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?
To some extent, the internecine rivalries in the region are unbelievably complex both internally and externally - but the bottom line is that these guys have relied on the US to sort out their problems for decades (and, yes, the US has not been shy in obliging) and Obama - for all his faults - recognises this has to stop.
How easy would it be for the government to issue an ultimatum that we wouldn't allow any persons who wish to go to these areas a way of getting back into our country, being journos or aid workers or future jihadists, surely that way the media coverage would be watered down so not to encourage future freedom fighters and to force the localised countries into fighting their own battles, especially if the US did the same too
How easy would it be for the government to issue an ultimatum that we wouldn't allow any persons who wish to go to these areas a way of getting back into our country, being journos or aid workers or future jihadists, surely that way the media coverage would be watered down so not to encourage future freedom fighters and to force the localised countries into fighting their own battles, especially if the US did the same too
How easy would it be for the government to issue an ultimatum that we wouldn't allow any persons who wish to go to these areas a way of getting back into our country, being journos or aid workers or future jihadists, surely that way the media coverage would be watered down so not to encourage future freedom fighters and to force the localised countries into fighting their own battles, especially if the US did the same too
Very difficult. even if, and it's a very big if, it was legal, how would you know where they'd been? There's probably no direct flights from LHR to Northern Iraq. Most recruits presumably go via Turkey and stroll across the border (without getting their passport stamped). How do you know whether someone's a jihadist or just going to Bodrum for a summer of debauchery?
How easy would it be for the government to issue an ultimatum that we wouldn't allow any persons who wish to go to these areas a way of getting back into our country, being journos or aid workers or future jihadists, surely that way the media coverage would be watered down so not to encourage future freedom fighters and to force the localised countries into fighting their own battles, especially if the US did the same too
As I'm posting from Dalaman airport, I have to say your idea really sucks.
Seductive as the idea of pulling up the drawbridge is I think it is a non- starter.
Like it or not, (and let's face it none of us wanted any of what has happened) a large, well- funded, well-organised, savagely brutal, cruel and totally evil organisation has it heart set on the establishment of a " state" slap bang in the middle of about the most sensitive and strategically and economically crucial area on the Globe. An area bristling with alternative ideologies, large armies and weaponry up to an including nuclear missiles.
Would it settle down and join the UN? Would it join a free trade zone? No it would use the abundant wealth of the regions oil to fund it's little project of establishing a stone-age theocracy from Iran to Spain. If it's a threat now can you imagine at what it might pose at that stage?
Make no mistake this is an immediate and growing strategic threat to Europe and the UK.
Then there is the religious genocide currently unrolling and a humanitarian crisis unprecedented since WW2 and the partition of India. Personally I do not think a blind eye should be turned to such. It's all very well to say that the local populace should object, but how does an unarmed refugees register their objections to someone with a fondness for decapitation?
Then there the inconvieniance of it all. I hate travelling by air these days, it's a pain everytime I prepare to fly. That said the reasons why it is a pain are to protect us and let us not forget who instigated all of this? The same perverse doctrine that inspired 9/11 which is behind the current crisis.
This is not a war on Islam, I am an atheist but know enough about it as a religion to know it does not promote the evil that is ISIL. Niether is this a return to the Middle Ages, a time where Islam was a model of toleration and learning in comparison to the then Christians. This is an attempt to establish a Stone Age theocracy ( and that is probably an insult to Stone Age men).
I'm not very well read on this, can anyone help me with a question. In the last few weeks reports seemed to have changed from ISIS to IS to ISIL. Are these different names for the same thing or are they different?
I'm not very well read on this, can anyone help me with a question. In the last few weeks reports seemed to have changed from ISIS to IS to ISIL. Are these different names for the same thing or are they different?
Different names for the same organisation. They changed their name from ISIL to Islamic State. They are neither Islamic or a legitimate State but talking about the USA bombing Islamic State sounds like an attack on Islam generally, which is what I think they are trying to portray.
This organisation is pretty sophisticated in terms of its propaganda as well as being organised, funded, deranged and evil.
BTW ISIL is a military organisation which therefore by definition can be defeated. Dealing with the " ideology" is equally important but much broad topic.
