ISIS is going to capture India and start World War III - Polidicks

[QUOTE]According to the newspaper "Daily Star", ISIS terrorists are going to unite with hitmans from "Al-Qaeda" and "Taliban", to create "unbeatable army" and start World War III. Terrorists plan to capture India, for unleashing a military conflict. Similar aspirations of group are stated in secret 32-pages document[/QUOTE] [b]Source:[/b] [url]http://lifenews.ru/news/158272[/url] [b]Source-source:[/b] [url]http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/456547/ISIS-form-huge-terror-group-teaming-up-with-Al-Qaida-Taliban-start-war-in-India[/url]

This smells like sensationalist and trying to scare us. But it's ISIS, and it's announced, so I think America would immediately fly over there to defend it. Also would it be WWIII if people knew it was trying to get started by terrorists? I'm certain if Terrorists would nuke cities of the world, the world would unite to utterly crush them.

Yeah, India... the second most populated country, with one of the biggest armies in the world.

[I]fucking finally[/I] i was born ready for the shit to hit the fan. here's a picture of me right after they cut the cord. [t]http://i.imgur.com/jTXBXDu.jpg[/t] [I]i'm so fucking ready for this shit[/I] anyway, i doubt this is gonna go anywhere. but if it did, the indian army is fucking laughable so they wouldn't have much resistance. i highly doubt that india actually has any nuclear capabilities, so even if IS somehow take over, they can't start anything because india can't even afford toilets, let alone thermonuclear weapons.

ISIS can only start a world war if they nuked someone. I'm pretty sure glassing over Israel would cause a massive power vacuum.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;48329887]Yeah, India... the second most populated country, with one of the biggest armies in the world.[/QUOTE] have you seen their army? shit, even if they trained well or had any sort of logical standard set (beards are a-ok, because who needs a proper seal on your gas mask?) their service rifle is possibly the worst firearm ever even considered for military service, let alone adopted in full. their air force can't afford to maintain their planes, last month they lost their third SEPECAT jaguar this year due to "catastrophic in-flight malfunction". they can't even keep their MIGs in working order. don't even get me started on how their mechanized units are so unfit for their very unlucky city and geographical layouts that they would be sitting ducks for IS goons with RPG-7s.

They want to capture India, yet they can't even deal with a bunch of Kurds and what's left of the Syrian and Iraqi government, wow

Isn't India's army relatively decent? As long as they have heaps of ground troops, IFVs or semi armored vehicles I think that ISIS is probably going to have a very difficult time considering the terrain over there isn't it really mountainous or something? ISIS should have learned from the mistakes made by Nazi Germany when it comes to managing resources and fighting a war on multiple fronts

[QUOTE=Neat!;48329888] anyway, i doubt this is gonna go anywhere. but if it did, the indian army is fucking laughable so they wouldn't have much resistance. i highly doubt that india actually has any nuclear capabilities, so even if IS somehow take over, they can't start anything because india can't even afford toilets, let alone thermonuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] You're talking like a satire cartoon about gun happy americans. So if you are trying to be funny, good job I guess? The Indian army is one of the largest ones on the planet, with funding behind it, well-trained officers, and they are very much capable of using nuclear weapons. Not to mention strong ties to the UK. They would win in a frontal assault, but IS would probably prefer guerilla warfare. In any case, it would be a pretty long and drawn out conflict.

[QUOTE=ZuXer;48329919]You're talking like a satire cartoon about gun happy americans. So if you are trying to be funny, good job I guess? The Indian army is one of the largest ones on the planet, with funding behind it, well-trained officers, and they are very much capable of using nuclear weapons. Not to mention strong ties to the UK. They would win in a frontal assault, but IS would probably prefer guerilla warfare. In any case, it would be a pretty long and drawn out conflict.[/QUOTE] i'm friends with a former aussie army officer who took part in some joint training exercise with india in the late 00's. his assessment was that their military is a kafka-esque nightmare of bureaucracy and incompetence, and most everything i've read on their military prowess in modern times backs that up. they have numbers, i'll give them that. but their service rifle debacle alone is rendering their infantry highly inefficient. [quote=IPCS article on India's military effectiveness]In March 2012, General VK Singh, the then COAS, had written to the Prime Minister about “critical hollowness” in the army’s operational preparedness. He had pointed out large-scale deficiencies in weapons systems, ammunition and equipment in service in the army and the fact that many of the weapons and equipment were obsolete or bordering on obsolescence. In particular, he had brought out that the artillery and air defence arms needed the infusion of modern guns, missiles and radars and the aviation corps required new helicopters to replace the ageing fleet. [/quote] [quote]Air defence guns and missiles and their radar systems are reported to be 97 per cent obsolescent.[/quote] how are they rectifying this? [quote]The F-INSAS (future infantry soldier as a system) programme for the modernisation of infantry battalions must be implemented on an urgent basis.[/quote] they're praying that the people behind this abomination can fix their military: [t]http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb314/cottagecheese_album/INSAS/DSC05559.jpg[/t] i could go on, but you can google it yourself. the indian army is big. that's it.

