Wham! Bam! ..Thank You Cam

[sadoldgit]

I have to go and cook dinner for Mrs SOG now but didn't want you to think I am bailing out. It has been an interesting discussion but if senior diplomats cant sort it out we have no chance.

[sadoldgit]

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.

 

I have done already but I will do again before I put the oven on. Cutting off their weapons and munitions supplies. Cutting out their funding. There are two for you.

[hypochondriac]

I have to go and cook dinner for Mrs SOG now but didn't want you to think I am bailing out. It has been an interesting discussion but if senior diplomats cant sort it out we have no chance.

 

Exactly. The answer is that there is no diplomatic solution against Isis. The only answer is force. It isn't ideal at all but it's the only option we have.

[hypochondriac]

I have done already but I will do again before I put the oven on. Cutting off their weapons and munitions supplies. Cutting out their funding. There are two for you.

 

I said viable. As colinjb said earlier, this isn't a solution:

 

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.

[FloridaMarlin]

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.

 

Until they **** off Israel.

 

For all their talk and being in countries which share a border, IS has fought shy of threatening Israel as they know if they do, the Israelis will not muck about.

 

Their disregard for world opinion and desire to protect themselves would see them roll in and mop them up.

 

Meanwhile, back to the original topic of the thread.

 

My understanding (and Jackanory may shed light on this) is that it is a mutual arse-licking fest.

 

The story was leaked to The Sun first to give Dave's big mate Rebecca Brooks a big story on her first day back at the office, and in return the headlines and story portray Cameron as a man of action.

 

The real issue is not whether a headline is offensive or inflamatory, or a potential recruitment flag, but how the proprietors of our national newspapers are hugger-mugger with political parties.

 

Murdoch and the Rothermeres are already having one favour returned with the hamstringing of the BBC following their support at the general election.

[sadoldgit]

I said viable. As colinjb said earlier, this isn't a solution:

 

You said my economic sanctions wouldn't work and maybe they wouldn't directly but perhaps there is a way of putting pressure on indirectly. You didn't respond to my point about arms.

 

Here are some questions for you -

 

1. How much, if at all do you think that Desert Storm has influenced the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism and fuelled hatred toward the West?

2. How would you feel if as a direct reprisal of the recent drone strikes, terrorists set off a bomb that killed all of your loved ones? Is that a price you are prepared to pay?

3. Assuming your land war against ISIS is successful and you destroy the lot of them, do you think that is more likely or less likely to fuel further hatred towards the West by militant Islamists?

4. Do you know of any non violent methods that have been used already in trying to deal with any or all of these groups?

5. If there was no oil in the Middle East, do you think that the West would be remotely bothered by what happens there?

Edited 9 September, 2015 by sadoldgit

[Lord Duckhunter]

I have to go and cook dinner for Mrs SOG now but didn't want you to think I am bailing out. It has been an interesting discussion but if senior diplomats cant sort it out we have no chance.

 

Thank god you aren't the one making the decisions , you don't even have the knackers to tell your mrs to cook her own food .

[RedAndWhite91]

I didn't say that. And at that point we didn't know about the death camps.

 

We knew in 1942. Jan Karski.

 

Back to the original OP and the British ISIS fighters that were killed - I read one of their tweets yesterday, describing the slow and laborious decapitation of a prisoner, and how the "brother" next to him just decided to use his gun in the end. Ended the tweet with 'lol'. This is what we are dealing with. Absolutely no sympathy when they get blown to bits by a drone. They made their bed when they left the UK for Syria and I'm glad the UK Government have forced them to lie in it.

[sadoldgit]

Until they **** off Israel.

 

For all their talk and being in countries which share a border, IS has fought shy of threatening Israel as they know if they do, the Israelis will not muck about.

 

Their disregard for world opinion and desire to protect themselves would see them roll in and mop them up.

 

Meanwhile, back to the original topic of the thread.

 

My understanding (and Jackanory may shed light on this) is that it is a mutual arse-licking fest.

 

The story was leaked to The Sun first to give Dave's big mate Rebecca Brooks a big story on her first day back at the office, and in return the headlines and story portray Cameron as a man of action.

