Another beheading

[BillyStubbsTears]

RR.

So how do you "stand up to them"?

By engaging in the sort of acts that you and I find disgusting and reprehensible when they do it? By lashing out and shrugging your shoulders if 2000 innocent kids and mothers get killed in the process like Israel does (or if 250,000 innocent people get killed in the process, like happened as a result on the Bush/Blair madness)?

Get a sense of perspective. They have killed THREE westerners. In the age before TV, you'd never have heard of that action. They prey on the fact that we liberal Westerners are disgusted and revulsed by what they have done. They want to turn us into the sort of people who crave bestial retribution. So the cycle will go on.

The lest bad solution is to slowly strangle them. Off the news. Off the TV screens. In quiet. Using politics to throttle their supply lines and SF to take out their leaders. It'll not do the politicians any good, because nobody thanks anyone when a problem slowly and imperceptibly evaporates. But it'll be a f**k sight better for my kids than the alternative of wading in with hob-nail boots and killing any f**ker who looks like they were born east of Athens.

[RedRover45]

BST

I appreciate the obvious danger to the world axis by undertaking something as major as that, and not withstanding the civilian casualties that will inevitably occur. But in warfare, rules don't exist and there will be collateral damage. Don't get me wrong.

I just happen to think that these fanatics are the biggest danger to the world existence since Hitler and if we don't stop it, some day soon it will be too late.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RR

You need a bit of perspective pal.

Since Hitler, we've had Mao, Stalin, the Viet Kong, Pol Pot, Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld. We've had India and Pakistan come to the verge of nuclear war. We've had Berlin, Korea, Cuba and Able Archer. We've had Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. We've had 6 million people butchered in central Africa with no Kitson in the West so much as batting an eyelid.  And you reckon this lot are the biggest threat to peace?

You're shiting it because a bunch of jihadis have beheaded three people. And in getting so hysterical, you are doing EXACTLY what they want you to do. They are playing you along. They want this sort of irrational response.

[RedRover45]

BST

As a matter of fact, I'm far from shitting it. I'm just a typical 'Westerner' that has had enough of every two-bit religious fanatical freak trying to make a name for themself in the name of religion. They're just the latest in a long line.
What they're doing is trying to provoke a response, I agree whole-heartedly with you.
But how many more political and religious acts of terror followed by countless empty rhetoric by Cameron, Obama, and many leaders before them. Instead of talking the talk, just f....ing sort it out properly to persuade any other world crackpots to think twice before they try and disrupt world karma.
And as for your other list, the Jihaddi I think are the most dangerous of the lot because to repeat a well publicised theory. The next and possibly last world war will be based on the biggest danger of all. Religion. Not power, greed or a crazy megalomaniac. Religion. Which by and large incorporates the whole of the worlds population.

[River Don]

BST

How many Iraqi Christians, Yazidi and Shia Muslims have ISIS killed?

Their treatment of these easy targets is particularly brutal, beheadings, heads on spikes and crucifications.

It is a bit more than three westerners.

It was the attempted genocide of the Yazidi that finally drew Obama into military action in Northern Iraq. Not the murdered hostages.

[roversdude]

we need to ensure that any fanatic from these shores are never allowed back again, also send their entire family over to the land they want to defend

[not on facebook]

What the powers that be should do is inforce a shot to KILL policy When ever up against the  IS

Dont take Prisoners and keep them under lock and Key as sooner or later
Down the line somebody will Get taken hostage by IS and used as a tool to Bargin for his life on release Of untold IS held Prisoners

Iran let most Of these IS fighters out Of prison with sole purpose to
Cause havoc in parts Of middle East.

No way should anyone that stands for IS today and is fighting Their cause
Out in Syria should be allowed back into any western society they camel from.when This happens it will be unsafe on any capitals streets for the joe Public.

You have to fight fire with fire against the IS and stick with the shot to KILL policy .saying This will not Get rid Of them 100% as they  will next
Surface in africa

[not on facebook]

we need to ensure that any fanatic from these shores are never allowed back again, also send their entire family over to the land they want to defend

Iam with that ,if a say father in a family is Across in Syria fighting for the
IS cause and is found out  ship his whole household out there too .

Wife and kids that all live under same Roof as they will know that he will be getting his hands dirty for the IS cause .if a son or daughter is found doing the  same ,ship mum and dad out with brother or sisters .

