This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to mypyrex:
Absolutely. Indescribable horror. Just woke up to hear the news. Thoughts are with his family.
Absolutely. Indescribable horror. Just woke up to hear the news. Thoughts are with his family.
In reply to mypyrex:
Agreed. IS is indeed an evil force.
Interesting article here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29123528
Short of exterminating them what other option does the decent thinking world have?
Agreed. IS is indeed an evil force.
Interesting article here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29123528
Short of exterminating them what other option does the decent thinking world have?
In reply to Trangia:
I'm afraid that my thoughts are, whoever does track them down(hopefully the SAS) that they take no prisoners.
> Short of exterminating them what other option does the decent thinking world have?
I'm afraid that my thoughts are, whoever does track them down(hopefully the SAS) that they take no prisoners.
Post edited at 09:14
In reply to mypyrex:
So if to beat the enemy you have to be as ruthless as the enemy. Doesn't that make make you the enemy? To kill or be killed?
So if to beat the enemy you have to be as ruthless as the enemy. Doesn't that make make you the enemy? To kill or be killed?
In reply to JoshOvki:
We could start like we do with Russia, sanctions and restrict the supply of weapons and don't buy oil from them. Have you ever wondered why fuel is quite cheap at the pumps right now?
We could start like we do with Russia, sanctions and restrict the supply of weapons and don't buy oil from them. Have you ever wondered why fuel is quite cheap at the pumps right now?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
How would we do that?
> We could start like we do with Russia, sanctions and restrict the supply of weapons and don't buy oil from them. Have you ever wondered why fuel is quite cheap at the pumps right now?
How would we do that?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
Have you actually read the article?
Where do you get the idea that we buy oill from IS from? As for weapons they have a huge supply of captured ones.
Just how do you propose dealing with such an evil force which doesn't give a toss about compromise, dialogue or "normal" decent human behaviour and is actively promoting terror for terror's sake?
> sanctions and restrict the supply of weapons and don't buy oil from them.
Have you actually read the article?
Where do you get the idea that we buy oill from IS from? As for weapons they have a huge supply of captured ones.
Just how do you propose dealing with such an evil force which doesn't give a toss about compromise, dialogue or "normal" decent human behaviour and is actively promoting terror for terror's sake?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
I really don't think you are in the real world and that you are a troll.
I really don't think you are in the real world and that you are a troll.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
??? No you haven't read the article, or if you did you obviously din't undewrstand it
> By peaceful diplomatic means.
??? No you haven't read the article, or if you did you obviously din't undewrstand it
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
Yes, I've got that.
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions do we impose?
> By peaceful diplomatic means.
Yes, I've got that.
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions do we impose?
Post edited at 09:42
Another thing that p*sses me off is the way some sections of the media refer to these events as "executions" and the perpetrators as "executioners". "Execution" implies judicial killing. These are murders and the perpetrators are murderers - nothing more and nothing less.
In reply to Trangia:
Agreed
> You have poor taste in your jokes, bearing in mind David Haines's death
Agreed
In reply to mypyrex:
Trolling for peace, that's a good one, I thought the trolls were the ones who caused the Aggro!
Yeah I read the link, just your usual Sunday morning self righteous psyop piece.
> I really don't think you are in the real world and that you are a troll.
Trolling for peace, that's a good one, I thought the trolls were the ones who caused the Aggro!
Yeah I read the link, just your usual Sunday morning self righteous psyop piece.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Come on have a little vision, we the global community sell arms to them and we the global community buy their oil, it's a global problem, killing some crazy radicals will solve nothing!
Come on have a little vision, we the global community sell arms to them and we the global community buy their oil, it's a global problem, killing some crazy radicals will solve nothing!
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
Peace? You still don't, or can't, say how you would go about achieving such a miracle with this evil force. So lets hear it. Or are you just going to accept ever increasing horror and murders from IS?
Peace? You still don't, or can't, say how you would go about achieving such a miracle with this evil force. So lets hear it. Or are you just going to accept ever increasing horror and murders from IS?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
OK so are YOU trolling IS to pursue peaceful, non violent options?
NO? Didn't think so.
OK so are YOU trolling IS to pursue peaceful, non violent options?
