hypochondriac 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. Don't be so absurd. We had no alternative to confront Hitler on the battlefield just as we have no alternative here. You still haven't set out what you would be doing if you were Prime Minister. You have offered no solutions just said no to the fighting and yes to talking to people who don't want to do anything other than murder us and our way of life. You aren't really making any sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 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. What I am trying to get across to you is that the chances of beating them in a battle is zero. There is no battle with terrorist cells. There is just terrorism and counter terrorism. The Amercians failed to beat the VC. We failed to beat the IRA. You end up with an impasse at which you then start a dialogue. There will be no D Day, no Battle of Britain, just more individual drone strikes and suicide bombers and beheadings. Where will that get us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 How exactly do you think a "faction" is going to over run the world (when they have finished their tea with me of course)? They will undoubtably use the same tactics as they have done in the Levant. Fear, violence... indoctrination. This is not a sensible force, this is ideologically driven genocidal mob. Given the choice of submit or die, a higher proportion of people then are desirable will submit and go along with it. The Rwandan genocide in the 1990's shows that normal sensible people will succumb to horror if it saves their skin. This evil must be opposed now otherwise more will submit to it to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 How exactly do you think a "faction" is going to over run the world (when they have finished their tea with me of course)? OK well it's fine them. We will just leave them to it so they can rape, murder and pillage to their hearts content. Except that you just said you don't want to do nothing and leave them to it. So what exactly do you want to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 What I am trying to get across to you is that the chances of beating them in a battle is zero. There is no battle with terrorist cells. There is just terrorism and counter terrorism. The Amercians failed to beat the VC. We failed to beat the IRA. You end up with an impasse at which you then start a dialogue. There will be no D Day, no Battle of Britain, just more individual drone strikes and suicide bombers and beheadings. Where will that get us? Again, ignoring the fact that Terrorism is not their means for control in their occupied territories in the Levant. They have an Army, an occupying force, a government, a capital, a financial infrastructure and economy and Territories larger then the UK. This is a fight-able enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 What I am trying to get across to you is that the chances of beating them in a battle is zero. There is no battle with terrorist cells. There is just terrorism and counter terrorism. The Amercians failed to beat the VC. We failed to beat the IRA. You end up with an impasse at which you then start a dialogue. There will be no D Day, no Battle of Britain, just more individual drone strikes and suicide bombers and beheadings. Where will that get us? That's plainly nonsense. The chances of defeating every person perpetrating this is very small I agree, but the chance of a concerted and joint effort to break the ISIS regime, remove them from the lives of civillians, reduce their numbers significantly and make it much harder for them to operate has a good chance of success. How do you suggest we form an impasse with ISIS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Again, ignoring the fact that Terrorism is not their means for control in their occupied territories in the Levant. They have an Army, an occupying force, a government, a capital, a financial infrastructure and economy and Territories larger then the UK. This is a fight-able enemy. Yep. All of that could easily be fought and destroyed and it would significantly reduce their ability to operate and remove their influence from the majority of people's lives. That's what we should be aiming for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Don't be so absurd. We had no alternative to confront Hitler on the battlefield just as we have no alternative here. You still haven't set out what you would be doing if you were Prime Minister. You have offered no solutions just said no to the fighting and yes to talking to people who don't want to do anything other than murder us and our way of life. You aren't really making any sense at all. I didn't say that we had no alternative did I? But at least we exhausted our efforts in trying to keep the peace. Why do I have to have solutions? I started this thread because I thought the front page of The Sun yesterday was out of order. In fact I would go further than that and say it was childish and embarrassing. I also said that it would do nothing to help the situation and will just add fuel to those who think The West is sh*t. My solution to that? Sort out the imbalance in the ownership of the press so that Murdoch has less power. Sadly with freedom of the press you cant make an enforcement order for national newspapers to behave with an element of humility and responsibility and you would hope that people would vote with their wallets. sadly it seems according to Jackanory everyone buys The Sun for its sports content so it will continue to peddle its childish headlines until hell freezes over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Yep. All of that could easily be fought and destroyed and it would significantly reduce their ability to operate and remove their influence from the majority of people's lives. That's what we should