Paris

[Sammy Chung was King]

You don't negotiate with terrorists, when you negotiate you are showing fear!.
 The biggest mistake was when our government got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't our business, our country needs to concentrate on it's own country and people, and stop trying to interfere in things that don't concern us.
As it is the damage has already been done, now it's damage limitation, whether it's eight terrorists or one in hundreds of thousands it's too many. The borders need to be totally closed and except nobody through them as migrants.

There needs to be a bigger crackdown on people here illegally, any prisoners deported, any with a criminal record deported, any that have been allowed into this country in the time since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, should also be looked into to see if they are a danger.
This is not racism, this is practical thinking and looking after the people who were born here. The right to be here should be done on an Australian style points system, if you don't have the skills needed you don't get in.
I am not convinced half of the medical qualifications supposedly attained abroad, are anything more than Lucky bag qualifications. Many will be highly skilled people but i believe there are many practising as doctors, nurses etc, who shouldn't be.
The case other week of a doctor being struck off because he couldn't communicate in english, what use is he in that case. And how many mistakes are being made because of the language barrier?.

Our governments have brought our country into this situation, they stuck their heads into the 'Middle east hornets nest', and wonder why they have been stung.
We are having to recruit from abroad because doctors born here, are being worked into the ground. GPs are having massive pressure put on them to hit targets the government expects, doctors are retiring early because the job isn't what it was.
Surgery after surgery is jam packed full with the extra people who have come in. People can't get an appointment, and when they eventually see the doctor, it may be somebody who struggles with how the patient speaks and vice versa.

The government needs to stop pumping foreign aid all over the shop, and put the money into strengthening our country. Treat it's own medical staff well enough so they will keep practising.
Only take in people who can further our country with their skills, no migrants to be let in at all, and most of all our people need to be vigilant, not fearful, do your thing.
Our Great land has faced many challenges through the centuries, and one thing nobody says about us, is that we are cowards.
Our people are a warrior race that never gives in. The government doesn't really have a decision to make, your country, your people come first.

My respect goes to the French people killed, and all those injured, these sort of things shouldn't happen. Both governments need to work together to put together a plan that safeguards both countries citizens from now on as far as they can.
Terrorism i would think is one of the hardest types of wars to prevent, they don't stand in front of you gun against gun, they attack unarmed people, and pick off people who don't expect it.
This type of 'Guerilla' warfare has been practised in the middle east going right back to the crusades, they would pick off the stragglers in any group of soldiers, chipping away at the numbers they had.
I wish the world was different, but it hasn't really changed since the beginning of time in some ways, but what has changed are the weapons that end up in the hands of humans can do even more damage at a quicker rate.
Religion for me should never start any war, every religion promotes peace and trying to become a better person, the only difference in the gods are the names, they are basically one and the same.

Yet again it is innocent people going about everyday life who are hurt or killed, just as they were in the middle east, and now in France, and every other war you can mention. I said many years ago, it was a war that couldn't be won, as somebody said ''It's a Guerilla war'', like Vietnam. All you get are casualties mounting up on both sides and no conclusion, only more death.
My thoughts go out to all who were killed, families who have lost family members, and injured people and their families, this could happen anywhere in the world. ''Hatred is the worst human emotion, once you hate then all is lost''.

The government need to Start making decisions that strengthen our country not weaken it. When you see Ex servicemen and women, or anybody on the street, and they are giving away millions, that tells you a country isn't right.
This country needs to go back to what it was before and can be again, Great Britain!.

[donnyproletarian]

In 1967 the Israelis fought off an attack by the combined forces of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. They had the sympathy of pretty well the entire world at the time. Within a few short years they had lost that sympathy, except in the USA, as a result of their treatment of the Arabs over whom they now had control. In the 48 years since 1967 the Israelis have fought wars, have kidnapped leaders, have shot indiscriminately into crowds, have refused to negotiate, have built walls, have murdered western journalists, have smashed tunnels, have launched naval raids, have assassinated tneir own politicians whenever they looked like they wanted to reach an accomodation with the Arabs, have suffered several intifadas - and have become international pariahs.

Yet the Israelis still talk about taking 'stronger measures'. They still dream up ever more bizarre and self defeating ideas with which to 'beat' the Arabs.

Yesterday I heard David Cameron, speaking on the box about the murder of Jihadi John. Within the space of 30 seconds he said:

"We have struck at the heart of IS", and, "He was their top executioner"

Given the fatuous stupidity of a man who could say those two things almost in the same breath with a straight face, is he really expecting us to believe both at the same time? So what are the odds do you think that we, and the rest of the western world, are about to follow the pattern adopted by the Israelis?

I remind you of two other pertinent points: how long did the Irish 'problem' go on for? How was peace eventually achieved? And, how has South Africa tried to overcome the bitterness, the violence and the viciousness created by apartheid?

