So called "Islamic State"

I dont think he's thought it through Clive. It seems he's asking for something like the Soviet Union in the 20th century. That can't be right!

 

I was thinking more along the lines of the British Empire 1880s

 

PETA in the past have resorted to terrorism in a way. They kill animals by the thousand to prevent them being used as pets. In america they break into rescue homes and kennels to steal the animals and put them down. They funded the attacks on the huntingdon life sciences folk, where one woman claimed a scientist was a paedophile. They funded the animal liberation front who made bomb hoaxes and death threats to scientists.

Take 'em out to the woods and shoot them all I say...:naughty:

 

Well one are a bunch of murdering religious nutcases in the early 21st century middle east, whilst the others were an extreme fascist/nationalist party from mid-20th century Europe.

That's how they're different.

If you get confused, check the uniforms. One has a tatty turban and the other a smart peaked cap.

 

we're gonna need a bigger woods...

 

Nobody says "it's OK because of that" they just rightly point out that problems our society has created is what has led to it. In the same sense, nobody says it's fine that somebody is selling drugs on the street corner, but it's understandable why people do it because society has left these teenage drug dealers in the gutter with very few other career prospects.

It's an immediate and long-term issue. In the immediate term we have to stop attacks and in the long-term we have to put an end to the justifications and desire to cause attacks. You couldn't just "kill off all potential terrorists" because it just generates more.

 

Calling our brave boys and services monsters? Are you a jihadist?

 

I think sometimes it's just a misunderstanding between an excuse and an explanation.

 

You are doing it again - confusing understanding a problem with some form of appeasement. It is possible, nay imperative, to be self-critical and remain vehemently opposed to facism and sectarian atrocities of any sort. I despise everything about IS - its ethnic cleansing, it's obscene cruelty, it's ridiculous interpretation of Islam, it's attempts to subdue and impose totalitarian rule on other Muslims.

However the people attracted to this cause are not swopping Guardian articles. They are swopping videos of atrocities committed by Allied Forces - children killed or maimed in airstrikes, women raped and murdered by troops - Abu Ghraib.

They are not benefitting from funding from the Liberal left - they are benefitting from arms and cash from the Gulf and covertly from the USA to fight Assad.

They have the 'ammunition' (Though western interference is by no means the sole reason for conflict) - it's not going to go away. What we need to do is not give them anymore than we can help. We have to show we are better. There is no mitigation, but it doesn't mean every course of action will help. We need to avoid creating a greater hell.

I would welcome the possibility of preventing combatants with dual passports returning. I don't fear that being tested in the courts because that's one of the reasons why our way is better.

 

War + War ≠ No War

 

How would people have acted if they were David Cameron to this threat that they are going to behead a British Hostage?

Personally (this won't be popular either) I would outlined to our ISIS our current involvement - giving aid to refugees, and probably supplying arms to the Kurds, and then followed it up saying that we aren't currently bombing them.....

And then record Boris Johnson giving a review of our current Airforce planes, with a firm message of "Touch the hostage, we'll bomb the sh*t out of you" before Boris Johnson signs of saying "ISIS t*ssers" in a way he showed in Bristol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVRTPjOPexA

 

The what now?

 

I think the greatest fear of leaving it all to the courts and traditional justice systems, are that we have little to no intelligence of what the individuals are up to in IS. The fear is that this lack of evidence may leave IS members to live freely within our society.

 

Sadly, probably exactly the same thing as Cameron. We simply can't negotiate a ransom with them. It just trades one life now for more later.

Threatening to bomb the **** out of them doesn't really get us anywhere. We are already trying to bomb the **** out of them - that's why they are killing hostages - and moreover most of them have a colossal death wish.

We have to hope that some intelligence of the hostages whereabouts will emerge, or there are other (Non IS) Sunni groups who we can negotiate some form of alliance with.

It's very, very grim.

 

Oh yeah, with all the monitoring and scanning and CCTV and ANPR and snooping, I'm sure they're really struggling to get the slightest inkling of what they're up to.

There being "no evidence" of you having done anything wrong is what we call "innocence".

There's "no evidence" that you yourself are a terrorist - right? Do you think that lack of evidence of any wrongdoing is a reasonable reason why you ought to be locked up or have your passport taken away?

 

They're technically doing themselves no favours because if the journalists are withdrawn that gives the west free reign to do what it wants without consequences.

 

I am not sure that the current IS agenda is anything less than enforcing Islam on the rest of the world. That seemed to be the substance behind that guy when he did his "creating the caliphate" speech a few weeks ago. As far as I know, there was only passing reference to the American interference in the Middle East, but I am happy to be corrected.

Although I havn't seen the latest beheading video, my understanding is that it wasn't about past US involvement, more about the current US involvement in the IS v Iraqi battles, now. The weapon used was not part of the US arms supplies sent to Syria, I doubt. The threat against the British Aid Worker (not a soldier) was made against current US action, not against past actions.

When the women and children are being raped and murdered by the IS in Iraq, I dont think that they are making anti US statements as it happens.

I think Squibba is right, that in many cases, young men over here see the anti US and anti western propaganda (such as I mentioned earlier) and go over there to fight that particular cause.

But, in reality, it has little to do with the US and everything to do with expansionism of Islam - and their brand of Islam which promotes the killing of non-believers.