NO? Didn't think so.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
> Come on have a little vision, we the global community sell arms to them and we the global community buy their oil, it's a global problem, killing some crazy radicals will solve nothing!
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
Can you show that we buy oil from IS? I've already said that they have amassed a huge amount of captured weapons.
Can you show that we buy oil from IS? I've already said that they have amassed a huge amount of captured weapons.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
I thought I'd come across some pretty weird forms of life on UKC, then you came along.
I thought I'd come across some pretty weird forms of life on UKC, then you came along.
In reply to Postmanpat:
If you were on a degree course or similar and you were given all the answers to all the question you asked you would never learn anything for you self other than to repeat the answers you had been told, maybe you need to try and figure it out for yourself.
If you were on a degree course or similar and you were given all the answers to all the question you asked you would never learn anything for you self other than to repeat the answers you had been told, maybe you need to try and figure it out for yourself.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
You know you really ought to tell that to these Islamist fanatics and convince them that they are being brainwashed with pseudo religious mumbo jumbo.
> If you were on a degree course or similar and you were given all the answers to all the question you asked you would never learn anything for you self other than to repeat the answers you had been told, maybe you need to try and figure it out for yourself.
You know you really ought to tell that to these Islamist fanatics and convince them that they are being brainwashed with pseudo religious mumbo jumbo.
Post edited at 09:59
In reply to mypyrex:
Don't bother with him/her. He/she is a false Mystery Toad anyway with nothing like the intellect of the real one we used to have. He/she can't/won't answer the questions put to him/her, because it's a problem the best brains in the world are struggling to solve, and military force is the only solution that's come up so far
Don't bother with him/her. He/she is a false Mystery Toad anyway with nothing like the intellect of the real one we used to have. He/she can't/won't answer the questions put to him/her, because it's a problem the best brains in the world are struggling to solve, and military force is the only solution that's come up so far
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
I've thought it through and I don't think it's possible because we don't buy oil directly from them and we don't sell them weapons. So, now, as my tutor, you are supposed to show me how I am wrong. I am sure you know the answers. So I repeat:
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
> If you were on a degree course or similar and you were given all the answers to all the question you asked you would never learn anything for you self other than to repeat the answers you had been told, maybe you need to try and figure it out for yourself.
I've thought it through and I don't think it's possible because we don't buy oil directly from them and we don't sell them weapons. So, now, as my tutor, you are supposed to show me how I am wrong. I am sure you know the answers. So I repeat:
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
In reply to Postmanpat:
You must have not read the we the global community, it's a global problem line then.
You must have not read the we the global community, it's a global problem line then.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Judging by his 10:05 post I don't think he understands what you are asking him.
Judging by his 10:05 post I don't think he understands what you are asking him.
In reply to Postmanpat:
If you ask MT why he/she won't answer our questions it wouldn't suprise me in the least if the response is a childish "because".....
Anyway back to the OP this is an awful event and our thoughts should be with the family and friends of David Haines.
If you ask MT why he/she won't answer our questions it wouldn't suprise me in the least if the response is a childish "because".....
Anyway back to the OP this is an awful event and our thoughts should be with the family and friends of David Haines.
In reply to mypyrex:
I understand what he's asking, he's asking what music to play in the car before there is a car available to play the music in.
I understand what he's asking, he's asking what music to play in the car before there is a car available to play the music in.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
No I haven't. So why don't you give me the summary of the answer to my questions:
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
Or is it your special special secret?
> You must have not read the we the global community, it's a global problem line then.
No I haven't. So why don't you give me the summary of the answer to my questions:
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
Or is it your special special secret?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
On which basis you are telling us to stop playing the music in the car when their is no car and no music.
If you really had any faith in your views about how to solve the ISIS problem you would actually tell us what they are but you are unable even to do that.
So, I repeat:
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
> I understand what he's asking, he's asking what music to play in the car before there is a car available to play the music in.
On which basis you are telling us to stop playing the music in the car when their is no car and no music.
If you really had any faith in your views about how to solve the ISIS problem you would actually tell us what they are but you are unable even to do that.
So, I repeat:
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
Post edited at 10:17
I suggest that we intelligent UKCers ignore this troll. As has been said our thoughts should now be with family of David Haines rather than giving "The Mystery Toad" any more air time.
