I get what everyone is saying but I think I've been misunderstood. I didn't suggest we ignore what is going on in Iraq and Syria and hope they stop. I think we all know how serious this extremists are; they have already slaughtered a number of local people including women and children, those too vulnerable to flee.
I still maintain my view though that by printing full and graphic images of the hostage killings, our media are somewhat playing into the extremist's hands. You don't need to see a knife wielding maniac to accompany the news that an innocent man has been murdered.
Nor am I suggesting that a higher authority tell the media what and who to print, I think those responsible for printing should be able to realise this for themselves.
But also the British public putting their fingers in their ears and saying lalalala, isn't going to make life any better for the people that have to suffer through this.
Do you think the public would actually care about ISIS if we weren't subjected to these images? They'd just wash over it like they do with the Syrian civil war nowadays, or Israel/Hamas recently. Those atrocities haven't stopped, we're just no longer seeing the devastation so no longer care.
It's a sad state of affairs, I agree. I actually feel that more should be printed of those two conflicts as I believe the situations are, and should be treated, different.
ISIS want the world's attention, by getting it we can only guess at the number of European and American citizens that have gone to join them. Countless more have grown fearful of similar attacks taking place on home soil.
I still think that there would be enough uproar about the beheading of an innocent British citizen and aid worker, without the need for seeing the knife that did it being wielded all over front pages.
Where ISIS are concerned it's the graphic images that they WANT you to see that I object to being printed, not the reporting of the incident.
You'd think so, but considering a British soldier was butchered on the streets of Britain and there was very little uproar, it appears most people just forget about it & get on with their lives nowadays.
Good piece and some interesting ideas but they are all long term strategies and while isis are beheading our citizens the UK and especially the US can't wait to bomb the shit out of them ( if they can find them) but we all know that can just serve as a massive recruitment programme for Isis when innocent civilians die. one thing is for sure, there is no simple solution.
I get what everyone is saying but I think I've been misunderstood. I didn't suggest we ignore what is going on in Iraq and Syria and hope they stop. I think we all know how serious this extremists are; they have already slaughtered a number of local people including women and children, those too vulnerable to flee.
I still maintain my view though that by printing full and graphic images of the hostage killings, our media are somewhat playing into the extremist's hands. You don't need to see a knife wielding maniac to accompany the news that an innocent man has been murdered.
Nor am I suggesting that a higher authority tell the media what and who to print, I think those responsible for printing should be able to realise this for themselves.
But also the British public putting their fingers in their ears and saying lalalala, isn't going to make life any better for the people that have to suffer through this.
Do you think the public would actually care about ISIS if we weren't subjected to these images? They'd just wash over it like they do with the Syrian civil war nowadays, or Israel/Hamas recently. Those atrocities haven't stopped, we're just no longer seeing the devastation so no longer care.
It's a sad state of affairs, I agree. I actually feel that more should be printed of those two conflicts as I believe the situations are, and should be treated, different.
ISIS want the world's attention, by getting it we can only guess at the number of European and American citizens that have gone to join them. Countless more have grown fearful of similar attacks taking place on home soil.
I still think that there would be enough uproar about the beheading of an innocent British citizen and aid worker, without the need for seeing the knife that did it being wielded all over front pages.
Where ISIS are concerned it's the graphic images that they WANT you to see that I object to being printed, not the reporting of the incident.
You'd think so, but considering a British soldier was butchered on the streets of Britain and there was very little uproar, it appears most people just forget about it & get on with their lives nowadays.
What do you mean very little uproar? Most people I know we're horrified and outraged by Lee Rigbys murder! There was a national outcry and a huge outpouring of sympathy and revulsion. The events and trial were headline news for weeks
Keeping calm and carrying on is what we do! Doesn't mean that people don't care or have forgotten.
I didn't realise Bradley Manning was now Chelsea Manning; I can't say I've ever thought of her (?!) as someone I respect to be quite honest.
However, I have to give it to her, she does make some very good points in the article; namely that violence begets violence, and hatred begets hatred. That said, and no disrespect for her (she obviously knows her stuff) - she's utterly deluded. I'm no warmonger, and I've tried to keep quite versed with what's going on at the moment, but her 4 main points are flawed:
(a) Online propaganda needs to be controlled;
Chelsea knows too well that this is impossible. It was partly her political leaks that led to certain tools becoming widely used, tools which effectively prevent the control of such material.
