Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: the vicar on November 17, 2015, 07:46:51 pm
-
win tonight what ever the score, i think it does big style
-
Not in Hanover it doesn't
-
no some give in to it others dont but it was off cos of a security scare
-
DW Sports @dw_sports 57m57 minutes ago
BREAKING: Reports that German police have discovered a truck bomb disguised as an ambulance near football stadium in Hanover.
-
my god dont these bas**rdS never give it a rest they need stoping all together no matter what it takes. sorry if this ofends anyone
-
Hanover train station evacuated now, suspect device found
-
Latest sky news breaking news is that no explosives found and no arrests
-
It's all about having the power to scare.....
-
......and if we negotiate with them and a truce was agreed what happens to the bstards who organised the bombings and killings around the world and the beheadingof innocent people?
No doubt the do holders would be happy to let them off.
-
"Do gooders"
-
they wont nagotiate a truce as all they want is world domination simple as nothing else. Sod the do gooders just go in and blast them all
-
the last time we had this sinario there was a world war
-
I would love to go in the DeLorean and go forward 50 years (some of you will have the luxury of being there - I wont) ....
.... AND I would want to check on Rovers progress BUT I would love to see if there has been any definitive settlement to this problem. I have waited all my life to see if the Israel question gets answered and of course it is as bad as I ever remember and similarly I just wonder what will happen with IS or ISIS. It probably will just be an eye for an eye as usual ad infinitum
Anybody care to speculate what MIGHT happen (not to Rovers I hasten to add)
-
I am with you on this vicar.
On the news on Sunday it was said that France have around 5000 people that they are watching as suspected terrorists.
They also said that France views itself as at war with IS.
If that is indeed the case they should round up the 5000 and put them in a kind of Guantanamo Bay type institution until they are happy they are innocent.
I bet that would have the "it usagainst their human rights" lot squealing
-
They should not be squealing ... it was deffo against the Human Rights of everyone on the Tunisian Beach the Russian Airliner and the people in Paris
Round them up as suspects and "eliminate them as suspects as quickly as possible" or charge them. Then get watching for the replacement "wave" coming
-
I am with you on this vicar.
On the news on Sunday it was said that France have around 5000 people that they are watching as suspected terrorists.
They also said that France views itself as at war with IS.
If that is indeed the case they should round up the 5000 and put them in a kind of Guantanamo Bay type institution until they are happy they are innocent.
I bet that would have the "it usagainst their human rights" lot squealing
Everytime we bomb them they turn round and say "Look at the innocent people you have killed, they were schools and hospitals you bombed" But, its different when they kill innocent people on our streets
-
and all the rafts and boats coming over to europe should be sent back or taken out of the water like they do in Australia. Like Vladimir Putin has suggested, all Western countries and Russia should put their difference behind them and go and wipe them out once and for all!
-
I see the first 'batch' of 100 Syrian refugees arrived in Glasgow today....
-
Russia are the good guys again are they?
The problem is that a war on terrorism is not conventional. Locking people up, air strikes etc don't kill an ideology
-
Maybe not but it shows that we are prepared to fight back and not just take what they have to offer.
Is the alternative just to do nothing ?
-
I can't believe they're letting them in, after what happened at the weekend. It really needs to be nipped in the bud now, before they start in this country, and it's only a matter of time before they do. The west needs to stop pussy footing around, and wipe them off the face of the earth. With all the weapons they have between them, I'm sure it could be done. Half a dozen nukes on Syria would do for starters !.
-
Not in my book or the G8 leaders they have the right idea
-
It has already started what about the bombs is 7/7 and the bus and understand station
-
And all the foiled attempts that are foiled most days
-
Identifying "them", isolating "them", dealing with "them" is harder but it has to be better than indiscriminate bombing otherwise we are no better.
-
Wipe them off the face of the earth with nuclear weapons! The plot that was planned in Belgium by French nationals you mean, which areas of Brussels and Paris would you suggest they start with?
You can scapegoat a million refugees as much as you wish, how many terrorists do you think you will catch? The Paris attackers seem to have moved backwards and forwards between the two countries quite reguarly - you can be sure they didnt walk it.
-
Sitting on our arse doing nothing won't stop them it will just make it easier for them to kill people
-
It has already started what about the bombs is 7/7 and the bus and understand station
What about them? They were carried out by people of Pakistani and Jamaican descent from Leeds and Aylesbury, are you suggesting that they are next for nuking?
-
Let's protect our cultured, western, liberal, democratic way of life by interring thousands of people and holding them without trial.
Worked well in Northern Ireland, didn't it...
-
It has already started what about the bombs is 7/7 and the bus and understand station
What about them? They were carried out by people of Pakistani and Jamaican descent from Leeds and Aylesbury, are you suggesting that they are next for nuking?
still islamic state controled
-
The bombing can be done with great accuracy as proven when taking out the car in which the murderous Jihadi John was in.
Intelligence tells the pilots what the targets are and invariably they hit them.
Unfortunate as it may be there will be some innocent people killed.
Someone said earlier that "the last time this happened wehada world war".
Ask yourself what would the world have been like had Hitler and co not been stopped.
-
Well it will be a bloody desperate situation when they rely on me and you, I think the best place for us is certainly sitting on our arses.
I have said above what I needs to be done. Coordinated military action for a political situation with the involvement of all middle eastern states. Preferably under the banner of the United Nations. And not just in Syria but in all the trouble spots around there, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Afghanistan and especially Yemen.
Military action on its own is pointless. Iraq tells you that, its what happens after the shooting stops that is important.
-
and no doubt they force innocent women and children into IS training camps and then when we bomb them claim we have hit civilians and look how many we have killed no of course they don't.................
-
No doubt the do holders would be happy to let them off.
Can you define do holder,or even do gooder?
-
Let's protect our cultured, western, liberal, democratic way of life by interring thousands of people and holding them without trial.
Worked well in Northern Ireland, didn't it...
What do you suggest Billy?
-
No doubt the do holders would be happy to let them off.
Can you define do holder,or even do gooder?
I did correct the predictive text didnt I?
I don't need to define what a do gooder is and you know as well as I do what I mean.
-
Well it will be a bloody desperate situation when they rely on me and you, I think the best place for us is certainly sitting on our arses.
I have said above what I needs to be done. Coordinated military action for a political situation with the involvement of all middle eastern states. Preferably under the banner of the United Nations. And not just in Syria but in all the trouble spots around there, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Afghanistan and especially Yemen.
Military action on its own is pointless. Iraq tells you that, its what happens after the shooting stops that is important.
:that:
Not to mention the mess that is Palestine - most of this trouble started there years ago with the western support of Israel. Sort that out as a starting point and the rest might just be possible. It's a bloody mess right now though and all the bombs in the world will solve nothing, just create more martyrs and more enemies!
-
A do gooder in this case is a pasifist who wants to do nothing and just let them do what they want to do to us or a sympathiser who thinks we can't do anything to them no matter what they do to us
-
Raqqa in Syria, is the headquarters for IS, and if you wipe that off the map, you've effectively "chopped the head off the snake ". IS would be in disarray, and then it would be a whole lot easier to mop up what's left. You have to start somewhere. I don't think folk realise how serious this has been escalating over the last few years. Mark my words, world war three isn't too far off
-
A sense of proportion Hound. And a knowledge of history.
I suggest you and the rest of us get ready for the long haul. We have brought this situation upon ourselves by generations of mis-management of the Middle East. We have supported tyrants and ignored the suffering and abject poverty of many of the ordinary people. We have fertilised the seed beds that have produced this crop.
This situation took many decades to develop. We will NOT solve it in a few weeks or years. Or maybe even decades. We will certainly not solve it by killing more civilians in bombing campaigns that satiate some of the bloodlust that you see on here, but only stoke up the next generation's fighters. We will certainly not solve it by mass internment - ditto.
I don't have an off-pat answer. Beyond having the resilience to cope with these events without resorting to vendetta responses. Remembering that however many innocent people are killed in the streets of Europe, there are tens, hundreds, THOUSANDS more innocent people who have been killed on the streets of Aleppo, Gaza and Baghdad over the past decade. And that they are people. With kids and parents and brothers and sisters and friends. Just like the poor f**kers in Paris.
So mine is a philosophy rather than a solution. Be prepared for a century of this. Be vigilant and strong. Take out the active terrorists when you can. But do NOT, ever forget that they come from the same human race as you do. Their "people" are as complex, diverse and human as you are. Demanding retribution for its own sake will condemn your grandkids' grandkids to a world where this problem still exists.
-
Arksey.
Ever tried to deal with a wasps' nest by blowing it up?
-
no I haven't , but I'm sure if I used a big enough bomb, there wouldn't be a lot left to worry about.
-
well said Askern
-
I find a good way to fight religious fantasism is a good old education. Not further violence that can ultimately serve to fuel someone's misgiven ideology.