 

The real issue is not whether a headline is offensive or inflamatory, or a potential recruitment flag, but how the proprietors of our national newspapers are hugger-mugger with political parties.

 

Murdoch and the Rothermeres are already having one favour returned with the hamstringing of the BBC following their support at the general election.

 

Would this be the same Rebecca Brooks who knew nothing about phone hacking yet was sleeping with someone who did?

[sadoldgit]

We knew in 1942. Jan Karski.

 

Back to the original OP and the British ISIS fighters that were killed - I read one of their tweets yesterday, describing the slow and laborious decapitation of a prisoner, and how the "brother" next to him just decided to use his gun in the end. Ended the tweet with 'lol'. This is what we are dealing with. Absolutely no sympathy when they get blown to bits by a drone. They made their bed when they left the UK for Syria and I'm glad the UK Government have forced them to lie in it.

 

Which was my point. War was declared in 1939. I have never condoned their behaviour.

[hypochondriac]

You said my economic sanctions wouldn't work and maybe they wouldn't directly but perhaps there is a way of putting pressure on indirectly. You didn't respond to my point about arms.

 

Here are some questions for you -

 

1. How much, if at all do you think that Desert Storm has influenced the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism and fuelled hatred toward the West?

2. How would you feel if as a direct reprisal of the recent drone strikes, terrorists set off a bomb that killed all of your loved ones? Is that a price you are prepared to pay?

3. Assuming your land war against ISIS is successful and you destroy the lot of them, do you think that is more likely or less likely to fuel further hatred towards the West by militant Islamists?

4. Do you know of any non violent methods that have been used already in trying to deal with any or all of these groups?

5. If there was no oil in the Middle East, do you think that the West would be remotely bothered by what happens there?

 

1. Undoubtedly it had an impact. Most of isis aren't doing this because of the US though, it's a warped and perverted interpretation of Islam.

 

2. It is just as likely that left unchecked, isis would look to attack the west. I feel safer knowing that we are trying to do something about this situation than allow them to grow bigger and stronger and getting to a point where they would pose a real danger to the west. I would rather attack isis and deal with the consequences than turn a blind eye and then have to deal with the fallout from that decision which would certainly be catastrophic.

 

3. Destroying isis in its current form will prevent them from doing what they are doing now in terms of forming a caliphate at committing all manner of atrocities on a daily basis) not to mention causing millions to flee their own land.) Of course there will be some who are radicalised by that action but that number would be a price worth paying to prevent this going on for too much longer. You are aware of what is happening right?

 

4. You're being hopelessly naive again. What possible reason would there be for isis to listen to us, considering that they don't fear death and the only thing they want to do is murder and force us into servitude? If I got into a gun fight with someone and I chose to use a pencil instead of a gun I'm going to lose. I haven't tried it but I know I'm going to lose before I start. The principle is the same here and it's bleedin' obvious to everyone but yourself it seems.

 

5. No doubt that is a factor but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the immediate problem which is how do we deal with this crisis.

 

Nobody WANTS to go to war or use aggression but there is simply no choice anymore. Just as with Churchill, he realised when diplomacy was futile and he reluctantly went to war to crush the enemy. It's the same thing here.

[aintforever]

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.

 

Maybe, but if the area they control had any significant strategic importance to the West it would be regained with ease.

 

I'm not saying it's an easy situation to sort out, it's far from that. But militarily IS are nothing. Fact is the Western governments don't give a flying **** about who controls the villages, desert and **** hole towns in Norther Iraq. The only importance is containng the threat of terrorism, and now sorting out the refugee problem.

 

We all know the only reason for the Iraq war was oil, all the crap about Saddam was to justify it politically.

[Colinjb]

Maybe, but if the area they control had any significant strategic importance to the West it would be regained with ease.

 

I'm not saying it's an easy situation to sort out, it's far from that. But militarily IS are nothing. Fact is the Western governments don't give a flying **** about who controls the villages, desert and **** hole towns in Norther Iraq. The only importance is containng the threat of terrorism, and now sorting out the refugee problem.

 

We all know the only reason for the Iraq war was oil, all the crap about Saddam was to justify it politically.

