More on ISIS, as if you didn't have enough to alarm you about them...

[Hastings gull]

Not sure if air strikes will make them go away though, we need to start thinking outside the box. 14 years of the war and terror and it ain't working..

Because they are still there, it is too easy to say that the war on terror is not working. Yes, they have not been defeated, as bombing on its own will not produce success, but we cannot be sure that it has not had a degrading effect on their ability to wage war. Without bombing, they would have found it much easier to travel, move huge amounts of men around, establish arms dumps and training camps etc etc. I strongly suspect that without western intervention in Afghanistan, whatever one thinks of it, there would have been a Taliban government by now, and an even worse situation.
As ever, we hear criticism of the military option, but the same token applies to your argument. If after 14 years, as you say, we are relying on the usual vague response of "start to think outside of the box", then it would follow that there might just not be an alternative in how to deal with this lot. I am sure most folk would agree that bombing alone will not bring about a solution, particularly with regard to lone-wolf attacks on our doorstep, but I do feel that attacking them really hard on their doorstep, and bombing their oil facilities to try and stop the flow of cash, then this might -just might -bring them to the table, if they fear that their caliphate, or whatever you want to call it, will disintegrate. If not, and of course it is a distinct possibility, given their fanaticism, then I fear that a ground war will be the only option, with all its risks and horrors.

 

[The Albion Roar]

Because they are still there, it is too easy to say that the war on terror is not working. Yes, they have not been defeated, as bombing on its own will not produce success, but we cannot be sure that it has not had a degrading effect on their ability to wage war. Without bombing, they would have found it much easier to travel, move huge amounts of men around, establish arms dumps and training camps etc etc. I strongly suspect that without western intervention in Afghanistan, whatever one thinks of it, there would have been a Taliban government by now, and an even worse situation.
As ever, we hear criticism of the military option, but the same token applies to your argument. If after 14 years, as you say, we are relying on the usual vague response of "start to think outside of the box", then it would follow that there might just not be an alternative in how to deal with this lot. I am sure most folk would agree that bombing alone will not bring about a solution, particularly with regard to lone-wolf attacks on our doorstep, but I do feel that attacking them really hard on their doorstep, and bombing their oil facilities to try and stop the flow of cash, then this might -just might -bring them to the table, if they fear that their caliphate, or whatever you want to call it, will disintegrate. If not, and of course it is a distinct possibility, given their fanaticism, then I fear that a ground war will be the only option, with all its risks and horrors.

It's not that a 'militry option' doesn't or wouldn't work per se. It's more that the nature of the military options employed so far have been a mess.

It's one thing winning the 'war'; the West has made a complete pig's ear of winning the peace. What is, for instance, the UK government's exit strategy here? What is the UN's exit strategy?

 

[Igzilla]

Because they are still there, it is too easy to say that the war on terror is not working. Yes, they have not been defeated, as bombing on its own will not produce success, but we cannot be sure that it has not had a degrading effect on their ability to wage war. Without bombing, they would have found it much easier to travel, move huge amounts of men around, establish arms dumps and training camps etc etc. I strongly suspect that without western intervention in Afghanistan, whatever one thinks of it, there would have been a Taliban government by now, and an even worse situation.
As ever, we hear criticism of the military option, but the same token applies to your argument. If after 14 years, as you say, we are relying on the usual vague response of "start to think outside of the box", then it would follow that there might just not be an alternative in how to deal with this lot. I am sure most folk would agree that bombing alone will not bring about a solution, particularly with regard to lone-wolf attacks on our doorstep, but I do feel that attacking them really hard on their doorstep, and bombing their oil facilities to try and stop the flow of cash, then this might -just might -bring them to the table, if they fear that their caliphate, or whatever you want to call it, will disintegrate. If not, and of course it is a distinct possibility, given their fanaticism, then I fear that a ground war will be the only option, with all its risks and horrors.

This. No point getting them to the negotiating table. Stop the oil, stop the flow of money and stop western arms (and from other factions) getting to them. Get a broad coalition of West, East and Middle East all acting together to excise this cancer from humanity.

 

[Hastings gull]

It's not that a 'militry option' doesn't or wouldn't work per se. It's more that the nature of the military options employed so far have been a mess.

It's one thing winning the 'war'; the West has made a complete pig's ear of winning the peace. What is, for instance, the UK government's exit strategy here? What is the UN's exit strategy?

Thanks for that. With respect, can you be more specific? Why are they a mess? How do you know that this is apparently the case? No one pretends that bombing alone is the total cure -are you inferring that there should be boots on the ground.

I see what you are saying about the importance of an effective exit strategy, though it is a bit premature, given that we have not really entered! I am not really qualified to state anything about exit strategy with any degree of authority, but might such a strategy be easier here, if ISIS is defeated, as they have taken land from Iraq and Syria to form their caliphate -land which would be returned?