Even within that, there will always be a few nutters who fall through the net. That's what we have with Isis. They need wiping off the map. But we can't blanket bomb a nation, people, or religion to achieve that. We have to be smarter about it. Stop their arms, stop their financers', stop their supply chains and cut off their political counterparts.
An escalation of violence isn't even militarily a sensible strategy from the little I know, let alone an upholding of peaceful values which is what the terrorist attacks were against.
-
Arksey/Vicar
America dropped 7 megatonnes of TNT on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. That didn't do the job. How much more would you suggest we drop on Syria?
-
Also on the idea of opening up some kind of Guantanamo style detention camp in Europe - Guantanamo has been a rallying call for these nutters for years now and has featured heavily in their propaganda. Its also currently full of people the US government has no idea what to do with.
-
no I haven't , but I'm sure if I used a big enough bomb, there wouldn't be a lot left to worry about.
The point is that if you miss just one or two, the ones you didn't kill would be bloody angry and even if you kill every one of them in the nest, there are billions more wasps in millions of other nests to replace them, and sting you on the arse!!
:blink:
-
Arksey/Vicar
America dropped 7 megatonnes of TNT on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. That didn't do the job. How much more would you suggest we drop on Syria?
About 14 megatonnes should rehabilitate them! :whistle:. It will take a mixture of bombing, and getting other middle east countries to have involvement in sorting the mess out.
They already work closely with groups against IS in Afghanistan, Iraq, they have been training their police forces to better manage things. These people are not a static army, they travel lightly moving from place to place, so intelligence provided by human and drone sources are invaluable.
Keeping our own country safe, aren't i glad they didn't open the border doors fully, we cannot take any migrants in, as much as i feel sorry for them, our country has to come first.
I don't think any of us realise just how hard the undercover people, who stop these plots work, on keeping us safe. I hope this doesn't end up another world war, i am hoping that the other middle east countries recognise the threat this group pose to their countries, otherwise if all the middle east joins together, then it will be the war to end all wars, there would be nothing left!.
One of my worries is the spread of hatred assuming that every muslim is the same. And i also worry about who are the people from the middle east constantly taking over our football teams, car firms etc do they have any links to this group?.
-
The US, French and British secret services trained these f**kers to begin with. Time to stop meddling.
-
No doubt the do holders would be happy to let them off.
Can you define do holder,or even do gooder?
I did correct the predictive text didnt I?
I don't need to define what a do gooder is and you know as well as I do what I mean.
I think he means people who don't have knee-jerks reactions.
-
Not sure who you are referring to Glyn, me or Iberian?
-
The only way to deal with "liberation movements" is to isolate the extremists from the moderates who knowingly or unknowingly support them
And the way to do that as was proved malaya by us
Was hearts and minds
Treat them as equals and education
It is the ONLY way
-
The US, French and British secret services trained these f***ers to begin with. Time to stop meddling.
It is our business now and we need to meddle
-
10-15 years ago, nobody had ever hear of IS. Look where they are now, how far they have come. Where will they be in another 10-15 years ?. They are spreading across this planet like a cancer, and if nothing is done to stop them, things will only get worse. I truly believe that the best way to do this ,is to destroy the root of this evil (in they're own country), and if it means dropping a few nukes, carpet bombing, or any other method , then so be it. With all the firepower the west have, I'm sure this could be done in a matter of months. Killing a few thousand civilians is controversial I know, but what's the alternative if it's no nipped in the bud ?. Many more than a few thousand would die if IS had they're way.
-
10-15 years ago, nobody had ever hear of IS. Look where they are now, how far they have come. Where will they be in another 10-15 years ?. They are spreading across this planet like a cancer, and if nothing is done to stop them, things will only get worse. I truly believe that the best way to do this ,is to destroy the root of this evil (in they're own country), and if it means dropping a few nukes, carpet bombing, or any other method , then so be it. With all the firepower the west have, I'm sure this could be done in a matter of months. Killing a few thousand civilians is controversial I know, but what's the alternative if it's no nipped in the bud ?. Many more than a few thousand would die if IS had they're way.
And those that survive will become even more embittered!
-
Arksey - There has already been thousands of air strikes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27838034) in the last year. They are 'carpet bombing' isis.
But the point is their land territory is spread over thousands of kilometers and their ideological territory is spread over the entire planet. What weapons are you proposing we use that actually make sense given these facts? Or do you just want a further blood bath regardless of who it actually hits or what it actually achieves?
-
The only way to deal with "liberation movements" is to isolate the extremists from the moderates who knowingly or unknowingly support them
And the way to do that as was proved malaya by us
Was hearts and minds
Treat them as equals and educate them.
It is the ONLY way
I couldn't agree more , this is nothing new and it seems that the West generally have learned little from that rare success. However comparing Gaza/Syria/Iraq etc . to Malaysia is like comparing apples to pears and is slightly too simplistic.
The MNLA with it's warlords backed by communist China were fighting against the last vestiges of the British Empire and believe it or not the troubles there lasted from 1948 to 1989.
This is not quite the same scenario but started at a similar time and is set to continue for very much longer.
-
The US, French and British secret services trained these f***ers to begin with. Time to stop meddling.
Evidence of this or have you been following RT Russia Today ? Next we will have the Illuminati brought into the equation. :whistle:
-
Arksey you are correct, 10-15 years ago no-one had heard of ISIS. Thats because they didnt exist, as they were created by doing in Iraq and Afghanistan exactly what you are saying should be done in Syria. Indiscriminate bombing with no thought to what comes afterwards.
-
The only way to deal with "liberation movements" is to isolate the extremists from the moderates who knowingly or unknowingly support them
And the way to do that as was proved malaya by us
Was hearts and minds
Treat them as equals and education
It is the ONLY way
The USA wanted us to help in Vietnam after our success in Malaysia. Our way to win was to treat the native tribes far better than the communists. They reported every move of the Indonesians which gave our SAS troops a big advantage.
-
In the forties the world decided it had to stop Hitler and lots of people died whilst it happened.
If Hitlers methods had been allowed to continue unchecked i wonder what the world would be like today?
Can we allow IS to go on unchecked?
-
The bombing can be done with great accuracy as proven when taking out the car in which the murderous Jihadi John was in.
Intelligence tells the pilots what the targets are and invariably they hit them.
Are you going you tell that to the family of a serviceman killed by 'friendly fire' - that they were hit with 'great accuracy'?
-
Why, has one of our service men been hit in the recent bombings?
However, in war situations things like that happen.
Are you going to sit back and let the terrorists do what they want and not fight back?
-
Why, has one of our service men been hit in the recent bombings?
However, in war situations things like that happen.
Are you going to sit back and let the terrorists do what they want and not fight back?
It sounds like you think the only way to fight back is to drop bombs. Have we got Belgium's permission to bomb Brussels yet?
-
I haven't said that is the only way and only see you asking questions but not offering any solutions.
What would you do to stop IS continuing the way they are doing?
-
I haven't said that is the only way and only see you asking questions but not offering any solutions.
What would you do to stop IS continuing the way they are doing?
If I was in the position of making the decisions, the first thing I would do is listen to advice from people who really know what the situation is and get their ideas about how to effectively tackle IS. Because I bet they don't just say drop bombs on them.
-
You had better have a look at the news then and tell the French and Russians.
I am sure they know a lot more than you do.
-
The US, French and British secret services trained these f***ers to begin with. Time to stop meddling.
Evidence of this or have you been following RT Russia Today ? Next we will have the Illuminati brought into the equation. :whistle:
Sorry Hoola
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be “supported” in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also provide the first official documentation that the Obama administration was well aware that weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops — including members from ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamist terror groups — in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms thatr: “Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.” The deadly and shocking attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission that saw four Americans — including a U.S. ambassador — slaughtered by jihadists occurred just weeks after the weapons shipment.
Following the downfall and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011 until almost a year later in September 2012, the desolved Libyan military’s weapons were stockpiled in Benghazi, Libya. According to the intelligence report, they were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports located in Syria. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo, according to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch.
http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/
-
Russia are bombing because they want to bolster Assad and get a military harbour on the Med as their reward.
France's bombing is for domestic public consumption.
-
And can we observe that since the bombing began, the net result has been........erm not altogether successful.
More bombs? Bigger bombs?
The landscape of government agendas is vast, I doubt that any of us will be able to come up with an effective solution on here unless we're seeking popularity/geopolitical ties/oil/trade contracts/military bases or any combination of that list.
I think if history teaches us one thing, it's never to trust the people in charge
-
Russia are bombing because they want to bolster Assad and get a military harbour on the Med as their reward.
France's bombing is for domestic public consumption.
............and because IS have claimed responsibility for bringing down the Russian passenger airliner.
-
Russia are bombing because they want to bolster Assad and get a military harbour on the Med as their reward.
France's bombing is for domestic public consumption.
............and because IS have claimed responsibility for bringing down the Russian passenger airliner.
