefit of developing nukes before the Germans did. Had the Germans succeeded

in developing nukes earlier we all may be speaking German today.

Or if the USA and Allies had not won the Persian Gulf War we might be speaking whatever language it is that they speak in Iraq.

[NeverSure]

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

Actually I didn't at all advocate nukes. I was making a point that with the current rules of engagement it is impossible to take combatants out of a civilian population without having collateral damage. If the civilian population doesn't deal with the terrorists themselves (who we are told are in the minority) the the civilian population may just pay the price.

That's what happened in Germany and Japan in WWII and that's how the allies could utterly win the war.

Edited June 5, 2015 by NeverSure

[simple1]

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

Actually I didn't at all advocate nukes. I was making a point that with the current rules of engagement it is impossible to take combatants out of a civilian population without having collateral damage. If the civilian population doesn't deal with the terrorists themselves (who we are told are in the minority) the the civilian population may just pay the price.

That's what happened in Germany and Japan in WWII and that's how the allies could utterly win the war.

Wasn't suggesting you were advocating using nuclear weapons, was responding to Mania.

DAESH forces are widely dispersed, fairly sure the leadership would not be painting targets on their locations, so what are you suggesting, flattening cities, towns and villages? Do you really believe in effect carpet bombing of the civilian population will contribute to 'winning the war" against DAESH - don't agree.

In DAESH held territory how can the civilian population deal with them? Just one example; the coalition is refusing to rearm the Sunni tribes who previously successfully combated Al Qaeda (who BTW are being murdered in their hundreds by DAESH), let alone other groups.

[rijit]

FULLY arm the kurds.

I doubt the Turks will allow that.

yeah well the turks.should have thought about that b4 they tried to euthenas them imo they can object all they want ,,,fuc them, but ultimatly can they stop it?, the kurds are probably the only ones that have the nouse to beat them but they need to be given the tools to do its.the.rigjt play,.a deal worked well could it be an answer.

[JockPieandBeans]

Have to disagree. Western governments are well aware of the attraction to some of literal interpretation of the Koran and the announced Caliphates by DAESH and its partners.

Cannot eradicate radical Islam solely by military means, no matter how many extremist followers are destroyed. Why our governments appear to invest very little effort in counter propaganda, assist the the sects whose core philosophy does not support radical Islam and so on, I do not know.

The British did a good job of countering Wahhabism in India during the 18th & 19th centuries.

What Western Governments are well aware of, is open to debate. What is not open to debate, is that NONE of us know what Governments are aware of.

If we insist on referring back to hundreds of years ago. How long have Sunni's & Shia's been killing each other ? You cannot counter what is indoctrinated since birth. The only investment that Western Governments should be making is investing on the safety & security of its Citizens. Not assisting other Muslim Sect's who at this time, might not support radical Islam, what happens when they decide to support radical Islam ?

Here we go again. The world was a massively different place 200 years ago. If you want to speak about the Brits / India & Wahhabism, I suggest that you have a read of this.

The Origins and Development of Indian ‘Wahhabism’

It was Shah Waliullah’s grandson, Shah Ismail, who actually departed from his grandfather’ s tradition to most forcefully champion numerous views that represented a radical break from popular Indian Hanafi Muslim tradition and which today’s AH champions, most particularly in his denunciation of the cults of the Sufi saints and their shrines.

Depart from tradition. Get a bit more extreme. See the pattern. It is repeated all over the world.

Shah Ismail gathered a large band of disciples and then headed for the Pushtun areas in what is today Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, where he established what he described as an Islamic state, claiming to be amir ul-mumineen or the ‘leader of the faithful’. However, he failed to gain much local popularity, probably because he was an outsider and because he sought to forcibly impose the shariah and extirpate popular Pushtun customary practices. He and his army led what they styled as a jihad against the Sikhs, who, at that time, where ruling the Punjab, and under whose rule Muslims were subjected to considerable oppression. In 1831, Shah Ismail and his men were routed by the Sikhs at Balakot and the short-lived ‘Mujahdeen’ state was crushed.

http://indianmuslims.in/wahhabism-in-india/

Love the wording '' Disciples '' Shah Ismail and his rent a mob went to Pushtun to set up an Islamic State. The Sikhs kicked his @ss and sent him on his way.

It was only after this defeat and his band of Merry Men were scattered all over India, that the British got involved with the Indian Wahhabi's.

Anyway, I think that this comment pretty much sums it up regarding Muslims.

1. Milind Kher says:

December 29, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Sectarian sentiments always act against the interests of the people. It is the same Allah, the same Prophet and the same Quran.

It is a fardh of silah rehmi that we observe kindness towards all, beginning with our relatives. Those who observe kata rehmi lose the favor of God. It is a known fact that only if we are at peace with ourselves can we be at peace with the world.

[thaibeachlovers]

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

Neither country has declared war on the US, so why would nukes even be considered?

[lostoday]

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

Neither country has declared war on the US, so why would nukes even be considered?

Didn't the Japanese bomb the US before they declared war?

[thaibeachlovers]

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

Neither country has declared war on the US, so why would nukes even be considered?

Didn't the Japanese bomb the US before they declared war?

I thought everyone knew that they were late declaring war, not that they didn't intend to declare war. Apparently not.

Are you seriously equating Syria and Iraq to japan in the early 40s?

quote removed to allow posting

[lostoday]

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

Neither country has declared war on the US, so why would nukes even be considered?

Didn't the Japanese bomb the US before they declared war?

I thought everyone knew that they were late declaring war, not that they didn't intend to declare war. Apparently not.

Are you seriously equating Syria and Iraq to japan in the early 40s?

quote removed to allow posting

There was a greater loss of life at 9/11 than Pearl Harbor. I think we tend to forget who financed that attack. Perhaps it is a difference in mind set rather than a difference in circumstances.

[mania]

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

Sorry I guess I should have been more clear as to what I was pointing out..........

I have now bold'ed what i was pointing out in Neversure's post

Of course what I meant is most American citizens have no idea of what is being done in their names.

They are spoon fed a bunch of selected sound bites & usually cannot be bothered to read etc other sources

that are in various areas reporting

So as NS pointed out do not expect retaliation to be pin pointed at US military

After all as he said.................Precedence & thankfully the only time one has used nukes on a civilian population has been

justified above by the bold'ed section

[hawker9000]

The US introduced the world to nukes without hesitation because the Japanese people had to be defeated. It's the people who support the leaders.

Americans should think hard about this...(Which BTW I agree with)

Utilising nuclear weapons in Syria / Iraq would be the ultimate stupidity.

Actually I didn't at all advocate nukes. I was making a point that with the current rules of engagement it is impossible to take combatants out of a civilian population without having collateral damage. If the civilian population doesn't deal with the terrorists themselves (who we are told are in the minority) the the civilian population may just pay the price.

That's what happened in Germany and Japan in WWII and that's how the allies could utterly win the war.

Exactly! But the west has been conditioned to believe, thanks partly to the advent of "smart weapons", that collateral damage is a thing of the past. Ironically, these smart weapons that have the naive and easily manipulated public thinking like this, will ultimately cause even more collateral damage when total war finally becomes unavoidable once again. It's one of those "pay now or pay later" things.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[Jimlove]

Just hope many of the killed Daesh-rats were foreign "warriors" from my homecountry ... less garbage to clean out later