These sodding politicians (and I am not aiming this at the Tory party. UK politicians of all parties generally seem to be as myopic as each other) must believe we are all plain stupid. Why else would they spout unthinking crap like this? The result of all this platitudinous rubbish is clearly stated by Neil Grainger:

"It is all part of the same problem. We have enemies amongst us. How long will we continue to tolerate this?"

That may, or may not, be true. But it is an example of the one thing that we should all fear above everything else - the creation of a climate of xenophobia. That is simply another step down the Israeli road. How is falling out with a large minority of our population going to do anything except cause more bitterness, more violence, more intolerance? How is it going to solve even one of our problems? What are you going to do with the millions of these 'foreigners'? Put 'em in camps? Export them to somewhere - but where? Shoot them? And just who is actually a 'foreigner' anyway? What do you do with children born in this country? What do you do with Australians? Columbians? Jordanians? Omanians? (And I picked Jordan and Oman specifically as they are seriously pro west allies of the UK. Oh. And they happen to be Arabs too.  They encapsulate the issue beautifully)

Where are our leaders? Men of vision? I can't, off hand, think of a single lasting peace that has been created without there being long, detailed and meaningful conversation with the other side. And don't say the Allies and Germany in 1945. 1945 was a cessation of war. It was not the creation of peace. Peace came through the establishment of the Marshall Plan and everything about communication and forgiveness that that implied. Peace came to Ireland because Tony Blair had the guts to sit down with the IRA to thrash things out. He had the brains too to look forwards, not backwards. To let go of the past. The previous 40 odd years, when no one else had any guts, or realism, saw a never ending cycle of bombings, shootings, massacres by the army, murders by all sides, checkpoints, spying, barbed wire and restrictions on movement. But not peace...  Peace needs communication. It does not, ever, happen without it. Violent solutions don't last. The eastern bloc tried that in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1967. There were some very sticky endings for some of the leaders of that lot in the end. Think of Clemenceau in 1919 too and his famous line about squeezing the Germans like an orange until the pips squeaked. The result? The creation of the framework for a cataclysm 21 years later. Without decent, meaningful communication, without understanding and a spirit of tolerance, peace has never lasted. Even if we nuke the middle east our problems won't be solved.

Where is the latter day equivalent of the Marshall Plan for the middle east? When is somebody going to sit down and talk to these people? Don't forget who it was that created them too. We already know we can't beat them militarily. We already know we can't prevent them causing mayhem on our streets, murdering hundreds and hundreds of people. Remember Madrid? that was what?? 7 years ago? So have we been pissing about since then? Bombay? London? New York? Nairobi? Charlie Ebdo? Remember France has been on high alert ever since Charlie.... yet last night still happened.

Claiming to be fighting a war to win in these circumstances is just pathetic. It's unwinnable. It's what the Yanks claimed they were doing in Vietnam. This is that sort of war. A guerilla war. The Russians lost, heavily, in their Afghanistan guerilla war a few years back too. We didn't win there either depsite 10 years or more, billions and billions of quid, massive American support and all the hyperbolic claims from our politicians you could ever wish for. We should be ashamed of our politicians. They are supposed to lead. They should be talking honestly about causes, consequences and solutions. They have spent 10 years and more now talking hyperbole and garbage instead. The whole world needs leadership so badly now that it's scary. And we should be ashamed of ourselves for listening to this rubbish and letting them speak it.

'Enemies amongst us'. Christ Almighty. It's Salem in the 1690's all over again. I'm going to call it 'Right think'.
BRILLIANT POST BOB G.

This looks like the start of 'Festung Europa' to me.

BobG

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn Wigley, I completely disagree with you and I fail to understand your point. Are you suggesting that every "C of E" murderer ( if that's what you meant) claims that they acted in the name of God?
I must be missing something.

Whereabouts does it say that the rape case YOU specifically mentioned was done 'in the name of God'? You were certainly missing something there.

[Glyn_Wigley]

There is an elephant in the room and it needs to be seen and named and shamed.


I live in Keighley and in my local paper this week we have reports of 15 Asian men in court accused of rape of a 14-year-old white girl.

These are Muslim men, aged between 17 and 62 years old.
It is a disgrace. Where is the condemnation of this from the Imams in our local Mosques?
Their silence is deafening.

It is all part of the same problem. We have enemies amongst us.
How long will we continue to tolerate this?

Oh, not this b*llocks again!!

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury apologise for every crime by a CofEer?

Does The Pope apologise for every crime by a Catholic?

No? The b*****ds, their religion obviously approves.

See? It's a crap argument, isn't it?

It's your argument that's crap Glyn!

When did you last hear of a group of "C of E'rs" walking into a theatre and gunning down 90 people in the name of God?
And justifying their murders in God's name?

Shame on you.

Show me where the accused rapists said they committed the crime you're talking about was done 'in the name of God' and you might actually have a point.