In reply to mypyrex:
Yes they are evil bastards, even if they think they have a just cause etc. it is not acceptable to make the world a more dangerous place.
So.. options
1) the diplomatic one find a peaceful solution through talks, kind of difficult I fear because if the people you are talking to say we want peace to subjugate women, execute apostates, and perform ethnic cleansing then really you are not going to agree to that. May be if we hadn't funded terrorist groups (like the Taliban and am not sure who secretly funded ISIS) and put idiot dictators in charge of countries or skewed elections then we wouldn't be here now. But that is water under the bridge.
2) Work properly with countries to create fair systems of elections and support genuinely elected governments. Far to often we have supported people we like for various reasons (usually financial) but who are either not popular or crap at leading. Terrorist groups can only florish so openly where they face little opposition.
3) Carry on in the same half arsed way we have always done. Send troops out keep a lid on things for a while, fund opposing groups, then withdraw troops and watch as opposing groups turn into new terrorists.
4) All out vengance. Nuke the Middle East, kill everything and everyone in an all out don't mess with us kind of way and sod the consequences because it is all about revenge right?
Yes they are evil bastards, even if they think they have a just cause etc. it is not acceptable to make the world a more dangerous place.
So.. options
1) the diplomatic one find a peaceful solution through talks, kind of difficult I fear because if the people you are talking to say we want peace to subjugate women, execute apostates, and perform ethnic cleansing then really you are not going to agree to that. May be if we hadn't funded terrorist groups (like the Taliban and am not sure who secretly funded ISIS) and put idiot dictators in charge of countries or skewed elections then we wouldn't be here now. But that is water under the bridge.
2) Work properly with countries to create fair systems of elections and support genuinely elected governments. Far to often we have supported people we like for various reasons (usually financial) but who are either not popular or crap at leading. Terrorist groups can only florish so openly where they face little opposition.
3) Carry on in the same half arsed way we have always done. Send troops out keep a lid on things for a while, fund opposing groups, then withdraw troops and watch as opposing groups turn into new terrorists.
4) All out vengance. Nuke the Middle East, kill everything and everyone in an all out don't mess with us kind of way and sod the consequences because it is all about revenge right?
In reply to Postmanpat:
I presume money or resource is exchanged in return for oil, with the current global surveillance available this info is probably two mouse clicks away for someone with the right clearance. The exchange can only happen at certain locations.
1 find the info
2 stop the trade
Use the same system to find who backs them, close down any and all trading accounts with them and make these players known of publicly as finance's of jihad
> No I haven't. So why don't you give me the summary of the answer to my questions:
> How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
I presume money or resource is exchanged in return for oil, with the current global surveillance available this info is probably two mouse clicks away for someone with the right clearance. The exchange can only happen at certain locations.
1 find the info
2 stop the trade
> What sanctions can we impose?
Use the same system to find who backs them, close down any and all trading accounts with them and make these players known of publicly as finance's of jihad
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
So, you don't actually mean stop buying oil from them or impose sanctions on them (ISIS) at all.
Let us assume that the oil is initially bought by another middle east state. How do you think large scale sanctions against middle east states would be perceived and how do you think it would solve the problem?
> I presume money or resource is exchanged in return for oil, with the current global surveillance available this info is probably two mouse clicks away for someone with the right clearance. The exchange can only happen at certain locations.
> 1 find the info
> 2 stop the trade
> Use the same system to find who backs them, close down any and all trading accounts with them and make these players known of publicly as finance's of jihad
So, you don't actually mean stop buying oil from them or impose sanctions on them (ISIS) at all.
Let us assume that the oil is initially bought by another middle east state. How do you think large scale sanctions against middle east states would be perceived and how do you think it would solve the problem?
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I know what you are saying but I think the problem is that IS is not a sovereign nation but a group of murderers intent on endless violence for its own sake but supposedly perpetrated to further their "religion". SHOULD we negotiate with murderers andrapists?
I know what you are saying but I think the problem is that IS is not a sovereign nation but a group of murderers intent on endless violence for its own sake but supposedly perpetrated to further their "religion". SHOULD we negotiate with murderers andrapists?