Without scaremongering, given 30 minutes and a decent internet connection, you can have a virtual machine configured to not store any data persistently with your traffic routed through a network of other systems - giving you access to the so called "darknet"; as close to anonymous as you're going to get, and essentially inaccessible from the rest of the internet. A place where identities are sold for a few dollars and you can find anything you want, and rather a lot that you don't want. (From the funny, to the down right disturbing) It's no surprise there are (arguably illegitimate) pages already up begging for money to go to IS(IS).
Want some more security? Throw in £20 a month and go to one of the many VPN providers which don't keep logs or store payment details, choose a different end-point every now and again, and live in the knowledge that if you're sensible - you're basically going to be untrackable.
(b) there needs to be "clear, temporary borders in the region" to discourage IS(IS) from taking territories required for humanitarian assistance;
Ermm... last I gathered, IS(IS) didn't give a flying hoot about borders. I'm sure if you ask them, they'll actually tell you that borders are there to be redefined as they carve out their Caliphate.
Besides, if violence begets more violence - how do you police a border against jihadists without violence? Not to mention, if we redefine borders we're giving them an air of legitimacy.
It's a good idea, but I fail to see how it's possible in any way, shape or form.
(c) IS(IS) needs to be prevented from gaining income, be it via hostage taking or theft of historic artefacts;
This is a very good point, I agree totally... but how do you enforce it?
However, the middle east is steeped in history and I can't quite see how you can prevent the theft of artefacts without being on the ground. The black market generally doesn't pay too much attention to where things come from or where the money goes.
On the plus side, at least in Iraq most of the expensive artefacts were probably looted 9 years ago..
(d) IS(IS) should be allowed to set up a failed state, if only for long enough for their "citizens" to rise against them and lose respect for them.
Yes. This is a surefire way to ensure that they lose face completely, with those who matter; the ones they wish to govern.
Unfortunately, IS(IS) have a nasty habit of slaughtering those who speak against them - so at best we're looking at a few years of sporadic massacres and ethnic cleansing; all whilst we play out what would appear to be an international version of "The naughty step" - ignoring them until they behave themselves.
At worst? We end up witnessing a few years of the atrocities mentioned above, whilst they loot and pillage their way in to an even stronger position armed with the remnants of the Syrian and Iraqi armed forces - tanks, helicopters and jets included. Meanwhile, they then turn even nastier on their neighbours and do some more land grabbing. Appeasement would be one word that springs to mind here..
I get what everyone is saying but I think I've been misunderstood. I didn't suggest we ignore what is going on in Iraq and Syria and hope they stop. I think we all know how serious this extremists are; they have already slaughtered a number of local people including women and children, those too vulnerable to flee.
I still maintain my view though that by printing full and graphic images of the hostage killings, our media are somewhat playing into the extremist's hands. You don't need to see a knife wielding maniac to accompany the news that an innocent man has been murdered.
Nor am I suggesting that a higher authority tell the media what and who to print, I think those responsible for printing should be able to realise this for themselves.
But also the British public putting their fingers in their ears and saying lalalala, isn't going to make life any better for the people that have to suffer through this.
Do you think the public would actually care about ISIS if we weren't subjected to these images? They'd just wash over it like they do with the Syrian civil war nowadays, or Israel/Hamas recently. Those atrocities haven't stopped, we're just no longer seeing the devastation so no longer care.
It's a sad state of affairs, I agree. I actually feel that more should be printed of those two conflicts as I believe the situations are, and should be treated, different.
ISIS want the world's attention, by getting it we can only guess at the number of European and American citizens that have gone to join them. Countless more have grown fearful of similar attacks taking place on home soil.
I still think that there would be enough uproar about the beheading of an innocent British citizen and aid worker, without the need for seeing the knife that did it being wielded all over front pages.
Where ISIS are concerned it's the graphic images that they WANT you to see that I object to being printed, not the reporting of the incident.
You'd think so, but considering a British soldier was butchered on the streets of Britain and there was very little uproar, it appears most people just forget about it & get on with their lives nowadays.
What do you mean very little uproar? Most people I know we're horrified and outraged by Lee Rigbys murder! There was a national outcry and a huge outpouring of sympathy and revulsion. The events and trial were headline news for weeks
Keeping calm and carrying on is what we do! Doesn't mean that people don't care or have forgotten.
What sort of uproar do you think appropriate?
Quite. I seem to remember a fair amount of ill educated morons running around with England flags under the guise of "protecting England".
