CB Fry Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Can I please nominate this post to the saintsweb award for " most idiotic, narrow minded fuctard" of the year comment. No, I think you've just clinched it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 What do you think? Do you think this situation is sustainable? Extreme Muslims will know that, no matter what they might say, they are not going to bring the West to its knees and at some point we have to find a way to co-exist. Vaporising works for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Well you're right in that most wars either end in defeat for one side, or around a negotiating table. That latter situation is afterall what happened in Ulster's 'long war' - but only of course after decades of bloody slaughter. Frankly, we are nowhere near sitting down and talking to ISIL extremists at this time, primarily because they don't accept that victory for their cause is impossible. This war is as yet a young one I'm sorry to say. Now I can see that you require no lectures from me on this (obvious) fact of historical life SOG. The usual suspects on here however seem more interested in tiresome point scoring, rather than engaging in a proper debate. Which is in pretty bad taste today of all days I think. Meanwhile, in the point scoring Olympics... So what do we do. Kill all Muslims? Good plan. That's "engaging in proper debate", right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 I love that chapel end Charlie's response about how bad taste point scoring is is in itself a form of point scoring. Be honest, your post would not exist had the conversation about homosexual footballers never happened. He can speak for himself of course, but it seems to me that SOG is making the eminently reasonable point that ultimately, more often than not, conflict has to be ended by negotiation. He's not claiming that we should sit down tomorrow with ISIS and 'talk it out' because that clearly is not going to happen for a variety of reasons. Ironically, the brutal efficiency with which modern Western airpower (and associated Intelligence gathering operations) can now locate and eliminate the ISIS leadership may actually make negotiation harder one day. None of which has anything to do with the prevalence of homophobia in UK society! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 He can speak for himself of course, but it seems to me that SOG is making the eminently reasonable point that ultimately, more often than not, conflict has to be ended by negotiation. He's not claiming that we should sit down tomorrow with ISIS and 'talk it out' because that clearly is not going to happen for a variety of reasons. Ironically, the brutal efficiency with which modern Western airpower (and associated Intelligence gathering operations) can now locate and eliminate the ISIS leadership may actually make negotiation harder one day. None of which has anything to do with the prevalence of homophobia in UK society! There can be no negotiation with these people. It's that simple. They are not the IRA, they don't have a sane political agenda. You can't negotiate with people who want world wide mutual annihilation, a judgement day where every man on Earth is brought before Allah, Jihadist are glorified in paradise and receive 72 virgins, whilst all no-believers are cast into the fires of hell for eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 We bomb them, they bomb us. Isn't responding with further violence towards IS in Syria or elsewhere likely to increase the likelyhood of an escalation of terror in Europe? Ok I'm not sure IS are ready or suitable for negociation, but shouldn't the West be looking at de-escalating the situation somehow rather than moving ever closer to a holy war? I'm not sure we can beat IS using violence. They will just fight fire with more fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Well the lady mayor of Paris has just informed us that these events have depassed by far anything which they might have imagined. Just goes to show that they just don't listen because the head of the armed forces told them a couple of weeks back that something like yesterday's events was just waiting to happen.. Then again he's not a loony lefter so whatever he might said is not serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 If we start wars an bomb people in the Middle East it is naive not to expect this sort of thing in return. Especially considering the refugee situation. The war against IS needs to be stepped up, a serious effort needs to be made, not just air strikes and a few agents on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millbrook Saint Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 To negotiate what exactly? This is not Ireland or the Basque region. This is how negotiations would go. What do you want? To make this country muslim and everyone to become muslim. We won't do that. Then you should all die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 We bomb them, they bomb us. Isn't responding with further violence towards IS in Syria or elsewhere likely to increase the likelyhood of an escalation of terror in Europe? Ok I'm not sure IS are ready or suitable for negociation, but shouldn't the West be looking at de-escalating the situation somehow rather than moving ever closer to a holy war? I'm not sure we can beat IS using violence. They will just fight fire with more fire. And therein lies the answer, the majority of people just do not understand the problem. The EI think that they're fighting crusaders and that as such we're