How easy would it be for the government to issue an ultimatum that we wouldn't allow any persons who wish to go to these areas a way of getting back into our country, being journos or aid workers or future jihadists, surely that way the media coverage would be watered down so not to encourage future freedom fighters and to force the localised countries into fighting their own battles, especially if the US did the same too
As I'm posting from Dalaman airport, I have to say your idea really sucks.
Why do you say that Stu and what has Dalaman airport got to do with it? Why are the countries neighbouring the affected areas not trying to sort it out? Why do we (UK) and the US have to get involved thus putting ourselves at risk of these brainwashed savages?
Seductive as the idea of pulling up the drawbridge is I think it is a non- starter.
Like it or not, (and let's face it none of us wanted any of what has happened) a large, well- funded, well-organised, savagely brutal, cruel and totally evil organisation has it heart set on the establishment of a " state" slap bang in the middle of about the most sensitive and strategically and economically crucial area on the Globe. An area bristling with alternative ideologies, large armies and weaponry up to an including nuclear missiles.
Would it settle down and join the UN? Would it join a free trade zone? No it would use the abundant wealth of the regions oil to fund it's little project of establishing a stone-age theocracy from Iran to Spain. If it's a threat now can you imagine at what it might pose at that stage?
Make no mistake this is an immediate and growing strategic threat to Europe and the UK.
Then there is the religious genocide currently unrolling and a humanitarian crisis unprecedented since WW2 and the partition of India. Personally I do not think a blind eye should be turned to such. It's all very well to say that the local populace should object, but how does an unarmed refugees register their objections to someone with a fondness for decapitation?
Then there the inconvieniance of it all. I hate travelling by air these days, it's a pain everytime I prepare to fly. That said the reasons why it is a pain are to protect us and let us not forget who instigated all of this? The same perverse doctrine that inspired 9/11 which is behind the current crisis.
This is not a war on Islam, I am an atheist but know enough about it as a religion to know it does not promote the evil that is ISIL. Niether is this a return to the Middle Ages, a time where Islam was a model of toleration and learning in comparison to the then Christians. This is an attempt to establish a Stone Age theocracy ( and that is probably an insult to Stone Age men).
This organisation should be crushed.
This is a very well articulated post. The long term cost of doing nothing could be catastrophic and I agree that ISIL must be crushed.
If Syria and Iraq are allowed to fall to ISIL what then for Jordan and Lebanon ? Very much the possibility of a return to Stone Age man but armed to the teeth with sophisticated weaponry and not Flint axes.
A caliphate in the terms that are being painted by ISIL will eventually lead to further expansionism which the west will be forced to confront not just for the security of the Middle East but for the security of the world.
I think that crushing ISIL now doing whatever it takes will save a lot of heartache in fifteen years from now..
The problem might be getting short termist Western politicians to agree on a long term strategy capable of defeating ISIL.
While the west fiddles the Middle East could burn.
I can't see ISIL getting anywhere near enough territory simply because Israel won't let them. If they take control of Syria or start pushing towards Lebanon or Jordan then I imagine Israel will be pushing for some major action, it will inevitably come from the USA as the destabilising effects of direct intervention from Israel would make current events look like a tea party.
Much better to fight fire with fire. The decapitation of westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in their doctrine is a deliberate ploy.
Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response.
I suspect the uproar in the civilised West wouldn't allow it though.
What an irresponsible and reprehensible post. I shudder to think what you are suggesting.
As irresponsible and reprehensible as beheading aid workers, raping civilians and committing geonicde?
You need to get a sense of perspective.
If you think a few airstrikes and a few thousand 'local' troops on the ground are going to defeat IS in the field, then you only need to look at how successful the past two decades have been in the region.
This will spread, no doubt about it. It will become a whole different ball game if the Israelis are attacked. It needs to be stopped before it gets to that stage.
If you armed the Palace Fanatics with AK47s, would they become a military organisation? - after all they all dress in black as well.
They've taken military equipment from Syrian and Iraqi army posts that they've captured, this equipment goes far beyond rifles. All the fancy equipment the US gave the new Iraqi army? We're talking about surface to air missiles, artillery guns, Humvees, tanks... the list goes on.
Not to mention supposed Blackhawk helicopters and planes that they took in Mosul. They may not have the capabilities to use that kind of machinery, but it is a major worry that they even possess the machinery itself.
To all intents and purposes, you could argue that they're similarly armed to the Ukrainian seperatists who managed to shoot down an airliner.
