hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 There are plenty of top people from the IRA who are now talking to us as politicians rather than terrorists. I don't think you understand who these Isis terrorists are. These aren't the IRA, there in't anything that they want from us other than complete subservience and ultimately our destruction. How exactly do you begin negotiations on that basis. Are you suggesting that they would suddenly stop what they are doing if we simply pulled out and left them alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 So you are proposing a land war? Ok but how do you deal with the cells of terrorists scattered all over the place? I don't live in fear of an invasion by ISIS but I do live in fear of being blown up by a suicide bomber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Most people? I think that all of the other media outlets dealt with the news in a way that "most people" found respectful and acceptable. I think a lot of people would have found The Sun's front page crass but if you like it, fair dos. By the way, we used to hang women and put homosexuals in prison in this country not so long ago. We used to hang women? Being a woman has never been a capital offense in this country, unless you mean we used to have capital punishment and some of the prisoners executed happened to be women. As it happens we as a country have moved on and are enlightened. The legalisation of homosexuality and the abolishment of the death penalty have both been in place for about 50 years. ISIS have no such intention of moving into the 21st Century. The go to bed at night dreaming of mutual annihilation with Israel. A nuclear holocaust which brings about judgement day, where all nonbelievers are sent to burn in hell for eternity. You cannot bargain, appease or negotiate with that kind of fanaticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) So you are proposing a land war? Ok but how do you deal with the cells of terrorists scattered all over the place? I don't live in fear of an invasion by ISIS but I do live in fear of being blown up by a suicide bomber. I'm sure you felt the same fear with the IRA. We are already at risk of reprisal/incident. Just by our very nature. ISIS wants nothing less then the destruction of anyone different. Do not forget that. If we sit on our hands they will eventually be knocking on the door regardless. Ignoring it will not make it go away, but take this issue head on and we have a chance of making things safer in the future. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I don't think you understand who these Isis terrorists are. These aren't the IRA, there in't anything that they want from us other than complete subservience and ultimately our destruction. How exactly do you begin negotiations on that basis. Are you suggesting that they would suddenly stop what they are doing if we simply pulled out and left them alone? I know that they are not the IRA. I was just trying to explain that people, no matter how entrenched, can get to the point where they are prepared to give a little to get something other than death. I don't think for one minute that they would just stop - I am sure they are as suspicious of us as we are of them. But they are not going to win and nor are we (IMHO) so what is the alternative? We go on killing each other? Maybe we do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I'm sure you felt the same fear with the IRA. We are already at risk of reprisal/incident. Just by our very nature. ISIS wants nothing less then the destruction of anyone different. Do not forget that. Ignoring it will not make it go away, but take this issue head on and we have a chance of making things safer in the future. Yes I did. I used to work in London in the 70s when the bombings were going on. It wasn't very nice. I wouldn't advocate ignoring ISIS and clearly they arent going to go away, but at some point both sides are going to have to realise that constant strikes and counter strikes are not the answer. You are right, something will happen as a result of the recent drone strike, and that is my point. It doesn't actually solve anything. More beheadings and more drone strikes. When does it stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) Yes I did. I used to work in London in the 70s when the bombings were going on. It wasn't very nice. I wouldn't advocate ignoring ISIS and clearly they arent going to go away, but at some point both sides are going to have to realise that constant strikes and counter strikes are not the answer. You are right, something will happen as a result of the recent drone strike, and that is my point. It doesn't actually solve anything. More beheadings and more drone strikes. When does it stop? After the issue is forced. It will get worse before it gets better. Critically, it may never stop. Ideals do not die, but entities can. We should destroy the cancer of ISIS (Actually, had enough of legitimising their claim on Islam with that acronym. Daesh is their name) first and then worry about the long process of mopping up the smaller areas of metastasised cells after. They will not go away together. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Most people? I think that all of the other media outlets dealt with the news in a way that "most people" found respectful and acceptable. I think a lot of people would have found The Sun's front page crass but if you like it, fair dos. By the way, we used to hang women and put homosexuals in prison in this country not so long ago. Read the comments sections. Most people thought 'good' we are finally doing something about these barbaric throwbacks. We have moved on in fifty years. I am sorry that you equate fifties Britain justice with justice in today's ISIS state. Maybe you could go and talk to them, I am sure they will warm to your offer of compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I know that they are not the IRA. I was just trying to explain that people, no matter how entrenched, can get to the point where they are prepared to give a little to get something other than death. I don't think for one minute that they would just stop - I am sure they are as suspicious of us as we are of them. But they are not going to win and nor are we (IMHO) so what is the alternative? We go on killing each other? Maybe we do? My solution is to form a proper alliance with neighbouring arabic countries, Russia and Europe to make concerted attacks against the fighters to wipe out the majority and crush the organisation. Subsequent to that we should then negotiate. I think your belief that ISIS will be up for negotiating is hideously naive and won't work in any way. The only thing we can do is remove the worst perpetrators as quickly and as efficiently as possible in coalition with other arab natiions in the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Yes I did. I used to work in London in the 70s when the bombings were going on. It wasn't very nice. I wouldn't advocate ignoring ISIS and clearly they arent going to go away, but at some point both sides are going to have to realise that constant strikes and counter strikes are not the answer. You are right, something will happen as a result of the recent drone strike, and that is my point. It doesn't actually solve anything. More beheadings and more drone strikes. When does it stop? ISIS will never do that. That's the point you aren't getting. They aren't the IRA. The IRA, whilst evil in their own way and willing to murder British citizens to pursue their cause, at least had a sane motivation and plausible political motivation. They were fighting for something which was at least achievable, over which a compromise could be found. ISIS aren't like that. Their goals, their methods and their rationale for doing so are all completely mad. They will stop short of nothing less than strict, worldwide Sharia law. If you are prepared to offer them this, together with the global enslavement of women and the mass extermination of all gays and Jews then you can go and negotiate with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Yes I did. I used to work in London in the 70s when the bombings were going on. It wasn't very nice. I wouldn't advocate ignoring ISIS and clearly they arent going to go away, but at some point both sides are going to have to realise that constant strikes and counter strikes are not the answer. You are right, something will happen as a result of the recent drone strike, and that is my point. It doesn't actually solve anything. More beheadings and more drone strikes. When does it stop? ARGH that is simply not true! They will never realise that, that's the whole point. They believe that strikes, death and barbarism are the answer and that they will get their rewards after their life in heaven so don't give a toss about their lives here. They will never surrender, negotiate or suddenly decide to be more moderate. Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 After the issue is forced. It will get worse before it gets better. Critically, it may never stop. Ideals do not die, but entities can. We should destroy the cancer of ISIS (Actually, had enough of legitimising their claim on Islam with that acronym. Daesh is their name) first and then worry about the long process of mopping up the smaller areas of metastasised cells after. They will not go away together. Yeah this pretty much. If we can accept that we will never get rid of it totally, that doesn't mean that we can't mortally wound the ISIS regime, disrupt their operations and remove the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 the mass extermination of all gays and Jews then you can go and negotiate with them. ...As well as anyone that doesn't acquiesce to their will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Bloody ridiculous then. I was interested in Second World War stuff growing up, doesn't mean I now want to wage war with Germany. Imagine actually holding an 800 year old grudge!! Talk to the Scots - they still haven't forgiven us for the actions of Edward Longshanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Talk to the Scots - they still haven't forgiven us for the actions of Edward Longshanks Quite right too. Although they seem to have forgiven Mel Gibson for the liberties he took with the William Wallace story in Braveheart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Yeah this pretty much. If we can accept that we will never get rid of it totally, that doesn't mean that we can't mortally wound the ISIS regime, disrupt their operations and remove the majority. Well, I guess we will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 ARGH that is simply not true! They will never realise that, that's the whole point. They believe that strikes, death and barbarism are the answer and that they will get their rewards after their life in heaven so don't give a toss about their lives here. They will never surrender, negotiate or suddenly decide to be more moderate. Never. There have been many regimes through history that have been strict in their dogma only to soften their stance in time. I am not saying it will happen, but I am saying that nothing