Well said Lucky Reds, the article makes good points but the proposed actions were curiously naive. My difficulty is that I can't see any effective way of dealing with this type of barbarism. Already this morning there are reports of civilian deaths in Syria after a US air strike. How many recruits for the caliphate will that produce? There's a group in the Southern Philippines who gave just beheaded a victim. Now we are being put on a fast track to war, I understand why but I fear the consequences.
Well said Lucky Reds, the article makes good points but the proposed actions were curiously naive. My difficulty is that I can't see any effective way of dealing with this type of barbarism. Already this morning there are reports of civilian deaths in Syria after a US air strike. How many recruits for the caliphate will that produce? There's a group in the Southern Philippines who gave just beheaded a victim. Now we are being put on a fast track to war, I understand why but I fear the consequences.
We can only hope that the local population see external intervention as the lesser of two evils; afterall - death by bomb vs death by decapitation..
Perhaps for every one person radicalised and joining the ranks of IS(IS), there will be another two or three that see the tide could be turning - and take up arms against IS(IS) themselves. Unfortunately, that's no consolation for those in the middle and those who have (and those who still will) lose loved ones and suffer horrific atrocities aimed against them.
I too fear the consequences, but similarly - I just don't see where the next step could potentially be without risking war. With the news that the RAF could be conducting strikes from tomorrow, pending parliament, it looks like this is another step in the wrong direction. (I've actually seen this referred to as The Third Gulf War already today.)
How the situation ever got to this extreme is utterly beyond me; this wasn't a situation that developed over night.
Well said Lucky Reds, the article makes good points but the proposed actions were curiously naive. My difficulty is that I can't see any effective way of dealing with this type of barbarism. Already this morning there are reports of civilian deaths in Syria after a US air strike. How many recruits for the caliphate will that produce? There's a group in the Southern Philippines who gave just beheaded a victim. Now we are being put on a fast track to war, I understand why but I fear the consequences.
How the situation ever got to this extreme is utterly beyond me; this wasn't a situation that developed over night.
ISIS are not a new breed of terror . They are just the bad people that the yanks (and us ) never flushed out previously (second gulf war). So they went away , back to their caves and holes and waited. Waited for the yanks (and us) to spend £billions on a new Iraq government and army. An army, that when left to their own devices were about as much use as a chocolate teapot. They did have some shiny new toys that would be of use though. So when the yanks (and us) left,out they popped,wrestled the shiny new toys away from the 'Dads' army holding them and went on there next assault. They'll be back in their holes soon enough.But I suspect gulf wars 4,5 & 6 are not too far away!
Yeah, quite. Now, remind me how many UKIP MPs are there? And how many Labour? :-) That said, apart from a few fringe loonies, who is going to vote against? Was it REALLY necessary to recall parliament? Is anything likely to be debated going to change the outcome of the vote? You'd think it would not have been impossible that the MPs could have voted from wherever they were (having first received a .pdf of the rationale). Perhaps someone could develop an App for that?
George Galloway was spot on on channel 4 news last night. Saudi Arabia has 700 warplanes and a well equipped army, there is no need for the west to get involved at all. Let them sort their own problems out.
So if, god forbid, one of your family was beheaded and that disgusting act was shown to the world you would not expect your government/country to get involved?
So if, god forbid, one of your family was beheaded and that disgusting act was shown to the world you would not expect your government/country to get involved?
Of course I would, but sending western forces will only make things worse imo.
So if, god forbid, one of your family was beheaded and that disgusting act was shown to the world you would not expect your government/country to get involved?
Of course I would, but sending western forces will only make things worse imo.
Worse?
Worse than the brutal, systematic genocide of populations?
Worse than the torture, rape and murder of innocent people?
Worse than the establishment of an evil, repressive, corrupt state, bent on self-preservation at any cost?
Worse than the disgraceful, cowardly, gloating, broadcast murder of innocent westerners?
George Galloway was spot on on channel 4 news last night. Saudi Arabia has 700 warplanes and a well equipped army, there is no need for the west to get involved at all. Let them sort their own problems out.
"Saudi Arabia is part of the coalition helping the U.S. carry out airstrikes against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) targets in Syria, and the country's former U.S. ambassador, Prince Turki al-Faisal, confirmed that Saudi war planes were involved during the campaign."
What would you suggest Chizz, full scale invasion by the coalition of 60 countries? because air strikes without the aid of troops on the ground will probably kill as many civilians as ISIS will. If we are to send forces lets do it properly.