[BobG]

Alright chaps. Here's more food for thought:

Off the top of my head, in the 14 years since September 11th, we've witnessed at least the following:

Twin Towers
Nairobi
London
Mumbai
Russian airliner
Charle Ebdo
Madrid
Tunisian beach
Paris

That's 9 separate attacks. Not that many in 14 years you might think. But still something over 4,000 people killed. And that DESPITE the world being constantly and continuously on high alert. So, what can we conclude from this?

No matter how many plots they have prevented and how many bad guys they've nicked, the forces at the disposal of the entire West have not succeeded in keeping us safe. They have allowed a major attack to take place every 18 months or so. By definition therefore, we are not 'winning' the war. We have continued to not win it for 14 years now. Worse, in that 14 years we have succeeded in hugely multiplying the number of our enemies and we have enabled them to up skill and up arm to frightening degrees.

And today, in our wonderful free press we see:

The Sunday Express running a text poll asking 'Is immigration a terrorist risk?' and the Sunday Mail stating, in about 48 point Bodoni bold, that the terrorists involved in the attack on Friday were 'immigrants'. They base this world exclusive on the fact that a Syrian passport was found at the Stade de France. The Americans, bless their cotton socks, think the passport is forged. The Mail, bless their cotton socks, in their rush to fan the flames, forgot that one of the most noticeable things in this tide of immigration is the tens of thousands of passports stolen from those seeking to flee the mess the West has created. Can you not see the agenda of those that set the press agenda? Xenophobia is growing. And although you may not believe me now, we are noticeably closer to a point  where you will wish, with all your heart and all your soul, that you had done something to oppose that growth.

So, what is the one common factor after every such attack? What is the common factor shared by every single politician, every single news organisation and 99% of individuals too? It's emotion. The worlds press and media and social networks congeal with pious and sanctimonious rubbish that does nothing at all to advance a means of dealing with the problem. After every attack we have a mass outbreak of emotion. Let's all blame the Wogs - and that IS the tone of what we continue to get in our newspapers. It's almost as if emotion has replaced policy. It has certainly replaced thinking. Time after time we get the same old discredited tripe:

they won't change how we live (oh really?);
we will pursue them to victory (like we've done for 14 years already then?);
we must strengthen our intelligence resources (like we've been doing for 14 years you mean?);
we won't put boots on the ground or endanger our armed forces (Oh. Sorry. You did just say this is a war didn't you?)

It's complete and utter drivel.  Our policy has been complete and utter drivel for the last 14 years at least. If it's a war, then you have 3 choices:

1) go out to win it
2) talk to the people on the other side to find a way to co-exist
3) continue the half hearted 'appease everybody and satisfy nobody' policy we've trusted to for so long already

So which policy do you want?

If you want to win the war, then fight a bloody war! Westerners, including us English, possibly a lot of such people, will be killed though, and the outcome, even if we achieve 'victory' will risk medium and long term scary badness.

If you want peace, go ahead. Talk to the terrorists. We've done it before: we worked alright with the first 3 or 4 Israeli Prime Ministers even though every one of them had previously been vilified and imprisoned as 'terrorists' by this country. We even talked to the IRA. And guess what? We got proper peace in both cases by doing so.

If you want stalemate, go ahead just as we are. People on both sides will continue to be killed. Civilised behaviour will continue to be destroyed. Just what is the justification for state sponsored and sanctioned murder by the way? Can you remind me when it was discussed in Parliament? In Congress? No. You can't can you? Because it wasn't. We are not much better than ISIS after all are we......?

For God and Allah's sakes, stop wallowing in emotional emptiness. Think! Think what outcome you want and then think how we might be able to achieve it. It's our collective failure to think clearly that has led us to where we are now.

One last suggestion: remember all those girls who were kidnapped in Nigeria by Bhoko Haram a couple of years ago? Remember all the promises that were made to 'bring the girls home'? Remember the vast surge of emotion right around the world in their support? Well, guess what? Not one single girl has been released by the efforts of those, including the west, who sought to free them. Those girls who have returned to civilisation have done so through their own efforts. They escaped. So much for the usefulness of emotion then. And so much for yet another great victory for the massively trumpeted support and policies of the west too..... Do you think, one day, someone will notice that emotion as the basis of policy ain't actually working very well?

I never cease to be amazed how little most people see of what is in plain sight in front of their eyes.

BobG

[tommy toes]

I agree with you in principle Bob. But I don't think for a minute that these maniacs would enter into talks.
I'm dead against troops going in again as that will just produce another long line of martyrs to be followed by more ad nauseum.
There's no answer to this.

[The Red Baron]

I agree with you in principle Bob. But I don't think for a minute that these maniacs would enter into talks.
I'm dead against troops going in again as that will just produce another long line of martyrs to be followed by more ad nauseum.
There's no answer to this.