 

[The Albion Roar]

Thanks for that. With respect, can you be more specific? Why are they a mess? How do you know that this is apparently the case? No one pretends that bombing alone is the total cure -are you inferring that there should be boots on the ground.

What I mean is, the UK, US and others entered into an illegal war in Iraq - a country with a tyrannical despot for a leader who was also largely secular - effectively turned it into a failed state, and permeated the conditions by which the rise of ISIL and its affiliates could come about.

I see what you are saying about the importance of an effective exit strategy, though it is a bit premature, given that we have not really entered! I am not really qualified to state anything about exit strategy with any degree of authority, but might such a strategy be easier here, if ISIS is defeated, as they have taken land from Iraq and Syria to form their caliphate -land which would be returned?

As someone from the Royal United Services Insititute said on Radio 4 this morning, whichever nation(s) - and Russia and Iran are key players here for instance - 'defeats' ISIL, they would want a major say in how things progress. You'd then have coalition countries squabbling over who gets what. To return the ISIL taken lands to Iraq / Syria is correct, but the circumstances must be put in place that mean ISIL - or something similar - cannot re-emerge.

So how would that be achieved? So far, I've heard nothing which indicates how that would happen.

 

[dingodan]

surely possession of this material is not an arrestable offence as a stand alone issue,it must be just used as further evidence of terrorist activity where applicable.

How many journalists for instance download their mag, peruse it then report on its content …..must be 100`s

I'm just saying what I heard on BBC News. It's probably considered to be material that could be of use to terrorists etc etc.

Don't ask me, I don't make the rules.

 

[sydney]

It was mentioned in a BBC interview, with a caveat - don't try to view or download it, because that would be illegal. I think it was mentioned because one of the Paris suspects had a copy on his phone.

prrftt....don't smoke pot kids......don't look at this web site kids...utter bollox...wouldn't this kind of sewage be better kept quiet...?? what is the point of saying here it is but dont look at it..

 

[Triggaaar]

This guy talks a lot of sense if you don't mind subtitles.

https://youtu.be/yzUafFkd-EM

He raises the question 'why did they attack France and not China' a few times. Are there many Arabic Muslims living in China? I don't suppose it would be very easy for them to launch an attack in a country where they're not welcomed as much as they have been in France.

 

[The Albion Roar]

He raises the question 'why did they attack France and not China' a few times. Are there many Arabic Muslims living in China? I don't suppose it would be very easy for them to launch an attack in a country where they're not welcomed as much as they have been in France.

Do they have to be Arabic muslims?

62% of the world's muslims live in south or south east Asia.

 

[symyjym]

He raises the question 'why did they attack France and not China' a few times. Are there many Arabic Muslims living in China? I don't suppose it would be very easy for them to launch an attack in a country where they're not welcomed as much as they have been in France.

No, but he was using China as an example in debunking the Myth that Islam is against all non believers, and he then went on to explain that everyone in the Middle East and West are believers because Judaism, Christianity and Islam all represent a belief based on the Abrahamic faith, therefore we all are believers. He is sending out a message to Muslim's to not be fooled by extremists using the "kill the infidel" mantra.

I think he was quite helpful in his message because that is what Muslims need to hear coming from someone who has good authority within Islam, rather than some young men faking their knowledge and poluting their version with nonsense on social media.

 

[nicko31]

Because they are still there, it is too easy to say that the war on terror is not working. Yes, they have not been defeated, as bombing on its own will not produce success, but we cannot be sure that it has not had a degrading effect on their ability to wage war. Without bombing, they would have found it much easier to travel, move huge amounts of men around, establish arms dumps and training camps etc etc. I strongly suspect that without western intervention in Afghanistan, whatever one thinks of it, there would have been a Taliban government by now, and an even worse situation.
As ever, we hear criticism of the military option, but the same token applies to your argument. If after 14 years, as you say, we are relying on the usual vague response of "start to think outside of the box", then it would follow that there might just not be an alternative in how to deal with this lot. I am sure most folk would agree that bombing alone will not bring about a solution, particularly with regard to lone-wolf attacks on our doorstep, but I do feel that attacking them really hard on their doorstep, and bombing their oil facilities to try and stop the flow of cash, then this might -just might -bring them to the table, if they fear that their caliphate, or whatever you want to call it, will disintegrate. If not, and of course it is a distinct possibility, given their fanaticism, then I fear that a ground war will be the only option, with all its risks and horrors.

Bombing the oil facilities and sanctions against those buy their oil yes. But it will go far further than that, its the perfect recruitment drive for ISIS.

Did Cameron do history at Eaton? The minute, NFI on foreign policy right from the moment he got on his soap box in Bengazi..