Not forgetting Russia was bombing before the aircraft was brought down
-
The bombing is only containing IS. The only thing that will really roll them back is ground troops. And after the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan everybody is very wary about committing ground troops - including the Russians.
Even if you did gain a military victory over IS- which I would argue is highly probable given the success of the Kurdish militias - there would still be a huge elephant in the room, ie Assad. Also IS would undoubtedly continue to exist in some form, perhaps like Al-quaeda did, and attacks would still be carried out in its name.
It isn't a very positive outlook...
-
Mali today, where next?
-
Mali today, where next?
Yes and does that not negate your point and reinforce mine? The group in Mali have no connection to IS (I believe they were actually in existence before them) and however many bombs you drop on Syria would have no effect on them.
Defeating Islamic terrorism will not be achieved by western military action alone, but by coordinated action with all the countries involved, especially in the Middle East and North Africa.
Which is after all how Hitler was defeated.
-
Wilts, i agree, didn't you read what i wrote about the countries of the world getting together to defeat IS.
On the news at half six tonight by the way they said that an Al Queda group affiliated to IS have claimed responsibility for the Mali murders.
-
Sorry Hound I missed that among the Hitler references and carpet bombing.
Dont believe everything you hear on the news (the female suicide bomber who blew herself up yesterday but today didn't, being an example). IS and Al-Quaeda dont get on, if they weren't fighting us they would be fighting each other. The Mali group are an Al-Quaeda one, not that it matters to the people in the hotel which nutters they were I shouldnt think.
-
The Hitler comparison doesn't work.
Hitler controlled a State with defined boundaries. With an economic infrastructure and an army structure that could be attacked.
IS have none of those. They are a classic guerilla outfit. You don't defeat guerillas by confronting them with the might of 20th Century mechanised warfare. It doesn't work. Look at the examples of Russia in Afghanistan or America in Vietnam.
You defeat them by careful, surgical attacks whilst dealing with the root cause of the grievances that produce the fanatics and martyrs.
-
The european governments thought that if they removed Saddam Hussain, Gadaffi etc that the world would be a better place. Though by most accounts they were not good men, on the whole they were very little threat to us.
In hindsight they were poor decisions, as these people had a level of control over their countries and regions. Now the whole region seems to be short of strong leaders, the Iraq goevernment is little more than a 'Puppet' government, that agrees with whatever the european establishment want or think.
It's now a very hard situation, and one i am glad men with greater intelligence than me have to try and sort out. You can't just flatten areas killing people who don't deserve it, they are no less than us as human beings.
I am not sure IS are a group that want to negotiate, i don't personally agree with negotiating with terrorists, but i am stumped with the solution for this one.
I would assume there will be plenty of goodwill talks with other groups to try and calm the situation down, and for those groups to get control of the situation. I don't think any one thing is the answer, diplomacy, bombing actions, it will be a mixture of things needed.
Really sad that innocent people across the globe, can't go about everyday life without at least a touch of fear!.
On a more cheerful note, did i really read that El Hadj Diouf has been recruited as a 'Peace envoy' by his country?, i must have misread it surely?.
-
It looks as though those nice people at the UN have not listened to what has been said on our forum because they have decided to increase military action against IS including more air strikes.
Can you imagine a meeting between IS leaders and World leaders ever taking place?
What could a possible outcome ever be?
Even if a settlement was agreed would the perpetrators of the murders be let off and sent home?
-
You dont quite understand how the world works do you hound? IS have enough guns, weapons and funding to run an army. These things dont just appear, they started somewhere. So they were, and most likely still are, in contact with (at least some) world leaders. The question is which and who can influence them? This guy thinks he knows?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-supports-the-islamic-state-isis-saudi-arabia-turkey-qatar-uk-france-usa/5490271
As part of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, IRA terrorists who had not been arrested for their crimes were given immunity from prosecution. South Africa had a Truth and Reconciliation Committee. So yes, thats what happened in past conflicts.
-
That last post started with a very patronising first line.
There are plenty of us who think that IS have to be wiped out, and not just on this forum.
-
How do you get people to talk that don't want to talk?
-
Who on earth said anything about negotiating with IS?
-
People on here don't want to bomb them into stopping their activities of bombing, murder etc. So I'm wondering, the only other way is to talk to them, or give in to their demands.
-
Who on earth said anything about negotiating with IS?
Someone on either this or the Paris thread did.
Have a look for yourself.
-
That last post started with a very patronising first line.
There are plenty of us who think that IS have to be wiped out, and not just on this forum.
IS are on this forum? :woot:
Sorry guys, I do get this is a very serious topic.
-
You dont quite understand how the world works do you hound? IS have enough guns, weapons and funding to run an army. These things dont just appear, they started somewhere. So they were, and most likely still are, in contact with (at least some) world leaders. The question is which and who can influence them? This guy thinks he knows?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-supports-the-islamic-state-isis-saudi-arabia-turkey-qatar-uk-france-usa/5490271
As part of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, IRA terrorists who had not been arrested for their crimes were given immunity from prosecution. South Africa had a Truth and Reconciliation Committee. So yes, thats what happened in past conflicts.
They didnt let the Nazis off at Nurembourg though did they so it isn't always the way to forgive and forget.
If, God forbid,one of your family was killed by IS, I wonder what you would have to say then.
-
How do you get people to talk that don't want to talk?
Waterboarding and gonads wired up?
-
People on here don't want to bomb them into stopping their activities of bombing, murder etc. So I'm wondering, the only other way is to talk to them, or give in to their demands.
How about stopping the problem at source, by instilling regime change in Saudi Arabia, by invasion if necessary? Successive Islamic terrorist groups have been fomented, financed and armed by the Saudi regime - but because we're in thrall to the Saudis over their oil, Western governments are too scared to grasp the nettle and would rather go for crowd-pleasing firework displays to satiate the mob's bloodlust. Which is all very well...until the next terrorist sect springs up and round the mulberry bush we go again...
-
You've just given me a stiffy ;)
-
Love the left wing intelligency not wanting to bomb IS, but happy to suggest regime change by force if necessary, but won't be anywhere near the front line if that was to happen.
-
BST, it was Bob G who suggested getting round the table with IS people.
-
Hound
Fair enough. I'd missed that.
For the record, I don't see that negotiations have any role to play in this particular situation. It's not like Northern Ireland or South Africa, where the "terrorists" had fixed political aims and justifiable grievances that could be met by negotiation.
ISIS is different. It's more a battle of philosophies. You can't negotiate with that. You either defeat it, lose to it, or have an uneasy truce with spheres of influence.
Personally, I want to defeat them. Entirely.
But that then raises the question of how you do it. I raised the wasp nest analogy the other day. You don't neutralise a wasp nest by smashing it with a big stick, or blowing it up (I had a mate who o car tried the latter approach. I'll tell you about him if you're interested.) You neutralise a wasps nest by pacifying the majority and swatting really hard the aggressive f**kers who home in on you.
Gloster. Your suggestion that people with left wing views are cowards is reprehensible. Go and have a look at what Dennis Healy or Tony Benn did in WWII. Or what Clem Atlee did in WWI. Or what George Orwell and thousands of others did in Spain. And don't be so daft in future.
-
Billy, I totally agree that it won't be an easy solution to smash IS but it won't happen if we don't do something (obviously).
Bombing strategic positions will help(I have never advocated indiscriminate bombing by the way) but I do think that armies will have to be sent in.
-
I never suggested that, I know what they did, my references were to some of those on here suggesting we should fight, but will be no where near the front line when the muck and bullets are flying
And don't be daft in the future, well pal if the cap fits you wear it
-
Gloster. Apologies if I mis-read what you meant. It's a subject I get touchy about.
-
I never suggested that, I know what they did, my references were to some of those on here suggesting we should fight, but will be no where near the front line when the muck and bullets are flying
And don't be daft in the future, well pal if the cap fits you wear it
If you want to eradicate ISIS, you'll have to use ground troops somewhere, no matter who decides where or of what political stripe they are. You don't win wars by just dropping bombs.
-
It is people on here that gets my goat suggesting putting troops in harms way when they will not be anywhere near That harm, the worse they are going to suffer is a rise in petrol prices. Very easy for people to suggest that. But I don't see a rush to the recruitment office volunteering from those same people.
-
You dont quite understand how the world works do you hound? IS have enough guns, weapons and funding to run an army. These things dont just appear, they started somewhere. So they were, and most likely still are, in contact with (at least some) world leaders. The question is which and who can influence them? This guy thinks he knows?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-supports-the-islamic-state-isis-saudi-arabia-turkey-qatar-uk-france-usa/5490271
As part of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, IRA terrorists who had not been arrested for their crimes were given immunity from prosecution. South Africa had a Truth and Reconciliation Committee. So yes, thats what happened in past conflicts.
They didnt let the Nazis off at Nurembourg though did they so it isn't always the way to forgive and forget.