Even if they were willing to talk to what they consider to be decadent westerners, there is currently no reason for them to do so. From their point of view they are winning. The air strikes are little more than an inconvenience and are merely slowing their progress, not stopping it.

Reluctantly I think military action is needed. But it needs to have the Russians on board and also involvement from Arab states. We (as in the US and EU) also need to accept for now that we will have to put up with Assad remaining in power while we deal with the more dangerous adversary.

I am afraid that if we don't take action soon IS will end up in control of large swathes of the Middle East and will eventually have the capability to strike regularly at Europe. And not just via terrorist attacks either. In that respect they are a more dangerous adversary than Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Saddam ever were.

[mushRTID]

From Sky news;

french fighter jets have dropped 20 bombs on the Islamic State (IS) stronghold of Raqqa in northern Syria.

The planes hit a jihadi recruitment centre, training camp and arms depot run by the extremist group, according to the French defence ministry.

A spokesman described it as a "massive" attack and France's biggest to date in Syria.

The bombing raid was launched from air bases in United Arab Emirates and Jordan, and involved 10 of France's 12 fighter jets based there.

It follows Friday's terror attacks which left 132 people dead in the French capital.

[BobG]

I agree Tommy, John. Why would IS negotiate with us? But equally, why wouldn't we try? Because one thing is for sure: doing more of what we've done this last 14 years isn't going to solve diddly squat. We have to do something differently. Anything. Just not more of the same - for all our sakes. There are only two choices: launch a proper war, or, try to do a deal. Take your pick.

Now, Sammy. Next time you put your fingers on your keypad, take a real deep breath before you actually touch any of them there keys. It gets you into trouble. Your first line above:

"You don't negotiate with terrorists, when you negotiate you are showing fear!."

fair enough. That's a position you can choose to hold if you wish. But if you make that choice, I really hope you know what you've signed up for... You have just confirmed, very clearly, that you do not approve of that nasty and unnecessary peace that the Northern Irish have suffered from since 1998. Clearly, you would prefer it if we, the British, had spent not only the 30 odd years between the outbreak of the troubles and 1998, but also the 17 years since, vainly chasing round Ireland trying to 'win' against the IRA the INLA and all the rest. Clearly, you would rather another 4 or 5 thousand people had died this last 17 years - rather than dare to sit down with a terrorist - just in case they might think we are 'weak'.

You have just confirmed, too, that you regret the state of Israel was ever born, and, that you would prefer it if we, the British, were still running around Palestine trying to catch those horrible terrorists of Irgun and the Stern Gang rather than stupidly sitting down with the terrorists who turned out to be the first 3 or 4 Prime Ministers (I forget now) of the nation state we had fought to strangle at birth.  At least the Arabs might agree with you I suppose.

And you have confirmed too that you would prefer the last 2-3 years discussions  between the Shining Path and the government of Peru to have never taken place either. That's ok Sammy. They're only Peruvians and Indians. I guess they don't count as real people, do they, when they get blown up or shot? What about the Spanish government Sammy? Are they 'weak' too? Because, after 30 years of failure, they have been talking to ETA you know. And guess what? ETA and the Spanish have negotiated a proper peace and both sides have agreed to lay down their arms. Bloody shameful that don't you think?

Come on Sammy. That one sentence is, I think,  the most ill informed, the most ridiculous and the most foolish parroting of press shite I have ever seen on this board. Stop meddling in things you clearly know nothing about. That one sentence has utterly destroyed the credibility of absolutely everything else you say on the subject.

BobG

[Sammy Chung was King]

I agree Tommy, John. Why would IS negotiate with us? But equally, why wouldn't we try? Because one thing is for sure: doing more of what we've done this last 14 years isn't going to solve diddly squat. We have to do something differently. Anything. Just not more of the same - for all our sakes. There are only two choices: launch a proper war, or, try to do a deal. Take your pick.

Now, Sammy. Next time you put your fingers on your keypad, take a real deep breath before you actually touch any of them there keys. It gets you into trouble. Your first line above:

"You don't negotiate with terrorists, when you negotiate you are showing fear!."

fair enough. That's a position you can choose to hold if you wish. But if you make that choice, I really hope you know what you've signed up for... You have just confirmed, very clearly, that you do not approve of that nasty and unnecessary peace that the Northern Irish have suffered since 1998. Clearly, you would prefer it if we, the British, had spent not only the 30 odd years between the outbreak of the troubles and 1998, but also the 17 years since, vainly chasing round Ireland trying to 'win' against the IRA the INLA and all the rest. Clearly, you would rather another 4 or 5 thousand people had died this last 17 years - rather than dare to sit down with a terrorist - just in case they might think we are 'weak'.