 

I would argue that the oil fields are of importance, but they are key to allowing the local populace stay self sufficient, clumsily 'liberate' them and that will further alienate the moderates who just want a quiet life. In an odd way it shows some lessons have been learnt since the Gulf and more recent Afghan conflicts.

[Sour Mash]

We all know the only reason for the Iraq war was oil, all the crap about Saddam was to justify it politically.

Do you actually believe that?

[aintforever]

Do you actually believe that?

 

Of course it was. They wanted rid of Saddam yes but if there was no oil there there would have been no war.

 

The U.S. are not going to spend billions removing a dictator unless there is a prize at the end of it, that is obvious.

[aintforever]

I would argue that the oil fields are of importance, but they are key to allowing the local populace stay self sufficient, clumsily 'liberate' them and that will further alienate the moderates who just want a quiet life. In an odd way it shows some lessons have been learnt since the Gulf and more recent Afghan conflicts.

 

At the current supply/demand situation I really don't think spending billions to get back the IS controlled fields is of any importance to the U.S.

[whelk]

Sadoldgit has no stomach for war. I guess it brings back painful memories of that Sainsburys ad.

 

Not a Cameron fan in anyway but leading county needs someone with balls and need to be able make these decisions and glad he did..

[Colinjb]

At the current supply/demand situation I really don't think spending billions to get back the IS controlled fields is of any importance to the U.S.

 

The U.S. is not the only nation who needs natural resources, they will be a factor.

[FloridaMarlin]

Would this be the same Rebecca Brooks who knew nothing about phone hacking yet was sleeping with someone who did?

 

I'm sure they are two very different Rebecca Brooks.

 

There was a Rebecca Brooks who was married to Ross Kemp, but divorced after she was arrested for assaulting him. Now THERE'S a story that never got into the public domain.

[aintforever]

Sadoldgit has no stomach for war. I guess it brings back painful memories of that Sainsburys ad.

 

Not a Cameron fan in anyway but leading county needs someone with balls and need to be able make these decisions and glad he did..

 

A bit of a coincidence he had to make this decision the same week he performed a massive u-turn on the Syrian immigration issue.

[Colinjb]

A bit of a coincidence he had to make this decision the same week he performed a massive u-turn on the Syrian immigration issue.

 

As far as I was aware, the drone strike happened nearly two weeks before it was leaked.

[View From The Top]

Do you actually believe that?

 

What was it about then? WMD? Bush Jr wanting to finish what Bush Snr didn't? Hawks in position of power? God telling Bush to do it? Haliburton making a fortune?

[badgerx16]

What was it about then? WMD? Bush Jr wanting to finish what Bush Snr didn't? Hawks in position of power? God telling Bush to do it? Haliburton making a fortune?

 

All of the above ( less the WMD ), plus the oil.

[Jonnyboy]

Tell that to the Christians or the Muslims or anybody else that follows religion.

 

*whoosh

[hutch]

You say that like it is a bad thing!

On the contrary, I think it would be brill. We could have a different policy for every day of the week. They couldn't all be wrong.

 

 

Could they?

[sadoldgit]

On the contrary, I think it would be brill. We could have a different policy for every day of the week. They couldn't all be wrong.

 

 

Could they?

 

A bit like if UKIP got into power?

[DuncanRG]

As far as I was aware, the drone strike happened nearly two weeks before it was leaked.

 

Which is exactly why it's interesting he's only announced it now!

[sadoldgit]

Sadoldgit has no stomach for war. I guess it brings back painful memories of that Sainsburys ad.

 

Not a Cameron fan in anyway but leading county needs someone with balls and need to be able make these decisions and glad he did..

 

No I don't, if it can be avoided. I wonder if Sainsburys will work a drone strike into their Christmas ad this year?

[sadoldgit]

1. Undoubtedly it had an impact. Most of isis aren't doing this because of the US though, it's a warped and perverted interpretation of Islam.

 

2. It is just as likely that left unchecked, isis would look to attack the west. I feel safer knowing that we are trying to do something about this situation than allow them to grow bigger and stronger and getting to a point where they would pose a real danger to the west. I would rather attack isis and deal with the consequences than turn a blind eye and then have to deal with the fallout from that decision which would certainly be catastrophic.