If, God forbid,one of your family was killed by IS, I wonder what you would have to say then.
Again totally different anaolgy. You asked what would happen to the perpetrators of murder if 'we' (whoever the we may be) came to a negotiated settlement with IS and would they be left off. I gave you two recent examples of what happened to people who had committed acts of terror when the organisation they were with came to a negotiated settlement. What relevance that has to the Nazis who were the loosing side on a war and had no negotiating power whatsoever, we could impose whatever conditions we wanted then.
And again I cant see what relevance the actions of any of my family members to this? I was very close to the Victoria Station bombing in 1991. You asked what would happen, I told you what has happened. The IRA bombers would still have been let off whether I had been on an earlier train or not.
-
Gloster.
As Glyn and others (including at least one on here who would absolutely not call himself left-wing) have said, if you want to wipe out ISIS, you'll HAVE to have troops on the ground. That's a simple fact. Short of carpet-bombing Syria with nukes, you'll never wipe out ISIS via air strikes.
-
It is people on here that gets my goat suggesting putting troops in harms way when they will not be anywhere near That harm, the worse they are going to suffer is a rise in petrol prices. Very easy for people to suggest that. But I don't see a rush to the recruitment office volunteering from those same people.
Go on then, enlighten us as to how you'd get rid of ISIS without putting troops in harm's way and where you're going to volunteer to join them. Put your money where your mouth is.
-
It is people on here that gets my goat suggesting putting troops in harms way when they will not be anywhere near That harm, the worse they are going to suffer is a rise in petrol prices. Very easy for people to suggest that. But I don't see a rush to the recruitment office volunteering from those same people.
Go on then, enlighten us as to how you'd get rid of ISIS without putting troops in harm's way and where you're going to volunteer to join them. Put your money where your mouth is.
l
After 38 years in the military I have served in many operations overseas and put my self in harms way, have you?
-
The only way to solve this is to put the military on the ground, it's the easy way the keyboard warriors on here put them there without a thought of getting sand between their toes them selves
-
Gloster.
What's the alternative?
-
Don't be so glib about putting troops on the ground when you're going to be near to the danger
-
I am not being glib. Far from it.
-
The lads in the army joined knowing that they may have to go to war, not to have a nice free trip around the world.
I am not in the army so don't have to consider being on the front line.
However I am in danger from the terrorists in my own country if they are not taken out.
There is no alternative other than to strategically bomb IS camps and send troops in to hunt them down.
-
It is people on here that gets my goat suggesting putting troops in harms way when they will not be anywhere near That harm, the worse they are going to suffer is a rise in petrol prices. Very easy for people to suggest that. But I don't see a rush to the recruitment office volunteering from those same people.
For the record, I DO think ground troops are needed to defeat IS. Also, it would be little use my volunteering my services as I have at least one gammy leg, if not two. That said, I have always appreciated what our military personnel do to help keep us safe and am the son of an ex-serviceman.
-
The only way to solve this is to put the military on the ground, it's the easy way the keyboard warriors on here put them there without a thought of getting sand between their toes them selves
Just because I'm disabled it doesn't alter the fact that ground troops have to be deployed. Does it? Or does the fact that I'm no use to the military mean my opinion is somehow invalid? Does every western leader have to have your length of service even to be able to order ground troops be used in your world view? They actually have the power to do it, I'm just saying that you won't achieve the goal you want to achieve without using them.
-
It is people on here that gets my goat suggesting putting troops in harms way when they will not be anywhere near That harm, the worse they are going to suffer is a rise in petrol prices. Very easy for people to suggest that. But I don't see a rush to the recruitment office volunteering from those same people.
Go on then, enlighten us as to how you'd get rid of ISIS without putting troops in harm's way and where you're going to volunteer to join them. Put your money where your mouth is.
l
After 38 years in the military I have served in many operations overseas and put my self in harms way, have you?
No. I presume that means my opinion that ground troops would need to be used is wrong?
-
BST, it was Bob G who suggested getting round the table with IS people.
And you entirely missed my point Hound. Yes. I did say we should try to talk to IS. But I also said that it was likely it would fail and, that then the only option left would be some kind of war. And did you, perhaps, happen to notice why I suggested attempting to negotiate might lead to a better outcome - if it could be made to happen of course? Because, as plenty of people on here know, the west has an utterly lamentable record of continued and repeated failure in wars against guerrilla groups. So why do you wanna rush into into trying it again without at least trying an alternative first? We, collectively, have proved we don't have the right mindset for guerilla warfare. The Yanks tried it and got whupped. The French got whupped even worse. The Russians got their asses kicked right back where they came from. So what makes you think we are going to 'beat' IS if we go into a guerilla war with them? Yes. I do still think an attempt at negotiation is the right thing to try first.
Now, please, do me the honour of giving a reasoned argument why that is impracticable? Or wrong? Rather than the snide comments, without offering reasoned alternative, that you've been coming out with for a week now.
Cheers
BobG
-
Bob
Beg to differ with you on this one.
Negotiations can only have any reasonable chance of success if your opponent wants something that you are prepared to give.
We COULD have negotiated with Hitler in 1939. Many people on the right wing of British politics wanted us to do exactly that. To let Hitler have his way with Europe, let him exterminate the Jews and subjugate the Slavs, and leave us in peace ruling the Empire.
That was a grounds for potential negotiation, however repulsive it seems to us today. Major General JFC Fuller, the WWI veteran and military historian castigated Churchill for not negotiating on those terms.
But you cannot negotiate with an enemy that has the ideological determination to destroy your civilisation. We have nothing we could offer them that they would want. Short of our elimination.
-
:):)
I don't believe I have ever claimed, anywhere, that negotiations have much of a chance of succeeding. But to not try, when we all know the sheer uselessness of marching about shooting people seems to me to be bolting a door tightly shut that might have had a slight chance of changing the nature of the next 100 years if atemtps were made to open it just a little bit wider. I reckon a prize that big is worth taking a chance for. We'd still have the hit 'em in the goolies option to fall back on as well so even though you can paint it as appeasement if you like, it does not close down the war option in any way.
You said it Billy: we are going about ensuring 100 years of guerilla warfare because we can't bring ourselves to accept that an ideology cannot be beaten militarily. It can only be got rid of by removing the circumtances that led to its creation. As we're not doing that at all, any war now will not bring peace except in the short term - and that's assuming we can actually 'win' it. Without changing the conditions, we will face repeats of this this for decades. Do you want to wake up one morning to find ebola in the tube, anthrax in the air and radioactive poison in the reservoir? I don't. So we have to change the environment. That's why talking is worth at least a try.
Bob
PS I guess I'm a bit more cynical than you. I think everybody has a lever that will move them eventually. The hard bit is working out what it is.
-
There might be another aspect to trying to talk to IS
If by at least making an attempt to talk we make their recruitment just 1% harder it might help. If we make a big point of not talking, then their recruitment has yet another factor they can use regarding the arrogant and wicked ideology of the west that must be defeated.
It is a bit like Hydra in Greek mythology - cut off one head and two grow back. If we can minimise their recruitment success then longer term our task becomes more possible
Each western country must work with its Muslim community on inclusion, education etc - Hearts and Minds efforts, which also can be seen as sort of Information or even Psychological Warfare. Not all aspects of warfare are offensive/attacking in nature - these can be complemented by many measures more defensive in nature.
-
Fair points Dutch.
And I couldn't agree more about the soft aspects of warfare. That was what the ex-CIA head was saying in Newsnight the other day in that clip that I posted.
-
BST, it was Bob G who suggested getting round the table with IS people.
And you entirely missed my point Hound. Yes. I did say we should try to talk to IS. But I also said that it was likely it would fail and, that then the only option left would be some kind of war. And did you, perhaps, happen to notice why I suggested attempting to negotiate might lead to a better outcome - if it could be made to happen of course? Because, as plenty of people on here know, the west has an utterly lamentable record of continued and repeated failure in wars against guerrilla groups. So why do you wanna rush into into trying it again without at least trying an alternative first? We, collectively, have proved we don't have the right mindset for guerilla warfare. The Yanks tried it and got whupped. The French got whupped even worse. The Russians got their asses kicked right back where they came from. So what makes you think we are going to 'beat' IS if we go into a guerilla war with them? Yes. I do still think an attempt at negotiation is the right thing to try first.
Now, please, do me the honour of giving a reasoned argument why that is impracticable? Or wrong? Rather than the snide comments, without offering reasoned alternative, that you've been coming out with for a week now.
Cheers
BobG
Bob, i havent made any snide remarks, lets get that out of the way first.
BST asked who had suggested getting into talks with IS.
I replied that you had, why do you see that a snidey?
You wrote it and he asked who had.
You admit yourself that failure in that direction would lead to some kind of war.
Myself and others on here have said that in our opinions we have to have some kind of war, bombing strategic positions and following up with ground troops.