You have just confirmed, too, that you regret the state of Israel was ever born, and, that you would prefer it if we, the British, were still running around Palestine trying to catch those horrible terrorists of Irgun and the Stern Gang rather than stupidly sitting down with terrorists who turned out to be the first 3 or 4 Prime Ministers (I forget now) of the nation state we fought to prevent - and lost.  At least the Arabs might agree with you I suppose.

And you have confirmed too that you would prefer the last 2-3 years discussions  between the Shining Path and the government of Peru to have never taken place either. That's ok Sammy. They're only Peruvians and Indians. I guess they don't count as real people, do they, when they get blown up or shot?

Come on Sammy. That one sentence is, I think,  the most ill informed, the most ridiculous and the most foolish parroting of press shite I have ever seen on this board. Stop meddling in things you clearly know nothing about. That one sentence has utterly destroyed the credibility of absolutely everything else you say on the subject.

BobG

Bob are you a middle east expert?, Do you get none of your opinions from newspapers, the internet etc?.
 We were always taught in History, to read over all the evidence and to weigh up both side's of the story, and usually the blame or any one side's evidence is not completely the truth, it's parts of both stories.
In Northern Ireland yet again our country interfered, and again brought trouble to the doors of the whole nation. The way the Irish people were treated led to a lot of the hatred, innocent people many of them just like our people who were killed or injured.
I cannot really have a good understanding as i wasn't there, and didn't go through what our people went through with the threat of bombs, or what the irish people went through with our occupation.

I always think somebody who thinks they know everything, actually know very little, that's why i never pretend to, i am always learning.
What i have written are my opinions, and i don't believe our government are blameless. I am sorry i would'nt negotiate with terrorists, our authorities have put this country into these positions interfering, and in my opinion not to help other countries, but for greed purposes.
The 'Shining path' discussions i have never heard of, and your view on what i think of foreign people is offensive.
'' People mean the same whichever country they come from and whatever colour they are''!.
I mention innocent people being killed or injured in my post of european origin and middle east being wrong, it isn't a one sided, right and wrong argument.
''I would have preferred our country not to go occupying other countries in the first place''!.
 The Iraq war was fought on lies, as was the Afghanistan occupation, and this unrest has been caused by ourselves and others linking up with the US for other purposes than helping the countries.
'' There were financial gains to be made in my opinion, and they all took a cut''!.
And the one's who had to deal with the situation were our soldiers, who did do good while out there despite our governments intentions.

I must resist having an opinion when you are about, your whole post is the lengthiest post of condesending drivel that i have ever read.
Are you the 'Shah of Iran', or am i talking to a yorkshireman who doesn't think himself better than anybody else?
Because the way you have talked down to me is beneath contempt.
This is why people are not posting on here as much, the constant nit picking, miserable comments, it's an 'Old boys society', and any newcomer is treated with suspicion.
The other group may not be perfect, but there seems a friendliness that is sadly missing on here.
''I don't mind debating my posts, but when you assume i don't value an Indian life as much as an English one just from one post, then you are having an opinion without all the facts just like i am''!.

What these comments do, they put off people having an opinion, you work away and work away with snide comments, until the forum becomes empty happy clapping rubbish.
It doesn't bother me what you think of me, i am just slightly disappointed in you.

[bobjimwilly]

If you publish your opinions on the internet, you must expect a reply, especially on such a hot topic. Writing "this is my opinion" doesn't exclude you from having your opinions ripped apart if someone thinks they are rubbish. If you disagree with Bob or anyone else obviously you can say so, but that doesn't mean you're exempt from a reply. If you don't want to run the risk of having someone disagree with you, don't say it.

This line here for example "I always think somebody who thinks they know everything, actually know very little" is a load of rubbish.

[The Red Baron]

Bob

I agree that the present approach isn't working with IS. Air strikes are slowing the down, but their opposition on the ground isn't strong enough to resist them.

In order for the option of opening talks with them, at least one side needs to be prepared to offer something. What could we offer them? The whole of Syria, perhaps? Large parts of Iraq? That would betray the people who live in those areas and regard IS as oppressors, and with good reason. And those concessions would not be enough to make them go away. In fact they would proclaim them as victory and move on to their next target.

No, we need to build a broad coalition against them and then take them on and defeat them militarily. Unlike, say, the IRA and the Taliban, I think they have little support amongst the local population, who would probably view the coalition as liberators - especially if we have genuinely learned from some of mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm under no illusions that any action we might take will end Islamist terrorism, but unless we tackle the military and strategic threat IS poses that threat will get much, much worse.

[BobG]

You're right John. Of course you are.  The answer probably will involve a real war. But wouldn't you try to talk about peace first? what odds would you give on a real war ending up with a positive outcome? I'm struggling to think of even one war of the kind that that would be that ended well from the western point of view..... I can think of a lot that didn't end well though.

