Crime And Punishment

Clearly, the murdering scum of Syria and Iraq need to be punished for their crimes against humanity.“Japan’s prime minister has condemned as "outrageous and unacceptable" a video declaring the murder of Japanese hostage Haruna Yukawa by Islamic State.” Condemning them won’t do that. They have to be killed. The world can create an expedition that could wipe them from Earth in a few weeks. Get on with it. Not eliminating Assad in Syria a couple of years ago allowed this mess to fester. Now it’s time to correct the mistakes of the past. With close air support and a determined force of a few hundred thousand, this matter could be settled soon. Delaying just makes it worse.

There are signs that the Kurds and Iraqis are making progress in Iraq but the real problem is in Syria and limiting the cure to Iraq is short sighted. Forces can rapidly be brought in from the Mediterranean, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, to surround and annihilate them. No doubt some will escape but the problem will be greatly reduced in size. When the dust settles, a constitutional congress should be set up in either or both Iraq and Syria to make sure a functioning society is left before departing.

See BBC News – Japan PM Abe condemns hostage 'death' video.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Crime And Punishment

  1. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson you have a few critical things wrong.
    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza
    They kill men, women and children in horrible ways.
    All the ways ISIS is using is part of the quran and matches to one of Prophet Muhammad orders. Yes the book of Islamic faith they are obeying it.
    Islam is about peace.
    You see here this from moderates.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery
    Robert Pogson like it nor not Slavery and the rules to perform slavery is part of the quran. The ISIS behavour here is being part Islamic. Notice that you have the right under the quran to turn those who are children or not the same faith as you into slaves.

    Something to remember I would not black ball all Hinduism following people because there is a percentage who focus on praying to Kali as Thuggee( professional assassins).

    Just like I don’t black ball all Islamic . But we need the Islamic to be truthful about the faults in their religion. Just like Hinduism followers have to be truthful about the bad followers of Kali and Christians have to be truthful about groups like crusaders and the kkk.

    No religion has a clean slate. All religion has done things wrong. The most dangerous thing we can do is attempt to pretend that the followers of Kali or crusaders Christians or Najasat Islamic don’t exist. These are groups we want gone.

    ISIS is Islamic. I don’t think ISIS like should be classed as representative of all Islamic followers. But we need representative of the moderate fath to call ISIS and others like it infidel or najasat.

    Yes ISIS is Najasat Islamic who are cherry picking the teachings.

  2. oiaohm wrote, “The fact ISIS is islamic is why they have the belief of Martyrdom.”

    ISIS is not Islamic. They kill men, women and children in horrible ways. Islam is about peace. Islam means submission to god, not slaughtering people. ISIS claims to be a caliphate but it is not. Their leader is a self-appointed scumbag. They have to import fighters because they can’t convince enough of the local population to do the job. Even the Saudis gave up slavery in the 1960s yet these scum are doing it today.

  3. oiaohm says:

    http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2007summer/main.html
    For DrLoser who wishes to insult me over on a different site yet not willing to put a challage here..
    2) harmed soldiers give people to perform medical experiments on.
    This is in fact a long term reality of war. The one thing that comes out of war is medical advancements. Those medical advancements come out of the volume of harmed by small projectile weapons and explosives and the like doing random human flesh damage and the different experimental methods used to repair those things resulting in new medical processes that then become profitable as now more people live so requiring more money in medical. Car crashes and other things have the habit of doing exactly the same pattern of damage over and over again giving medical science not anything that useful.

    Allowing free access to weapons with out proper training requirement or controls so keeping gang land violence could also be classed as keeping experiment volumes up for medical research.

    Yes this is a sad reality harmed human is profitable. You think of the cost and medical centers and everything else that has to support a pack of harmed soldiers. The advancements in robotic limbs is coming out of the current wars.

    http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/BTO/Programs/Revolutionizing_Prosthetics.aspx
    Serous-ally you think without the wars the USA government would be funding stuff like this. Yes without the wars you would not have the people to test the makes and models of Prosthetics on as fast.

