Your daily terrorist bullshit.

[Tom]

If ISIS did a make a dirty bomb, can almost guarantee someone (maybe putin?) would drop a nuke on ISIS strongholds in Syria, so they'd do what exactly? kill a few thousand people if they did it properly? the result would be they'd lose a huge chunk of their forces, equipment and oil fields basically crippling their hold over Syria and likely putting themselves in a position where Turkish forces, Afghan forces and various other forces could just mop them up with little to no effort.

It'd be a pretty stupid move really is what I'm saying.

You need to read on what a dirty bomb is. The conventional explosives used to set one off are more dangerous than their payload.

Dirty bombs are Hollywood devices lapped up by the likes of the Daily Mail. They're less realistic than "enhance".

 

[fettoken]

Dirty bombs, isn't that a keg or two worth of RDX packed with unsavory chemicals and what not.

 

[BloodOmen]

You need to read on what a dirty bomb is. The conventional explosives used to set one off are more dangerous than their payload.

Dirty bombs are Hollywood devices lapped up by the likes of the Daily Mail. They're less realistic than "enhance".

No I get how it works, it's essentially dispersal device - my point still stands though, if it's known ISIS have them (if one were to be used) I'm fairly confident someone would drop a nuke on them or at very least a bomb powerful enough to level an entire town.

 

[Moriath]

No I get how it works, it's essentially dispersal device - my point still stands though, if it's known ISIS have them (if one were to be used) I'm fairly confident someone would drop a nuke on them or at very least a bomb powerful enough to level an entire town.

On isis but where? They are dispersed and not all in parts of occupied middle east.

 

[BloodOmen]

On isis but where? They are dispersed and not all in parts of occupied middle east.

I don't know? I'm not the one dropping the bombs just saying what I think they'd do.

 

[Urgat]

View: https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6f6qxp/theresa_may_says_the_internet_must_now_be/difxhbp/


Sums up the current situation succinctly, and more or less correctly, IMO

 

[Raven]

Dirty bombs, isn't that a keg or two worth of RDX packed with unsavory chemicals and what not.

Its radioactive material spread via the detonation of conventional explosives. The explosion itself and the smoke/dust afterwards spread the material so could theoretically contaminate a large area (depending on wind and so on). The radioactive material itself does not get ignited. How bad it would be would depend on the explosives used, the radioactive material used and the weather.

Anyone thinking it would not cause chaos on a level we have never seen before is basically an idiot and has zero understanding of human behaviour. London would empty over night if a dirty bomb went off, regardless of the real dangers.

 

[Scouse]

No I get how it works, it's essentially dispersal device - my point still stands though, if it's known ISIS have them (if one were to be used) I'm fairly confident someone would drop a nuke on them or at very least a bomb powerful enough to level an entire town.

You can't "nuke isis" ffs.

 

[Moriath]

You can't "nuke isis" ffs.

What i said above lol

 

[Job]

You can't "nuke isis" ffs.

Well you could..but you'd have to kill billions to do it.

 

[BloodOmen]

You can't "nuke isis" ffs.

You can, it just wouldn't be effective at all and in all fairness I never claimed it would be, I simply said people would do it.

 

[Bodhi]

Forgot to mention - full respect to the bloke seen running away from the attacks still carrying his pint.

Not sure I've ever seen a more British photo in my life tbh. Judging by stories today, he was a Scouser unhappy with London beer prices.

 

[DaGaffer]

Can someone explain to me what's going on with Qatar? They're Sunnis but the Saudis and Gulf states are severing ties because they support Sunni terrorists and Iran? What? Scapegoats? Red herring? All feels a bit weird to me. Oh, and Man City...ahahahahahaha!.

 

[Scouse]

You can

No you fucking can't you idiot. They're all over the fucking world.

SO, you could bomb a lot of people in the middle east (killing even more millions on innocents) but what about ISIS all over western europe?

Isis, ultimately, is a radical ideology. You can't bomb an ideology.

 

[Scouse]

and Man City...ahahahahahaha!.

??

 

[old.user4556]

??

Not being au fait with English football, I presume some Arabian funding thing?

 

[old.user4556]

*throws radical idea into the thread that I don't personally subscribe to*

A possible solution:

- round up the 3000+ extremist watch list
- detain them at a Guantanamo style holding facility (say, Isle of Man )
- monitor for impact

 

[BloodOmen]

No you fucking can't you idiot. They're all over the fucking world.

SO, you could bomb a lot of people in the middle east (killing even more millions on innocents) but what about ISIS all over western europe?

Isis, ultimately, is a radical ideology. You can't bomb an ideology.

I wasn't on about ISIS all over the world though? I was on about Syria, where their resources are based.. of course you can't nuke sleeper cells all over the world, that would just be fucking idiotic.

 

[DaGaffer]

??

My bad. City are Abu Dhabi aren't they?

Still, World Cup looks even more fucked than before.