In reply to Postmanpat:
So you can very quickly formulate an question but you cannot derive an answer to that question and you seem to need me to because I've suggested another way.
So you can very quickly formulate an question but you cannot derive an answer to that question and you seem to need me to because I've suggested another way.
In reply to mypyrex:
He's just winding you up, wake up a bit.
On the other hand it is perfectly true that a lot of the members of IS come from other anti-Assad militias which "we" armed and encouraged in a naive belief that once armed these new recruits couldn't move about. Maybe we should think a bit, the present immediate enemy of the IS is the Shias, which means, for example, Assad (Alawite), Hezbollah and Iran so perhaps a first step would be to rethink "our" attitude to these people? Perhaps "we" should realise that even if we don't like their ideas very much there are worse?
> I thought I'd come across some pretty weird forms of life on UKC, then you came along.
He's just winding you up, wake up a bit.
On the other hand it is perfectly true that a lot of the members of IS come from other anti-Assad militias which "we" armed and encouraged in a naive belief that once armed these new recruits couldn't move about. Maybe we should think a bit, the present immediate enemy of the IS is the Shias, which means, for example, Assad (Alawite), Hezbollah and Iran so perhaps a first step would be to rethink "our" attitude to these people? Perhaps "we" should realise that even if we don't like their ideas very much there are worse?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
I kind of agree with this. The Keyser Soze solution.
From the usual suspects: Keyser Söze began his criminal career as a petty drug dealer in his native Turkey. His legendary persona is born when rival Hungarian smugglers invade his house while he is away, rape his wife, and hold his children hostage; when Söze arrives, they kill one of his children and demand that he give his business to them. Instead, Söze kills his own family and all but one of the Hungarians, who he knows will tell the Mafia what has happened. Once his family is buried, Söze goes after the mob and kills dozens of people, including the mobsters' families, friends, and even people who owe them money
> So if to beat the enemy you have to be as ruthless as the enemy. Doesn't that make make you the enemy? To kill or be killed?
I kind of agree with this. The Keyser Soze solution.
From the usual suspects: Keyser Söze began his criminal career as a petty drug dealer in his native Turkey. His legendary persona is born when rival Hungarian smugglers invade his house while he is away, rape his wife, and hold his children hostage; when Söze arrives, they kill one of his children and demand that he give his business to them. Instead, Söze kills his own family and all but one of the Hungarians, who he knows will tell the Mafia what has happened. Once his family is buried, Söze goes after the mob and kills dozens of people, including the mobsters' families, friends, and even people who owe them money
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
You haven't suggested another way. i've asked you to suggest another way and you barely get to the first hurdle.
I have an answer the the question and it is that taking sanctions against middle eastern States would wither destabilise them and encourage further chaos, or would would spark more resentment amongst the masses and risk increasing support for ISIS.
What's your answer?
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
> So you can very quickly formulate an question but you cannot derive an answer to that question and you seem to need me to because I've suggested another way.
You haven't suggested another way. i've asked you to suggest another way and you barely get to the first hurdle.
I have an answer the the question and it is that taking sanctions against middle eastern States would wither destabilise them and encourage further chaos, or would would spark more resentment amongst the masses and risk increasing support for ISIS.
What's your answer?
How do we buy their oil and how do we stop buying their oil?
What sanctions can we impose?
In reply to mypyrex:
An interesting point. Technically we do it all the time, many established governments we work with commit atrocities that we turn a blind eye to (one might include the CIA in this) but with people who are open about it we don't want to be seen to condone what they do, though eventually we may be obliged to negotiate. Even so where possible we should negotiate from a position of strength. Peaceful ways are always preferable in that they reduce bloodshed and hopefully produce a more stable environment for people to life. But when this isn't possible you have to accept that you will have to do things that you may not like and be ruthless. Ruthless but fair
An interesting point. Technically we do it all the time, many established governments we work with commit atrocities that we turn a blind eye to (one might include the CIA in this) but with people who are open about it we don't want to be seen to condone what they do, though eventually we may be obliged to negotiate. Even so where possible we should negotiate from a position of strength. Peaceful ways are always preferable in that they reduce bloodshed and hopefully produce a more stable environment for people to life. But when this isn't possible you have to accept that you will have to do things that you may not like and be ruthless. Ruthless but fair
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
>
How successful do you think we would be if we call up the Saudis and Gulf States and recommend that they introduce a liberal democracy?