    The list of ways a harmed yet living solider is profitable long term is almost endless. The blood and profit of war does not end at the battle field.

    Once you start looking at how profit is going to be made it becomes very clear why there maybe lobbyists for particular fields pushing for going to war. Medical Research is one area a lot of people would not consider having any possibility of being one of those lobbyists. But don’t kid yourself greedy evil people exist in every field. People forget how much Medical Research was spent on working out how to weaponise bioagents and other things.

    Follow the money of who pushed for war leads you to many horible and shocking places.

  4. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson remember you know a lot of Christians who are not crusaders or Spanish Christians who invaded Americas where it took a court case to prove that the natives were not just animals to be abused and killed as they so wished.

    There are dark sides to many religions. The Christian crusaders had the same ideas of being extremist and martyrdom. What stopped the Christian Crusaders was the death of the pope who was calling for the Crusades and getting the resources setup to support the Crusades. Remember the pope never left rome so never got anywhere near the front lines. Same could be true for ISIS.

    I have known many muslims and they are not interested in martyrdom unless their community/country/religion is under attack.

    The unless bit is the problem. It means if you can trick them into believing they are under attack you can get them todo it. Most Christians these days is are taught that suicide is a sin interesting enough this only comes into Christian teachings after the Crusades.

    Sane and valid martyrdom is where someone comes a martyr by pure bad luck that their plan failed yet even that their plain failed it resulted in others being saved.

    Basically if someone says martyrdom is to be considered is really making a mistake. If martyrdom is the result of everything going wrong its fine. If you plan include martyrdom from the get go you are in fact doing something against islam and Christianity. You are not intentionally meant to throw your life way. Extremists of islam and Christianity don’t really care break their own religion a little.

    KKK, Nazis and ISIS should all be labeled the same way. Groups who support genocide.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

    Every religion group you can find these annoying cells that are stupid and dangerous and very hard to stop.

    There are good Muslims and Christians out there. Problem is there are some who are Muslim who think they are good Muslims who by mistake except that intentionally performing martyrdom can be justified under the right conditions. The Christian faith has managed to exterminate most groups who uses to believe that. Hindu have particular sections of their faith that its black listed to own to due to those sections of their faith also believe in intentionally performing martyrdom.

    Its only a very small step from being willing to throw your own life away to class another groups live as worthless. You must value yourself to value others.

    Buddist still have major arguments over if self martyrdom is ever valid and class it as cult like activity.

    http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/05/tibetans-divided-cult-martyrs/
    Yes this is how the words of religion get bent. Remember by Buddhist rules suicide for any reason is 100 percent forbin. Its one of the rare things in Buddhist region that is forbin. Yet extremists have managed to weasel there way around it.

    I can pick any major region and find a group that need to be either exterminated or imprisoned for their own good or for everyone else own good.

    Martyrdom plus Extremist beliefs no matter the religion equals very big problems.

    Robert Pogson I think you miss understood what I was getting at. The fact ISIS is islamic is why they have the belief of Martyrdom . Add the Extremist bit you get the genocidal nature and a very badly distorted version of Martyrdom and the badly distorted version of Martyrdom makes them tricky to deal with. ISIS could just as much be a Buddist, Hindu or Christian group with Martyrdom beliefs. Yet the core of Buddist, Hindu and Christian faiths highly discourage the distorted version of Martyrdom.

  5. oiaohm wrote, ” You are forgetting they are Islamic they have the idea of martyrdom like a lot of other religions.”

    I have known many muslims and they are not interested in martyrdom unless their community/country/religion is under attack. Most of these scum come from elsewhere and they are not fighting for any cause, just escape from boredom, a chance to make some noise, and to follow a “charismatic” leader. Many are disappointed on all counts and are returning to their home countries, not always to make some attack.