is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 My solution is to form a proper alliance with neighbouring arabic countries, Russia and Europe to make concerted attacks against the fighters to wipe out the majority and crush the organisation. Subsequent to that we should then negotiate. I think your belief that ISIS will be up for negotiating is hideously naive and won't work in any way. The only thing we can do is remove the worst perpetrators as quickly and as efficiently as possible in coalition with other arab natiions in the region. And what if, as quickly as we take out the main players, others take their place? Much of the organisation is an underground movement. How do you crush that? It sounds good in principle but I really cant see it working as long as you have the underground movement. You can crush people, cruising an idea is more difficult. Especially if part of the problem is a West that is just as entrenched in its own dogma and has sold its soul to oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 There have been many regimes through history that have been strict in their dogma only to soften their stance in time. I am not saying it will happen, but I am saying that nothing is impossible. Well that's an odd argument then. It's not impossible that tomorrow I could wake up and sprout wings so I can go for a fly around the common. Doesn't mean it's in any way likely or that I should start planning for that scenario. If you were the Prime Minister now what stance would you be advocating? Should we immediately halt operations against Islamic State and try to broker a dialogue with the mad men? When that fails what do you propose? Wait it out in the hope that their rhetoric softens over time and they are inclined to negotiate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 And what if, as quickly as we take out the main players, others take their place? Much of the organisation is an underground movement. How do you crush that? It sounds good in principle but I really cant see it working as long as you have the underground movement. You can crush people, cruising an idea is more difficult. Especially if part of the problem is a West that is just as entrenched in its own dogma and has sold its soul to oil. If action taken is hard enough and taken in partnership with others then there simply won't be the manpower or organisational structure available to replace i as quickly as it is defeated. The Taliban are basically nothing now and they were crushed and then engaged with to try to find a peaceful solution. Of course many of the tactics against the Taliban were wrong but doing nothing to combat them was never the answer. We can't crush the idea, we will probably never be free of the underground movement or guerrilla attacks but as already stated above, we can do a lot to crush the organisation and prevent them from terrorising native citizens in their own lands. There is a lot we can do to get rid of ISIS the organisation and it's much better than waiting around for dialogue or doing nothing in the hope that the will suddenly stop. They won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I have not said that Muslims have no right to follow their religion. As you say, Islam is fundamentally peaceful, therefore stop associating ISIS and their warped interpretation and ideology as one and the same. Equally, where in Christianity does it say 'Kill all Jews?' Didn't stop Nazi Germany. We didn't sit around the table with the key perpetrators of World War 2, they died. Mussolini was strung up and paraded through the streets, Hitler was incinerated by Joseph Goebells shortly before he himself committed suicide. We dealt with the moderate underlings to push forward. It takes a lot more than one or two people to start and wage war. They need support. Those underlings you talk about were no less culpable or dangerous than Hitler, Goebells and Mussolini. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Read the comments sections. Most people thought 'good' we are finally doing something about these barbaric throwbacks. We have moved on in fifty years. I am sorry that you equate fifties Britain justice with justice in today's ISIS state. Maybe you could go and talk to them, I am sure they will warm to your offer of compromise. You have totally missed my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 How would you stop someone believing in their religion? Their religious interpretation? How does you, the infidel, the creation of an evil, decadent, destructive society convince someone that they have been warped onto a path of sin? Of the two perspectives we are coming from, one humours the faction that wants to destroy, the other seeks to stop it. Good luck Chamberlain, I'm sticking with the Churchillian route. Sticking with the past precedents that you enjoy, out of Nazi Germany and WW2 came the United Nations, European union and institutionalised peace in a part of the world (Yes, Europe) that had nothing but a history of bloody international wars. Churchill is famously quoted as saying "Jaw jaw, not war war." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 It takes a lot more than one or two people to start and wage war. They need support. Those underlings you talk about were no less culpable or dangerous than Hitler, Goebells and Mussolini. Now you are just arguing semantics. So now are you saying that your solution to this is to try to negotiate with the more moderate underlings (if they exist) with the fanatical bit still in place? How is that going to work then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 It takes a lot more than one or two people to start and wage war. They need support. Those underlings you talk about were no less culpable or dangerous than Hitler, Goebells and Mussolini. That took a long time to respond to.... They were the heads of the organisation though, deposed by the war effort and then killed. Their deaths broke the resistance of their organisations, their states. They could not be negotiated with but their deaths were a powerful statement that broke the beast. Your point was that negotiation will always be a possibility, that the deaths of the power brokers was required to stop the enemy and bring hostilities to a final cessation undermines your point entirely. You are backed into a corner and flailing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Churchill is famously quoted as saying "Jaw jaw, not war war." He handled the war war rather well. Keep flailing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Churchill is famously quoted as saying "Jaw jaw, not war war." Weird then that he felt the need to go to war and kill a bunch of people before we could have peace then. Almost as if he agreed that there was no negotiating with those in charge of that awful regime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I don't advocate waiting around and I don't advocate doing nothing. I simply said that all we are doing at the moment is perpetuating the problem. Muslims are still being radicalised in this country and front pages like that of The Sun yesterday do nothing to help. All this talk of "crushing" is all very well but The West has to take some responsibility for what is happening. This is not just about us being the "Infidel." There are a body of people who clearly see The West as a threat and are taking steps to combat that threat. I hate what is happening just as much as the next person - the beheadings, the suicide bombs, the destroying of ancient monuments. But they didn't just wake up one day and say lets kill all the Infidels. The West has played into the hands of the religious fanatics and does so every time it launches missiles into populated areas. Collateral damage it is called when total innocents are blown apart. Doesn't that make us just as bad as them in terms of the moral high ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Weird then that he felt the need to go to war and kill a bunch of people before we could have peace then. Almost as if he agreed that there was no negotiating with those in charge of that awful regime... I don't think that he felt the need to go to war. Wasn't it Chamberlain who gave Hitler the ultimatum? And I expect it was something that Parliament felt was unavoidable rather than one man deciding lets do it. No one in their right mind wants war. The First World War was ended by negotiations and there were negotiations at the end of the second war world. At some point people have to talk is my point. You say that they never will. I don't know how you can be so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 He handled the war war rather well. Keep flailing. He did. It doesn't mean that he would have rather have war than peace does it? Flailing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Now you are just arguing semantics. So now are you saying that your solution to this is to try to negotiate with the more moderate underlings (if they exist) with the fanatical bit still in place? How is that going to work then? You don't know unless you try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I don't advocate waiting around and I don't advocate doing nothing. I simply said that all we are doing at the moment is perpetuating the problem. Muslims are still being radicalised in this country and front pages like that of The Sun yesterday do nothing to help. All this talk of "crushing" is all very well but The West has to take some responsibility for what is happening. This is not just about us being the "Infidel." There are a body of people who clearly see The West as a threat and are taking steps to combat that threat. I hate what is happening just as much as the next person - the beheadings, the suicide bombs, the destroying of ancient monuments. But they didn't just wake up one day and say lets kill all the Infidels. The West has played into the hands of the religious fanatics and does so every time it launches missiles into populated areas. Collateral damage it is called when total innocents are blown apart. Doesn't that make us just as bad as them in terms of the moral high ground? So what do you advocate then? What would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 He did. It doesn't mean that he would have rather have war than peace does it? Flailing? WTF? You're trying to back your argument up with a man who knew he had to go to war to achieve peace because he was fighting a fanatical idealist who couldn't be bargained with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 You don't know unless you try. OK but everything we know so far strongly suggests that this is doomed to fail. If we try what you say and it fails (as it almost certainly would) then what would you propose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 WTF? You're trying to back your argument up with a man who knew he had to go to war to achieve peace because he was fighting a fanatical idealist who couldn't be bargained with. Exactly! We would all rather have had peace than war but it gets to a point where you have to recognise that some people cannot be bargained with and they have to be destroyed. Shall we call you Neville Chamberlain