Now these ground troops dont just have to come from the Uk do thay.
I think it has to be a UN initiative and i do believe that it has to happen to have any impact on what IS are trying to do.
We all know that IS are a cowardly group operating as a guerillla group outside of Syria and like when the IRA were active, their members are not brave enough to wear a uniform but hide in corners in civvi clothes waiting for opportunities to inflict harm on innocent people to somehow further their cause.
Of course it will be hard to eradicate IS but we have to do something rather than nothing.
I hear politicians on the TV saying much the same as i have said and i have to think that people like Putin,Cameron. Holland and Obama know far more about how to deal with this than any one of us on here do.
-
How do we win a war in which we don't know who the enemy is or who's supporting it?
There are militants and sympathisers everywhere, in every country and iS in Syria may just change their outfits, drop their weapons and head home!
Good luck.
-
How a out giving some credit to the intelligence departments who spend thousands of hours collecting info and passing it on to the military?
How do you think they got that b**tard Jihadi John.
If you are prepared to just say we can't fight them coz we don't know who they are then we might as well just give up.
Good luck to you too.
I hope they don't attack a shopping centre or football ground that you are in.
-
Drfc hound, please read my post again I asked how do we WIN a war no way do I think we should not try! It's how to win it that's hard to know.
It's amazing for me to remember when I was younger the enemy we feared was Russia and after them China if ever their technology caught up! No one saw the Arabs giving us much grief and now we're allies with the Russians in the attacks on IS!
Good luck!
-
I hear politicians on the TV saying much the same as i have said and i have to think that people like Putin,Cameron. Holland and Obama know far more about how to deal with this than any one of us on here do.
Like Bush and Blair you mean?
-
I hear politicians on the TV saying much the same as i have said and i have to think that people like Putin,Cameron. Holland and Obama know far more about how to deal with this than any one of us on here do.
Like Bush and Blair you mean?
That's if you believe the Iraq War was wrong. I don't , just the rationale for doing so and for leaving before it was finished.
I'm still a believer in not turning a blind eye to the horrific things happening across the world. Some say it's not our problem, well I disagree.
-
BFYP
The Iraq War was wrong. Full stop. It was carried out on the basis of a lie (WMD), which Bush and Blair must have known to be a lie. The War did not receive UN support and therefore, according to International Law, was an illegal aggressive act.
Blair now tries to justify the war by claiming that the situation in the Middle East is better than it would have been if Saddam had not been removed. Whether or not that is true (and it really is stretching credulity to even give than claim a second look) is not the point. We had no authorisation to wage a war to remove Saddam. And we went to war on the basis of the lie about WMD.
On top of being morally and legally unsupportable, the Coalition f**ked up horrifically in their handling of the post-invasion situation. It is not that we "left before it was finished". We simply did not have a plan for how to fill the void left by the removal of the hard man who had previously kept the simmering tensions under control.
The Iraq War was an utter catastrophe and we will be paying for that for 100 years. I am astonished that intelligent people like you can still support it.
-
BST
Just to add to your point on Iraq, things might not have been so bad if the Coalition had not dismantled the military structures in Iraq. Ok, the army was dominated by the Ba'ath Party, which is why it was purged. But just as with the Wehrmacht after Hitler, there would be professional soldiers in there who could have rebuilt it.
Instead we tried to set up new security forces from scratch, then left before the job was completed. So the Iraqi "army" was easy meat for IS.
-
My point is why did we not create a plan and why did we not stick at it? I fully agree the justification behind the invasion was pathetic, but there's a billion other justifiable reasons why removing a mass murderer is and was valid. Just as the same can be said in Syria.
I fully agree a plan has to be there and seen through, that is and was the big weakness and it's massively wrong that we didn't do that - the same can be said in Libya. But the fact is it is our problem and we should do something about it. If the Nazis were in power now we would probably just let them get on with it - the new labour lot definitely would. But we shouldn't we should be doing something about it or we will end up with more of what's going on.
I've not long since been to Brussels, it's on surprise that some people there are acting as they are, it's quite clear what the atmosphere in that city is like.
I'm not one to bang on about immigration, but frankly I can see why some do...
-
BFYP
1) NO! Without a UN resolution to give us authority to remove Saddam, we were violating international law! There is a reason why there is a United Nations. It is to stop the powerful just doing what the f**k they want. It is imperfect, but if you ignore it, you are putting yourself outside the civilised international community. And if you try to weasel your way around it by lying about WMD, so much the worse. If we had decided that Saddam was such an abomination that he had to be removed, there are ways of going about that. And they don't include half a dozen neo-cons in the White House and an idiot in No 10 deciding that they will destroy the country's infrastructure and social fabric.
2) I'll ignore your "If the Nazi's were in power" party political barb. But you might want to go and do a bit of research about who were the people who were arguing vehemently for us to take action against Hitler in the 1930s, and who were the ones in favour of appeasement.
3) You say that we "should be doing something about" the ISIS issue. I agree. Whether that "something" is best served by dropping bombs is a matter for genuine debate.
-
I hear politicians on the TV saying much the same as i have said and i have to think that people like Putin,Cameron. Holland and Obama know far more about how to deal with this than any one of us on here do.
Like Bush and Blair you mean?
Stand for election next time, you are a cert to win.
-
My point is why did we not create a plan and why did we not stick at it? I fully agree the justification behind the invasion was pathetic, but there's a billion other justifiable reasons why removing a mass murderer is and was valid. Just as the same can be said in Syria.
I fully agree a plan has to be there and seen through, that is and was the big weakness and it's massively wrong that we didn't do that - the same can be said in Libya. But the fact is it is our problem and we should do something about it. If the Nazis were in power now we would probably just let them get on with it - the new labour lot definitely would. But we shouldn't we should be doing something about it or we will end up with more of what's going on.
I've not long since been to Brussels, it's on surprise that some people there are acting as they are, it's quite clear what the atmosphere in that city is like.
I'm not one to bang on about immigration, but frankly I can see why some do...
Because Iraq is rarely in the news these days, there is a tendency to think everything is fine over there. 130 people died in Paris, so far this month, 850 people have died in Iraq, 52 over the past weekend. Which makes it the quietest for 2 and 1/2 years. That is the country we brought peace and stability to.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
In 1936 the left organised volunteers to go out and fight Franco's fascists in Spain. Franco who was supported by Hitler. The Tory Government of the day 'let them get on with it'. There is a school of thought that says Hitler only launched his attack on Poland as he thought they would do the same there.
-
I hear politicians on the TV saying much the same as i have said and i have to think that people like Putin,Cameron. Holland and Obama know far more about how to deal with this than any one of us on here do.
Like Bush and Blair you mean?
Stand for election next time, you are a cert to win.
You see Hound? That's a typical example of the sort of snide comment you've been coming out with for a while now. QED.
You have yet to make an argument based on anything other than emotion and your own personal beliefs. There are plenty of other contributors to these threads who, no matter what their position might be, can develop their argument by reference to facts, verifiable observations and logical conclusions developed from them. Intelligent argument (and I don't mean the word in the sense of conflict) requires thought and a provable basis. You have given neither so far.
BobG
-
Bob, that is rubbish and you know it.
I responded to you in such a fair and responsible way that you had no come back, until you saw my response to Glyn.
If you care to read through the various posts you will see that invariably whenever i post MY OPINION on the IS situation i get a response from him putting me down for daring to have a different one to him.
Many of my comments are looked upon by other forum members to be good opinions and that is backed up by their responses, many of which agree with me.
Read Glynns reply to my post "like Bush and Blair" and tell me that isnt a snide remark.
-
It wasn't snide, it was addressing your supposition that just because someone leads a country they know the best way to proceed. Your response was just a personal attack. Spot the difference.
-
lol
You have got to laugh at that reply.
-
lol
You have got to laugh at that reply.
Aye, like we all laughed at yours. :whistle:
-
No only one or two.
Plenty agree with me.
-
I'm glad you put 'my opinion' in capital letters Hound. You emphasise for me the point made by Brian Cox that I have quoted before. I'll quote it again:
"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".
Like I said, I give reasoned arguments based on observable facts, patterns created by known events separated in time and space, and, consequences observable by those with a feel for recent history. You give us your opinion. Anyone with brains really doesn't care two hoots about opinions. They need facts and logical conclusions drawn from what is observable and deduceable.
Bit of a difference to be honest.
BobG
-
There are lots of contributors to this forum who use "in my opinion" in their comments.
If you are saying that anyone with brains doesn't give two hoots about opinions then you are putting down a large majority of posters because people do respond to people's opinions and it creates debate.
You are more than welcome to your high horse opinion of yourself.
-
You see Hound? That's become the typical response from you. I haven't abused you - though I suspect your guilty conscience may make you believe I have. But I haven't. I have commented on the verifiable fact that you think emotionally, and, that an opinion is worthless unless and until it is backed up by a reasoned, verifiable argument - of which you have offered none. Instead, you have responded, again, with the tirade of snide remarks that you have been throwing out for a while now.