  6. oiaohm says:

    That’s literally true but despite their pretence to all be psychopaths immune to human emotion, they are human and killing off some fraction of them will affect their motivation, cut off their cash-flow/supply of weapons/mean of communication/infrastructure.
    Robert Pogson big mistake. You are forgetting they are Islamic they have the idea of martyrdom like a lot of other religions. Martyrdom in the case of ISIS where they are extremists means killing a percentage will see there motivation increase. Yes they will play the killings as evidence that they are being persecuted as a religion group. A fraction killed will just be martyrs giving them more reason to fight. This is why any attack plan has to be an attempt to take them all out with the hope that the only ones that get missed are too fragmented and too far on the run to be able todo anything .

    Al Qaeda existed before then. USA just supported them.
    They might have existed before the USA supported them.

    USA changed many key things. Organizational structure and supplies yes CIA gave Al Qaeda it decentralized command and control structure. Groups the local populations would not help got resources. Local populations in a lot of cases don’t support particular groups because they really do know better.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/
    Note Isis before the iraq war got enough pack of USA hand outs.

    The old saying the enemy of your enemy is you friend is a big error to base policy on. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy just you don’t want to admit it yet. Yes here again is ISIS as a group getting resources when it a general group the general population of the country wants nothing todo with. Yes there are particular groups in a Iraq we should have been helping the nasty ruler of a Iraq todo in.

    Key thing true resistance fighters don’t engage in war to exterminate the other side. True resistance fighters like French resistance was attempting to save lives. Yes this include getting persecuted out of a country. The key thing that is a big warning sign about ISIS and Al Qaeda is that they expect persecuted to join their ranks just because they are being persecuted. True resistance groups expect that only a percentage of the persecuted will volunteer.

    Yes using something like ISIS or AlQaeda gets you a lot more boots on ground than using proper resistance groups. The problem is that ISIS or AlQaeda will bite back in future and in fact exterminate passive sections of the population so making the population in an area more violent. Yes exterminate the passive is also what Nazi did to increase their rank and file numbers.

    Any group exterminating passive groups is truly a long term enemy to everyone.

    This issue is why I am totally against sending weapons to an area in random ways. Its so easy to put weapons in the wrong peoples hands. Spending the resources to form a proper army or police force in an area with proper rules of engagement long term will not bite you on ass.

  7. oiaohm wrote, “the interference in Afghanistan by the USA to support the mujahideen against the Russias create the ISIS problem we have today.”

    Al Qaeda existed before then. USA just supported them. I was in Saudi Arabia at the time. A lot of funding and volunteers emerged including OBL. You might just as well blame the Russians for that and what they did in Chechnya. To these folks they are all Crusaders.

  8. oiaohm wrote, “In the current case with ISIS it may be impossible to perform an absolute capture or extermination operation.”

    That’s literally true but despite their pretence to all be psychopaths immune to human emotion, they are human and killing off some fraction of them will affect their motivation, cut off their cash-flow/supply of weapons/mean of communication/infrastructure. If half of those who sallied forth to do damage in the last few months have been killed, the rest will be more reluctant/less skilled. Obama was correct to use aerial bombing to attrit them. The murdering scum now hold much less territory and their supply lines are vulnerable. They are now in a defensive mode, still dangerous but nothing to fear. Winning against them has been demonstrated with quite reasonable resources. By the end of this summer, the murdering scum will be virtually wiped out in Iraq and the world will be forced to dig them out of Syria and take Assad down too. That could all be accomplished within a year of concerted action. I think Obama is wrong to allow the Iraqi regime to drag things out. They should be given a deadline to get their act in order or be replaced. It appears the Iraqi military gets that if the politicians don’t. In parallel with military action there should be a regional conference to decide the new lines on the map and the form of government. It’s wrong to allow thousands more to be slaughtered for inaction. Fear has been the scum’s force multiplier. The world does not need a multiplier to balance that. Just go in and kick butt.