soggy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I don't crow over the deaths of anyone. Ok maybe I do occasionally but I think that media headlines should show some restraint. I'll never forget 'Ship Ship Hooray' at the death of that poor old doctor. How his family must have felt. And 'Bin Bagged'. That was an insult to the bin Laden family name. They never got over it and even crashed their plane years later because they were thinking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 That took a long time to respond to.... They were the heads of the organisation though, deposed by the war effort and then killed. Their deaths broke the resistance of their organisations, their states. They could not be negotiated with but their deaths were a powerful statement that broke the beast. Your point was that negotiation will always be a possibility, that the deaths of the power brokers was required to stop the enemy and bring hostilities to a final cessation undermines your point entirely. You are backed into a corner and flailing. Yes it did take a while. I have a life other than wittering away on a PC. This business about being backed into a corner and flailing sounds quite aggressive to me. This isn't a battle you know, just an exchange of opinions on the Internet. I don't think that in either case their deaths broke resistance. It was months of fighting that broke their armies that led to their deaths. I believe that some of the German High Command were looking to negotiate a peace before Hitler killed himself. It doesn't alter my point that conflicts do not go on forever and that at some point people end up getting around a table. We had a land war in the Middle East not so long ago and look where that left us. If you are proposing another one will it really end the problems between The West and those who oppose the West? This isn't as straightforward as the 2nd WW. I doubt if there were many people in Britain becoming radical Nazis in their bedrooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) I don't advocate waiting around and I don't advocate doing nothing. I simply said that all we are doing at the moment is perpetuating the problem. Muslims are still being radicalised in this country and front pages like that of The Sun yesterday do nothing to help. All this talk of "crushing" is all very well but The West has to take some responsibility for what is happening. This is not just about us being the "Infidel." There are a body of people who clearly see The West as a threat and are taking steps to combat that threat. I hate what is happening just as much as the next person - the beheadings, the suicide bombs, the destroying of ancient monuments. But they didn't just wake up one day and say lets kill all the Infidels. The West has played into the hands of the religious fanatics and does so every time it launches missiles into populated areas. Collateral damage it is called when total innocents are blown apart. Doesn't that make us just as bad as them in terms of the moral high ground? Your solution is to bargain with an entity that would see death as glorious and anything other then our own destruction as an affront to their beliefs. The origin of that is our responsibility as you pointed out. We must get involved to stop them before they come and end us. Stop arguing for something that is pointless. I don't think that in either case their deaths broke resistance. It was months of fighting that broke their armies that led to their deaths. I believe that some of the German High Command were looking to negotiate a peace before Hitler killed himself. It doesn't alter my point that conflicts do not go on forever and that at some point people end up getting around a table. We had a land war in the Middle East not so long ago and look where that left us. If you are proposing another one will it really end the problems between The West and those who oppose the West? This isn't as straightforward as the 2nd WW. I doubt if there were many people in Britain becoming radical Nazis in their bedrooms. There were radical Nazis, sympathisers and traitors in WW2, that is an obsolete argument. A war against ISIS has the potential to galvanise the West and moderate middle east together to stop a greater threat. Those that misrepresent Islam for their own genocidal means. Your moderate stance just plays into the hands of the greatest threat to the modern world since National Socialism. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Exactly! We would all rather have had peace than war but it gets to a point where you have to recognise that some people cannot be bargained with and they have to be destroyed. Shall we call you Neville Chamberlain soggy? Please do. I would take it as a complement. How many millions of people died in the 2nd WW? Wouldn't any humane person do all they could to prevent such slaughter? But you talk about destroying a people which is exactly what the Nazis were all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Your solution is to bargain with an entity that would see death as glorious and anything other then our own destruction as an affront to their beliefs. The origin of that is our responsibility as you pointed out. We must get involved to stop them before they come and end us. Stop arguing for something that is pointless. So you think that ISIS will invade Britain? It may be pointless in the sense that you do not agree, so what? We both have different opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I don't crow over the deaths of anyone. Ok maybe I do occasionally but I think that media headlines