When you have something other than an opinion to offer (they're like arseholes arent they? We've all got one) I will read it with great interest. I am always willing to learn, to see things from a different viewpoint, to think about a new interpretation. That's how knowledge progresses and develops. But opinions on their own are entirely without value.
BobG
-
And there you go again, pontificating from on high.
I am bored with you putting me down now.
If you think my responses to you are "typical" then perhaps it is because of the way you read them.
I have reasonable and fair chats and debates with plenty of contributors on this forum who do value my opinions.
So how about you don't reply to anything i write and i will do the same with you then perhaps you won't get quite so upset.
Just before i go though,you say that opinions on their own are entirely without value.
Not true Bob.
The beliefs or views of a group or majority of people could be construed as the changing climate of opinion and that is not without value is it?
Or, as is your case,an estimation of the quality of someone as in "i had a high opinion of myself".
-
Like I said, we've all got opinions. Those that matter are backed up by observation, fact, intelligence, reflection and wisdom. The others are just hot air uttered by people without the wit to do any better. And yes, the 'opinion' of even a majority, when it is based on emotion, prejudice, ignorance or laziness is indeed worthless.
From what you say it is pretty clear that you would not have objected to the rise of Nazism in 1930's Germany Hound. The opinion of a very large minority of the entire population was that it was a 'good thing' - so by your yardstick it had value - despite the facts that it was logically incoherent, morally repugnant, economically bankrupt and politically moribund. But those things, the things that people with intelligence take the trouble to think about, clearly wouldn't matter to you would they? That's what I tried to do in this thread - think beyond the immediate gut reaction. Your snide comments, made without any effort at all to think through the amply illustrated reasons for opinions contrary to your own, rather destroyed that didn't they?
And why the abuse Hound? I thought you were vehement in your assertion not long ago that you didn't do even snide comments? You've sunk pretty quickly. If your conscience is making you feel guilty, well, I'm afraid that's something you will have to address.
Cheers
BobG
-
What are you on Bob, give it a rest.
My conscience is very clear as it happens in regards of anything i may have said to you.
Also, where have i said that i would not have objected to the rise of Naziism in the 1930's????
I HAVE SAID that if we are not careful the rise of IS would be similar to the rise of the Nazi part in the 30's (or words to that effect so don't bother correcting me if it isnt word perfect).
I actually consider your replies to me to be snide now and for what it is worth, i dont give a monkeys whether you think mine to you snide now.
My opinions on what i would like to see happen to the IS people are not knee jerk emotional ones, they are based on what i genuinely think should be done to eradicate the menace that is IS.
Please do not insult my intelligence by saying otherwise.
Cheers, Hound.
-
My point is why did we not create a plan and why did we not stick at it? I fully agree the justification behind the invasion was pathetic, but there's a billion other justifiable reasons why removing a mass murderer is and was valid. Just as the same can be said in Syria.
I fully agree a plan has to be there and seen through, that is and was the big weakness and it's massively wrong that we didn't do that - the same can be said in Libya. But the fact is it is our problem and we should do something about it. If the Nazis were in power now we would probably just let them get on with it - the new labour lot definitely would. But we shouldn't we should be doing something about it or we will end up with more of what's going on.
I've not long since been to Brussels, it's on surprise that some people there are acting as they are, it's quite clear what the atmosphere in that city is like.
I'm not one to bang on about immigration, but frankly I can see why some do...
Because Iraq is rarely in the news these days, there is a tendency to think everything is fine over there. 130 people died in Paris, so far this month, 850 people have died in Iraq, 52 over the past weekend. Which makes it the quietest for 2 and 1/2 years. That is the country we brought peace and stability to.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
In 1936 the left organised volunteers to go out and fight Franco's fascists in Spain. Franco who was supported by Hitler. The Tory Government of the day 'let them get on with it'. There is a school of thought that says Hitler only launched his attack on Poland as he thought they would do the same there.
Again though that's only a valid point if you're of the belief that not finishing the job in Iraq War right, it wasn't. The western countries left far too early.
I expect Cameron will win the vote and it's a right old mess for labour right now. I just hope that finally all countries do a proper job but I can't see it, it's too risky.
-
My point is why did we not create a plan and why did we not stick at it? I fully agree the justification behind the invasion was pathetic, but there's a billion other justifiable reasons why removing a mass murderer is and was valid. Just as the same can be said in Syria.
I fully agree a plan has to be there and seen through, that is and was the big weakness and it's massively wrong that we didn't do that - the same can be said in Libya. But the fact is it is our problem and we should do something about it. If the Nazis were in power now we would probably just let them get on with it - the new labour lot definitely would. But we shouldn't we should be doing something about it or we will end up with more of what's going on.
I've not long since been to Brussels, it's on surprise that some people there are acting as they are, it's quite clear what the atmosphere in that city is like.
I'm not one to bang on about immigration, but frankly I can see why some do...
Because Iraq is rarely in the news these days, there is a tendency to think everything is fine over there. 130 people died in Paris, so far this month, 850 people have died in Iraq, 52 over the past weekend. Which makes it the quietest for 2 and 1/2 years. That is the country we brought peace and stability to.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
In 1936 the left organised volunteers to go out and fight Franco's fascists in Spain. Franco who was supported by Hitler. The Tory Government of the day 'let them get on with it'. There is a school of thought that says Hitler only launched his attack on Poland as he thought they would do the same there.
Again though that's only a valid point if you're of the belief that not finishing the job in Iraq War right, it wasn't. The western countries left far too early.
I expect Cameron will win the vote and it's a right old mess for labour right now. I just hope that finally all countries do a proper job but I can't see it, it's too risky.
And that is only a valid point if you dont know what the Iraq War was about. What do you mean by finishing it exactly? Just keep fighting anybody and everybody for the sake of it. We went into Iraq to depose the government and install an opposition. It's the opposition we are now 'fighting'.
Two years ago Cameron had a vote in Parliament on air strikes in Syria to support Syrian opposition groups against Assad. Now he wants to bomb those same opposition groups - yes thats where IS in Syria came from - and thus help Assad.
We have been bombing Iraq - and the US Syria - for years, has that stopped IS - or has it just made it worse by IS now operating more strongly abroad. It needs a much bigger plan than a few more holes in the desert.
And you say Labour are in a mess.
-
Something must be done about ISIS.
Bombing ISIS is "something".
Therefore, we must bomb ISIS.
That about capture the logic?
-
Hound: did you see no less a person than our Prime Minister, today, saying that "An opinion held even by a majority is not always right"? I saw it on tv about lunchtime.
It's about time you started to think before you put your fingers on the keyboard.
Cheers
BobG
-
Yawn.
Cheers, Hound.
-
Can't make a credible argument on rational grounds so play the man instead? Kind of demonstrates your level mate doesn't it? Not bad for a bloke who 3 or 4 days ago was bleating that he never made a snide comment. What do you call your last post?
Cheers
BobG
-
Something must be done about ISIS.
Bombing ISIS is "something".
Therefore, we must bomb ISIS.
That about capture the logic?
You missed out the next line which goes 'And if you don't support immediately bombing them, you must therefore be an ISIS supporter and your opinion is thus worthless'...
-
Can't make a credible argument on rational grounds so play the man instead? Kind of demonstrates your level mate doesn't it? Not bad for a bloke who 3 or 4 days ago was bleating that he never made a snide comment. What do you call your last post?
Cheers
BobG
Come on Bob, get your glasses on.
Read it again, i said i hadnt made any snide comments, yes that is true.
BUT, i also said in a recent post to you that i dont care whether i make snide one TO YOU anymore.
Get your facts right man before you engage your fingers with the keyboard.
Also, you are making suppositions about "my level" and you havent got a scooby doo what it is have you?
I also think people on here will have had enough of reading your reposts to me now so how about giving it a rest now?
Cheers, Hound.
-
Come on, boys, lets all play nice, eh?
-
Come on, boys, lets all play nice, eh?
Just drop bombs on 'em Rob, that'll learn 'em. ;)
-
You would have to know where we were hiding first though Glynn. :boxing: :coat: :chair:
-
Come on, boys, lets all play nice, eh?
Just drop bombs on 'em Rob, that'll learn 'em. ;)
Well obviously talking hasn't worked. ;)
-
You would have to know where we were hiding first though Glynn. :boxing: :coat: :chair:
Indiscriminate bombing will do the same thing just as well. So what if there's lots of innocent bystanders? If they happen to be stood next to you they can't be that innocent can they? ;)
-
Lots of people think it has to be a starting point though.
(and so the circle continues)
-
Lots of people think it has to be a starting point though.
That's the scary part.
