Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we need one anyway.

17 (21.8%)

No, we should take that elsewhere and keep this thread as-is.

27 (34.6%)

I don't care, let's see what happens.

34 (43.6%)

Total Members Voted: 75

[Starver]

Do you know what else was changed 50 years ago? The internet didn't exist yet.

Four or five more years, and we can start to argue that point...

[Shadowlord]

Do you know what else was changed 50 years ago? The internet didn't exist yet.

How's that relevant? Are you arguing that Internet is somehow making jihadists more likely to go for international terrorism?

No, just making a point that the non-existence of the internet isn't neccesarily what kept a lid on things.

Actually, the internet is how Daesh recruits...

[Strife26]

Well, I should probably stop reading this thread, since it seems to have gone the way of the last one.

Internet expertise at its best?

[k33n]

You know, there was a time when jihadists weren't a terrorist threat to anyone outside their local area of habitat. And it wasn't very back in the past, too - only 50 years ago!

I think you are missing ~1400 years of history in your analysis.

[Loud Whispers]

Actually, the internet is how Daesh recruits...

And their recruiters earned their job titles by doing nothing

[Loud Whispers]

Chinese paramilitaries tracked down Islamist militiants to a cave in the Tianshan mountains after the militiants attacked Chinese civilians in a coal mine. After they did not come out of the cave even after tear gas and flash grenades were deployed, the officer in charge gave the order to use the flamethrower which successfully caused all the militiants to rush out of the cave with knives in hand and be utterly annihilated.
They also captured 1 who surrendered and killed the rest of the 28 in the fighting/flammenwerfing

[Orange Wizard]

Ew.

[Graknorke]

Isn't that a war crime or something?
And how could a person hold in place in tear gas? It's not pleasant stuff.

[Morrigi]

Isn't that a war crime or something?

No, the US military had them in inventory until 1979 before unilaterally retiring them because they're terrible for PR and questionably effective at everything except clearing out bunkers and caves. The Russians have also abandoned them in favor of thermobaric warheads for everything from 40mm grenade launchers to heavy rocket artillery. Using flamethrowers against the enemy has always been acceptable, so long as the "enemy" does not happen to be innocent civilians and the flamethrowers are not used indiscriminately in an area full of said innocent civilians. Same rules as other incendiaries like white phosphorus.

Brutal? Certainly. But not a war crime.

[Loud Whispers]

Isn't that a war crime or something?

If we ignore that militiants do not follow the geneva convention and so are not protected by it, there are no legal restrictions against using flamethrowers, the US doesn't use them because of the danger it poses to operators
China on the other hand doesn't really give a fuck

And how could a person hold in place in tear gas? It's not pleasant stuff.

Would you rather sit in a cave full of tear gas or go outside and say hello to the People's Liberation Army
Evidently the former is preferable

*EDIT
Looking at how powerful their flamethrowers are I can see why the Russians and Americans consider it more dangerous than useful to their own troops whilst the Chinese who have pretty much been going from war to war with tunnel/cave fighting see them in a more positive light

[Strife26]

You can replace most of what a flamethrower can do with different platforms. Unless infantry clearance of bunkers is a major part of doctrine, there isn't really much reason to use the traditional man portable flamethrower anymore.

[Zangi]

Thats some nice range on the flamethrower they got there.

Well, cave/tunnels tend to be uneven/limited terrain ain't it?  It might not be as easy to deploy platforms in such terrain. ... I could probably include buildings, but then they should probably be burning the whole thing down from outside instead if they are playing with fire...

[martinuzz]

Link to an article by Michel Houellebecq on the Paris attacks, for anyone interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/how-frances-leaders-failed-its-people.html?_r=0

[Bohandas]

Isn't that a war crime or something?

It's only a war if you're fighting a country, which despite what the yerm "Islamic State" implies, they are, not. They're a legion of bandits; the I.slamic B.andit L.egion of I.raq and S.yria.

That's an abbreviation I'm trying to popularize

(Not just because it doesn't imply that they're a legitimate nation but also because it spells "Iblis", the Arabic word for "the devil")

[Helgoland]

Huh, that makes me wonder: What sets apart Daesh from a 'proper' state?