 

Do you think ISIS are beheading people so as to provoke a western response leading to easier recruitment opportunities? Or is it purely to shock the west into pressuring the governments to change foreign policy over ISIS. I think the later, however once troops are drawn in they'll do the Osama tactic of trying to bankrupt the west by forcing high expenditure on military due to guerilla tactics. There's a misconception that the US in particular back off when times get tough fighting guerilla forces. Look at how the public pressured the government to end involvement in vietnam and Iraq. The last thing ISIS want is troops on the ground because they know they'll get destroyed.

 

It's not expansionism - it's an answer (the wrong answer) to the problems of Sunni Muslims who lost out after the Iraq invasion and who are suffering in Syria. The long held, deep seated resentment against the involvement of the West in the Middle East for 100 years forms the backdrop - the political frame of reference - along with the schism of Sunni and Shia.

IS have little interest yet in exporting Islam to non Muslim countries - their wish is to form a 'safe' homeland for Sunnis under a theocracy. Ironically to serve a very similar purpose that Israel does for Jewish people, except you can forget even a tip of the hat to democracy.

 

Another ground War could be open ended. We'd end up fighting almost everyone with little stamina for it.

 

This is the sort of ridiculous "propaganda" we see that attracts young Brits to the IS cause. The Sunni's number about 90% of the world population of Muslims. Why do they need to destroy the Shia's in Iraq, which is one of the few country's where they are outnumbered by Shia's, to find a "homeland". Apart from Iran, just about every Muslim country has a majority of Sunni's.
IS dont even have widespread support amongst Sunni's in Iraq. Where given, it is often begrudgingly or through fear.

According to many Muslims that speak about it, expansionism is a major part of this. Much of Europe, as far as Spain in the next five years - and beyong. Maybe they know nothing and you are correct! The Capiher of IS demands that Muslims worldwide acknowledge him as their leader. Do you honestly think he will allow them to live in harmony in other countries whilst he rapes, murders and tortures Muslims and Christians in his own area?

Stop being an apologist Moose. This latest effort of yours "they just want a homeland" is stretching it, even for you.

 

SIGH. I never said I supported it.

Internet debating at it's finest.

 

SIGH, and I didn't say you did. But you are defending them - and I am struggling to understand why.

I am pointing out that, if IS want only "to form a 'safe' homeland for Sunnis" as you suggest, they could have chosen just about any other Muslim controlled area in the whole world. Something you want to ignore when you make excuses for them.

 

Don't watch it. First of all it's what they want you to do and second of all it dehumanises and damages you a little bit seeing that kind of brutality.

They say there's a fella lost his coconut on a video. I believe them. I don't need to see it.

 

I saw a couple of such videos a few years ago and they really affected me, for some time. I've seen some horrendous (real life) sights in my previous jobs, but the videos I saw, and the circumstances around them, were far worse. It isn't the blood, the gore, I've seen that quite a few times - it is the cold bloodied, calculated nature of the murderers, that affected me so much.

And this is one reason why I get so upset when people try and give IS any sort of reason/excuse, one word of support or understanding is just far too much.

 

Yeah but it's not exactly a first is it? The Saudis have beheaded loads of people this year. The French were doing it up until the late 1970s.

The method is foul, but at least I suppose it's a quick death. When you read of the horrors that monsters like Trujillo or Duvalier carried out. The unspeakable bestial things our troops apparently did in Kenya. The unbelievable events in Rwanda - to name but a few.

We think we're so sophisticated, but we're still living in the dark ages I reckon.

 

I won't watch them but I've seen a few tasty video's of civilians being bombed by drones. The worst part is seeing what looks like a guy in a video booth playing a computer game. Now that really is inhumane!

 

There is a vast difference between trying to understand why they are doing something and defending it.

It is necessary to understand why people do something so evil, in order to properly confront it. To simply say "they are bad men" may be true, but it's pretty pointless.

 

I am not defending them in the slightest. I'm getting the impression you don't read our exchanges.

 

I despair, I really do.

I know what you and Moose are getting at. I understand the difference.

But the difference is tiny, and far too small for young impressionable Brits to try and work out when they are looking for a cause to fight for. That is why such talk is so dangerous. Leave such talk to those who are trying to recruit them.

But, as I have said, I actually don't think that the genocide between Sunni and Shia Muslims, or Sunni and Christians, etc, that has been going on for hundreds of years, has much to do with the West. And that is why the reasons Moose gives are, in my view, false.

 

If you had seen them, you wouldn't be saying it is anything like similar.

 

That's as maybe but these reporters put themselves in harms way, they took a chance. The innocents I'm discussing never got that!

 

I do read them, many times, and very carefully. I just fundamentally disagree with you. You are saying that you don't defend them, but I say that you do.

You are doing the same as a defence council in court trying to reduce a sentence. You aren't saying that the IS is not guilty of committing offences, but you are trying to mitigate those offences by saying things such as "they are just looking for a safe haven for Sunni's".

There is no mitigation.

 

You are totally forgetting that they are also beheading, crucifying, raping, torturing 000's of women and children. Were those victims all to blame for putting themselves in harms way too?

This Forum has found a new low. Somehow, this British Aid Worker who has now been threatened with beheading is actually to blame for his own demise if the threat is being carried out. I suppose you feel the same way about any fireman, policeman, etc, who gets hurt or killed whilst carrying out their duty. They shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

 

I've said all along let the Arab world sort out it's own problems and I'll include physical presence when supplying foreign aid in that. That may seem hard line but they managed for thousands of years without us.