Equipment, combined with the fact they now see themselves as an independent state/Caliphate, suggests they need to be treated as though they were a military power rather than a rug-tug band of terrorists.
Much better to fight fire with fire. The decapitation of westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in their doctrine is a deliberate ploy.
Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response.
I suspect the uproar in the civilised West wouldn't allow it though.
What an irresponsible and reprehensible post. I shudder to think what you are suggesting.
As irresponsible and reprehensible as beheading aid workers, raping civilians and committing geonicde?
You need to get a sense of perspective.
If you think a few airstrikes and a few thousand 'local' troops on the ground are going to defeat IS in the field, then you only need to look at how successful the past two decades have been in the region.
This will spread, no doubt about it. It will become a whole different ball game if the Israelis are attacked. It needs to be stopped before it gets to that stage.
Fighting fire with fire is a term for using similar tactics as those you are trying to counter.
You raised the behaviour of religious genocide and decapitation immediately before suggesting, in essence, using the same tactics in the West, but pointing out that it may be objected too.
Would you like to edit or clarify your post to explain exactly what you meant? At present it reads as if you are suggesting that we, as a nation, should adopt similar tactics to those being used by ISIL.
I am not sure that I am the one with a perspective problem really.
If you armed the Palace Fanatics with AK47s, would they become a military organisation? - after all they all dress in black as well.
They may not have the capabilities to use that kind of machinery, but it is a major worry that they even possess the machinery itself.
And there's the crux.
How many blackhawk helicopters have been flying around attacking people? As far as I'm aware, none - because they're not a military organisation.
Surface to air missiles? We're not talking shoulder launched SPGs here. Even the Russian stuff from the 1980's was sohisticated kit with extensive command and control systems to make them operate. They may get lucky and fire one missile from the system, but they sure ain't going to down a squadron of F16s.
Tanks? Saw them playing about with a couple of American M1 Abrams battle tanks from the early 1980s. Not only are the capabilities of these limited compared to current kit, but can you really see some Iraqi farmer with a Kalashnikov knowing how to strip down and rebuild a honeywell turbine engine?
They're no more than armed thugs who are ruling by fear.
Much better to fight fire with fire. The decapitation of westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in their doctrine is a deliberate ploy.
Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response.
I suspect the uproar in the civilised West wouldn't allow it though.
What an irresponsible and reprehensible post. I shudder to think what you are suggesting.
As irresponsible and reprehensible as beheading aid workers, raping civilians and committing geonicde?
You need to get a sense of perspective.
If you think a few airstrikes and a few thousand 'local' troops on the ground are going to defeat IS in the field, then you only need to look at how successful the past two decades have been in the region.
This will spread, no doubt about it. It will become a whole different ball game if the Israelis are attacked. It needs to be stopped before it gets to that stage.
Fighting fire with fire is a term for using similar tactics as those you are trying to counter.
You raised the behaviour of religious genocide and decapitation immediately before suggesting, in essence, using the same tactics in the West, but pointing out that it may be objected too.
Would you like to edit or clarify your post to explain exactly what you meant? At present it reads as if you are suggesting that we, as a nation, should adopt similar tactics to those being used by ISIL.
I am not sure that I am the one with a perspective problem really.
Ah I see. I'm afraid your another person who jumps on an individuals post and makes an assumption about what's being said.
Do you seriously believe that I would advocate beheading innocent people or committing genocide? If you, Stig (or indeed anyone else) think that I meant that, then I apologise. Blimey - do I really come across as that kind of nutter?
What is being carried out by IS now is perceived by the West as being abhorrent. There are actions we can take that are seen as abhorrent by these thugs. Things that don't mean killing, harming or maiming a single soul, but would act as a deterent.
I agree with @IAgree (heh..?) that fighting fire with fire when concerned with people who are essentially conducting a campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing doesn't sound like the brightest idea, but I don't think @addickted meant it quite so literally!
I think he meant we should get tougher and, arguably, worry a little less about being squeaky clean. It may not be something we all agree with, but it does highlight a key issue - only one side is going to be playing by the rules (whatever they supposedly are).
If you armed the Palace Fanatics with AK47s, would they become a military organisation? - after all they all dress in black as well.
They may not have the capabilities to use that kind of machinery, but it is a major worry that they even possess the machinery itself.
And there's the crux.
How many blackhawk helicopters have been flying around attacking people? As far as I'm aware, none - because they're not a military organisation.