More has to be done to make the muslim culture to Police Its self.
If a parent suspects a family member Of IS involvement addvice local Police station ,or if a son  Or daughter thinks same Of mum dad or uncle
Or aunt.

Wont happen because Of too many soft kunts in todays society will
Block Such strong tatics with human fights .what about Your human right
To feal safe walking down Oxford street or round bull ring etc etc

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oslo

If you think Iran supports IS, that just shows how little comprehension you have of this issue.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RD

I'm well aware of what IS has been doing. They are repellent, bestial and must be defeated.  The point is that there is a hysterical response which is entirely down to their media spectaculars in the last few weeks. How many people here really gave a shit when they were massacring Shias? How many people really cared when they forced the Yazidis out of Sinjar (incidentally, whilst Obama used that as a humanitarian case to justify air strikes against IS that was never the main reason - America was concerned about the possible collapse of Kurdistan and wanted to degrade IS to prevent the fall of Irbil.)

Be honest. No more than a tiny percentage of people in the West cared about those atrocities. But a few gruesome murders on YouTube and suddenly it's WWIII and we should carpet bomb the whole region.

[River Don]

BST

I think it was the plight of the Yazidi dying up on that mountain that really shifted western public opinion.

Obama had one big achievement, getting the US out of Iraq. It forced him to return.

Just one year before the US and UK were advocating backing Syrian rebels including IS then just 'extremists' who they assured everyone could be controlled. IS have forced a complete U turn in western foreign policy, making both the US and UK governments look total chumps.

They didn't want to intervene in this, not at all but they have been forced to because as you say the threat to Irbil, Baghdad and the oil fields but also because of the atrocities happening within Northern Iraq.

It is only since US air power has begun to turn the tide on IS allowing Kurdish and Iraqi forces on the ground to win back Mosul damn and other territory that IS have begun their terror spectacular videos aimed at the west.

I don't see how the west can possibly allow the creation of a hard line, Wahhabist terror state on the border of Turkey and the doorstep of Europe.

It would have oil wealth and become a magnate for every jihadist loon on the globe. If we thought terror training camps in Afghanistan were a problem it would be a minor compared with this new 'caliphate'.

I doubt the tactic of sending in black ops to lop the heads off their leaders would work. The problem with Islamist terror is it has leadership and no leadership at the same time. It's like a game of whack a mole, bang one on the head and another appears. The Islamic fighters are all indoctrinated into this belief with an ancient book of holy writings to reinforce their conviction. There's always more waiting in the wings.

To be honest I don't think there is any answer, or any good strategy. We're just forced to confront it wherever it emerges.

[not on facebook]

Oslo

If you think Iran supports IS, that just shows how little comprehension you have of this issue.

Maybe iam getting my middle East countrys mixed up

But one country out there released shit Loads Of terrorists from Its Prisons
Who later became IS fighters

Iam sure it was Iran or was it Irak ,it was some fcukers

[River Don]

Oslo

If you think Iran supports IS, that just shows how little comprehension you have of this issue.

Maybe iam getting my middle East countrys mixed up

But one country out there released shit Loads Of terrorists from Its Prisons
Who later became IS fighters

Iam sure it was Iran or was it Irak ,it was some fcukers

I think it was our close friends and allies in Saudi Arabia, Oslo.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There are claims that Syria released lots of Saffist prisoners who went on to join IS. But the claims are made by one of the other groups fighting against Assad, so they are hardly impartial.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oslo

The fact that you're getting mixed up is kind of the point I was making. The Middle East situation is highly complex with different groups of Muslims at each other's throats.

Imagine Northern Ireland 20 years ago. Imagine if the IRA had decided for some reason to behead a Japanese reporter. And imagine if, as a result of that, Japan said that they should clamp down hard on all British people. That, because the IRA had committed this atrocity, Ian Paisley was equally responsible.

That's roughly what your position is on the current issue.