 

3. Destroying isis in its current form will prevent them from doing what they are doing now in terms of forming a caliphate at committing all manner of atrocities on a daily basis) not to mention causing millions to flee their own land.) Of course there will be some who are radicalised by that action but that number would be a price worth paying to prevent this going on for too much longer. You are aware of what is happening right?

 

4. You're being hopelessly naive again. What possible reason would there be for isis to listen to us, considering that they don't fear death and the only thing they want to do is murder and force us into servitude? If I got into a gun fight with someone and I chose to use a pencil instead of a gun I'm going to lose. I haven't tried it but I know I'm going to lose before I start. The principle is the same here and it's bleedin' obvious to everyone but yourself it seems.

 

5. No doubt that is a factor but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the immediate problem which is how do we deal with this crisis.

 

Nobody WANTS to go to war or use aggression but there is simply no choice anymore. Just as with Churchill, he realised when diplomacy was futile and he reluctantly went to war to crush the enemy. It's the same thing here.

 

Thank you for answering my questions. Let us just hope that if there are any reprisal attacks that no one we know is involved. It is interesting to note that you would accept the loss of your loved ones as a price to pay for the drone attacks.

Re no 4. Ok so you think I am being naïve, but there have been plenty of examples of so called intransigent factions ending up coming to the negotiating table for any number of reasons. It has happened all the way through history. It is not impossible and I think you are naïve if you don't see that situations can change. Clearly it isn't going to happen any time soon but it doesn't mean it will never happen. And yes, it may mean that some of the main perpetrators have to be killed in the process, I get that. But your language (again you use the word "crush") shows that you believe that we can just take them all out in one swift action and that just isn't going to happen. There are too many of them spread too widely.

[hypochondriac]

Thank you for answering my questions. Let us just hope that if there are any reprisal attacks that no one we know is involved. It is interesting to note that you would accept the loss of your loved ones as a price to pay for the drone attacks.

Re no 4. Ok so you think I am being naïve, but there have been plenty of examples of so called intransigent factions ending up coming to the negotiating table for any number of reasons. It has happened all the way through history. It is not impossible and I think you are naïve if you don't see that situations can change. Clearly it isn't going to happen any time soon but it doesn't mean it will never happen. And yes, it may mean that some of the main perpetrators have to be killed in the process, I get that. But your language (again you use the word "crush") shows that you believe that we can just take them all out in one swift action and that just isn't going to happen. There are too many of them spread too widely.

 

I said I'd take the consequences of taking action which to my mind is much better than the consequences of inaction (which is effectively what you are advocating through your ineffective trade embargo idea.) silly hypothetical scenarios about my own family have no relevance here.

 

You've been told more than once that no one expects them all to be taken out quickly and easily but I believe you are wilfully remaining ignorant of this. It's pretty simple, nobody wants to go to war or believes that it is some sort of easy or simple solution. War is hard, horrible and causes needless deaths. However it is the opinion I would suggest of the majority that it is the lesser of two evils in this case since other methods are clearly ineffective and action needs to be taken asap to stop some of these atrocities as well as lessening the threat to the west.

[sadoldgit]

It may be a silly hypothetical scenario to you but it sure as hell will not be for the next family who suffer a loss through terrorist action. As for my ineffective trade embargo idea, everything we have done so far has worked really well eh? You still have a very aggressive and confrontational posting style. Chill out FFS, it is just an internet chat forum.

[hypochondriac]

It may be a silly hypothetical scenario to you but it sure as hell will not be for the next family who suffer a loss through terrorist action. As for my ineffective trade embargo idea, everything we have done so far has worked really well eh? You still have a very aggressive and confrontational posting style. Chill out FFS, it is just an internet chat forum.

 

You're just sore because you come up with a half baked idea with no substance and the someone calls you out on it. I'm perfectly chilled out thanks for asking but I'm going to say you're talking nonsense if that's what it is.