-
I'd have no problem at all with bombing that lot if we would just have a credible plan for:
a) how we're actually going to 'win', and
b) what we're going to do after we've won to make sure the issue doesn't resurrect itself within 10 years
That's why I'm not in favour of bombing. First, cos' it won't beat anybody, and second, cos we know that even if we then have to invade, we still won't win. Churchill once said "Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action". Well, we've attacked 3 countries in the last 15 years and, effectively, we've lost every single time. We've not stopped terrorists in a single one of them. We've made things worse in every one. The current plan for bombing ISIS is simply another such futile exercise. I reckon the 'enemy' is the political classes in this country who don't have the balls to actually provide some rational leadership, and, the leaders in the USA who don't have the wit or the vision to see what their blundering leads to.
BobG
-
There's a fundamental question in any military action.
What is the End Game? Or, What do we expect to achieve?
I have no idea what the answer is to that question with regard to Syria/IS.
-
And that, Billy, has been the basis of my view ever since this thread, and t'other one, started. I'm amazed how few people can make the connections and draw the conclusions.
Cheers
BobG
-
You are both referencing the leading military strategist, General von Clausewitz:
'War is a continuation of politics by other means'
and if someone can tell me what political aims the ISIS aerial bombing campaign is intended to achieve I would be interested to hear it? If the answer is, 'it will make us safer in the west' then, 5000 bombing raids in Iraq and 2000 in Syria had been carried out before the Paris attacks.
-
You are both referencing the leading military strategist, General von Clausewitz:
'War is a continuation of politics by other means'
and if someone can tell me what political aims the ISIS aerial bombing campaign is intended to achieve I would be interested to hear it? If the answer is, 'it will make us safer in the west' then, 5000 bombing raids in Iraq and 2000 in Syria had been carried out before the Paris attacks.
Political aims? It's a fireworks display for domestic consumption, to make it look like they're not doing nothing.
-
Churchill made it clear enough in his "fight them on the beaches" speech.
"You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
That made it clear enough. There would be no compromise. There would be no agreement with a belligerent Germany. There would be a fight to the end. And it would be hard and painful. There would be sacrifices, deaths, loss of prosperity and there would be unmitigated hard f**king graft. There was no possibility of anyone misunderstanding that, on the war front or the home front.
That is the minimum that politicians owe civilians and military staff when we go to war. A clear and unequivocal statement of what we are going to war for, and what our aims are. What is the endgame. What is the level of effort, commitment and danger involved.
Anyone who is really interested in this should read "The Utility of Force" by General Rupert Smith. Fascinating and very learned discussion on the issues related to modern asymmetric conflict, from a man who has very much walked the walk.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Utility_of_Force
-
Thank you Billy.
From reading just the Wikipedia article, I have put 'The Utility of Force' on my book list. To crystalise just these few points is some achievement:
- The ends for which we fight are changing from the hard objectives that decide a political outcome to those of establishing conditions in which the outcome may be decided
- We fight amongst the people, not on the battlefield
- Our conflicts tend to be timeless, even unending
- We fight so as to preserve the force rather than risking all to gain the objective
- On each occasion new uses are found for old weapons and organizations which are the products of industrial war
Awesome stuff. 'New uses for old weapons' - sounds like the old adage that Generals always prepare to fight the last war. And sounds like a simply perfect description of the foolishness of what is proposed today.
But best of all, of course, is the first point :) I really can't think who's been banging on for days and days on these threads about it all being a waste of time without sensible means in place to change the environment....
Right now, though it pains me to say it, I'm with Jeremy Corbyn. More bombs will simply create more insecurity.
BobG
-
Bombing CAN have a tactical outcome - degrading the immediate ability of ISIS to operate.
I cannot see how it can possibly be beneficial STRATEGICALLY. It will not destroy the ideology and the sense of moral injustice that ISIS feeds on. Every civilian killed by a western bomb will just generate the next generation's Jihadists.
You don't defeat an ideology by military means, unless you are prepared to wage total war and weed out the ideology at root. And even then, you have to make sure that you can replace it with something that will be more appealing to the next generation.
Defeat of the ideology that ISIS feeds off will not be achieved by lobbing a few dozen cruise misfiled into Raqqah. It'll be achieved by demonstrating that the next generations' futures are with the West, not with ISIS. That's going to be a 100+ year job. And bombing without a clear purpose will extend that duration, not reduce it.
-
Could it not be done in way less than a 100 years Billy? I'm thinking of the sub 10 years it took to pretty well destroy Nazism as any sort of option for 99.999% of all Germans. It took a vast shed load of money and some pretty serious military force to occupy the place whilst the weeding was going on, but it was all done and dusted in well under 10 years. Could that work again? Or are we so unable to comprehend Islam that we couldn't deliver it? Or is militant Islam so much more deeply embedded than Nazism?
If it could work, in the long run it'd probably end up being cheaper.... But it would need statesmen with vision, persuasive words and very big balls. Anyone seen anyone like that kicking around?
Cheers
BobG
-
Bob
Not a chance. Nazism in Germany was an aberration. The response to the particular economic circumstances on the Inter-War years. Post-WWII, there was a relatively homogenous society that just needed to be directed into more useful activity. There was a previous record of democracy and social cohesion. There was a modern, dynamic economic structure to be re-booted.
AND, on top of all of that, there was a massive drive for America to put money in - to re-build Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet empire. THAT was a real threat that demanded out of the box thinking.
None of those circumstances exist with Syria/Iraq/ISIS. There isn't the same raw material to work on, and there isn't the real pressing need that would drive the USA to divert a very large proportion of its GDP to the development of the area. And even if there was, the area and the population to be dealt with is just too large. Build up one country and the fundamentalism will only pop up in the next place. Where do you stop? Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Yemen? Somalia? Thick end of 0.25bn people there; 5-6 times the size of post-War West Germany.
That's why I say it can o my be a slow process. Slowly try to get the conditions in place to allow (relative) economic prosperity to emerge and the fundamentalists will have no soul to plant their ideas in. In the meantime, be prepared for low-level perma-War with us trying to degrade the terrorists' capability and them occasionally getting through. Which is exactly what Rupert Smith was predicting 10 years ago.
-
Billy, I'm not altogether sure that economic conditions are a motivating factor in the popularity of this muslim extremism, otherwise why would there be so many home-grown (European born and bred) muslim extremists planning and executing attacks and even travelling to Syria to join the fight. Economic factors surely aren't the cause for them?
-
Pies: what status do you think the vast majority of Muslims have in each and every European country?? You can define status as meaning financial, economic, employment and just about pretty much everything else you fancy. It doesn't matter what measure you use, they are the dispossessed, the disadvantaged of European society and they have been so for decade after decade. The French were having riots by the Algerians as far back as the 70's. The Turks in Germany have been the butt of German racism and economic exploitation since that time too. Who are the poor and the disadvantaged in Belgium today? How long have they held that position?? Kick people long enough and one day they'll fight back. Now that ISIS have given them a cause, that's why it's not surprising in the least that the Moslems in our midst are looking to force rapid changes. And get some revenge of course too.
Billy: fair enough. Wishful thinking on my part.....
BobG
-
Pies.
People can feel a sense of solidarity. Of brotherhood with their brothers. You can be born in a (relatively) economically comfortable place and still feel a sense of injustice that your brothers in your homeland have not had the same opportunities.
Or maybe not? Maybe the European-born terrorists are just anti-social Kitsons? That is a possibility.
But if that is the case, they would have no soil to grow in if the Middle East had the same economic strength that we have. They'd turn up in Raqqa wanting terrorist training and the locals would say "f**k off...I'm building an extension on my house/saving for my daughter to got to University/watching the football on my HD widescreen".
But the world isn't like that is it? In a world in which we have obscene discrepancies of wealth, there are always going to be intelligent and motivated people who can't get the opportunity to put their intelligence and motivation to beneficial use. And who will instead put them to vengeful use. What I was saying is that we've got a century-long job of convincing them that they are better off working peacefully. That they will have a comfortable life if they do.
If we can do that. I GUARANTEE you that the fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran will vanish to insignificant levels. If we inflame the situation and keep the same levels of poverty that we currently have in the world, I can guarantee you that we will have perma-war.
-
If you watch some of Adam Curtis' stuff, a cynical person might think that permawar is what some people with a vested interested in keeping fear levels up might want...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
-
You cant tar all the Muslims with the same brush (not a colour related joke there) can you.
I know plenty of muslim people who are very well off financially, some are extremely wealthy.
All the ones that i know and have spoken with about the IS situation agree that action against IS has to be taken and that what they are doing is totally against the Islam teachings.
-
Just about everybody agrees some sort of action should be taken. The disagreements are about which actions are the most effective without being counter-productive. Also, I heard several MPs in the debate today raise several questions about stated aims and measures of success that I would certainly want to know the answer to before any deployment of ground forces. These questions have not to my knowledge been answered by anyone yet.
-
Also it would be fair to say that most people have similar concerns about where will military action lead.