be aiming for. Okay, as I said before that is all well and good but look at what happened the last time we launched armies into the Middle East. I am assuming you are talking about a land war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Yep. All of that could easily be fought and destroyed and it would significantly reduce their ability to operate and remove their influence from the majority of people's lives. That's what we should be aiming for. Take a combined coalition of the US, EU, Russia and Arab League working to destroy Daesh. It could rid the world of a terrible evil and provide common ground for the combined international community to build a lasting peace going forward. A difficult price in it's own to get there but worth trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 OK well it's fine them. We will just leave them to it so they can rape, murder and pillage to their hearts content. Except that you just said you don't want to do nothing and leave them to it. So what exactly do you want to do? There are people raping, murdering and pillaging all over the West as well. Are you saying that they will be raping, murdering and pillaging all over Europe soon? And why does it have to be us that steps in? Why not Russia? Why not the other more moderate Middle Eastern States? Who gave us the sheriff's badge? Wasn't the United Nations set up to deal with these situations? Why isn't a UN peace keeping force being deployed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Take a combined coalition of the US, EU, Russia and Arab League working to destroy Daesh. It could rid the world of a terrible evil and provide common ground for the combined international community to build a lasting peace going forward. A difficult price in it's own to get there but worth trying. So why not do that rather than send in drones to kill odd targets which will just drag on forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 So in summary, the thread has moved on from the original post to talk about the conflict more generally. You want to do something to combat ISIS but you can't articulate what that is. You don't agree with any sort of bombing or aggression and want to talk to these murderous people but other than that you can't articulate any alternative strategy and when asked to provide one you whine that that isn't what the thread is about (despite having discussed it all day on here.) Seems pretty clear to me that you simply haven't thought this through very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) So why not do that rather than send in drones to kill odd targets which will just drag on forever? Would you advocate it Mr Chamberlain? Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 There are people raping, murdering and pillaging all over the West as well. Are you saying that they will be raping, murdering and pillaging all over Europe soon? And why does it have to be us that steps in? Why not Russia? Why not the other more moderate Middle Eastern States? Who gave us the sheriff's badge? Wasn't the United Nations set up to deal with these situations? Why isn't a UN peace keeping force being deployed? OK so you DO agree with 'stepping in' as long as it's a coalition and not just us on our own. So it's really not the aggression bit you are concerned with then just that it's us doing it? You aren't seriously trying to compare crimes that occur in the West with the situation that is currently going on in Syria are you? FFS you must have seen the pictures and heard the stories of sex slaves, beheadings, being burnt alive etc. The situation in the West is not remotely comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 So why not do that rather than send in drones to kill odd targets which will just drag on forever? So we FINALLY get there. You would support military action but only if it's done in partnership with other Arab nations and the likes of Russia. Good we agree although I would argue that in this specific case it was possibly due to an imminent threat to the UK and so they needed to be dealt with quickly. I don't know how true that is, I'm guessing based on the available information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Basically the way I see it, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Both sides have a hell of a point: violence shouldn't be used to solve violence but we seem to have no other option, we need to intervene but military action just stokes the fire and puts us at risk. I think ISIS/Deash, Al-Qaida or some form of extremist group will be around in one form or another. Until they **** off China, then it's bye bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 If something is illegal then it is only right and proper that whoever committed the illegal act is brought to book over it. We do not have capital punishment in this country and there is a basic rule - innocent until proven guilty. Were these "terrorists" given a fair trial and found guilty? Is now the PM the sole arbiter of who we can kill and who we cant? No one is taking the side of someone who commits a terrorist act. By my understanding neither of these characters had. Is it beyond our capability to bring these characters back and give them a proper, fair trial? We all know now that the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was b*ll*cks. Are you happy to believe Dave where he tells you these guys needed to die? Where is the evidence? I see you would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS - so much for freedom of speech too. Isnt it better that we enter dialogue and try to come to some kind of understanding with people who don't agree with the way that we live rather than continually killing each other? Innocent until proven guilty in this country but they were not killed in this country. They were killed by our military