all non-believers who deserve to die anyway. The atrocities that they have committed amongst people of their own religion just show what we're up against. These aren't the W.I Tea Committee they are very bad people who think that they have a cause to fight and die for, they're not interested in anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 The principal cause of this is Saudi Arabia's support and export of Wahhabism - you know those guys we cosy up to at the expense of Iran and Iraq. Its got very little to with mainstream Islam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 He can speak for himself of course, but it seems to me that SOG is making the eminently reasonable point that ultimately, more often than not, conflict has to be ended by negotiation. He's not claiming that we should sit down tomorrow with ISIS and 'talk it out' because that clearly is not going to happen for a variety of reasons. Ironically, the brutal efficiency with which modern Western airpower (and associated Intelligence gathering operations) can now locate and eliminate the ISIS leadership may actually make negotiation harder one day. None of which has anything to do with the prevalence of homophobia in UK society! I was referring to your point about "certain parties" and "point scoring." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 The principal cause of this is Saudi Arabia's support and export of Wahhabism - you know those guys we cosy up to at the expense of Iran and Iraq. Its got very little to with mainstream Islam Still very much to do with a certain type of Islam though. So is clearly an Islamic problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millbrook Saint Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 So what do we do. Kill all Muslims? Good plan. No if they think they are at war with us then we treat them as such. All mosques should be told in no uncertain terms that anyone alleging themselves with any Islamic terror groups will be arrested, they will then be incarcerated in a prisoner of war camp until the 'war' is over or if they prefer sent to the Islamic country of their choice with no chance of return. No refugees should be allowed in, all boats in the med shoUld be turned back. The people who run these countries should be supported if they request it, if not let them sort their own mess. Lastly we should stop interfering in these countries, there's a reason they're run by dictators, we may not like what they do but at least they have control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 How else did last night's events happen. You let millions of Islamic migrants into your country, the chances of an Islamic attack are much more likely. Highly unlikely In the sense that there are already millions there, you think refugees did this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Still very much to do with a certain type of Islam though. So is clearly an Islamic problem. You think the Greek Orthodox Church is the same as the Westboro Baptists? You think the Quakers share much with the Catholics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 You think the Greek Orthodox Church is the same as the Westboro Baptists? You think the Quakers share much with the Catholics? No one is suggesting that all Muslims are to blame. But it is a Muslim problem. If it was Christians of some type massacring people all over the place in the name of Christianity then it would be a Christian problem. Ignoring the religious element is just sweeping the issue under the carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 This is how negotiations would go. What do you want? To make this country muslim and everyone to become muslim. We won't do that. Then you should all die There can be no negotiation with these people. It's that simple. They are not the IRA, they don't have a sane political agenda. You can't negotiate with people who want world wide mutual annihilation, a judgement day where every man on Earth is brought before Allah, Jihadist are glorified in paradise and receive 72 virgins, whilst all no-believers are cast into the fires of hell for eternity. Absolutely - ETA, the IRA and the Palestinians all have a specific geographic and/or political aim which even in the height of the violence is still a tangible "thing" that they are fighting for and is an endgame that could be negotiated around. This is patently not the same, not least because there isn't even a group to negotiate with - the 7/7 bombers were British kids, so should the UN start negotiating with the British government to stop it? We don't know yet but I'd wager some if not all of the Paris terrorists are French citizens. It's massively complex and at this point virtually impossible for "the west" to even begin to work out how to stop it. And quite frankly it isn't down to the west to stop it anyway, it's down to the perpetrators to stop killing people. SOG and Chapel End Charlie are doing what they usually do on this forum, making a land grab for the facile moral high ground and making out everyone is somehow prejudiced, not like them. SOG spouts some pointless platitudes about "let's start a peace process" like only he's ever thought of it, while accusing others of wanting to "kill all muslims". CEC wades in just behind accusing others of point scoring. The grandstanding begins again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 That's like going to a Hollywood film producer and saying, "I've got this great title for a movie, all I need is a story line and a script to go with it." What is your peace process? That's