Except that the IS/Iraq/Syria problem makes Northern Ireland in the 1980s look like a playground game in terms of relative complexity. I have a friend and ex-colleague who is Syrian. One of the most intelligent and decent human beings I have ever met. When we first waded  into the Arab Spring with our blind stupidity, he predicted exactly what would happen. He is a Muslim (and therefore, no friend of Assad). But he said that he would infinitely prefer Assad to remain in power, with all his brutal ways, to the hornets' nest being smashed by the West encouraging an uprising. He said that if we DID encourage anti-Assad uprisings, we had better be prepared to get in there quick, finish him off and get a moderate Muslim Govt in power. Because if we didn't, Syria would be a fertile breeding ground for Sunni fundamentalists. And the result would be that EVERYONE in that region would hate us.

Bang on the money, as he is with most things he talks about.

[IC1967]

Your friend thinks like me. These countries need brutal dictators in place to keep all the religious nutters in check.

Unfortunately we can't turn the clock back now. We helped cause the problem but most of the blame should go to those involved in the uprisings. It is unfair to pin all the blame on the West.

We need to get stuck in and impose brutal dictators on all these countries. Only then will we have a solution to the problem.

[GazLaz]

Ironically all in the name of religion that was originally made up to control masses through fear.

[River Don]

Your friend thinks like me. These countries need brutal dictators in place to keep all the religious nutters in check.

Unfortunately we can't turn the clock back now. We helped cause the problem but most of the blame should go to those involved in the uprisings. It is unfair to pin all the blame on the West.

We need to get stuck in and impose brutal dictators on all these countries. Only then will we have a solution to the problem.

In a way it is the fault of the west, since it was the global financial crisis sparked by the collapse in the subprime property market in the US that lead to coordinated action by Central banks that created all that hot money, that lead to inflation, particularly noticeable in food. That in turn created the black swan event of the Arab spring as food inflation disproportionately hit poor communities in areas of North Africa and the middle east that lead to the uprising against the incumbent dictators.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

My friend is learned, astute, thoughtful and modest. He was a brilliant academic and now he's a highly successful businessman. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who thinks less like you.

[glosterred]

BST

But in warfare, rules don't exist and there will be collateral damage. Don't get me wrong.

Rules do exists, the Geneva convention lay out the rules of war. However IS are not a nation state or a signature to the convention, but just because they haven't signed does not give us the right to ignore the rule of war. If we go into this not caring about collateral damage to civilians then for every "innocent" civilian we kill we will generate for IS 10 or more new fighters.

[RedRover45]

BST

But in warfare, rules don't exist and there will be collateral damage. Don't get me wrong.

Rules do exists, the Geneva convention lay out the rules of war. However IS are not a nation state or a signature to the convention, but just because they haven't signed does not give us the right to ignore the rule of war. If we go into this not caring about collateral damage to civilians then for every "innocent" civilian we kill we will generate for IS 10 or more new fighters.

GLOSTER

I'm well aware of the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, IS aren't. And that's what relevant.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RR

No. It isn't. What is relevant is what values you hold. We despise IS for their immorality. You employ the same tactics and you are as big a bas**rd as they are.

I keep hearing that people hate Islam because it doesn't share Western values. Then I hear people advocating actions that would make me disgusted to be associated with them.

Are we morally superior to people who behead innocents, or are we down in the same gutter as them?

THAT is the point.

[bobjimwilly]

for a start westerners should avoid travelling to or near the countries where IS are based.
the coalition have made the right choice to ban any british muslims from returning if found to be travelling to join or help IS.
Going in all guns blazing and killing thousands of civilians is NOT the thing to do; if anything all it would achieve is to help with their recruitment campaign.
The likes of IS cannot be compared to any army during the world wars either.
The first thing to do is properly support the armies in the respective countries in the middle east who are opposing IS, which I believe is what we are starting to do now.

[not on facebook]

Oslo

The fact that you're getting mixed up is kind of the point I was making. The Middle East situation is highly complex with different groups of Muslims at each other's throats.

Imagine Northern Ireland 20 years ago. Imagine if the IRA had decided for some reason to behead a Japanese reporter. And imagine if, as a result of that, Japan said that they should clamp down hard on all British people. That, because the IRA had committed this atrocity, Ian Paisley was equally responsible.

That's roughly what your position is on the current issue.