in a war zone so I have zero concern about it. It would only be an issue to me if they were being killed on our soil or in places that have some sort of effective police and legal system. The Suns headline is a bit crass but again doesn't bother me, we should all be glad these people are dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 So in summary, the thread has moved on from the original post to talk about the conflict more generally. You want to do something to combat ISIS but you can't articulate what that is. You don't agree with any sort of bombing or aggression and want to talk to these murderous people but other than that you can't articulate any alternative strategy and when asked to provide one you whine that that isn't what the thread is about (despite having discussed it all day on here.) Seems pretty clear to me that you simply haven't thought this through very well. Blimey Hypo you are like a dog with a bone! Did I really whine about the thread? You love to put words into my mouth don't you. I get the impression that you are more keen on point scoring than the actual debate. Still, as we are here.....I don't think our (by our I mean The West) policy towards the Middle East in general is helping. We created a monster with Desert Storm and we are still dealing with the fall out. It is one thing to demonise a "faction" and to say wipe it out and everything will be fine. There are two problems there though. 1. Wiping it out and 2. Sorting out the problem that other extremist in the Middle East have with us. Surely the fact that British people are turning on their own shows that there are some deep rooted problems that bombing and "aggression" will not solve - in fact they only serve to make things worse. I am not a diplomat I am just a bloke with too much time to kill sitting behind a PC. I don't pretend to know the answers but I do know that you can kill people all day long but that doesn't solve the problem of why there is so much trouble between extremist groups in the Middle East and beyond and The West. Until the issues are dealt with it will just go on and on. If you don't agree with me fine, but I really don't think we are going to sort this out by killing people with toy aeroplanes. I also don't think that ISIS are going to invade Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Blimey Hypo you are like a dog with a bone! Did I really whine about the thread? You love to put words into my mouth don't you. I get the impression that you are more keen on point scoring than the actual debate. Still, as we are here.....I don't think our (by our I mean The West) policy towards the Middle East in general is helping. We created a monster with Desert Storm and we are still dealing with the fall out. It is one thing to demonise a "faction" and to say wipe it out and everything will be fine. There are two problems there though. 1. Wiping it out and 2. Sorting out the problem that other extremist in the Middle East have with us. Surely the fact that British people are turning on their own shows that there are some deep rooted problems that bombing and "aggression" will not solve - in fact they only serve to make things worse. I am not a diplomat I am just a bloke with too much time to kill sitting behind a PC. I don't pretend to know the answers but I do know that you can kill people all day long but that doesn't solve the problem of why there is so much trouble between extremist groups in the Middle East and beyond and The West. Until the issues are dealt with it will just go on and on. If you don't agree with me fine, but I really don't think we are going to sort this out by killing people with toy aeroplanes. I also don't think that ISIS are going to invade Europe. But, going back to the last question that you have not answered. You would be ok with combined international action to destroy Daesh? Given that diplomacy with an entity that is utterly given to destroy us is not an option, what do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 So we FINALLY get there. You would support military action but only if it's done in partnership with other Arab nations and the likes of Russia. Good we agree although I would argue that in this specific case it was possibly due to an imminent threat to the UK and so they needed to be dealt with quickly. I don't know how true that is, I'm guessing based on the available information. Does it have to be military action? Are there ways to cut off ISIS access to arms and munitions? Are there ways to cut off funding? Can the Arab/Muslim Nations put pressure on them? etc. As for these two individuals, this is it, we don't know. We don't know how reliable the intel about them was, we don't know if innocents nearby were killed. Weren't we told that one of them had been taken out before? If it wasn't him, who did we kill before? If it was him before, who did we kill this time? Are you comfortable with missiles being fired at targets that might be surrounded by people who are not terrorists? I know The Sun sees things in black and white - wham bam result. Lets not worry too much about the other possible implications so long as we have a catchy front page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 But, going back to the last question that you have not answered. You would be ok with combined international action to destroy Daesh? Given that diplomacy with an entity that is utterly given to destroy us is not an option, what do you do? I would rather that the killing stopped. On both sides. And how do you know that diplomacy is not an option? Maybe not today. Maybe not next week. But that is no reason to stop trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) I would rather that the killing stopped. On both sides. By doing nothing, people in the Levant will still die while Daesh expands. The Kurdish people in Syria/Iraq. The Christian minority in the Levant. The poor Yazidi's who are being massacred. What to do? 