 

Terrorist actions in the West will not be lessened by taking no or ineffective action but a coordinated response has a good chance of causing major disruption to isis and preventing them from terrorism both in Syria and over here (indeed, if what Cameron says is the truth, this recent action was taken to prevent such an atrocity over here.) taking action in Syria clearly has downsides, and there will be numerous negatives. My contention is that to do nothing or take ineffective action will have far more downsides in the short, medium and long term and it's a view shared by a majority of the British public IMO (and if recent polls are to be believed.)

[Jonnyboy]

You're just sore because you come up with a half baked idea with no substance and the someone calls you out on it. I'm perfectly chilled out thanks for asking but I'm going to say you're talking nonsense if that's what it is.

 

Terrorist actions in the West will not be lessened by taking no or ineffective action but a coordinated response has a good chance of causing major disruption to isis and preventing them from terrorism both in Syria and over here (indeed, if what Cameron says is the truth, this recent action was taken to prevent such an atrocity over here.) taking action in Syria clearly has downsides, and there will be numerous negatives. My contention is that to do nothing or take ineffective action will have far more downsides in the short, medium and long term and it's a view shared by a majority of the British public IMO (and if recent polls are to be believed.)

 

Why didn't we just kill all the IRA then?

[hypochondriac]

Why didn't we just kill all the IRA then?

 

The ira aren't isis.

[aintforever]

Why didn't we just kill all the IRA then?

 

Because they lived and carried out their crimes in an area with law and order. If arresting and convicting these guys was possible it would have been done.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The ira had specific and understandable aims that could be part of negotiations. I doubt Isis' aims of death to all infidels and the destruction of the west, are the basis of any negotiation.

[sadoldgit]

Because they lived and carried out their crimes in an area with law and order. If arresting and convicting these guys was possible it would have been done.

 

It was possible and it was done, alongside covert operations. But the IRA were fighting a guerrilla war and that is the same problem we are facing we are facing with Islamic extremist groups.

[sadoldgit]

The ira had specific and understandable aims that could be part of negotiations. I doubt Isis' aims of death to all infidels and the destruction of the west, are the basis of any negotiation.

 

If their are aims are the destruction of the West, at this rate it will take them forever unless they develop a nuclear capability.

[hypochondriac]

If their are aims are the destruction of the West, at this rate it will take them forever unless they develop a nuclear capability.

 

It's one of many aims all of which they are utterly devoted to and they are prepared to die to achieve them.

[sadoldgit]

You're just sore because you come up with a half baked idea with no substance and the someone calls you out on it. I'm perfectly chilled out thanks for asking but I'm going to say you're talking nonsense if that's what it is.

 

Terrorist actions in the West will not be lessened by taking no or ineffective action but a coordinated response has a good chance of causing major disruption to isis and preventing them from terrorism both in Syria and over here (indeed, if what Cameron says is the truth, this recent action was taken to prevent such an atrocity over here.) taking action in Syria clearly has downsides, and there will be numerous negatives. My contention is that to do nothing or take ineffective action will have far more downsides in the short, medium and long term and it's a view shared by a majority of the British public IMO (and if recent polls are to be believed.)

 

I am not sore thanks, I just don't get why you always do this. Are you Jeremy Paxman? If you think I am talking nonsense so be it but the simple fact is that armed conflict always ends with some kind of negotiations otherwise the conflict just continues. You say it is impossible to deal with these people. Ok but we have dealt with people in the past who have no regard for their own lives and have found a way to co-exist. Your less nonsense plan of crushing the extremists is working well so far isn't it? We invaded Iraq and killed Saddam, look where that has got us. We killed Bin Laden and numerous other high ranking terrorists and other keep taking their place. We are currently helping the Saudis bomb the sh*t out of the Yemen (also destroying ancient buildings as IS are doing) and goodness only knows where that will lead us. At some point it has to stop and all your plan is doing is escalating the problem. Sadly it will get worse before it gets better, but to get it better both sides of the divide need to learn to co-exist. Your argument that they will never back down is not proven. History is full of conflicts between nations and ideologies where those entrenched eventually come to some arrangement. It may be difficult but it is not, as you say, impossible. What is impossible is eradicating thousands cells of terrorists hidden in caves, in terraced houses in Birmingham, in basement flats in Paris etc.

