Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[Fatboy40]

Damn right, you need to include saudi, yemen, Iran, Gaza, Palestine, Afganistan, and Israel on the oblit list

 

And what about including the UK in the bombing list as well for all the arms we supply to some of them to help them assert themselves ?

[sadoldgit]

Your alternative being?

 

I wish I had an answer. I would be a very rich man. But to continually use violence to fight violence only lead to more senseless deaths. We need to find a way to live together otherwise this butchery will just go on and on and on. ISIS are not the only problem but they are clearly a big problem. They will not achieve their aim and at some point the penny will drop. At some point those who are willing to blow themselves up will see that their sacrifice, martyrdom or whatever you want to call it actually does not achieve anything. That clearly isn't going to happen any time soon but it isn't helping that we (The West) keep doing things that play into the terrorists hands and provide a ready supply of suicide bombers.

[hypochondriac]

I wish I had an answer. I would be a very rich man. But to continually use violence to fight violence only lead to more senseless deaths. We need to find a way to live together otherwise this butchery will just go on and on and on. ISIS are not the only problem but they are clearly a big problem. They will not achieve their aim and at some point the penny will drop. At some point those who are willing to blow themselves up will see that their sacrifice, martyrdom or whatever you want to call it actually does not achieve anything. That clearly isn't going to happen any time soon but it isn't helping that we (The West) keep doing things that play into the terrorists hands and provide a ready supply of suicide bombers.

 

So I assume that you are happy to admit you were wrong when you claimed I'd offered no solution previously? You can't offer any sort of solution or strategy yourself so you can see why you are ridiculed. In the absence of any other solution that you have admitted you don't have, you can see why solutions have been put forward that have included some degree of violence to try to bring this under control.

Edited 22 March, 2016 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

I didn't mention you but seeing as you have admitted it yourself, it's clear that you were one of those laughably urging negotiation with the Islamic state. I've also written in this thread giving my solution on more than one occasion as you well know so that's another lie.

 

I wonder who is was at some point that laughingly suggested that we negotiate with the IRA? After all, wasn't it our policy not to talk to terrorists? Add to that all of the terrorist organisations all over the world who have ended up at the negotiating tables over the years. You may think it laughable but there are plenty of senior politicians in this country who feel that we are better of talking than bombing. Even if we cant deal with ISIS directly we can work harder with others to try to dry up their support and rally those within Islam who might have some sympathy for their cause. As I said before, we need to find a way to live together and to do that we have to stop being seen as a threat to the Middle East.

[sadoldgit]

...

Edited 22 March, 2016 by sadoldgit
duplicate post

[hypochondriac]

I wonder who is was at some point that laughingly suggested that we negotiate with the IRA? After all, wasn't it our policy not to talk to terrorists? Add to that all of the terrorist organisations all over the world who have ended up at the negotiating tables over the years. You may think it laughable but there are plenty of senior politicians in this country who feel that we are better of talking than bombing. Even if we cant deal with ISIS directly we can work harder with others to try to dry up their support and rally those within Islam who might have some sympathy for their cause. As I said before, we need to find a way to live together and to do that we have to stop being seen as a threat to the Middle East.

 

Why oh why do you keep comparing IS with the IRA? It really is a quite ludicrous comparison and does your argument no favours as well as demonstrating a real lack of understanding about these two groups and what their aims and objectives are.

 

I also assume you will be admitting you were wrong (again) for saying I had offered no solutions?

Edited 22 March, 2016 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

So I assume that you are happy to admit you were wrong when you claimed I'd offered no solution previously? You can't offer any sort of solution or strategy yourself so you can see why you are ridiculed. In the absence of any other solution that you have admitted you don't have, you can see why solutions have been put forward that have included some degree of violence to try to bring this under control.

 

I seem to remember having this discussion before. How do you propose to deal with the many terrorist cells that are scattered all over the place and who are not conveniently located in Syria where they are an easier target?

[hypochondriac]

I seem to remember having this discussion before. How do you propose to deal with the many terrorist cells that are scattered all over the place and who are not conveniently located in Syria where they are an easier target?

 

I think a broad coalition like the one I proposed would have a much better chance of destroying the main Base of the Islamic state. They would most likely be reduced to a smaller force less able to cause such widespread devastation. Hopefully once this happens and they are offered engagement they will be much more willing to negotiate and come to some sort of settlement. Again this is not a foolproof strategy and there would no doubt be some flaws in its implementation but I find it very rich that you are trying to pick holes in my solution after firstly denying that I had offered any solutions and also refusing to offer any yourself.

Edited 22 March, 2016 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

Why oh why do you keep comparing IS with the IRA? It really is a quite ludicrous comparison and does your argument no favours as well as demonstrating a real lack of understanding about these two groups and what their aims and objectives are.

 

I also assume you will be admitting you were wrong (again) for saying I had offered no solutions?