Except that the IS/Iraq/Syria problem makes Northern Ireland in the 1980s look like a playground game in terms of relative complexity. I have a friend and ex-colleague who is Syrian. One of the most intelligent and decent human beings I have ever met. When we first waded  into the Arab Spring with our blind stupidity, he predicted exactly what would happen. He is a Muslim (and therefore, no friend of Assad). But he said that he would infinitely prefer Assad to remain in power, with all his brutal ways, to the hornets' nest being smashed by the West encouraging an uprising. He said that if we DID encourage anti-Assad uprisings, we had better be prepared to get in there quick, finish him off and get a moderate Muslim Govt in power. Because if we didn't, Syria would be a fertile breeding ground for Sunni fundamentalists. And the result would be that EVERYONE in that region would hate us.

Bang on the money, as he is with most things he talks about.

i cant keep up With the fcukers out there ,who is good who is bad and who
is playing both sides

the Whole muslim world is backwards out middle east

just think about it,they  was way infront of the west many many many moons ago on the mathamtics front when we was still running round clubbing each other
With lumps of Wood

but them the ideal muslim got a foothold out in middle east and first thing they
threw out of the window the backward divs was all what they had learnt by
them sens on the mathamatic front

[RedRover45]

RR

No. It isn't. What is relevant is what values you hold. We despise IS for their immorality. You employ the same tactics and you are as big a b*****d as they are.

I keep hearing that people hate Islam because it doesn't share Western values. Then I hear people advocating actions that would make me disgusted to be associated with them.

Are we morally superior to people who behead innocents, or are we down in the same gutter as them?

THAT is the point.

BST

You just don't get it do you ?

It really doesn't matter one jot how morally superior you are stuck in your ivory tower. While you and your ilk are promoting and preaching your morals, the jihadi assassin will be running a sword across your neck. Fat lot of good your morals will help you then.

You won't be surprised one of my favourite films is the Alan Ladd classic 'Shane'

Sometimes, just sometimes, that's what you have to do...

[Dagenham Rover]

BST

But in warfare, rules don't exist and there will be collateral damage. Don't get me wrong.

Rules do exists, the Geneva convention lay out the rules of war. However IS are not a nation state or a signature to the convention, but just because they haven't signed does not give us the right to ignore the rule of war. If we go into this not caring about collateral damage to civilians then for every "innocent" civilian we kill we will generate for IS 10 or more new fighters.

GLOSTER

I'm well aware of the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, IS aren't. And that's what relevant.

RR unfortunately what's relevant is that we are signatories it is irrelevant whether your opponents are or are not we have to stick by the "rules" otherwise half our troops would be coming back to face war crime charges.
And it is no defence to turn round and say "I was following orders"  the onus is on you and you alone

[River Don]

Oslo

The fact that you're getting mixed up is kind of the point I was making. The Middle East situation is highly complex with different groups of Muslims at each other's throats.

Imagine Northern Ireland 20 years ago. Imagine if the IRA had decided for some reason to behead a Japanese reporter. And imagine if, as a result of that, Japan said that they should clamp down hard on all British people. That, because the IRA had committed this atrocity, Ian Paisley was equally responsible.

That's roughly what your position is on the current issue.

Except that the IS/Iraq/Syria problem makes Northern Ireland in the 1980s look like a playground game in terms of relative complexity. I have a friend and ex-colleague who is Syrian. One of the most intelligent and decent human beings I have ever met. When we first waded  into the Arab Spring with our blind stupidity, he predicted exactly what would happen. He is a Muslim (and therefore, no friend of Assad). But he said that he would infinitely prefer Assad to remain in power, with all his brutal ways, to the hornets' nest being smashed by the West encouraging an uprising. He said that if we DID encourage anti-Assad uprisings, we had better be prepared to get in there quick, finish him off and get a moderate Muslim Govt in power. Because if we didn't, Syria would be a fertile breeding ground for Sunni fundamentalists. And the result would be that EVERYONE in that region would hate us.

Bang on the money, as he is with most things he talks about.

i cant keep up With the fcukers out there ,who is good who is bad and who
is playing both sides

the Whole muslim world is backwards out middle east

just think about it,they  was way infront of the west many many many moons ago on the mathamtics front when we was still running round clubbing each other
With lumps of Wood

but them the ideal muslim got a foothold out in middle east and first thing they
threw out of the window the backward divs was all what they had learnt by
them sens on the mathamatic front

Oslo

It's very simple.

The Sunni and Shia have been in dispute since the death of Muhammed. It's a long time that and in it, they've learned to despise each other.