Surface to air missiles? We're not talking shoulder launched SPGs here. Even the Russian stuff from the 1980's was sohisticated kit with extensive command and control systems to make them operate. They may get lucky and fire one missile from the system, but they sure ain't going to down a squadron of F16s.
Tanks? Saw them playing about with a couple of American M1 Abrams battle tanks from the early 1980s. Not only are the capabilities of these limited compared to current kit, but can you really see some Iraqi farmer with a Kalashnikov knowing how to strip down and rebuild a honeywell turbine engine?
They're no more than armed thugs who are ruling by fear.
I agree completely that the equipment they have is as useful to them as rather large airfix models! At the moment taking this equipment out should be a priority though, as the fact that these bits of kit were present in the region means that there are indeed individuals who are capable of operating (and most likely maintaining) them. Which does lead to a very worrying possibility..
Consider the first Gulf War for example; many Iraqi fighter pilots were so eager and desperate to leave that they flew their planes in to Iran - an enemy. They did not want to fight. With that in mind, those who did fight - did they want to? I imagine (and, I openly admit, without sources to back this up I'm afraid - but I can certainly look it up) that threats against family members made their situation such that they had to fight.
If there are people who know how to operate this equipment, then it's certainly possible that the right kind of pressure applied to them will see them soon switch alliances. Consider an Iraqi soldier who had undergone the required training to use this equipment, you'd now have a pretty valuable skill for the guys who are now roaming your streets. Would you say no to them if you had a family?
Similarly, the Security Services claimed to have gained possession of "minutes" from an ISIS meeting - orders such as "7AM awakenings for all volunteers" were said to have been disseminated. This in itself shows there is some form of command structure and potentially a disciplined routine coming in to force.
Command Structure? Discipline? Access (albeit, without the knowledge..) to fairly complex bits of kit? Representing (what they believe to be) an Independent State? I can see how you could label them a military organisation personally, although I can also see how they're not.
Much better to fight fire with fire. The decapitation of westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in their doctrine is a deliberate ploy.
Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response.
I suspect the uproar in the civilised West wouldn't allow it though.
What an irresponsible and reprehensible post. I shudder to think what you are suggesting.
As irresponsible and reprehensible as beheading aid workers, raping civilians and committing geonicde?
You need to get a sense of perspective.
If you think a few airstrikes and a few thousand 'local' troops on the ground are going to defeat IS in the field, then you only need to look at how successful the past two decades have been in the region.
This will spread, no doubt about it. It will become a whole different ball game if the Israelis are attacked. It needs to be stopped before it gets to that stage.
Fighting fire with fire is a term for using similar tactics as those you are trying to counter.
You raised the behaviour of religious genocide and decapitation immediately before suggesting, in essence, using the same tactics in the West, but pointing out that it may be objected too.
Would you like to edit or clarify your post to explain exactly what you meant? At present it reads as if you are suggesting that we, as a nation, should adopt similar tactics to those being used by ISIL.
I am not sure that I am the one with a perspective problem really.
Ah I see. I'm afraid your another person who jumps on an individuals post and makes an assumption about what's being said.
Do you seriously believe that I would advocate beheading innocent people or committing genocide? If you, Stig (or indeed anyone else) think that I meant that, then I apologise. Blimey - do I really come across as that kind of nutter?
What is being carried out by IS now is perceived by the West as being abhorrent. There are actions we can take that are seen as abhorrent by these thugs. Things that don't mean killing, harming or maiming a single soul, but would act as a deterent.
I'm not making an assumptions, you wrote a post in pretty unambiguous language.
You said ; "Much better to fight fire fire with fire. The deacpitation of Westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in thier doctrine is a deliberate ploy. Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response".
Now in your clarification you suggest that you have been misrepresented, whilst suggesting "there are actions we can take which take which will be seen as abhorrent by theses thugs".
...Do you seriously believe that I would advocate beheading innocent people or committing genocide? If you, Stig (or indeed anyone else) think that I meant that, then I apologise...
Much better to fight fire with fire. The decapitation of westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in their doctrine is a deliberate ploy.
Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response.
I suspect the uproar in the civilised West wouldn't allow it though.
What an irresponsible and reprehensible post. I shudder to think what you are suggesting.
As irresponsible and reprehensible as beheading aid workers, raping civilians and committing geonicde?