How well have the "Arab springs" (chokes on coffee) worked?
> 2) Work properly with countries to create fair systems of elections and support genuinely elected governments. Far to often we have supported people we like for various reasons (usually financial) but who are either not popular or crap at leading. Terrorist groups can only florish so openly where they face little opposition.
>
How successful do you think we would be if we call up the Saudis and Gulf States and recommend that they introduce a liberal democracy?
How well have the "Arab springs" (chokes on coffee) worked?
In reply to mypyrex:
Having said that. I find it sad that I am talking about more killing on a thread about someone who has been killed.
Having said that. I find it sad that I am talking about more killing on a thread about someone who has been killed.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
As you say 1) is probably unworkable for the reasons you give and because IS don't want it anyway
2) Admirable and definitely a long term goal, but is it really realistic given that it seems to have failed miserably time and time again?
3) I agree but that's water under the bridge. Maybe military intervention needs to be more surgical with the intention of cutting out cancers like IS?
4) I don't think we are talking about vengance so far as IS is concerned, but self defence, because if left unchecked they pose a real threat to life and limb in our own countries.
5) So far as IS is concerned I favour surgical intervention WITH the support of the world Islamic community. Certainly action against IS is gaining support from Islamic countires. Ultimately it is Islam that needs to sort out it's internal differences including the weeding out of extremism so that it's community can live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world, but that will need to be a two way thing with religious tolerance being a global thing in non islamic countries.
As you say 1) is probably unworkable for the reasons you give and because IS don't want it anyway
2) Admirable and definitely a long term goal, but is it really realistic given that it seems to have failed miserably time and time again?
3) I agree but that's water under the bridge. Maybe military intervention needs to be more surgical with the intention of cutting out cancers like IS?
4) I don't think we are talking about vengance so far as IS is concerned, but self defence, because if left unchecked they pose a real threat to life and limb in our own countries.
5) So far as IS is concerned I favour surgical intervention WITH the support of the world Islamic community. Certainly action against IS is gaining support from Islamic countires. Ultimately it is Islam that needs to sort out it's internal differences including the weeding out of extremism so that it's community can live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world, but that will need to be a two way thing with religious tolerance being a global thing in non islamic countries.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I answered your questions, if you can't see the progression of that, I can't help you. Sorry.
I answered your questions, if you can't see the progression of that, I can't help you. Sorry.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Why should we do that? It is our interference that lead to such instability in other gulf states (by our I mean the West in general). Yes the Gulf States are no poster boys for liberal thinking but that doesn't mean that we should play god with their politics
Why should we do that? It is our interference that lead to such instability in other gulf states (by our I mean the West in general). Yes the Gulf States are no poster boys for liberal thinking but that doesn't mean that we should play god with their politics
In reply to Trangia:
>4) I don't think we are talking about vengance so far as IS is concerned, but self defence, because if left unchecked they pose a real threat to life and limb in our own countries.
I agree
Totally agree. Good response
>4) I don't think we are talking about vengance so far as IS is concerned, but self defence, because if left unchecked they pose a real threat to life and limb in our own countries.
I agree
> 5) So far as IS is concerned I favour surgical intervention WITH the support of the world Islamic community. Certainly action against IS is gaining support from Islamic countires. Ultimately it is Islam that needs to sort out it's internal differences including the weeding out of extremism so that it's community can live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world, but that will need to be a two way thing with religious tolerance being a global thing in non islamic countries.
Totally agree. Good response
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
Ive described the progressions and you ignore them thus failing to provide any alternative suggestions. Are you now acknoledging you dont have any?
> I answered your questions, if you can't see the progression of that, I can't help you. Sorry.
Ive described the progressions and you ignore them thus failing to provide any alternative suggestions. Are you now acknoledging you dont have any?
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Exactly. Which means none of your four alternatives are workable options
> Why should we do that? It is our interference that lead to such instability in other gulf states (by our I mean the West in general). Yes the Gulf States are no poster boys for liberal thinking but that doesn't mean that we should play god with their politics
Exactly. Which means none of your four alternatives are workable options
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
No.