 

[DaGaffer]

*throws radical idea into the thread that I don't personally subscribe to*

A possible solution:

- round up the 3000+ extremist watch list
- detain them at a Guantanamo style holding facility (say, Isle of Man )
- monitor for impact

Because that worked so well last time...

 

[Raven]

Can someone explain to me what's going on with Qatar? They're Sunnis but the Saudis and Gulf states are severing ties because they support Sunni terrorists and Iran? What? Scapegoats? Red herring? All feels a bit weird to me. Oh, and Man City...ahahahahahaha!.

For the rich, that pull the strings in the Middle East, religion doesn't really matter. It's good at getting people fighting though, its even better at eliminating opposition economies.

 

[TdC]

So you want to nuke a nation already fucked by civil and other war, that's already bombed near daily by the fucking Americans, where there are something like 6 million refugees banging about doing hell knows what to stay alive, oh and several thousand IS fuckwits. GG @BloodOmen , GG. Talk about effort vs reward. I'm sure the orange idiot in the white house has a boner for that very idea though.

 

[Scouse]

Don't be so quick to condemn @TdC. I'm sure none of these "bomb them" or "arbitrarily detain them" suggestions have any recent examples we can point at and say "look - when you do this you basically create a signup document for terrorists with a "just put your stamp here and you can go rage against the infidels"" do we?

All the bombing? No massive refugee or power-vaccum issues at all. Nothing to do with the creation of ISIS - or how exploitative muslims can use that as a tool to recruit suicide bombers.

And Guantanamo was an unmitigated success! Detention without trial not only makes ISIS scared it also makes me feel great about the country I live in.

 

[BloodOmen]

So you want to nuke a nation already fucked by civil and other war, that's already bombed near daily by the fucking Americans, where there are something like 6 million refugees banging about doing hell knows what to stay alive, oh and several thousand IS fuckwits. GG @BloodOmen , GG. Talk about effort vs reward. I'm sure the orange idiot in the white house has a boner for that very idea though.

wow wow wow, let me stop you right there - no where in the posts above did I say I PERSONALLY wanted to nuke anyone, what I did say is I can see someone like Putin doing so if he knows for an absolute certainty ISIS have dirty bombs. Please get your facts right @TdC

 

[Embattle]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

 

[old.user4556]

Because that worked so well last time...

And Guantanamo was an unmitigated success! Detention without trial not only makes ISIS scared it also makes me feel great about the country I live in.

So clearly it's not an option, so if we have a "3000+ Jihadi watch-list", we surely need to pump resources into watching them like a hawk? How else do we address it without alienating Islam / becoming a bit fascist?

 

[BloodOmen]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

Meh, I need to find my Aliens DVD now, I want to watch it again.

 

[Scouse]

So clearly it's not an option, so if we have a "3000+ Jihadi watch-list", we surely need to pump resources into watching them like a hawk? How else do we address it without alienating Islam / becoming a bit a fascist?

As a start. (And just a start - not a well-thought-out start - just a "off the top of my head" start mind you):

For the people here:
A) You realise some of these are going to be utterly innocent and it's a real injustice to trash the lives of the innocent. So engage with them openly and honestly and leave them with nothing to point at.
B) You realise the ones that may act are most likely swivel-eye'd loons and there's little you can do apart from try to engage with them from, say, a well-funded mental health approach.

For here and everywhere else:
C) You make sure your country acts in a way that undermines the arguments that radicals use to recruit jihadis and undermines their "justifications"
D) You increase the foreign aid budget for the countries where there are power vaccums and desparate situations. Countries who's governments we've played a part in trashing by military methods. And by foreign aid - aid that doesn't come in the form of heavy munitions or armining militias. Perhaps even attempt to repair the damage we've done and commit to long term assistance to bring about real democratic self-rule (rather than puppet government).
E) Realise that even if you do that, it's going to be decades before the threats we now face will start to receed - so we have to preserve the liberties we have, the way of life that threatens extremist ideologies and not cave in to the demands of the weak and fearful in our society. We don't "give up liberty for security".

And: F) Realise that even if we lost 200 people a year in the UK to terrorism it'd be a drop in the water compared to the other crimes that occur in a country of 65 million and it doesn't warrant turning ourselves facist.

 

[DaGaffer]

So clearly it's not an option, so if we have a "3000+ Jihadi watch-list", we surely need to pump resources into watching them like a hawk? How else do we address it without alienating Islam / becoming a bit fascist?

How do you watch 3000 people all the time? There are 172,000 cops in the whole country. Watching 3000, lets say 2 cops per person, 3 eight hour shifts, that's 18,000 cops, over 10% of your workforce, gone. And can you even genuinely watch someone all the time anyway?

 

[Moriath]

You can, it just wouldn't be effective at all and in all fairness I never claimed it would be, I simply said people would do it.

There are isis people in the uk. Would have to nuke us too.