just a phrase, a political buzzword to reassure the masses. What specific actions would you take to bring about peace in the middle East? What would you offer ISIS in exchange for a ceasefire on their behalf? What is it that they want, which you are prepared to give them? What do you give ISIS free right to kill who ever they want and rape any females in the an area they control. World War 2 and the pacifism shown towards Hitler in the years leading up to it worked well did it not. I abhor violence but the only way we will stop ISIS is to utterly defeat them, this is the ideal time for Obama and Putin 2 of the 3 biggest superpowers to put to the end of these people. God forbid what will happen if they ever get to overtake a country that has nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 I think his post linking this all to refugees and the EU trumps that TBH. but it will only make this a more intense problem. unless you think the hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of muslims heading towards western europe is going to end peacefully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 but it will only make this a more intense problem. unless you think the hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions) of muslims heading towards western europe is going to end peacefully? It certainly makes the haystack we're looking for needles in a bit bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 What do you give ISIS free right to kill who ever they want and rape any females in the an area they control. World War 2 and the pacifism shown towards Hitler in the years leading up to it worked well did it not. I abhor violence but the only way we will stop ISIS is to utterly defeat them, this is the ideal time for Obama and Putin 2 of the 3 biggest superpowers to put to the end of these people. God forbid what will happen if they ever get to overtake a country that has nuclear weapons. Those that possess nuclear weapons seem afraid to use them anyway, why do you think the EI would be different. The US have lost at least 3 wars since they developped their nuclear arsenal, the Russians 1 and the French won't ever use something that costs them billions a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 There can be no negotiation with these people. A recipe for endless war if ever I saw one. History teaches us that one day - a long time from now perhaps - the surviving extremists will grow old and tire of war. They will then rediscover the many advantages of peaceful coexistence, just as Humanity always has done periodically throughout its long history. Then - and only then - all sides will have to sit down together and work out some form of compromise that results in everyone living peacefully together on this small planet of ours. Modern secular individualism and devout Islam must find some form of accommodation or our future is a bleak one. While it may be hard to see that brighter future from the dark place we are in today, it is nevertheless out there somewhere - I hope so anyway. The past lights the path to the future. Britain's religious wars for example endured for decades, with many on each side utterly convinced that the other's interpretation of Christian teachings represented the Devil's own work on Earth ... and the Devil's work must be exterminated of course. After all that pointless bloodshed - bloody murder that at times far exceeded anything we saw yesterday - Catholics and Protestants are still with us today. No, Religious faith is a idea in the final analysis, and ideas can't be easily destroyed with bombs and tanks. I think they can only be countered with better ideas. They say that 'only the dead have seen the end of war' but as a organised faith Islam is perhaps 600 years younger than Christianity is - so in a sense they are today where we were back in Tudor times. We can only hope that this war of ours doesn't take another 600 years to resolve itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 ... SOG and Chapel End Charlie are doing what they usually do on this forum, making a land grab for the facile moral high ground and making out everyone is somehow prejudiced, not like them. SOG spouts some pointless platitudes about "let's start a peace process" like only he's ever thought of it, while accusing others of wanting to "kill all muslims". CEC wades in just behind accusing others of point scoring. The grandstanding begins again. Until the blood has been mopped up off the streets of Paris I think I'll have to decline your kind invitation for yet another round of biting lumps out of each other on here. Such an activity would be in exceptionally poor taste today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Until the blood has been mopped up off the streets of Paris I think I'll have to decline your kind invitation for yet another round of biting lumps out of each other on here. Such an activity would be in exceptionally poor taste today. Still grandstanding, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Still grandstanding, then. Thank you, but I did read that the first time you wrote it. In the same spirit, I too will refer you to my previous reply and suggest that this thread is best reserved for those who want to discus the issue at hand. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 The only way this conflict will finally end will result in people sitting around a table. You remind me of Harry Ellis from Die Hard. I have a spare stab vest and hard hat that I'm happy to lend you to see if you can avoid his fate. By the way, negotiation has already been tried. Out of desperate necessity, James Foley sought to negotiate a reasoned solution to the hostage-taking, and tried especially to get on the IS wavelength. For his troubles, he was severely tortured for months and then beheaded by the now thankfully deceased Emwazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 The concert was a pre chosen target as those in attendance were idolaters indulging in perversity. That and allah is great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 @SkyNewsBreak: Ap: Greek minister says one Paris assailant entered the EU through Greece in early October Quelle Surprise Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Ultimately this is George W Bush and Tony Blai8r's legacy to the world for their inability to produce a visionary response to 9/11 and creating the environment for the exponential growth in radical Islam RIP to all the innocents from last nights attrocities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 And you would be wrong. If we do not find a way to live together peacefully the conflict will continue. The only way to find a way to cohabit this planet is to reach an understanding. Is the world a safer place because we have killed Saddam, Bin Laden and Jihadi John? It might be a nicer place but I wouldn't say it was safer. We cant go on killing each other ad infinitum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 On the plus side, it's good to know that most people don't support mass murder of random citizens. I was in doubt but thank goodness for Facebook and Twitter so people can be quite emphatic about their posititons on this. I'm off to change my profile to the Nigeria flag in solidarity against Boko Haram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Thank you, but I did read that the first time you wrote it. In the same spirit, I too will refer you to my previous reply and suggest that this thread is best reserved for those who want to discus the issue at hand. . Maybe best not to mention those certain people who you won't lower yourself to by point scoring then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 If we do not find a way to live together peacefully the conflict will continue. The only way to find a way to cohabit this planet is to reach an understanding. Is the world a safer place because we have killed Saddam, Bin Laden and Jihadi John? It might be a nicer place but I wouldn't say it was safer. We cant go on killing each other ad infinitum. The answer is to finish jobs that you start and not leave them half done because some Gran or other in Los Angeles doesn't agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 To negotiate what exactly? This is not Ireland or the Basque region. No it isn't, but there are clearly huge issues which need to be addressed in a more constructive way than mass murder. The West are not blameless in all of this are we. The Extreme side of Islam has grown in recent years, why is that? Maybe because we have invaded Muslim countries and killed hundreds of thousands of them under the pretence of their harbouring weapons of mass destruction. We play into the hands of the lunatic "fringe". I say fringe because we have no idea how many radicalised Islamists are out there. I have not read the Koran but my understanding is that it is much like the bible. I don't believe that it preaches killing all Infidels. We need to find a way of living together. I don't believe the mantra that we cant negotiate with these people. The ones at the top of the chain are not stupid. They don't strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up, they leave that to the idiots who buy into this sh*t. They will know that they will NEVER beat the West and will never convert everybody to Islam, no matter what they might say in public. Go back through history, armed conflicts end and immoveable ideologies move. You say this is not Ireland but weren't the words No Surrender writ large on the walls. Things are still far from perfect there but there has been a great deal of progress and the extremists have most been brought to heal. I am not saying this will be easy, but what I am saying is that it is not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 The big question IMO - Is it now time for ground forces to go into Syria and Iraq? No it's time to open half a dozen new GCHQ's and go into Facebook and twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Ultimately this is George W Bush and Tony Blai8r's legacy to the world for their inability to produce a visionary response to 9/11 and creating the environment for the exponential growth in radical Islam. The modern source of the present conflict is the 1979 invasion by Islamist extremists of the Grand Mosque at Mecca and their ejection by French special forces. Bin Laden, and his tutor Abdullah Azzam, specifically reacted violently to the sacrilege of Western boots on holy ground with the beginnings of what became Al Qaeda. Their goal was always to depose the 'corrupt' Saudi regime, retake of Mecca for their particular brand of death cultism and restore what it euphemistically called 'Muslim lands'. Everything else was secondary. Bin Laden was always clear that the West was merely a sideshow - attacking it was a useful means of attracting new recruits. And ideologically it was relatively cost-free because of the underlying virulence of anti-Western sentiment in the West itself. IS, with its roots in hyper-violent elements of the ousted Sunni-Iraqi military in alliance with the lunatic Abu Musab Zarqawi, is doing just the same. For one of Bin Laden's 