The thing is that we have to either do something or nothing to try to stop the scourge that is IS.
Do we sit back and do nothing?
-
Hound
'We', the RAF are conducting bombing raids on IS in Iraq and have been for over a year. 'We' the US coalition and Russia are conducting bombing raids on IS in Syria and have been for over a year.
Who exactly is the 'we' you are you referring to when you say 'do we sit back and do nothing?'
-
Bob/BST,
Thanks for taking the time to provide an explanation.
I really do have difficulty buying into the belief that they are more dispossessed and disadvantaged than any other group within the working class in this country, particularly to an extent that explains their actions. They are here out of choice, they have equality of opportunity far greater than they would in their native countries, they have the right to vote, to become politicians if so minded. The country looks after their health and welfare, I just don't buy that dispossessed and disadvantaged as a justification.
They are denied opportunity no more than any other working class person in this country, and by the end of this parliament it will be a whole lot worse whatever your ethnicity or religious convictions, but that's a subject sufficiently covered in other threads.
-
Pies
I fully agree with that. But I'm not talking about the economic situation of Muslims here. I'm talking about the situation in much of the Middle East.
The economic situation of much of the population in much of the Middle East has two effect. 1) It gives some basis for the feeling of hatred towards the West that some Muslims in the West feel. They feel a sense of brotherhood with their oppressed kin back home. Just as many American Catholics sympathised with the IRA because they shared a sense of grievance over decades and centuries of Irish Catholics being kept down by the English and Unionist side. 2) Because of the economic mess in much of the Middle East, places there are fertile ground for people to turn to aggressive approaches. And then to become training centres for anyone attracted to their side.
If the Middle East were richer and fairer, both of these factors would be far less potent. In fact, short of having an iron fist to keep the rebellious and violent under control, I can't see any way that Islamic terrorism will diminish until the people there have a future that says that they can have a better future through work rather than through fighting.
It's a simple belief of mine that you stop conflict by making people realise that they (collectively) have a lot more to gain by working together, and a lot to lose by fighting.
-
Can't argue with that for a fundamental belief BST, I suppose the elephant to eat with that on is the bit about making people realise. Western powers have been totally impotent in constructing and expressing a cohesive argument to counter that of the extremists.
-
I tell you what after that speech Hillary Benn definitely made his point. Really powerful speech. There's a man who would make a leader....
I think there's been some good points today actually. Cameron's comments just weren't needed and he rightly deserves stick for that, though at least he said what he thinks.
But, the reservations made by some are valid as it's not a perfect situation out there is it? I suspect the government will get their way and Syrian action will follow, but that should be just the start, they have to take it seriously and get proper strategies throughout completed.
-
BFYP
" I suspect the government will get their way and Syrian action will follow, but that should be just the start, they have to take it seriously and get proper strategies throughout completed."
And therein lies the problem. Conjuring up figures of the supposed number of anti-Assad fighters who could do the job of ground troops does not bode well for the likelihood of having a sensible post-bombing policy.
In fact, that's being too gentle. It is bullshit of the first order, designed to indicate that there is a strategy where none exists. You can see already what will happen. We may well "degrade" IS in Syria. And in the resulting vacuum, there will be extended chaos and carnage and the whole cycle will start again.
-
Or to put it somewhat more bluntly in the other direction Billy, Daesh (as we are supposed to call them now because they dont like it) have been fighting Assad. Therefore attacking and stopping Daesh will make Assad stronger, as he has one less enemy to fight, and he can then turn against this, er, huge, anti-Assad Army. Wth Russian help.
-
The 70,000 fighters Cameron believes he can call upon might exist, but most of them are fighting President Assad in other parts of the country. Does he really intend to draw them away from that fight, even if, and it seems unlikely, they are willing to be drawn? After all, he insists that we will not beat ISIL if we waver in our view that ultimately Assad must go. Redeploy Assad's opponents against a different enemy and he will consolidate his hold on Syria. This flaw in Cameron's plan is so obvious it scarcely needs stating.
The very obviousness of this weakness must make you question just what is going on. I'll offer a few suggestions:
1) the news, and the critiques, are being managed in favour of one point of view, or
2) our political and press thinkers and leaders are so dense it's obscene
3) we are being fed what someone wants us to hear and to read and to see
This whole exercise is shaming democracy.
Was it you Wilts, who pointed out earlier than after 5000 bombing raids so far in Iraq and 2,000 in Syria we seem to be no noticeably nearer degrading anybody? Where are the targets, and how will our bombers actually hit them? Isis is buried among the remaining residents in the city of Raqqa. What ratio of dead civilians to dead fighters does Cameron consider acceptable? There will be a ratio, and it is likely to be a large one: the terrorists will make sure of that.
I read today that counter terrorism policy is not developed from any evidence base. The dearth of empirical assessment is one of the astonishing features of counter-terrorism. I was led to a paper in the journal Psicothema. It found an almost complete absence of evaluation research on counter-terrorism strategies …"[we] conclude that counter-terrorism policy is not evidence-based". The reasons why it's never been studied are of absolutely fundamental importance to every single one of us. Just stop a few seconds - what does that fact tell you about those that make these decisions on our behalf? What does it tell you about what they are telling us every single day now?
The paper looked into the outcomes of 11 anti terrorist campaigns. In 5 cases there was no discernible impact at all. In the other 6 cases, things got worse after the campaign had taken place.
So why all this jingoism and hyberbolic nonsense eh? No matter what is driving it, it sure does hide a massive, gaping vacuum in policy, thought, wisdom and experience.
BobG
-
Hound
'We', the RAF are conducting bombing raids on IS in Iraq and have been for over a year. 'We' the US coalition and Russia are conducting bombing raids on IS in Syria and have been for over a year.
Who exactly is the 'we' you are you referring to when you say 'do we sit back and do nothing?'
Wilts, explain to me why you have picked out my post to ask who "we" are.
I noticed that you haven't put the same question to anyone else yet.
Plenty of other posters have said that "we" should do this that and the other, or alternatively "we should not bomb them" but for some reason you avoid asking them the same thing.
Just to respond to you though seeing as you asked, i consider "we" in this case to be the decent people in the world who seriously resent what IS are doing, their beliefs and barbarism.
It does seem though that there are World leaders out there who have directed air strikes on IS positions who obviously are incapable of making correct decisions, well according to some people anyway.
I wonder whether Obama, Putin, Hollande, Cameron et al are all wrong.
-
Hound
'We' the posters in this thread, have been discussing the campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria over 7 pages in this thread and something similar in the other. Within that debate I have several times given facts and figures for how long the bombing campaign in both countries has been going on and which countries have participated in it.
If you then choose to use a throwaway line of 'we are sitting on our hands and doing nothing' when 'we' clearly have not been for over a year now, then I think you should expect some response. I have not responded to anyone else - because it was you who said it! Dont take it personally.
I do believe that if Obama, Putin, Hollande, Cameron etc believe that aerial bombing along with defeat Daesh then they are wrong. It requires ground support. They are being pushed back in Iraq because of the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Rebels, the bombing is supporting this. I also believe that they know this as well, but are afraid to admit it, hence the talk of the mythical 'moderate' army. They were wrong about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction and the Arab Spring, dont be surprised if they are wrong here to.
My view, which hasn't changed and which we have been in agreement, is there wont ever be a peaceful solution and an eradication of terrorist activity in the Middle East, without a multi-national coaltion including the countries of the middle east. At the moment that seems to be a long way off.
-
error
-
There's no need for that Bob, it was a perfectly reasonable question and (I hope) I have given Hound an acceptable answer.
I enjoy his posts, I certainly dont always agree with them but he usually has something to say that adds to the debate. It is easy to get carried away with some of the muppets we have had on here in the not to far distant past, but Hound is fine, best if you dont take his posts personally either.
-
Wilts, first of all, thanks for those kind words, glad that you can see my viewpoint.
The argument against bombing has regularly been that it can kill innocent civilians and it is hard to argue against that.
To be fair, i have always said that any bombing needs to be strategic and not just to willy nilly, drop them on towns ( I can't spell indiscriminate otherwise i would have written that !)
I also understand that IS will probably have civilians in some of their key positions and inevitably innocents will die.
However "we" need to continue along the chosen path of bombing because we have to.
I have also said on here that in my opinion there will have to be ground troops deployed by UN forces in time to follow up the bombing campaign.
Again there will be civilian casualties.
I was listening to a news report earlier in the week when the BBC interviewed the former Air Force Chief of Staff.
When the question was put to him about the damage that may be done to towns and cities he responded as follows:
"If you think that air strikes cause damage to towns, you should see the damage that is caused when the ground troops go in".
He was indicating that whichever way our forces attack IS, there will be the inevitable carnage that goes with war.
I fully agree with other posters on here who have said that a conflict with IS will be long and drawn out but i believe that it has to happen because "we" have take them on.
IS can't be allowed to continue with their murderous ways without a response.