If someone kills the innocent, someone doing good works, to exterminate them is not morally equivalent.
> So if to beat the enemy you have to be as ruthless as the enemy. Doesn't that make make you the enemy? To kill or be killed?
No.
If someone kills the innocent, someone doing good works, to exterminate them is not morally equivalent.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I don't know if you're new around here but the way people communicate is in a manner which they choose to make their point, like I said before sorry I can't help you anymore. Go and pester someone else.
I don't know if you're new around here but the way people communicate is in a manner which they choose to make their point, like I said before sorry I can't help you anymore. Go and pester someone else.
In reply to Trangia:
Why do we need another option?
> Short of exterminating them what other option does the decent thinking world have?
Why do we need another option?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
You appear to be the novice around here so I suggest you go and troll on another forum.
> I don't know if you're new around here but the way people communicate is in a manner which they choose to make their point, like I said before sorry I can't help you anymore. Go and pester someone else.
You appear to be the novice around here so I suggest you go and troll on another forum.
In reply to mypyrex:
Yes how rude of me time to leave you blood thirsty revengeful folk to your own devices.
Yes how rude of me time to leave you blood thirsty revengeful folk to your own devices.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
Good idea, f*ck off back to La La land.
> Yes how rude of me time to leave you blood thirsty revengeful folk to your own devices.
Good idea, f*ck off back to La La land.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
Haha youre choice appears to have been not to communicate which by your logic implies you dont have mych of a point.
Personally i would think in the face of such horrors the least we can do beyound sympathising is to think seriously about yhe nature of yhe problem and the best policy towards it
> I don't know if you're new around here but the way people communicate is in a manner which they choose to make their point, like I said before sorry I can't help you anymore. Go and pester someone else.
Haha youre choice appears to have been not to communicate which by your logic implies you dont have mych of a point.
Personally i would think in the face of such horrors the least we can do beyound sympathising is to think seriously about yhe nature of yhe problem and the best policy towards it
In reply to mypyrex: i doubt is are a laugh to live under, nor very popular so military action is viable to destabilize and weaken them
BUT a part of why they exist is that they represent an alternative to those disenfranchised by the corrupt , bigoted Iraqi government. Remove is and something else will arise to replace so any solution needs to be a bit better than just shooting everything.
BUT a part of why they exist is that they represent an alternative to those disenfranchised by the corrupt , bigoted Iraqi government. Remove is and something else will arise to replace so any solution needs to be a bit better than just shooting everything.
In reply to mypyrex:
There is no justification for this. These people are psychologically disturbed and completely irrational. What a shame for his family and friends.
There is no justification for this. These people are psychologically disturbed and completely irrational. What a shame for his family and friends.
In reply to yer maw:
>These people are psychologically disturbed and completely irrational.
Thought you were talking about The Mystery Toad for a mo.
>These people are psychologically disturbed and completely irrational.
Thought you were talking about The Mystery Toad for a mo.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
So do I but it carries big inherent risks of bombing the wrong people or supporting the wrong people et etc
The bigger problem seems to be that various Middle East States or wealthy people within those State are either financing IS or appeasing them and leaving the dirty work to the West, in order to protect their own power. Ultimately it won't work because as we see it just makes IS more powerful.
But the US seems to be having great trouble persuading these States that it is in their own self interest for them to deal with the IS problem on their doorstep.
> I prefer trangia's fifth option
So do I but it carries big inherent risks of bombing the wrong people or supporting the wrong people et etc
The bigger problem seems to be that various Middle East States or wealthy people within those State are either financing IS or appeasing them and leaving the dirty work to the West, in order to protect their own power. Ultimately it won't work because as we see it just makes IS more powerful.
But the US seems to be having great trouble persuading these States that it is in their own self interest for them to deal with the IS problem on their doorstep.
Post edited at 12:37
In reply to mypyrex:
Send in battle hardened special forces to give these bastards the most gruesome death imaginable, forget the Geneva Convention or any other rules of engagement, let the special forces do what they do best, defeat the enemy without having one or both of their hands tied behind their backs. let them film and distribute it to the IS murderers letting them know they have this coming if they don't stop their gruesome murdering.