There's a proxy war going on between the Sunnis of Saudi and the Shia of Iran.

Assad is from an alawite background which is a Shia sect. In Syria the alawite are a minority but rule over a largely Sunni majority. Assad doesn't like to talk about religion.

Over the border in Turkey they are mainly hafanite sunni but their big concern is Northern Iraq. Southern Turkey has a difficult Kurdish group, who along with Kurds in Northern Iraq have been angling for a Turkish state for years. The Kurds like all people in the area are ancient and follow different religions including Islam.

Now the Saudis and qataris (Sunni) want Assad out because they want to run oil and gas pipelines up through Syria to Turkey to sell hydrocarbons to Europe. The west are in favour of this, which is why they backed the Sunni uprising in Syria.

Are you keeping up?

...but it turns out the Sunnis in Syria weren't all moderate and nice as promised and their struggle brought in thousands of vicious Wahhabist terrorists. Wahhabism is an extreme sect of the Sunni religion. They hate everyone who doesn't believe in their strict version of Islam including other Sunnis who aren't Islamic enough.

Now Assad has his own agenda. He has close links with Russia and the Russians do not want gulf oil and gas competing with them to sell hydrocarbons to Europe. Their game is to prevent that from happening.

Assad also has links with Iran (both Shia) and they would like to run some pipelines through Iraq and Syria to supply oil to the west. This would take some negotiation with the Russians.

Now what happened was, the battle for Syria became a bit difficult and the Wahhabist fighters in Syria thought, sod this Northern Iraq is much easier let's invade their instead and set up a caliphate. So they did.

The west thought sh1t! Didn't see that coming, they're going to cause havoc and nick the oil in Iraq.

So the west do a U turn and began to back the Kurds, who have started to build their own state in the area.

But Turkey, who are an ally of the west think, sh1t the west are backing the Kurds. Don't like that. So while trying to look like they support the west they keep the border open to foreign terrorists who want to fight for ISIs and ask no questions.

Now the west realise that the terrorists are Sunni b@stards, so they start to wonder if Assad is all that bad really but they still think he is. So they begin to wonder if actually Iran is all that bad really. They've been claiming it's an evil state for years but maybe now we can do a deal with them for oil.

But the Saudis and Qatari think sh1t the west might start doing a deal with those b@stards in Iran.

So that's roughly where were at. Simple. I think, unless anyone wants to put me right on any of this.

[Muttley]

So that's roughly where were at. Simple. I think, unless anyone wants to put me right on any of this.

Just that the Kurds are probably angling for a Kurdish state, rather than a Turkish one

[River Don]

Muttley

Yes, yes, a Kurdish state! I got a bit muddled somehow, I don't know how that could've happened.

I also forgot to mention Baghdad is mainly Shia and until recently they had a pro Shia government but the west said look you've got to represent everyone so kick out your democratically elected bloke and get someone else.

The Iraqis are still struggling after the gulf war, so realise they need some help so they ask Shia Iran if they wouldn't mind lending some republican guard to help defeat the ISIS b*****ds in the north.

Iran think ok, Iraq is alright now since they got rid of Saddam and have those Sunni b@stards under control. We can forget all about that unfortunate massive war we had that cost thousands of lives.

And the west think, it can't do any harm, we think Iran might be alright now, despite all the terrorism they used to do to us and them having vowed to destroy our ally Israel despite us knowing they are developing nuclear weapons to do it.

On top of all of this, we should remember they all hate the Israelis to varying degrees even the Saudis who only tolerate them because they understand they are close allies of the US, who buy all their oil.

Meanwhile ISIS bump into members of Saddams old band (Sunni) based around Tikrit. They're still sore about losing control of Iraq and have decided ISIS can help them regain control of the country, so they're fighting alongside them and ISIS have probably agreed to overlook the fact the Baathists (Saddams old lot) probably aren't Islamic enough since they like Assad didn't used to like to talk about religion. They probably think they can sort that out later.

And the thing to remember is the West, strangely, seems to have difficulty understanding all this and tends to think the Sunni and Shia split isn't that much of a big deal really. We just want to deal with the nations states involved like in the old conflicts we used to have.

Hope this makes things clearer.

[Filo]

Aye, there were none of this on Saddam's watch