  9. oiaohm says:

    An attack has to be planned to be absolute capture or extermination.
    I missed what was required if this is not possible.

    In the current case with ISIS it may be impossible to perform an absolute capture or extermination operation. As ISIS members could be fairly spread around the world. So its like cutting of a head of a hydra and have two heads grow back.

    Next option is attempt to cut their supply lines of money and weapons and run them into the ground that way. Other is media like that is done in Iraq currently making a laugh stock out of ISIS and playing them as a suicidal cult. These other options are all long term operations. Like dressing like Nazi will get you picked on for even considering it. Nazi they could not be all located so the next option was PR war.

    The slow long game options is why the UN exists.

  10. kurkosdr wrote, “why does Pog think the USA and Canada have to interfere with what is happening in Iraq right now?”

    Cancer spreads. You have to destroy the first tumour to survive. It’s also a moral obligation to help mankind. Of course Iraq and Syria have responsibility but we can’t ignore them just because they failed to do what needs to be done. It’s complicated to get a long term solution, but the way forward is clear. Doing nothing now will give worse problems later. Imagine “Paris” happening daily on a global basis…

  11. oiaohm says:

    My guess is that the media has brainwashed people of Canada and the USA into thinking powerful countries have a “moral obligation” to fix other (broken) countries, as if their militaties are a kind of government-run Justice League .

    kurkosdr think again you hear Islamic clerics also pushing the moral obligation card to alter how other countries operate. In fact you can make a huge list of groups who think they have some form of “Moral obligation” to interfere in another countries mess.

    You have to remember it was USA interference that put Assad and Saddam Hussein into power in the first place. Technically the USA does have a moral obligation to clean up the mess in Iraq and Syria they created. But I don’t believe that we can trust USA todo this due to the profit in them not cleaning it up properly.

    http://qz.com/248787/a-short-political-history-of-the-barbaric-terrorists-who-call-themselves-the-islamic-state/

    Yes the interference in Afghanistan by the USA to support the mujahideen against the Russias create the ISIS problem we have today.

    Unfortunately the ISIS problem is a religion war. This means when they are complete in the Iraq and Syria nothing will stop them from bring there blood thirsty mess to other countries.

    ISIS is a genocidal group. ISIS needs to be treated like every other genocidal group. Targeted for termination or life time imprisonment.

    Remember by ISIS is an “moral obligation” to kill anyone who is not Islamic heck even kill other Islamics who don’t believe in their extreme line.

    Yes be very worried when someone start throwing around moral obligation. USA use to claim they had a moral obligation to stop Communism this was used to justify interference in Afghanistan and other places in the time of the cold war.

    Robert Pogson point of view of crush them quickly sound extreme but when you have this kind of group containing a “moral obligation” to kill everyone who does not believe the same as them group it is a valid option to attempt to save lives long term.

    Problem Robert Pogson says its fine of some get away. History tells us its not fine if any of these extremist group members get away. An attack has to be planned to be absolute capture or extermination.

    Murdering scum is the wrong define for ISIS. Correct define for ISIS is multi-genocidal scum. This is in fact the worst from of scum you can be.

  12. ram says:

    From oiaohm’s most recent comments (in the context of earlier ones), I strongly suspect he is an “ex-spook” from Eastern Europe. Like many others, he has wisely relocated as far from the central conflict zone as possible. I commend his good judgement. He certainly understands the international arms trade.

  13. ram says:

    No offence intended, but anybody who believes the BBC is a fool. They haven’t told the truth for at least 30 years.

    I’ve made substantial sums of money by paying attention to what the BBC says to do, and then betting the other way. BBC reports “news” — NOT!

  14. kurkosdr says:

    the governments have a convinient = the governments had a convinient

  15. kurkosdr says:

    As usual, Ohioham, you ‘ve missed the point. The point is not about what the USA or Canadian governments want. It’s about the fact that a significant number of citizens of Canada and the USA think their countries’ military should be the policeman of the world, as the post by Pog illustrates.

