Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

you are so thick and sick and dick and fick. which bit of the comment the whole of the syrian population is under attack do you not understand you stupid idiot. thats one hell of a way of helping the syrians, just bombing your opposition and let somebody else bomb the rest. thats one hell of a help. when you have friends like the west who needs enemies.

Stupid, Shut up!!

[Lordo]

you are so thick and sick and dick and fick. which bit of the comment the whole of the syrian population is under attack do you not understand you stupid idiot. thats one hell of a way of helping the syrians, just bombing your opposition and let somebody else bomb the rest. thats one hell of a help. when you have friends like the west who needs enemies.

Stupid, Shut up!!

listen me old china, you keep selling them pots and pans you hear.

[Garavnoss]

A very strange co-incidence took place today... The Americans were warned that they should be extremely vigilant as they go about their daily lives, they are advised that the expectancy of "Terrorist Attacks" is now at an all time high and that the situation is likely to remain so for some time [the news broadcast DID mention February 2016 at least] and ALL suspicious events should be reported to the authorities immediately [in order to save lives].

Simultaneously [or so it seems] The leaders of IS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and others, ALSO broadcast warnings that THEIR general public should be extra vigilant on account of an expectation of increased savagery from the Western Military Forces.

Schoolchildren and the elderly are particularly vulnerable since "Guided Missiles" and other "Smart Devices" are not quite as "Smart" as the West would like them to be [although the Western General Public are convinced that they are]..... for some strange reason.

Who was the idiot that formulated the famous quote :- "You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time ?"

He obviously did not have the Western Public in mind when he coined THAT phrase.

[repulsewarrior]

Islamic State’s latest manifesto vows to expand war to India

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... -to-india/

The Islamic State’s strategy, the manifesto states, is to “do hit and run tactics and then go into hiding so (the world) can waste millions or billions of Euros on 100,000-plus police, investigators, and it can shut down its major cities and lose its money”.

...same old, same old. I include this here, for the record.

It will not surprise me if the usual suspects will poop on this news with much glee, too.

[Lordo]

they will use any tactic they see fit which is not that different to what the west and russia is doing. the problem with the west is that it cannot really defend itself against isil because normal rules of war does not apply.

[kurupetos]

they will use any tactic they see fit which is not that different to what the west and russia is doing. the problem with the west is that it cannot really defend itself against isil because normal rules of war does not apply.

Normal rules of war, kuz? That must be the joke of the year!

[Garavnoss]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in ANY conflict, the savagery takes on another meaning when aerial bombardment is used as a substitute for good old fashioned [and honourable] face to face confrontation in the said conflict.

Can't help thinking that the term "Cowardly" is a good description when a mightily superior force chooses to prosecute it's furious demands upon a weaker force and one could easily describe the mightier of the combatants [resorting to such overwhelming devices] as savage.

It's just a matter of perception actually, which of the combatants are striking savagely in order to [historically] impose their will upon nations which are unable to counter the might of the [as THEY see it] aggressors.

Or the savagery that is relied upon by the lesser force in order to shock people into realization that the aggressors are responsible for ALL the savagery taking place, as a result of their initial actions ?.

It's worth thinking about.

[DrCyprus]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in ANY conflict, the savagery takes on another meaning when aerial bombardment is used as a substitute for good old fashioned [and honourable] face to face confrontation in the said conflict.

Can't help thinking that the term "Cowardly" is a good description when a mightily superior force chooses to prosecute it's furious demands upon a weaker force and one could easily describe the mightier of the combatants [resorting to such overwhelming devices] as savage.

It's just a matter of perception actually, which of the combatants are striking savagely in order to [historically] impose their will upon nations which are unable to counter the might of the [as THEY see it] aggressors.

Or the savagery that is relied upon by the lesser force in order to shock people into realization that the aggressors are responsible for ALL the savagery taking place, as a result of their initial actions ?.

It's worth thinking about.

What's worth thinking about is all the millions of Sunni Muslim Syrians who preferred to migrate West than become part of the Islamic State. I guess Isis don't even cater to their own "supposed" people after all.

[RichardB]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in ANY conflict, the savagery takes on another meaning when aerial bombardment is used as a substitute for good old fashioned [and honourable] face to face confrontation in the said conflict.

Can't help thinking that the term "Cowardly" is a good description when a mightily superior force chooses to prosecute it's furious demands upon a weaker force and one could easily describe the mightier of the combatants [resorting to such overwhelming devices] as savage.

It's just a matter of perception actually, which of the combatants are striking savagely in order to [historically] impose their will upon nations which are unable to counter the might of the [as THEY see it] aggressors.

Or the savagery that is relied upon by the lesser force in order to shock people into realization that the aggressors are responsible for ALL the savagery taking place, as a result of their initial actions ?.

It's worth thinking about.

Good evening Garavnoss

Re paragraph 1 of your posting

I am sure you would agree that this would also apply to the bombing of unarmed civilians in theartres and what also looks increasingly like social service centres.

Re para 2

Again i would agree with you also.. Giving the example of the savagery of IS shown to the Yazidis (a weaker force)

Re para 3

Absolutely agree with you each persons perception of this (or any other conflict) is a matter of individual perception.

Re para 4

Again i will agree with you but again a persons views would depend on who they see as the aggressors.. Is it western powers..as i understand you see it or the IS and other jihadi groups forcing their will on other some may say less radical muslim people.

Para 5

It certainly is

Regards and enjoy your evening young man

Richard B

[Garavnoss]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in ANY conflict, the savagery takes on another meaning when aerial bombardment is used as a substitute for good old fashioned [and honourable] face to face confrontation in the said conflict.

Can't help thinking that the term "Cowardly" is a good description when a mightily superior force chooses to prosecute it's furious demands upon a weaker force and one could easily describe the mightier of the combatants [resorting to such overwhelming devices] as savage.

It's just a matter of perception actually, which of the combatants are striking savagely in order to [historically] impose their will upon nations which are unable to counter the might of the [as THEY see it] aggressors.

Or the savagery that is relied upon by the lesser force in order to shock people into realization that the aggressors are responsible for ALL the savagery taking place, as a result of their initial actions ?.

It's worth thinking about.

Good evening Garavnoss

Re paragraph 1 of your posting

I am sure you would agree that this would also apply to the bombing of unarmed civilians in theartres and what also looks increasingly like social service centres.

Re para 2

Again i would agree with you also.. Giving the example of the savagery of IS shown to the Yazidis (a weaker force)

Re para 3

Absolutely agree with you each persons perception of this (or any other conflict) is a matter of individual perception.

Re para 4

Again i will agree with you but again a persons views would depend on who they see as the aggressors.. Is it western powers..as i understand you see it or the IS and other jihadi groups forcing their will on other some may say less radical muslim people.

Para 5

It certainly is

Regards and enjoy your evening young man

Richard B

Many thanks for your input.... as to my own view, I cannot dismiss the theory that ALL the conflicts [of recent times] are a direct result of the invasion of Iraq [and earlier objectives in the Middle East] by the West and that the retaliatory actions [in so many forms] should come as no surprise to us all.

The spread of discontent can only increase and savagery is apparent in every encounter........but let us be fair about it.