can we wait to destroy the world until AFTER everyone's had a chance to use Windows 10 please

[QUOTE=Neat!;48329976]i'm friends with a former aussie army officer who took part in some joint training exercise with india in the late 00's. his assessment was that their military is a kafka-esque nightmare of bureaucracy and incompetence, and most everything i've read on their military prowess in modern times backs that up. they have numbers, i'll give them that. but their service rifle debacle alone is rendering their infantry highly inefficient. how are they rectifying this? they're praying that the people behind this abomination can fix their military: [t]http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb314/cottagecheese_album/INSAS/DSC05559.jpg[/t] i could go on, but you can google it yourself. the indian army is big. that's it.[/QUOTE] not counting the debacle with their plastic AK copy, I've heard that their military suck at designing aircraft too.

If anyone thinks ISIS can take over India, they're crazy. India is fucking massive and has 4x the population of the US.

[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;48330008]not counting the debacle with their plastic AK copy, I've heard that their military suck at designing aircraft too.[/QUOTE] you can't say that, mainly because they've never adopted any of their own aircraft. that's a nation so hell bent on saying "hey we've got our own industry guys! for real!" that they took an FN FNC, slapped AK parts on it, and made lepers with no fingers assemble them with rubber mallets. they're not willing to spend the money they don't have on a plane that nobody thinks will work. they have MIGs, jaguars, and some lightnings left over from britain's occupancy, but look at how well they treat them. [t]http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/02426/IAF_2426234f.jpg[/t][t]http://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2015-03/jaguar-fighter-crash_650x400_51425546348.jpg[/t] [t]http://im.rediff.com/news/2015/jun/16jag1.jpg[/t][t]http://images.indianexpress.com/2015/06/jaguar.jpg[/t][t]http://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2015-06/jaguar-crash-allahabad-650-ani_650x400_41434429186.jpg[/t] these all happened in the last five years for the same reasons: lack of maintenance. it's one thing to somehow fuck up a sepecat jaguar, but to break a MIG? give these guys an award, they managed to destroy the AK of fighter planes through negligence. [editline]30th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48330016]If anyone thinks ISIS can take over India, they're crazy. India is fucking massive and has 4x the population of the US.[/QUOTE] that's like saying a 5ft MMA champion can't down a group of anorexic six foot double-amputees. if ISIS can make amends with the taliban and al qaeda, they'll be a big problem for india. and of course, the US and UK are going to be on that scene like flies to shit (all too apt a metaphor) and we'll have three more generations of americans that lived the majority of their lives in a country at war. well, i take that back. i don't know if india has much oil or mineral wealth for us to stick our ACU-pattern dick into, so we might only be there to say we're helping.

[QUOTE=Neat!;48329976] i could go on, but you can google it yourself. the indian army is big. that's it.[/QUOTE] You underestimate how much this counts. The russians often had the same problem in both world wars, enouhg people but not enough weapons. [I]Somehow[/I] they managed to win though. The indian army is the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel"]third largest,[/URL] the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures"]8th well funded[/URL], and is very much [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Armed_Forces#Nuclear_weapons"]nuclear capable[/URL]. They also had armed conflicts not that long ago, mostly with Pakistan. Just because the country's general populace is poor, they could still have a very strong military. See China, North Korea, etc.

[QUOTE=ZuXer;48330053]You underestimate how much this counts. The russians often had the same problem in both world wars, enouhg people but not enough weapons. [I]Somehow[/I] they managed to win though. The indian army is the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel"]third largest,[/URL] the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures"]8th well funded[/URL], and is very much [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Armed_Forces#Nuclear_weapons"]nuclear capable[/URL]. They also had armed conflicts not that long ago, mostly with Pakistan. Just because the country's general populace is poor, they could still have a very strong military. See China, North Korea, etc.[/QUOTE] Looking at the active paramilitaries, the US has so few comparably. Albeit far better equipped, and trained I assume. [QUOTE]People's Republic of China: 4,132,000 Democratic People's Republic of Korea: 5,889,000 India: 2,288,407 United States of America: 14,000[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ZuXer;48330053]You underestimate how much this counts. The russians often had the same problem in both world wars, enouhg people but not enough weapons. [I]Somehow[/I] they managed to win though. The indian army is the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel"]third largest,[/URL] the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures"]8th well funded[/URL], and is very much [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Armed_Forces#Nuclear_weapons"]nuclear capable[/URL]. They also had armed conflicts not that long ago, mostly with Pakistan. Just because the country's general populace is poor, they could still have a very strong military. See China, North Korea, etc.[/QUOTE] nothing to do with the populace. china funds good designs and concepts, and NK uses what the have quite well (the quality of manufacture in their planes, arms, and other mechanized units are supposedly very good). two million personnel, both active and in reserve, don't mean much when they operate 104 aircraft that are both obsolete and may or may not get off the runway. i already gave info on how up to date the rest of their materiel is. and though the indian constitution DOES have a provision for a draft/conscription in times of major conflict, it has never been implemented before and likely would be a logistical disaster, just like the rest of their military.