* I should have said by sending western forces piecemeal will only make things worse.
The point - and the one Obama has been trying to push - is that several states directly affected by ISIS, principally Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have massive military capability - and yet are once again sitting on their hands in terms of putting in actual ground forces to fight ISIS.
Yet again all eyes are turned to the 'Great Satan' to come in and sort it all out - and as Obama has hinted all along - this mentality has to stop and the region has got to get its act together and start taking responsibility for its own security - God knows the Yanks sell them enough weapons.
Now, of course, that utter fucktard Bush did cause much of this himself - with help from Blair - but sending huge western forces back in there to combat ISIS when the regional states have their own substantial forces that should be fighting ISIS is just repeating the same mistake.
The great complaint from so many Muslims is over the repeated military interventions of the US in the middle-East, Obama is trying to limit those interventions and force the regional powers to step up to the plate - and that's where we are now.
Bombing them will make no difference whats so ever long term, i belive our goverments want us to see the beheadings so we can all jump on board and say look how evil these people are. (and yes it is despicable to behead innocent people from where ever they are from) Its about oil and money for the west always was and we need to have a good hard look at our foreign policies.
Howe many people does the Saudi state behead, why don't we bomb them as well? I fear this response is ill thought out and is about short term political advantage. There is no long term strategy, it won't solve the problem of fanatical extremism, you can't bomb ideas out of existence. Given a choice of who to support, poorly educated Muslims will choose their own rather than support the West. It is time to allow the Muslim nations to deal with their own problems, to date we have only made things worse.
The point - and the one Obama has been trying to push - is that several states directly affected by ISIS, principally Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have massive military capability - and yet are once again sitting on their hands in terms of putting in actual ground forces to fight ISIS.
Yet again all eyes are turned to the 'Great Satan' to come in and sort it all out - and as Obama has hinted all along - this mentality has to stop and the region has got to get its act together and start taking responsibility for its own security - God knows the Yanks sell them enough weapons.
Now, of course, that utter fucktard Bush did cause much of this himself - with help from Blair - but sending huge western forces back in there to combat ISIS when the regional states have their own substantial forces that should be fighting ISIS is just repeating the same mistake.
The great complaint from so many Muslims is over the repeated military interventions of the US in the middle-East, Obama is trying to limit those interventions and force the regional powers to step up to the plate - and that's where we are now.
this seems to make perfect sense but what is the reason that these people won't interject, is it because there would be muslims killing muslims?
Bombing them will make no difference whats so ever long term, i belive our goverments want us to see the beheadings so we can all jump on board and say look how evil these people are. (and yes it is despicable to behead innocent people from where ever they are from) Its about oil and money for the west always was and we need to have a good hard look at our foreign policies.
Much of this is right. There is also an attitude amongst the main 3 parties of maximising a "beneficial crisis" by removing yet more freedoms and liberties from ordinary decent people within this country by making travelling even more hellish and problematic than it is already as just one example.
Comments
one thing is for sure, there is no simple solution.
Keeping calm and carrying on is what we do! Doesn't mean that people don't care or have forgotten.
What sort of uproar do you think appropriate?
However, I have to give it to her, she does make some very good points in the article; namely that violence begets violence, and hatred begets hatred. That said, and no disrespect for her (she obviously knows her stuff) - she's utterly deluded. I'm no warmonger, and I've tried to keep quite versed with what's going on at the moment, but her 4 main points are flawed: Chelsea knows too well that this is impossible. It was partly her political leaks that led to certain tools becoming widely used, tools which effectively prevent the control of such material.
Without scaremongering, given 30 minutes and a decent internet connection, you can have a virtual machine configured to not store any data persistently with your traffic routed through a network of other systems - giving you access to the so called "darknet"; as close to anonymous as you're going to get, and essentially inaccessible from the rest of the internet. A place where identities are sold for a few dollars and you can find anything you want, and rather a lot that you don't want. (From the funny, to the down right disturbing) It's no surprise there are (arguably illegitimate) pages already up begging for money to go to IS(IS).
Want some more security? Throw in £20 a month and go to one of the many VPN providers which don't keep logs or store payment details, choose a different end-point every now and again, and live in the knowledge that if you're sensible - you're basically going to be untrackable. Ermm... last I gathered, IS(IS) didn't give a flying hoot about borders. I'm sure if you ask them, they'll actually tell you that borders are there to be redefined as they carve out their Caliphate.