You need to get a sense of perspective.
If you think a few airstrikes and a few thousand 'local' troops on the ground are going to defeat IS in the field, then you only need to look at how successful the past two decades have been in the region.
This will spread, no doubt about it. It will become a whole different ball game if the Israelis are attacked. It needs to be stopped before it gets to that stage.
Fighting fire with fire is a term for using similar tactics as those you are trying to counter.
You raised the behaviour of religious genocide and decapitation immediately before suggesting, in essence, using the same tactics in the West, but pointing out that it may be objected too.
Would you like to edit or clarify your post to explain exactly what you meant? At present it reads as if you are suggesting that we, as a nation, should adopt similar tactics to those being used by ISIL.
I am not sure that I am the one with a perspective problem really.
Ah I see. I'm afraid your another person who jumps on an individuals post and makes an assumption about what's being said.
Do you seriously believe that I would advocate beheading innocent people or committing genocide? If you, Stig (or indeed anyone else) think that I meant that, then I apologise. Blimey - do I really come across as that kind of nutter?
What is being carried out by IS now is perceived by the West as being abhorrent. There are actions we can take that are seen as abhorrent by these thugs. Things that don't mean killing, harming or maiming a single soul, but would act as a deterent.
I'm not making an assumptions, you wrote a post in pretty unambiguous language.
Obviously it was ambiguous, otherwise you would not have jumped to the conclusion that I was some kind of fully fledged nutter who's suggesting we nuke the shit out of them - or something similar.
What I meant by 'fire by fire' was that their deliberate and advertised actions are seen as atrocities by the West (indeed by any kind of person belonging to the human race), should be fought with actions they perceive as atrocities as far as their fanatical version of Islam is concerned.
Much better to fight fire with fire. The decapitation of westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in their doctrine is a deliberate ploy.
Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response.
I suspect the uproar in the civilised West wouldn't allow it though.
What an irresponsible and reprehensible post. I shudder to think what you are suggesting.
As irresponsible and reprehensible as beheading aid workers, raping civilians and committing geonicde?
You need to get a sense of perspective.
If you think a few airstrikes and a few thousand 'local' troops on the ground are going to defeat IS in the field, then you only need to look at how successful the past two decades have been in the region.
This will spread, no doubt about it. It will become a whole different ball game if the Israelis are attacked. It needs to be stopped before it gets to that stage.
Fighting fire with fire is a term for using similar tactics as those you are trying to counter.
You raised the behaviour of religious genocide and decapitation immediately before suggesting, in essence, using the same tactics in the West, but pointing out that it may be objected too.
Would you like to edit or clarify your post to explain exactly what you meant? At present it reads as if you are suggesting that we, as a nation, should adopt similar tactics to those being used by ISIL.
I am not sure that I am the one with a perspective problem really.
Ah I see. I'm afraid your another person who jumps on an individuals post and makes an assumption about what's being said.
Do you seriously believe that I would advocate beheading innocent people or committing genocide? If you, Stig (or indeed anyone else) think that I meant that, then I apologise. Blimey - do I really come across as that kind of nutter?
What is being carried out by IS now is perceived by the West as being abhorrent. There are actions we can take that are seen as abhorrent by these thugs. Things that don't mean killing, harming or maiming a single soul, but would act as a deterent.
I'm not making an assumptions, you wrote a post in pretty unambiguous language.
Obviously it was ambiguous, otherwise you would not have jumped to the conclusion that I was some kind of fully fledged nutter who's suggesting we nuke the shit out of them - or something similar.
What I meant by 'fire by fire' was that their deliberate and advertised actions are seen as atrocities by the West (indeed by any kind of person belonging to the human race), should be fought with actions they perceive as atrocities as far as their fanatical version of Islam is concerned.
Maybe we could have the Leader of the Opposition make a blatant display of not adhering to fundamentalist Islam...
Much better to fight fire with fire. The decapitation of westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in their doctrine is a deliberate ploy.
Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response.
I suspect the uproar in the civilised West wouldn't allow it though.
What an irresponsible and reprehensible post. I shudder to think what you are suggesting.
As irresponsible and reprehensible as beheading aid workers, raping civilians and committing geonicde?
You need to get a sense of perspective.
If you think a few airstrikes and a few thousand 'local' troops on the ground are going to defeat IS in the field, then you only need to look at how successful the past two decades have been in the region.