Sammy: you know Brian Cox? He's a Professor. Appears on tv quite a lot. Let me quote him to you:

"The problem with today's world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored or even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense"

There are a few people on this forum who know what I have done for a living Sammy, and, where I have been employed. It is a helpful background shall we say. But what I really have is an ability to link publicly known actions and events - events that are widely separated in time and space - to make a coherent, logical and accurate argument to inform current debate. It was on display on here during the contretemps about the alleged Belizean proposal. Not everyone has that skill. You don't.  So don't be in such a rush to give what is nothing more than an ill informed opinion. Throughout this thread I have given you a huge number of facts. I have drawn some conclusions from those facts. You may choose to disagree with them as they are just my own personal conclusions. But they are based on a solid grounding of fact. What are your conclusions based on Sammy? I follow Professor Cox.

Oh. Yes. For you, above anyone, anyone at all, to comment on the length of a post is about the funniest thing I've read this year. Yes. These are long posts. That's because it is a complex and difficult subject. But you don't have to read them Sammy if their length is tiring your eyes or your brain can't cope. If you care to check my posts on other subjects you will see that length depends upon subject and complexity. Your verbosity on the other hand....

And finally, today's update:

If I've heard David Cameron once, I must have heard him 30 times today saying, clearly, loudly and repeatedly, that "we must act together to... (fight this menace)". "We must come together to... (beat this menace"). "We must act together...." Repeat ad nauseam.

Is that the best he can offer?!

There are only 3 possible interpretations of all these statements today. Either:

1) Our governments over the last 14 years have been monumentally crass in not "acting together" despite bellowing after every single atrocity that we would work closer and closer with our partners around the world.

2) He has news that he either cannot or does not wish to tell us - in which case he has fallen back on a familiar and well used platitude hoping that nobody will notice.

3) He is suffering from the Whitehall lust for secrecy for secrecy's state.

In all three cases, what he has said betrays his absolute contempt for the intelligence and wisdom of his electorate. For goodness sake, a blind man can see the crassness of this repeated banging on about 'working together'! It has been said, painfully often, after every single  previous major terrorist attack.

Oh. And did you spot that in Beirut last week another suicide bomber blew himself up on behalf of IS? Thirty seven more dead to add to the list of the failures of our policies.

Bob

[Dutch Uncle]

No, we need to build a broad coalition against them and then take them on and defeat them militarily. Unlike, say, the IRA and the Taliban, I think they have little support amongst the local population, who would probably view the coalition as liberators - especially if we have genuinely learned from some of mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm under no illusions that any action we might take will end Islamist terrorism, but unless we tackle the military and strategic threat IS poses that threat will get much, much worse.

Some good points there (IMHO) TRB.

The Northern Irish troubles arose largely because of real discrimination against Catholics in the 1950's and 1960's and IMHO was able to erupt and be sustained as long as it did because the republican terrorists had broad support amongst their less radical populace (also similarly for loyalist terrorists). IMHO, one of the reasons that the peace process has been so successful is the recognition by all sides that this broad support allowing terrorists to hide had eroded significantly (IMHO the revulsion against the Omagh bomb attack contributed to that). Also one initial source of resentment (and oxygen for recruitment) - the discrimination - has been removed. Of course political aspirations for a united Ireland still exist but the protagonists now seem committed to peaceful and political means.

Unfortunately I see no such opportunity with IS, and you are right - what could anyone offer them?

IMHO, I feel the west failed miserably in Iraq to build/support a post-conflict structure (Marshall Plan equivalent if you like) and despite greater awareness of such a requirement, has fared only slightly better in the even tougher theatre of Afghanistan. This would not fill anyone in e.g. Syria with optimism as to what might happen after a conflict or ceasefire.

Normally one would say there are two main ways of ending a conflict - total victory by one side and submission by the other (IMHO not achievable in this case with such a splintered and diverse enemy, not to mention splintered and diverse western powers) or real negotiation where somehow both sides can see some compromise and some benefit.

In the absence (near term at least) of hope in these two possibilities we are likely to be thrown into some sort of piecemeal approach, hoping for damage limitation. I just hope we try and open some channels of communication, even if only in secret. Apart from brave and strong leadership, IMHO, I feel there are crucial parts to be played by

1)  populaces of western nations by refraining from random and wrongly directed revenge attacks (which would make everything much worse and be a recruiting gift for IS), and by embracing true peace loving muslims
2)  the non-fanatic muslim world (the vast majority of muslims) by denouncing the terrorist attacks

I worry about my grandchildren's world
 

[wilts rover]

Lots of interesting subjects and opinons to pick up on here, and I would be writting a huge essay if I even attempted to give a full reply to half of them, so just a couple of my thoughts on some of the topic areas.

'We don't negotiate with terrorists'
Of course we do, all the time. Not all terrorists on all occassions, but there are plenty of examples. If we had refused to deal with the Minutemen for example, we would still be fighting the American Revolutionary Army.