'spectaculars' like 9/11 or the Cole or the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, read Paris yesterday, or Zarqawi's video-recorded beheading of Nick Berg in 2004 (the sickening 'models' for Emwazi, and in turn modelled on Khaled Sheikh Mohamed's video-recorded beheading of Daniel Pearl in 2002). So placing Bush and Blair in the dock is fine, but don't suggest it's the beginning of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 You remind me of Harry Ellis from Die Hard. I have a spare stab vest and hard hat that I'm happy to lend you to see if you can avoid his fate. By the way, negotiation has already been tried. Out of desperate necessity, James Foley sought to negotiate a reasoned solution to the hostage-taking, and tried especially to get on the IS wavelength. For his troubles, he was severely tortured for months and then beheaded by the now thankfully deceased Emwazi. If one method fails, try another, and another. Try using moderate Muslims, whatever it takes. The door should always be left open for talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintStinger Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 So it's been confirmed that at least one of the attackers was a Syrian refugee. So logically, inviting tens of thousands into the UK will only increase the likelihood of the same thing happening here. Woud that be a correct assumption? Or am i just another filthy clueless racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 (edited) So it's been confirmed that at least one of the attackers was a Syrian refugee. So logically, inviting tens of thousands into the UK will only increase the likelihood of the same thing happening here. Woud that be a correct assumption? Or am i just another filthy clueless racist? the SNP are laying on airplanes to fly Syrians direct to Glasgow. Just to show how caring they are compared to England/Tory's and all that Edited 14 November, 2015 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 The modern source of the present conflict is the 1979 invasion by Islamist extremists of the Grand Mosque at Mecca and their ejection by French special forces. Bin Laden, and his tutor Abdullah Azzam, specifically reacted violently to the sacrilege of Western boots on holy ground with the beginnings of what became Al Qaeda. Their goal was always to depose the 'corrupt' Saudi regime, retake of Mecca for their particular brand of death cultism and restore what it euphemistically called 'Muslim lands'. Everything else was secondary. Bin Laden was always clear that the West was merely a sideshow - attacking it was a useful means of attracting new recruits. And ideologically it was relatively cost-free because of the underlying virulence of anti-Western sentiment in the West itself. IS, with its roots in hyper-violent elements of the ousted Sunni-Iraqi military in alliance with the lunatic Abu Musab Zarqawi, is doing just the same. For one of Bin Laden's 'spectaculars' like 9/11 or the Cole or the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, read Paris yesterday, or Zarqawi's video-recorded beheading of Nick Berg in 2004 (the sickening 'models' for Emwazi, and in turn modelled on Khaled Sheikh Mohamed's video-recorded beheading of Daniel Pearl in 2002). So placing Bush and Blair in the dock is fine, but don't suggest it's the beginning of the story. Never said they were - clearly radical Islam was around before 9/11 or it wouldn't have happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 If one method fails, try another, and another. Try using moderate Muslims, whatever it takes. The door should always be left open for talks. How about just play 'Imagine' on the piano endlessly. You are so naive.. You realise ISIS despise moderate Muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Absolutely - ETA, the IRA and the Palestinians all have a specific geographic and/or political aim which even in the height of the violence is still a tangible "thing" that they are fighting for and is an endgame that could be negotiated around. This is patently not the same, not least because there isn't even a group to negotiate with - the 7/7 bombers were British kids, so should the UN start negotiating with the British government to stop it? We don't know yet but I'd wager some if not all of the Paris terrorists are French citizens. It's massively complex and at this point virtually impossible for "the west" to even begin to work out how to stop it. And quite frankly it isn't down to the west to stop it anyway, it's down to the perpetrators to stop killing people. SOG and Chapel End Charlie are doing what they usually do on this forum, making a land grab for the facile moral high ground and making out everyone is somehow prejudiced, not like them. SOG spouts some pointless platitudes about "let's start a peace process" like only he's ever thought of it, while accusing others of wanting to "kill all muslims". CEC wades in just behind accusing others of point scoring. The grandstanding begins again. You say that the moral high ground is facile? Why so? Isnt it better to want to find peaceful solutions to conflict? All we seem to be doing is driving more people into radicalisation and providing the fuel for more massacres of the innocent. I don't see where I have said everyone is prejudiced. I just don't see how the constant fight fire with fire policy is actually making things any better. I did have a problem with Batman's picture of nasty Muslims in need of a drone attack, granted. What is wrong in wanting to encourage a peace process? Why take the **** when clearly what we are