[QUOTE=Neat!;48330028] these all happened in the last five years for the same reasons: lack of maintenance. it's one thing to somehow fuck up a sepecat jaguar, but to break a MIG? give these guys an award, they managed to destroy the AK of fighter planes through negligence.[/QUOTE] The Mig-21 is a long way from being an AK of fighter planes. Commonplace, yes, but reliable? Not so much.

No. No they are not, not even a serious topic of debate. Yeah one of the sources cited is the Daily Star, not exactly known for level headed geopolitical reporting and analysis...

I think saying "the AK of fighter planes" is an extremely poorly chosen analogy considering that both are completely different machines and the MIG is inherently more complex and will inevitably require complex and precise maintenance to continue operating at a satisfactory level; whereas if you submerge an AK in water for a week or something it will still function at a competent level

[QUOTE=ZuXer;48330053]You underestimate how much this counts. The russians often had the same problem in both world wars, enouhg people but not enough weapons. [I]Somehow[/I] they managed to win though.[/QUOTE] Russia always had the advantage of the cold winter in these invasions. Both during the Napoleonic and the Nazi invasion it did a great deal to help them win. Now unless India can use the monsoon to their advantage, I don't think they'll have the same kind of possibilities.

I believe it's just scare tactics because they know they aren't getting far

[QUOTE=ZuXer;48330053]You underestimate how much this counts. The russians often had the same problem in both world wars, enouhg people but not enough weapons. [I]Somehow[/I] they managed to win though.[/QUOTE] This is a stupid myth when talking about the second world war. For the start of the war when they were caught by suprise sure, but there were 37 million Mosin Nagant rifles produced. That was just the rifles, on top of that is 6 million PPSh-41s and even more of other weapons. During each war of there were approximately 5-7~ million soldiers, and not all of them were infantry. Total number of soldiers in the war ranges from 27 million to 34 million meaning an extra ~10 million weapons 1941 was pretty much the only time when there were bad supply problems regarding weaponry

Capture India? Hindu extremists were bonkers enough to kill Gandhi, what chance do mere Muslim extremists have against them.

No way I am getting hyped this time. They always promise, but never deliver. I can't trust warmonging states anymore, too many times they let me down. I will say it again, World War 3 is not gonna happen, it will never live up to the hype people expect from it.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;48329874]This smells like sensationalist and trying to scare us. But it's ISIS, and it's announced, so I think America would immediately fly over there to defend it. Also would it be WWIII if people knew it was trying to get started by terrorists? I'm certain if Terrorists would nuke cities of the world, the world would unite to utterly crush them.[/QUOTE] In all technicality that would still be a world war.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48330016]If anyone thinks ISIS can take over India, they're crazy. India is fucking massive and has 4x the population of the US.[/QUOTE] But what I think to take from this is not the stupid rhetoric but the fact that they plan to expand to India. India, remember, has a larger population of Muslims than Pakistan. Even if you take 1% of the 1% of Indian Muslims and assume they are extremists, that's still 18,000 people. So you have a situation where they very well could start working with established Muslim extremists in India to create terrorist cells that stir up the hatred between religions that led to incidents like the 2002 Gujarat riots where hundreds of Muslims were killed which, interesting enough, happened under the governorship of the current Prime Minister, Modi, a Hindu nationalist. It's all part of this Zarqawist strategy to turn everyone against each other. Of course, that's their grand strategy. Who knows if it will even get to that point, but they'll darn well try.

[QUOTE=TestECull;48331228]In all technicality that would still be a world war.[/QUOTE] And Sweden would still sit there and do nothing, laughing at all of us.

[QUOTE=Neat!;48329888][I]fucking finally[/I] i was born ready for the shit to hit the fan. here's a picture of me right after they cut the cord. [t]http://i.imgur.com/jTXBXDu.jpg[/t] [I]i'm so fucking ready for this shit[/I] anyway, i doubt this is gonna go anywhere. but if it did, the indian army is fucking laughable so they wouldn't have much resistance. i highly doubt that india actually has any nuclear capabilities, so even if IS somehow take over, they can't start anything because india can't even afford toilets, let alone thermonuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] India has nuclear weapons because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why did we as a globalized world allow both India and Pakistan to have nuclear weapons I couldn't tell you. But they definitely have them, they're on the list of ~14( it was like 13 or so last I checked a few years back?) countries that are confirmed to have nuclear weapons.

Oh yeah I totally trust The Daily fucking Star