Our country did not interfere in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland IS part of our country. Thousands of men from both sides of what is now the border, fought and died for Britian in both World Wars. Until 1921 the whole of Ireland was 'part of our country'. Whether each of these areas should or should not be 'part of our country' is what that dispute is about.

The interesting question as regards Northern Ireland is not why the Government entered peace talks with the terrorists, but why the terrorists entered peace talks with the Government? What made the IRA stop fighting, they didn't get what they wanted? There is a long and complicated answer on which several books have been written, but the short answer is everybody got tired of it.

That's why it is pointless talking to IS. Firstly what do you talk to them about? Seceeding part of the Syrian desert to them? In whose power is that, certainly not the UK or even US governments. Secondly they are winning. Not territorially but across the world. Their aim is to stir up a revolution and create as much chaos in as many countries as possible and bring in as many recruits to their twisted way of thinking as possible. Unless there is a concerted effort across the globe, particuarly the middle east and Africa, then why would they come to the table? Terrorists only enter discussion when they have what they want/or realise they can't get it, and IS are certainly in neither of those positions.

Unilateral western action is pointless, all it ever ends up with is an army of occupation, a vacuum of power and a target for local terrorist action. We need to put some serious political pressure of Saudi & Jordan and get them involved, and bite the bullet with Iran & Syria and get them involved.

[i_ateallthepies]

"This is why people are not posting on here as much, the constant nit picking, miserable comments, it's an 'Old boys society', and any newcomer is treated with suspicion."


Sammy, that is the most hackneyed, weak kneed veil behind which to hide, almost the exclusive preserve of those who come onto this forum with an agenda to peddle or those unable to handle reaction to a half baked opinion.


You are a valued contributor to this forum, it would be a duller place without you but you really did ask for it with that 'lengthy' contribution.

[The Red Baron]

Bob

It strikes me that Cameron's rhetoric is aimed at MPs, some on his side but mainly Labour and Lib Dems, whom he wants to support him over military action in Syria. He is brutally aware when he talks to Hollande about stand behind France that he can't commit to strikes against IS. That explains his rather tortured rhetoric.

[wilts rover]

TRB

It may actually be a bit more immediate than that. I had forgotten that France rejoined NATO a few years back. Which means that if Hollande decides to implement Article 5, Britian will be compelled to attack Syria whether MP's like it or not - or risk being expelled from NATO for breaking the Treaty.

Now that would certainly explain some tortured rhetoric.

[Dutch Uncle]

TRB

It may actually be a bit more immediate than that. I had forgotten that France rejoined NATO a few years back. Which means that if Hollande decides to implement Article 5, Britian will be compelled to attack Syria whether MP's like it or not - or risk being expelled from NATO for breaking the Treaty.

Now that would certainly explain some tortured rhetoric.

Just a detail Wilts - France never left NATO - it dropped out of the integrated military structure of NATO (i.e. SHAPE) in 1966 - but it remained a full political member of NATO.  The Lemnitzer–Ailleret Agreements laid out how French forces would return to NATO command in case of crisis. France rejoined the full military structure in 2009, but was fully involved in many initiatives, not least most operations and exercises, in the intervening years. I believe France could have invoked Article V at any stage.

Also UK expulsion from NATO is IMHO highly unlikely. First the UK would have a veto on any operation, but if used that would of course send terrible signals. On the other hand if the UK voted for a NATO operation and subsequently declined to send any forces to join it, whilst being highly embarrassing, I can't see that resulting in expulsion. However the UK's standing and influence in NATO would be very heavily damaged.

[Sprotyrover]

So does anyone think we will see some terrorist activity in London Tomorrow night?

[Sammy Chung was King]

You're right John. Of course you are.  The answer probably will involve a real war. But wouldn't you try to talk about peace first? what odds would you give on a real war ending up with a positive outcome? I'm struggling to think of even one war of the kind that that would be that ended well from the western point of view..... I can think of a lot that didn't end well though.

Sammy: you know Brian Cox? He's a Professor. Appears on tv quite a lot. Let me quote him to you:

"The problem with today's world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored or even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense"

There are a few people on this forum who know what I have done for a living Sammy, and, where I have been employed. It is a helpful background shall we say. But what I really have is an ability to link publicly known actions and events - events that are widely separated in time and space - to make a coherent, logical and accurate argument to inform current debate. It was on display on here during the contretemps about the alleged Belizean proposal. Not everyone has that skill. You don't.  So don't be in such a rush to give what is nothing more than an ill informed opinion. Throughout this thread I have given you a huge number of facts. I have drawn some conclusions from those facts. You may choose to disagree with them as they are just my own personal conclusions. But they are based on a solid grounding of fact. What are your conclusions based on Sammy? I follow Professor Cox.