This will spread, no doubt about it. It will become a whole different ball game if the Israelis are attacked. It needs to be stopped before it gets to that stage.
Fighting fire with fire is a term for using similar tactics as those you are trying to counter.
You raised the behaviour of religious genocide and decapitation immediately before suggesting, in essence, using the same tactics in the West, but pointing out that it may be objected too.
Would you like to edit or clarify your post to explain exactly what you meant? At present it reads as if you are suggesting that we, as a nation, should adopt similar tactics to those being used by ISIL.
I am not sure that I am the one with a perspective problem really.
Ah I see. I'm afraid your another person who jumps on an individuals post and makes an assumption about what's being said.
Do you seriously believe that I would advocate beheading innocent people or committing genocide? If you, Stig (or indeed anyone else) think that I meant that, then I apologise. Blimey - do I really come across as that kind of nutter?
What is being carried out by IS now is perceived by the West as being abhorrent. There are actions we can take that are seen as abhorrent by these thugs. Things that don't mean killing, harming or maiming a single soul, but would act as a deterent.
I'm not making an assumptions, you wrote a post in pretty unambiguous language.
Obviously it was ambiguous, otherwise you would not have jumped to the conclusion that I was some kind of fully fledged nutter who's suggesting we nuke the shit out of them - or something similar.
What I meant by 'fire by fire' was that their deliberate and advertised actions are seen as atrocities by the West (indeed by any kind of person belonging to the human race), should be fought with actions they perceive as atrocities as far as their fanatical version of Islam is concerned.
Maybe we could have the Leader of the Opposition make a blatant display of not adhering to fundamentalist Islam...
Comments
Like it or not, (and let's face it none of us wanted any of what has happened) a large, well- funded, well-organised, savagely brutal, cruel and totally evil organisation has it heart set on the establishment of a " state" slap bang in the middle of about the most sensitive and strategically and economically crucial area on the Globe. An area bristling with alternative ideologies, large armies and weaponry up to an including nuclear missiles.
Would it settle down and join the UN? Would it join a free trade zone? No it would use the abundant wealth of the regions oil to fund it's little project of establishing a stone-age theocracy from Iran to Spain. If it's a threat now can you imagine at what it might pose at that stage?
Make no mistake this is an immediate and growing strategic threat to Europe and the UK.
Then there is the religious genocide currently unrolling and a humanitarian crisis unprecedented since WW2 and the partition of India. Personally I do not think a blind eye should be turned to such. It's all very well to say that the local populace should object, but how does an unarmed refugees register their objections to someone with a fondness for decapitation?
Then there the inconvieniance of it all. I hate travelling by air these days, it's a pain everytime I prepare to fly. That said the reasons why it is a pain are to protect us and let us not forget who instigated all of this? The same perverse doctrine that inspired 9/11 which is behind the current crisis.
This is not a war on Islam, I am an atheist but know enough about it as a religion to know it does not promote the evil that is ISIL. Niether is this a return to the Middle Ages, a time where Islam was a model of toleration and learning in comparison to the then Christians. This is an attempt to establish a Stone Age theocracy ( and that is probably an insult to Stone Age men).
This organisation should be crushed.
This organisation is pretty sophisticated in terms of its propaganda as well as being organised, funded, deranged and evil.
Much better to fight fire with fire. The decapitation of westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in their doctrine is a deliberate ploy.
Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response.
I suspect the uproar in the civilised West wouldn't allow it though.
Why are the countries neighbouring the affected areas not trying to sort it out?
Why do we (UK) and the US have to get involved thus putting ourselves at risk of these brainwashed savages?
If Syria and Iraq are allowed to fall to ISIL what then for Jordan and Lebanon ? Very much the possibility of a return to Stone Age man but armed to the teeth with sophisticated weaponry and not Flint axes.
A caliphate in the terms that are being painted by ISIL will eventually lead to further expansionism which the west will be forced to confront not just for the security of the Middle East but for the security of the world.
I think that crushing ISIL now doing whatever it takes will save a lot of heartache in fifteen years from now..
The problem might be getting short termist Western politicians to agree on a long term strategy capable of defeating ISIL.
While the west fiddles the Middle East could burn.
You need to get a sense of perspective.
If you think a few airstrikes and a few thousand 'local' troops on the ground are going to defeat IS in the field, then you only need to look at how successful the past two decades have been in the region.