Send in battle hardened special forces to give these bastards the most gruesome death imaginable, forget the Geneva Convention or any other rules of engagement, let the special forces do what they do best, defeat the enemy without having one or both of their hands tied behind their backs. let them film and distribute it to the IS murderers letting them know they have this coming if they don't stop their gruesome murdering.
In reply to mypyrex: that won't work at all
1. They're martyrs
2. By sinking to their level you've proved them right, the west are barbarians
3. You've ratcheted up the violence level one notch at least, and if we send troops there then they're justified in sending 'troops' here.
They need knocking out, but without a political fix you're just putting petrol on the fire
1. They're martyrs
2. By sinking to their level you've proved them right, the west are barbarians
3. You've ratcheted up the violence level one notch at least, and if we send troops there then they're justified in sending 'troops' here.
They need knocking out, but without a political fix you're just putting petrol on the fire
In reply to wbo:
You're right, what many don't seem to twig is that many IS militants want to die. For them a martyr's death is the ultimate high.
There is also a tactical reason for this, they know that for every martyr, especially if done in a gruesome, public way as suggested by some on this thread, a dozen new militants will volunteer.
You're right, what many don't seem to twig is that many IS militants want to die. For them a martyr's death is the ultimate high.
There is also a tactical reason for this, they know that for every martyr, especially if done in a gruesome, public way as suggested by some on this thread, a dozen new militants will volunteer.
In reply to wbo & Bruce Hooker
I know what you mean but do you HONESTLY think that reasoning and negotiation will work?
I know what you mean but do you HONESTLY think that reasoning and negotiation will work?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Whatever action is taken there will be risks.
We could always do nothing and let them get on with it.
Whatever action is taken there will be risks.
We could always do nothing and let them get on with it.
In reply to mypyrex:
I didn't say reason and negotiation, but if you don't fix the political environment there then you'll just get a new Isis in a couple months time.
Just running round shooting everyone will make it worse without this
I didn't say reason and negotiation, but if you don't fix the political environment there then you'll just get a new Isis in a couple months time.
Just running round shooting everyone will make it worse without this
In reply to wbo:
I think you, (and Bruce), are buying into the PR. The bulk of IS will be made up of people who didn't fancy being beheaded or crucified so decided to join the biggest gang in the area to avoid that fate. They also provide food and salaries, and have therefore attracted disillusioned ex Iraqi army types, hence their success. None of the above are the least bit interested in martyrdom, neither, I suspect, are the leaders of IS. Even Jihadi John keeps his face hidden in his snuff movies, which suggests going to Allah's magic garden takes second place to sneaking back to the UK and boring everyone in the mosque with "When I was in IS, innit" stories.
I think they arrived at that conclusion some time ago. There are various reasons why resorting to their levels of cruelty aren't a good idea, but this isn't one of them. We're not going to be thought any worse of by them.
Their 'troops' are already here, and have been for many years. Restraint is viewed as weakness by these people, backing down in the face of their threats will only embolden them. However getting drawn into yet another pointless conflict is exactly what they want us to do. It's up to the neighbouring countries to sort this out, but we have a vested interest in helping them to do that.
We also need to ensure the European members of IS don't return home to a heroes welcome and get to utilise their new murder and torture skills over here. If that means the RAF turning them into red mist or the Kurds very quietly filling up a few unmarked mass graves then that's absolutely fine with me.
Agree completely, and we've poured too much petrol on the Middle East in recent years.
> that won't work at all
> 1. They're martyrs
I think you, (and Bruce), are buying into the PR. The bulk of IS will be made up of people who didn't fancy being beheaded or crucified so decided to join the biggest gang in the area to avoid that fate. They also provide food and salaries, and have therefore attracted disillusioned ex Iraqi army types, hence their success. None of the above are the least bit interested in martyrdom, neither, I suspect, are the leaders of IS. Even Jihadi John keeps his face hidden in his snuff movies, which suggests going to Allah's magic garden takes second place to sneaking back to the UK and boring everyone in the mosque with "When I was in IS, innit" stories.