Oh. Yes. For you, above anyone, anyone at all, to comment on the length of a post is about the funniest thing I've read this year. Yes. These are long posts. That's because it is a complex and difficult subject. But you don't have to read them Sammy if their length is tiring your eyes or your brain can't cope. If you care to check my posts on other subjects you will see that length depends upon subject and complexity. Your verbosity on the other hand....

And finally, today's update:

If I've heard David Cameron once, I must have heard him 30 times today saying, clearly, loudly and repeatedly, that "we must act together to... (fight this menace)". "We must come together to... (beat this menace"). "We must act together...." Repeat ad nauseam.

Is that the best he can offer?!

There are only 3 possible interpretations of all these statements today. Either:

1) Our governments over the last 14 years have been monumentally crass in not "acting together" despite bellowing after every single atrocity that we would work closer and closer with our partners around the world.

2) He has news that he either cannot or does not wish to tell us - in which case he has fallen back on a familiar and well used platitude hoping that nobody will notice.

3) He is suffering from the Whitehall lust for secrecy for secrecy's state.

In all three cases, what he has said betrays his absolute contempt for the intelligence and wisdom of his electorate. For goodness sake, a blind man can see the crassness of this repeated banging on about 'working together'! It has been said, painfully often, after every single  previous major terrorist attack.

Oh. And did you spot that in Beirut last week another suicide bomber blew himself up on behalf of IS? Thirty seven more dead to add to the list of the failures of our policies.

Bob

Why when you are talking to a decent bloke, who hasn't been arrogant with you, do you feel the need to put down my ability of using my brain?. Did i insult you or even say i knew more than anybody else?.
I had an opinion and expected to be challenged on my views, i don't expect people to agree with everything i put. I make mistakes but i admit them, sometimes i am a little short with people, or what i put can sound sometimes pushing humour to the limit, but i never say things to insult.
My views are based on newspapers, news on tv, internet opinions, what others think and from all that i form an opinion. And yes even with all that i don't know a quarter of what's going on in the world.
Professor Cox is a well informed man on many subjects, but i look at many other opinions and make my own mind up, it's not that i am bothered, it's about how you challenge opinions.

Pies, I don't think ''I did ask for it, with my opinions''!, It kind of backs up my opinion, that i am ''almost one of those that has an agenda''
I have been on this site for quite a few years, and have never made trouble or peddled any opinions only my own. I know none of the people on here or on the other site, i use this site only, i look at the other site and think it's entertaining, thank you for your comment on being a 'Valued contributor, i appreciate it.

This world is being ruined by hatred and greed, it should be a peaceful place, but unfortunately wars have been going on for as long as i have known. Negotiation has been used time and again in different wars. Sometimes it has worked, sometimes not, negotiation in the case of IS isn't going to work.
Our governments actions have brought us to this point, we blindly followed the US into occupying in the middle east, we tried all this way back, we didn't win, the russians did the same they also didn't win, you can't expect to occupy a country and have nobody from that country fight back.
Unfortunately a lot of people have been killed from both sides, if our country hadn't gone into this war in the first place a lot of what is happening wouldn't have happened.

This war wasn't entered into to protect our shores in my opinion, it was entered into because of greed for comodities that these countries have and we wanted to steal from them.
And now it has escalated into what could easily end up a world wide war. Our shores i don't think were in danger before occupying these countries, but now every country involved is in danger of these atrocities being meted out time and again on them.
Now our country has to heavily rely on our agents to keep ourselves safe, because of the can of worms opened by the mistake of going into a war that couldn't be won, and innocent people, our people, middle east people will be the one's hurt and those in power won't hurt at all.

[The Red Baron]

So does anyone think we will see some terrorist activity in London Tomorrow night?

I think security will be as tight as a drum.

[drfchound]

.....And rightly so but IS could use Wembley as a smokescreen, extra security there means less security elsewhere so they may have more opportunity to create havoc in another place.

i see that the English are being encouraged to sing the French National Anthem at the game tonight.
I don't think they should but i do think they should(and will) treat it with respect for a change instead of booing and whistling as it the norm.

If i was there i would have a problem singing it because i dont know the words, well, apart from that last bit that goes, "ooh ah, ooh ah, ooh ah, Cantona".

[mushRTID]

Germany Stadium now evacuated and game cancelled! Unbelievable!

[dknward2]

Turkey fans booing the minutes silence expect no better from them need to be banned

[Filo]

Turkey fans booing the minutes silence expect no better from them need to be banned

It would be a bit awkward for the Turks if France invoked article 5 of NATO

[dknward2]

Just ment football sorry dont understand whats nato article 5?

[Filo]

Just ment football sorry dont understand whats nato article 5?

An attack on a NATO nation is considered an attack on all NATO nations and they are compelled to come to the attacked nations aid

[dknward2]

Think it needs to be invoked asap

[Glyn_Wigley]

Think it needs to be invoked asap

Should have been invoked when Turkey was attacked, surely?