should show some restraint. I'll never forget 'Ship Ship Hooray' at the death of that poor old doctor. How his family must have felt. And 'Bin Bagged'. That was an insult to the bin Laden family name. They never got over it and even crashed their plane years later because they were thinking about it. Yep, The Guardian really excelled themselves with those didn't they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Please do. I would take it as a complement. How many millions of people died in the 2nd WW? Wouldn't any humane person do all they could to prevent such slaughter? But you talk about destroying a people which is exactly what the Nazis were all about. But the slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, blacks, gypsies, 'racial inferior' Slavics, trade unionists, communists and the disabled is acceptable, so long as we aren't at war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Please do. I would take it as a complement. How many millions of people died in the 2nd WW? Wouldn't any humane person do all they could to prevent such slaughter? But you talk about destroying a people which is exactly what the Nazis were all about. You're on a wind up aren't you. This is about destroying an extremist faction. Not a people or a populace. Daesh is about destroying anything that is separate to them. Be it moderate Sunni's, Shi'a, Jew, Catholic, Sikh, Buddist, Agnostic ANYONE different. This is not about advocating Genocide, this is about stopping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 But the slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, blacks, gypsies, 'racial inferior' Slavics, trade unionists, communists and the disabled is acceptable, so long as we aren't at war? I didn't say that. And at that point we didn't know about the death camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 So you think that ISIS will invade Britain? That is their intent, to over-run the world. To eradicate anyone they consider infidel by any means necessary. And you want to invite them to tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 You're on a wind up aren't you. This is about destroying an extremist faction. Not a people or a populace. Daesh is about destroying anything that is separate to them. Be it moderate Sunni's, Shi'a, Jew, Catholic, Sikh, Buddist, Agnostic ANYONE different. This is not about advocating Genocide, this is about stopping it. An extremist faction. They are still people aren't they? I expect that some might have felt the armies that we sent into Iran to be an extremist faction too. And how did we get on with those weapons of mass destruction by the way. Yep, nothing to do with the oil was it? Cause and effect. Weren't the IRA an extremist faction? Should we have introduced Northern Ireland to Shock & Awe? The extremist faction you talk about are all over the place. Carpet bombing will not get rid of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 That is their intent, to over-run the world. To eradicate anyone they consider infidel by any means necessary. And you want to invite them to tea. Now you are just being silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Yes it did take a while. I have a life other than wittering away on a PC. This business about being backed into a corner and flailing sounds quite aggressive to me. This isn't a battle you know, just an exchange of opinions on the Internet. I don't think that in either case their deaths broke resistance. It was months of fighting that broke their armies that led to their deaths. I believe that some of the German High Command were looking to negotiate a peace before Hitler killed himself. It doesn't alter my point that conflicts do not go on forever and that at some point people end up getting around a table. We had a land war in the Middle East not so long ago and look where that left us. If you are proposing another one will it really end the problems between The West and those who oppose the West? This isn't as straightforward as the 2nd WW. I doubt if there were many people in Britain becoming radical Nazis in their bedrooms. But that 'some point' was after they had been defeated on the battlefield so I am really struggling to understand your point here. It was only after they had been engaged in battle and lost that they were prepared to negotiate and it seems you are ignoring the whole battle bit and suggesting that they will skip straight to the negotiation bit without the defeat. It's bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 That is their intent, to over-run the world. To eradicate anyone they consider infidel by any means necessary. And you want to invite them to tea. How exactly do you think a "faction" is going to over run the world (when they have finished their tea with me of course)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 An extremist faction. They are still people aren't they? I expect that some might have felt the armies that we sent into Iran to be an extremist faction too. And how did we get on with those weapons of mass destruction by the way. Yep, nothing to do with the oil was it? Cause and effect. Weren't the IRA an extremist faction? Should we have introduced Northern Ireland to Shock & Awe? The extremist faction you talk about are all over the place. Carpet bombing will not get rid of them. But based in the Levant, and directing things from there. Cut off the head, the body withers. Those that are more moderate find another way. Points made earlier. Points you keep ignoring. Points you keep asking us to repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now