doing is just creating more bloodbaths? Of course I don't think I am the first one to think of it. If you remember, and if not ask your mate Hypo, I said before that all if not most armed conflicts end with a dialogue. I said wouldn't it be good if, for a change, that started sooner rather than later so we have fewer of what happened last night. I also mentioned that I didn't think it helped when certain newspapers crow about us blowing people (Muslim Extremists) to pieces. All it does is make a bad situation worse. Just my opinions on an internet forum. If you feel my comments warrant a put down or a **** take sobeit. Perhaps you agree with Hypo who seems top think that the only good Jihadist is a dead Jihadist. Again, IMHO, if that is to be our policy this bloodshed is going to continue for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 How about just play 'Imagine' on the piano endlessly. It's easy if you try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 How about just play 'Imagine' on the piano endlessly. You are so naive.. You realise ISIS despise moderate Muslims? Okay Whelk, before I go find a piano. Perhaps you would like to explain why we have this problem now, because we certainly did not have it when I was growing up. Perhaps they do despise moderate Muslim but perhaps they are more likely to talk to people closer to their own persuasions than someone from the West. I am not saying that is the solution, I am trying to say keep looking to find a way forward that doesn't just involved killing. And before you say that is all they understand, that has been said of many other protagonists in the past yet bloodshed has been ended eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Supposedly we are meant to disregard what they say because eventually they will negotiate? What evidence does anyone have of this? The fact is that they won't. What evidence do you have that they wont? It is just an assumption on your part. What is your solution? Are you still working on the kill them all theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 (edited) What evidence do you have that they wont? It is just an assumption on your part. What is your solution? Are you still working on the kill them all theory? Well just for a start as verbal said the fact that a hostage tried negotiating with them and they brutally murdered and tortured him along with a number of other examples. Why are you being so idiotic by suggesting anyone said kill them all? When you say all who are you referring to? Edited 14 November, 2015 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Okay Whelk, before I go find a piano. Perhaps you would like to explain why we have this problem now, because we certainly did not have it when I was growing up. Excessive tinkering with the natural order of things is probably why. We've tinkered,meddled, gone all soft and now the world is out of control. We can't control the climate change and we can't control extremism of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 You can't co-exist with extreme fundamentalists wherever they sporn from. Why not? We live in a very diverse world where all kinds find ways of living with each other. It might not be easy, but it is not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 No it isn't, but there are clearly huge issues which need to be addressed in a more constructive way than mass murder. The West are not blameless in all of this are we. The Extreme side of Islam has grown in recent years, why is that? Maybe because we have invaded Muslim countries and killed hundreds of thousands of them under the pretence of their harbouring weapons of mass destruction. We play into the hands of the lunatic "fringe". I say fringe because we have no idea how many radicalised Islamists are out there. I have not read the Koran but my understanding is that it is much like the bible. I don't believe that it preaches killing all Infidels. We need to find a way of living together. I don't believe the mantra that we cant negotiate with these people. The ones at the top of the chain are not stupid. They don't strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up, they leave that to the idiots who buy into this sh*t. They will know that they will NEVER beat the West and will never convert everybody to Islam, no matter what they might say in public. Go back through history, armed conflicts end and immoveable ideologies move. You say this is not Ireland but weren't the words No Surrender writ large on the walls. Things are still far from perfect there but there has been a great deal of progress and the extremists have most been brought to heal. I am not saying this will be easy, but what I am saying is that it is not impossible. What did the IRA want? A united Ireland. What have they got? Power sharing, devolved government and the veteran terrorists have replaced the guns for cozy power and validation. Even at the height of the troubles, who the UK was dealing with was clear and what they wanted was clear. Three words, a united Ireland. We negotiated against that and the negotiations lead to a functioning peace. I'll ask again, third or fourth time now, what do IS want, who do they represent and what are you negotiating away to them. Whenever you're ready. You can stop dishing out obvious platitudes of how war is, like terrible. No one is saying otherwise so stop trying to do your usual act of clambering onto a higher horse than everyone else. Who are we negotiating with and what are we negotiating? Anytime you're ready. 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