 

Moving on a bit...

 

Parliament agreed that we would not be involved in air operations over Syria yet DC sanctioned an air based strike on two British subjects. I live near a guy who used to work in military intelligence for both us and the Americans. He said last night that no matter what James Bond does, it is illegal to go into another country and kill people no matter who you work for and operations to do this are very rare and involve very specialist targets (like Bin Laden for example). He believes that the drone strikes are illegal.

 

The two people killed recently were supposedly working on plots to cause explosions at some public events this year. Do you really think that it was them and only them involved? It would have taken a number of people to plan and carry out these attacks and removing one or two people would make no difference at all. I'll leave you with this thought, perhaps it was more about showing DC in the light of being a tough ass kicking leader than making our street safer. Look at the timing of the announcements too.

[sadoldgit]

It's one of many aims all of which they are utterly devoted to and they are prepared to die to achieve them.

 

Again, there have been many organisations through the centuries prepared to die for their cause. Islamic extremists are no different from them. They aren't a new race that have suddenly appeared from Mars.

[sadoldgit]

I see from the Mirror that al Qaeda have "declared war" on IS! These people who are so hell bent on seeing the West fall, how are they going to manage it if they cant even get on with each other? Perhaps we should do what Churchill did with Stalin and join forces with al Qaeda against IS?

[hypochondriac]

Again, there have been many organisations through the centuries prepared to die for their cause. Islamic extremists are no different from them. They aren't a new race that have suddenly appeared from Mars.

 

What organisation as extreme as isis has ever been stopped by trade embargoes and discussion?

[aintforever]

It was possible and it was done, alongside covert operations. But the IRA were fighting a guerrilla war and that is the same problem we are facing we are facing with Islamic extremist groups.

 

It's not the same problem because the war zone between Iraq and Syria is not part of the jurisdiction for the UK police and there is no means to get them arrested by a local police force and deported.

 

It's a clear and obvious difference between IS and the IRA.

[RedAndWhite91]

I honestly think you're misguided if you think ISIS would sit down and negotiate with the West. This is an organisation who were condemend by the Afghanistan Taliban, themselves an organisation who deem it acceptable to shoot little girls in the head simply for daring to go to school.

[Lighthouse]

I see from the Mirror that al Qaeda have "declared war" on IS! These people who are so hell bent on seeing the West fall, how are they going to manage it if they cant even get on with each other? Perhaps we should do what Churchill did with Stalin and join forces with al Qaeda against IS?

 

An interesting way for them to 'celebrate' 911 although I thought it was well known those two were at war. I think there was even a beheading video online of ISIS murdering a bunch of Al Q prisoners. Certainly the reason ISIS isn't prominent in Afghanistan is partly due to them all being rounded up and killed... by the Taliban.

 

What a mess.

[Jonnyboy]

The ira had specific and understandable aims that could be part of negotiations. I doubt Isis' aims of death to all infidels and the destruction of the west, are the basis of any negotiation.

 

Funny, they said that about the taleban but now it's all about negotiating with them.

[hypochondriac]

Funny, they said that about the taleban but now it's all about negotiating with them.

 

Many would say this has come about almost precisely because they have smashed their organisation to bits through military action...

[Jonnyboy]

Many would say this has come about almost precisely because they have smashed their organisation to bits through military action...

 

Others would say we've left Afghanistan in the lurch for party political reasons and the Taleban are still a very powerful force outside of Kabul.

 

Regarding the IRA, we're they not a group full of zealots and psychos who would gladly have tortured the enemy blown up thousands of civilians if it meant also destroying British institutions such as Parliament and the Royal family?

[hypochondriac]

Others would say we've left Afghanistan in the lurch for party political reasons and the Taleban are still a very powerful force outside of Kabul.

 

Regarding the IRA, we're they not a group full of zealots and psychos who would gladly have tortured the enemy blown up thousands of civilians if it meant also destroying British institutions such as Parliament and the Royal family?

 

The taliban are nothing like they were clearly. Not sure why you are trying to compare the IRA and isis. There isn't a comparison imo.