 

[Triggaaar]

Do they have to be Arabic muslims?

I think the terrorists tend to be Arabic Muslims. So if you don't have any, then you're less likely to be attacked aren't you.

62% of the world's muslims live in south or south east Asia.

So? Are they committing these acts?

No, but he was using China as an example in debunking the Myth that Islam is against all non believers

But it was a bad example, as they couldn't attack China so easily whether they wanted to or not.

he then went on to explain that everyone in the Middle East and West are believers because Judaism, Christianity and Islam all represent a belief based on the Abrahamic faith, therefore we all are believers.

I did watch it and I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what he said. I don't think China was a good example. He believes it's wrong to kill innocent people regardless of whether they have faith or not.

I think he was quite helpful in his message because that is what Muslims need to hear coming from someone who has good authority within Islam, rather than some young men faking their knowledge and poluting their version with nonsense on social media.

Yes I know. That's what all Islamic scholars should be teaching. More should be done to have their preachers here follow the law and not incite violence.

 

[looney]

This guy talks a lot of sense if you don't mind subtitles.

https://youtu.be/yzUafFkd-EM

He talks a lot of sense if your a wacked out nut job.

Got about halfway. Hes happy to firstly lump "the west" together but would be outraged if muslims were also lumped together, he selectively points to muslim grievences but doesn't acknowledge muslim perursicusion.

He repeats the falsehood the Bush said God had told him to go to warin Iraq.

 

[looney]

He believes it's wrong to kill innocent people regardless of whether they have faith or not.

FTR The non-beleivers who have experienced Islam, thatis heard the words of the muslim prophetor koran and refuse to convert are not considered innocent. In an extreme form this covers everyone who has access to media and why the Daesh are going on Convert or die raids to Christian towns in Syria.

 

[symyjym]

But it was a bad example, as they couldn't attack China so easily whether they wanted to or not.

I did watch it and I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what he said. I don't think China was a good example.

He was speaking spontaniously and it wasn't meant to be taken literally. I understood his point.

He believes it's wrong to kill innocent people regardless of whether they have faith or not.

Yes I know. That's what all Islamic scholars should be teaching. More should be done to have their preachers here follow the law and not incite violence.

Yep, it seems to be those who haven't studied the Quran are the ones who are trying to dictate the meanings of the scriptures. It appears that it is the generation of social media Muslim keyboard warriors, children, rebelious young men and psychopaths who are trying to run the show. Certainly didn't help with us letting Choudary preach hate on our streets for so long. That should have been nipped in the bud years ago and I would suggest that he was directly responsible for recruiting young British Muslims.

 

[symyjym]

He repeats the falsehood the Bush said God had told him to go to warin Iraq.

That's not a falsehood.

President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Bush made it a religious war when he said these words. Like it or not, or try to sweep it under the carpet, his words are part of the recruitment drive and propoganda used against us today.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. .

What was Tony thinking ?

 

[NooBHA]

This. No point getting them to the negotiating table. Stop the oil, stop the flow of money and stop western arms (and from other factions) getting to them. Get a broad coalition of West, East and Middle East all acting together to excise this cancer from humanity.

The ISIS fighters are predominantly Sunny Muslims who fought in the Iraqi Amy for Saddam Hussein and after he was toppled they just took their mercenary services to anyone else who would pay them. So in effect the Western Allies created an underground army when they toppled Saddam Hussein. It is not as easy as stopping the oil then the funding stops. They are actually part funded by a Western Ali in Saudi Arabia, although they of course deny that's the case.

I think this thread should get closed because promoting that website could be dangerous. All it takes is just one person to be intrigued by it and it could lead to them becoming the so called ''lone wolf terrorist'' I think the moderator should close this thread and any link to that website

 

[symyjym]

What was Tony thinking ?

I really don't know. There are certainly warning signs when someone talks about God and war in the same breath.

 

[Hamilton]

Weak politicians, weak willed people in authority. We will only rid the world of this scurge when there is a coalition of boots on the ground. Until then the lives of ordinary people n this world will be affected.

Russia airliner downed, Putin launches more cruise missiles in one day than ever before.
Paris atrocities and France increases bombing on IS and moves aircraft carrier into the eastern Med.
30 British tourists murdered on beach in Tunisia and the UK sticks with its four ancient Tornadoes bombing low grade targets in Iraq. Parliament does nothing!
S..t or get off the pot Dave!!!

The trouble is, that alone doesn't appear to have a history of having worked in the long-term does it. I think that unless you address a few additional issues like Israel and Palestine at the same time then this is just going to rumble on and on and we'll create even more disaffected Muslims.

Goodness knows what the answer is, because I've no idea how you go about reconciling Israel and Palestine.

Anyway, we're all going to die of untreatable bacterial disease and climate change anyway.