Besides, if violence begets more violence - how do you police a border against jihadists without violence? Not to mention, if we redefine borders we're giving them an air of legitimacy.
It's a good idea, but I fail to see how it's possible in any way, shape or form. This is a very good point, I agree totally... but how do you enforce it?
However, the middle east is steeped in history and I can't quite see how you can prevent the theft of artefacts without being on the ground. The black market generally doesn't pay too much attention to where things come from or where the money goes.
On the plus side, at least in Iraq most of the expensive artefacts were probably looted 9 years ago.. Yes. This is a surefire way to ensure that they lose face completely, with those who matter; the ones they wish to govern.
Unfortunately, IS(IS) have a nasty habit of slaughtering those who speak against them - so at best we're looking at a few years of sporadic massacres and ethnic cleansing; all whilst we play out what would appear to be an international version of "The naughty step" - ignoring them until they behave themselves.
At worst? We end up witnessing a few years of the atrocities mentioned above, whilst they loot and pillage their way in to an even stronger position armed with the remnants of the Syrian and Iraqi armed forces - tanks, helicopters and jets included. Meanwhile, they then turn even nastier on their neighbours and do some more land grabbing. Appeasement would be one word that springs to mind here.. Quite. I seem to remember a fair amount of ill educated morons running around with England flags under the guise of "protecting England".
Let's hope the police don't infringe his 'uman rights.
Perhaps for every one person radicalised and joining the ranks of IS(IS), there will be another two or three that see the tide could be turning - and take up arms against IS(IS) themselves. Unfortunately, that's no consolation for those in the middle and those who have (and those who still will) lose loved ones and suffer horrific atrocities aimed against them.
I too fear the consequences, but similarly - I just don't see where the next step could potentially be without risking war. With the news that the RAF could be conducting strikes from tomorrow, pending parliament, it looks like this is another step in the wrong direction. (I've actually seen this referred to as The Third Gulf War already today.)
How the situation ever got to this extreme is utterly beyond me; this wasn't a situation that developed over night.
ISIS are not a new breed of terror . They are just the bad people that the yanks (and us ) never flushed out previously (second gulf war). So they went away , back to their caves and holes and waited.
Waited for the yanks (and us) to spend £billions on a new Iraq government and army. An army, that when left to their own devices were about as much use as a chocolate teapot. They did have some shiny new toys that would be of use though.
So when the yanks (and us) left,out they popped,wrestled the shiny new toys away from the 'Dads' army holding them and went on there next assault. They'll be back in their holes soon enough.But I suspect gulf wars 4,5 & 6 are not too far away!
However, all we could see was a nasty Dictator who was refusing the give his people Democracy.
Meanwhile whilst we're looking the other way.........
...yes Nigel, it's all about U(kip).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/syria-iraq-incubators-isis-jihad
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/25/britain-new-iraq-war-doomed-token-gesture
You'd think it would not have been impossible that the MPs could have voted from wherever they were (having first received a .pdf of the rationale). Perhaps someone could develop an App for that?
Saudi Arabia has 700 warplanes and a well equipped army, there is no need for the west to get involved at all.
Let them sort their own problems out.
The last one was two weeks ago today.
I hope we don't see another one tonight.
Worse than the brutal, systematic genocide of populations?
Worse than the torture, rape and murder of innocent people?
Worse than the establishment of an evil, repressive, corrupt state, bent on self-preservation at any cost?
Worse than the disgraceful, cowardly, gloating, broadcast murder of innocent westerners?
Really?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-prince-turki-al-faisal-on-syria-airstrikes/
If we are to send forces lets do it properly.
* I should have said by sending western forces piecemeal will only make things worse.
Yet again all eyes are turned to the 'Great Satan' to come in and sort it all out - and as Obama has hinted all along - this mentality has to stop and the region has got to get its act together and start taking responsibility for its own security - God knows the Yanks sell them enough weapons.
Now, of course, that utter fucktard Bush did cause much of this himself - with help from Blair - but sending huge western forces back in there to combat ISIS when the regional states have their own substantial forces that should be fighting ISIS is just repeating the same mistake.
The great complaint from so many Muslims is over the repeated military interventions of the US in the middle-East, Obama is trying to limit those interventions and force the regional powers to step up to the plate - and that's where we are now.
Its about oil and money for the west always was and we need to have a good hard look at our foreign policies.