> 2. By sinking to their level you've proved them right, the west are barbarians
I think they arrived at that conclusion some time ago. There are various reasons why resorting to their levels of cruelty aren't a good idea, but this isn't one of them. We're not going to be thought any worse of by them.
> 3. You've ratcheted up the violence level one notch at least, and if we send troops there then they're justified in sending 'troops' here.
Their 'troops' are already here, and have been for many years. Restraint is viewed as weakness by these people, backing down in the face of their threats will only embolden them. However getting drawn into yet another pointless conflict is exactly what they want us to do. It's up to the neighbouring countries to sort this out, but we have a vested interest in helping them to do that.
We also need to ensure the European members of IS don't return home to a heroes welcome and get to utilise their new murder and torture skills over here. If that means the RAF turning them into red mist or the Kurds very quietly filling up a few unmarked mass graves then that's absolutely fine with me.
> They need knocking out, but without a political fix you're just putting petrol on the fire
Agree completely, and we've poured too much petrol on the Middle East in recent years.
Post edited at 19:35
In reply to mypyrex:
A hundred odd years ago the Saud family were running round behaving in a fashion akin to IS. Seemed to work out ok for them by negotiation with Britain and the US. Why not this lot?
> In reply to wbo & Bruce Hooker
> I know what you mean but do you HONESTLY think that reasoning and negotiation will work?
A hundred odd years ago the Saud family were running round behaving in a fashion akin to IS. Seemed to work out ok for them by negotiation with Britain and the US. Why not this lot?
In reply to mypyrex:
No, but I don't think simply trying to kill them all will either. I haven't a quick fix but cutting their supply lines, they must be pretty extended by now, and forcing those who support them, by negotiation, possibly of a fairly stiff sort, combined with a military approach by aiding well selected locals, like the Kurds, Iran and Assad would help. If the civil war hadn't broken out in Syria would ISIS and hence IS have come to exist? If European TV and media hadn't belted out for months what a bad guy Assad was would all those daft youths have gone out there to die in a "jihad"? now turned IS.
In N Africa there is a similar situation, since Khaddafi has gone all sorts of islamist groups have been reinforced and now the French army have sent 3000 troops to contain them. It's too late to change tactics with Khaddafi, he's been murdered, but a compromise with the Assad regime could be found. Just suppositions though.
> In reply to wbo & Bruce Hooker
> I know what you mean but do you HONESTLY think that reasoning and negotiation will work?
No, but I don't think simply trying to kill them all will either. I haven't a quick fix but cutting their supply lines, they must be pretty extended by now, and forcing those who support them, by negotiation, possibly of a fairly stiff sort, combined with a military approach by aiding well selected locals, like the Kurds, Iran and Assad would help. If the civil war hadn't broken out in Syria would ISIS and hence IS have come to exist? If European TV and media hadn't belted out for months what a bad guy Assad was would all those daft youths have gone out there to die in a "jihad"? now turned IS.
In N Africa there is a similar situation, since Khaddafi has gone all sorts of islamist groups have been reinforced and now the French army have sent 3000 troops to contain them. It's too late to change tactics with Khaddafi, he's been murdered, but a compromise with the Assad regime could be found. Just suppositions though.
In reply to Ridge:
No, just got it from a nice looking Arab lady on the telly the other night, she insisted on this point and all the others agreed. Of the 30 000 that make up IS they won't all be like this but indoctrination can be very strong. I've even spoken to perfectly reasonable looking French Muslims/Arabs who insisted that an single world caliphate was the solution to all the world's problems, just like that, no messing.
> I think you, (and Bruce), are buying into the PR.
No, just got it from a nice looking Arab lady on the telly the other night, she insisted on this point and all the others agreed. Of the 30 000 that make up IS they won't all be like this but indoctrination can be very strong. I've even spoken to perfectly reasonable looking French Muslims/Arabs who insisted that an single world caliphate was the solution to all the world's problems, just like that, no messing.
In reply to mypyrex:
My sentiments entirely.
> Another thing that p*sses me off is the way some sections of the media refer to these events as "executions" and the perpetrators as "executioners". "Execution" implies judicial killing. These are murders and the perpetrators are murderers - nothing more and nothing less.
My sentiments entirely.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...