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 While we are at it, how do you guys feel about British people who rape, murder and pillage. Should we take them out with drones or are you safe if you do the same things but don't sign up to IS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 While we are at it, how do you guys feel about British people who rape, murder and pillage. Should we take them out with drones or are you safe if you do the same things but don't sign up to IS? They should be brought to justice, but those are individuals, not an organised 'state' set up to destroy those who are different. Back to the question. By doing nothing, people in the Levant will still die while Daesh expands. The Kurdish people in Syria/Iraq. The Christian minority in the Levant. The poor Yazidi's who are being massacred. What to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 By doing nothing, people in the Levant will still die while Daesh expands. The Kurdish people in Syria/Iraq. The Christian minority in the Levant. The poor Yazidi's who are being massacred. What to do? I didn't say do nothing. Killing people is one option and as we have already discussed, there are others. Tell me why it comes down to the RAF? We have the United Nations who are supposed to deal with these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 You ask what to do? If it was that easy and straightforward then why haven't these organisations already been destroyed already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I didn't say do nothing. Killing people is one option and as we have already discussed, there are others. Tell me why it comes down to the RAF? We have the United Nations who are supposed to deal with these issues. It doesn't. I have said that an UN response or combined Arab League/Europe/US etc response would be preferable. Answer the question... Would you sanction that? If not, What do you do? You say that doing nothing is not an option yet offer no viable alternative. I'm not humouring you any more unless you answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 You ask what to do? If it was that easy and straightforward then why haven't these organisations already been destroyed already? Because most of the oil is in the other part of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Because most of the oil is in the other part of Iraq. Possibly in Iraq, but all of the major Syrian oil fields are now held by Daesh. They are happily selling it on, building their economy from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 You ask what to do? If it was that easy and straightforward then why haven't these organisations already been destroyed already? Because international agreements, coordinated strikes and eradicating such a large enemy takes time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Doesn't the Christian doctrine say thou shall not kill and talk about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek? Wasn't Jesus the ultimate pacifist? If you were sitting on the other side of the divide between us and what we call "extremist factions" might you not think that perhaps we have some extremist factions in our religion who ignore what it says in our Bible? And why, again, does it have to be David Cameron? Why cant the body set up to sort out these difficult international issues, the United Nations, handle it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Dodging the question Answer it. I have said that an UN response or combined Arab League/Europe/US etc response would be preferable. Answer the question... Would you sanction that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Because international agreements, coordinated strikes and eradicating such a large enemy takes time. How long have ISIS been in operation? How much longer before they are destroyed? And you are right, they are large and there any a number of them living and operating in the West who will carry on doing so when the bit we can all see gets destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Answer it. I have said that an UN response or combined Arab League/Europe/US etc response would be preferable. Answer the question... Would you sanction that? I would sanction anything that worked towards a peaceful solution for all. If money is being made by some of these factions from oil then we need to apply whatever economic sanctions we can to stop that flow of money. If it means higher oil prices for the West would we do that though? And isn't this this crux of the problem, if there was no oil in the Middle East do you think that the US or us would have anything to do with them or there internal problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) I would sanction anything that worked towards a peaceful solution for all. If money is being made by some of these factions from oil then we need to apply whatever economic sanctions we can to stop that flow of money. If it means higher oil prices for the West would we do that though? And isn't this this crux of the problem, if there was no oil in the Middle East do you think that the US or us would have anything to do with them or there internal problems? Daesh controls all of Syria's major oil fields and a good number of the Iraqi ones. If it was purely economic then there would already have been action. It's not just about the US. It's about Russia, Europe, North Africa, anyone different. You speak airy fairy language about doing anything that would work towards peace. You offer economic sanctions as an idea. Daesh is now financially independent of anything the traditional west can do due to their control of oil production and it's black market sales in the middle east and north Africa. They do not work in a global environment, they work in their own world, their own entity. Try again. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Watching Soggy in action is a bit like having a premonition of a Labour government under Corbyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 How long have ISIS been in operation? How much longer before they are destroyed? And you are right, they are large and there any a number of them living and operating in the West who will carry on doing so when the bit we can all see gets destroyed. No one has denied that. You have seemingly ignored the bit where everyone has said that eradicating it completely is impossible but that there is much we can do to reduce the organisation through coordinated attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Daesh controls all of Syria's major oil fields and a good number of the Iraqi ones. If it was purely economic then there would already have been action. It's not just about the US. It's about Russia, Europe, North Africa, anyone different. You speak airy fairy language about doing anything that would work towards peace. You offer economic sanctions as an idea. Daesh is now financially independent of anything the traditional west can do due to their control of oil production and it's black market sales in the middle east and north Africa. They do not work in a global environment, they work in their own world, their own entity. Try again. He won't give you a solid answer because he knows that a non violent course of action simply isn't an option. I would support a peaceful process that could come to a solution but the problem is that it simply doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Possibly in Iraq, but all of the major Syrian oil fields are now held by Daesh. They are happily selling it on, building their economy from it. Selling a bit of oil and buying arms on the black market is not an economy. If the West really wanted to they could take control of their areas easily, their is no will because there is no big oil prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Doesn't the Christian doctrine say thou shall not kill and talk about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek? Wasn't Jesus the ultimate pacifist? If you were sitting on the other side of the divide between us and what we call "extremist factions" might you not think that perhaps we have some extremist factions in our religion who ignore what it says in our Bible? And why, again, does it have to be David Cameron? Why cant the body set up to sort out these difficult international issues, the United Nations, handle it? WTF has Jesus got to do with this? We aren't the ones burning prisoners alive in the name of Christ. He may well have been the ultimate pacifist, if the Bible stories are to be believed but he would be an awful politician in the 21st Century. The West isn't bringing religion into this at all, so stop rambling about what it says in the Bible, it's irrelevant. Yes it should be an international collaboration to sort this mess out, nobody is arguing against that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 My point is simply that we believe we have the higher ground and they are the ones who are ignoring their religious doctrine. They could argue that we are too. That is what Christianity (and Jesus) has to do with it. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Watching Soggy in action is a bit like having a premonition of a Labour government under Corbyn You say that like it is a bad thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 No one has denied that. You have seemingly ignored the bit where everyone has said that eradicating it completely is impossible but that there is much we can do to reduce the organisation through coordinated attacks. I am not ignoring it, I am just saying it is unlikely to make our streets any safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 He won't give you a solid answer because he knows that a non violent course of action simply isn't an option. I would support a peaceful process that could come to a solution but the problem is that it simply doesn't exist. I am not an expert in Middle East affairs (clearly) but have we really exhausted all possibility of a non violent intervention? Have we even really started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 My point is simply that we believe we have the higher ground and they are the ones who are ignoring their religious doctrine. They could argue that we are too. That is what Christianity (and Jesus) has to do with it. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear. That's not relevant to anything. So ISIS might say we aren't proper Christians. We aren't, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) Selling a bit of oil and buying arms on the black market is not an economy. If the West really wanted to they could take control of their areas easily, their is no will because there is no big oil prize. Depends where the black market is pointing. The western economy is not the whole world. The Levant itself is not an arid wasteland, it's a diverse region with natural resources and fertile lands capable of sustaining a population if managed correctly. Currently Daesh are doing a respectable job of it. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I am not an expert in Middle East affairs (clearly) but have we really exhausted all possibility of a non violent intervention? Have we even really started? Keep suggesting alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I have already made my point but you have chosen to dismiss it which is fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Can you name ANY viable non-violent tactics against people who want to destroy everything we stand for and murder the West? Just one would do. 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