This will spread, no doubt about it. It will become a whole different ball game if the Israelis are attacked. It needs to be stopped before it gets to that stage.
If you armed the Palace Fanatics with AK47s, would they become a military organisation? - after all they all dress in black as well.
Not to mention supposed Blackhawk helicopters and planes that they took in Mosul. They may not have the capabilities to use that kind of machinery, but it is a major worry that they even possess the machinery itself.
To all intents and purposes, you could argue that they're similarly armed to the Ukrainian seperatists who managed to shoot down an airliner.
Equipment, combined with the fact they now see themselves as an independent state/Caliphate, suggests they need to be treated as though they were a military power rather than a rug-tug band of terrorists.
You raised the behaviour of religious genocide and decapitation immediately before suggesting, in essence, using the same tactics in the West, but pointing out that it may be objected too.
Would you like to edit or clarify your post to explain exactly what you meant? At present it reads as if you are suggesting that we, as a nation, should adopt similar tactics to those being used by ISIL.
I am not sure that I am the one with a perspective problem really.
How many blackhawk helicopters have been flying around attacking people? As far as I'm aware, none - because they're not a military organisation.
Surface to air missiles? We're not talking shoulder launched SPGs here. Even the Russian stuff from the 1980's was sohisticated kit with extensive command and control systems to make them operate. They may get lucky and fire one missile from the system, but they sure ain't going to down a squadron of F16s.
Tanks? Saw them playing about with a couple of American M1 Abrams battle tanks from the early 1980s. Not only are the capabilities of these limited compared to current kit, but can you really see some Iraqi farmer with a Kalashnikov knowing how to strip down and rebuild a honeywell turbine engine?
They're no more than armed thugs who are ruling by fear.
Do you seriously believe that I would advocate beheading innocent people or committing genocide? If you, Stig (or indeed anyone else) think that I meant that, then I apologise. Blimey - do I really come across as that kind of nutter?
What is being carried out by IS now is perceived by the West as being abhorrent. There are actions we can take that are seen as abhorrent by these thugs. Things that don't mean killing, harming or maiming a single soul, but would act as a deterent.
I think he meant we should get tougher and, arguably, worry a little less about being squeaky clean. It may not be something we all agree with, but it does highlight a key issue - only one side is going to be playing by the rules (whatever they supposedly are). I agree completely that the equipment they have is as useful to them as rather large airfix models! At the moment taking this equipment out should be a priority though, as the fact that these bits of kit were present in the region means that there are indeed individuals who are capable of operating (and most likely maintaining) them. Which does lead to a very worrying possibility..
Consider the first Gulf War for example; many Iraqi fighter pilots were so eager and desperate to leave that they flew their planes in to Iran - an enemy. They did not want to fight. With that in mind, those who did fight - did they want to? I imagine (and, I openly admit, without sources to back this up I'm afraid - but I can certainly look it up) that threats against family members made their situation such that they had to fight.
If there are people who know how to operate this equipment, then it's certainly possible that the right kind of pressure applied to them will see them soon switch alliances. Consider an Iraqi soldier who had undergone the required training to use this equipment, you'd now have a pretty valuable skill for the guys who are now roaming your streets. Would you say no to them if you had a family?
Similarly, the Security Services claimed to have gained possession of "minutes" from an ISIS meeting - orders such as "7AM awakenings for all volunteers" were said to have been disseminated. This in itself shows there is some form of command structure and potentially a disciplined routine coming in to force.
Command Structure? Discipline? Access (albeit, without the knowledge..) to fairly complex bits of kit? Representing (what they believe to be) an Independent State? I can see how you could label them a military organisation personally, although I can also see how they're not.
You said ; "Much better to fight fire fire with fire. The deacpitation of Westerners and genocide of those who don't believe in thier doctrine is a deliberate ploy. Perhaps we need to be just as extreme in our response".
Now in your clarification you suggest that you have been misrepresented, whilst suggesting "there are actions we can take which take which will be seen as abhorrent by theses thugs".
What I meant by 'fire by fire' was that their deliberate and advertised actions are seen as atrocities by the West (indeed by any kind of person belonging to the human race), should be fought with actions they perceive as atrocities as far as their fanatical version of Islam is concerned.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/sep/26/where-do-isis-get-their-money-video?CMP=fb_gu