    For example, why does Pog think the USA and Canada have to interfere with what is happening in Iraq right now? Even if it’s a world coalition, why does Pog want this? How it will positively affect Canada? Why does Canada have any “moral obligation” to interfere, at a significant price for Canada?

    My guess is that the media has brainwashed people of Canada and the USA into thinking powerful countries have a “moral obligation” to fix other (broken) countries, as if their militaties are a kind of government-run Justice League .

    Of course, most citizens of Canada and the USA now understand that this “moral obligation to fix other countries” narative was so the governments have a convinient excuse to dick around in the middle east without the citizens complaining about it, back when the USA and Canada had the budgetary capability to do so. Now the narative has changed into “we are not the world’s policeman”.

    But there are always people like Pog who don’t get the memo, even if it’s right in front of their eyes. This is what puzzles me. How can you miss it?

  16. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr
    Why do Canadians and Americans think their countries have to be the policeman of the world? Is it because of Hollywood movies?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

    kurkosdr I am really not sure you have this right. There may be a major reason why after the USA goes somewhere its worse.

    Lets presume for one min the policeman of the world is a cover story that is reinforced by movie propaganda . If that is the cover story what could be the reality. The reality could be that the USA interferes to increase arms sales.

    Why does the USA and Canada have to spend money and risk troops to fix Iraq, when they don’t have anything to gain? Oil is cheap at this moment and the US is in a period of balancing their deficit.
    Lets go down the list of things the USA gain.
    1) dead soldiers they don’t have to worry about pensions for you could also call this population control.
    2) harmed soldiers give people to perform medical experiments on.
    3) Arms and Ammo sales bringing in income helping to pay off deficit.

    End result could be a huge amount of profit.

    The problem here is every 1 dollar usa spends on war they could be making multi dollars in return.

    Reality a human life is not worth much as long as it not some of your own voting population or at least you own voting population does not work out you are trading your own population for dollars.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-russian-guns-are-coming-ak-47s-could-soon-be-american-made-2015-01-22

    Yes in future that AK-47 shotting at a USA solider could in fact be USA made. The ammo for the AK-47 is also currently made in the USA. So the bullets being dug out of USA soldiers could be USA bullets.

    Modern war is not a game you can play with free items.
    I said this before.

    This is the serous question. Who is profiting from the wars? If those providing the weapons stop the war at some point has to grind to a halt forced back to the likes of swords and knives.

  17. kurkosdr says:

    Why do Canadians and Americans think their countries have to be the policeman of the world? Is it because of Hollywood movies?

    Engaging in a “boots on the ground” operation in Iraq would mean engaging in guerilla warfare, aka a situtation where you have theoretically won the war by practically behind every window there is a jihadist with his AK-47 (or RPG) pointed at you, and on every street there is an IED waiting to blow you up.

    Why does the USA and Canada have to spend money and risk troops to fix Iraq, when they don’t have anything to gain? Oil is cheap at this moment and the US is in a period of balancing their deficit.

    There are so many areas of the world where there is a problem. Jihadists in Somalia, Yemen and Libya, oppressors in Eretreia and North Korea, do USA and Canada citizens feel like they have to go and fix every state that goes bad. Not to mention that whenever they try to fix something, it ends up much worse.

    In plain english, the USA and Canada doesn’t want to send troops in Iraq right now, and as an American and Canadian citizen you shouldn’t want it either.

  18. oiaohm says:

    Mats Hagglund it simple to blame Pentagon. There is a serous question who are the parties making profit suppling the weapons and the natural resources.

    Modern war is not a game you can play with free items.

  19. Mats Hagglund says:

    Main target is not ISIS. It’s of course current Syrian regime of Assad. ISIS is just the smoke. Once again Robert you have been fooled by Pentagon propaganda. It looks like you have no idea how that 800 lbs Dollar Gorilla is working.

Leave a Reply