 

It is quite simple. The aim of the IRA was to kick the Brits out of Ireland and to create a complete Republic. They killed innocent people in a terror campaign that failed. They were never going to succeed and they finally decided that terror wasn't the way forward (although sadly killings still happen but not on the scale that they did before). ISIS want to destroy the West and are employing terrorist tactics to further their aims. They will fail of course and at some point they will see that unless they are prepared to see hundreds more of their own people die by their own hands that they will need to have a rethink. The alternative is that this killing will go on and on for many years to come and they will be no nearer to bringing The Infidel to their knees.

[hypochondriac]

It is quite simple. The aim of the IRA was to kick the Brits out of Ireland and to create a complete Republic. They killed innocent people in a terror campaign that failed. They were never going to succeed and they finally decided that terror wasn't the way forward (although sadly killings still happen but not on the scale that they did before). ISIS want to destroy the West and are employing terrorist tactics to further their aims. They will fail of course and at some point they will see that unless they are prepared to see hundreds more of their own people die by their own hands that they will need to have a rethink. The alternative is that this killing will go on and on for many years to come and they will be no nearer to bringing The Infidel to their knees.

 

Nope. The alternative is a strategy similar to the one I have outlined. Your tactic seems to be to allow them to keep blowing people up and cause death and destruction before they realise that they won't destroy the west.

[sadoldgit]

I think a broad coalition like the one I proposed would have a much better chance of destroying the main Base of the Islamic state. They would most likely be reduced to a smaller force less able to cause such widespread devastation. Hopefully once this happens and they are offered engagement they will be much more willing to negotiate and come to some sort of settlement. Again this is not a foolproof strategy and there would no doubt be some flaws in its implementation but I find it very rich that you are trying to pick holes in my solution after firstly denying that I had offered any solutions and also refusing to offer any yourself.

 

I see to remember you saying a while back that they would never negotiate and the only way to deal with them was to fight them (that is, kill them)?

[hypochondriac]

It is, but mostly - almost entirely - because it is a war WITHIN Islam. Which is why the majority of the victims of the war, by far, are other Muslims. And it's not just Sunni vs Shia, nor even Wahhabi vs Sunni moderates - but historically violent Salafists vs the whole of the rest of the religion. The goal, as I've said, is the claiming of Mecca for Salafists and their bands of mainstream-Islam-hating, women-loathing, West-deriding lunatics.

 

Which is why the idea of negotiating with the Salafists - IS, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc - is desperately, hopelessly missing the point. How do you negotiate with someone who doesn't want anything from you?

 

Sad though this may be for our sense of self-importance, the West is a sideshow, an irrelevance, nothing more than a locale for 'spectaculars' in recruitment drives and popularity contests among those susceptible to the message of death cultism. Western victims of Salafist violence are victims because the West is, in the eyes of the Salafists, pathetic and weak. They are victims because the West is easy prey.

 

Offering to 'negotiate', as SOG proposes, would be interpreted as yet another sign of inbred Western weakness. Offering to negotiate will get your head lopped off - so if those are one of the terms anyone wants to go to the negotiating table with, fine. Be it on your own detachable head.

 

Verbal's post sums it up much much better than me. The idea of negotiating with IS at the moment is clearly a nonsense.

Edited 22 March, 2016 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

I see to remember you saying a while back that they would never negotiate and the only way to deal with them was to fight them (that is, kill them)?

 

That is correct. A broad coalition destroys the ringleaders and diehards at their source, make it clear that extremism in this form will not be tolerated and will be dealt with harshly. Subsequent to this make it clear that grievances will be listened to and try to negotiate a peaceful compromise with the moderates who have been left behind whilst continuing to be uncompromising in rooting out and destroying Islamic extremism. It's the best plan I've heard so far and certainly much more realistic than anything you have come up with.

[Batman]

so, whilst we do very little. when will the next event happen? I would say we will do very well not to have another massacre in europe by the end of 2016

[hypochondriac]

so, whilst we do very little. when will the next event happen? I would say we will do very well not to have another massacre in europe by the end of 2016

 

I doubt we will get to the end of the year without another one. Germany must be high on the list of probabilities.

[Batman]

I doubt we will get to the end of the year without another one. Germany must be high on the list of probabilities.

 

throw in more blatent, widespread sexual harrassment incidents and all that.

 

all just just like maidenhead on a saturday night

[sadoldgit]

throw in more blatent, widespread sexual harrassment incidents and all that.

 

all just just like maidenhead on a saturday night

 

It was Maidstone and at no time did I say that Maidstone was the same as Cologne.

[whelk]

throw in more blatent, widespread sexual harrassment incidents and all that.

 

all just just like maidenhead on a saturday night

 

Maidstone FFS!

[sadoldgit]

That is correct. A broad coalition destroys the ringleaders and diehards at their source, make it clear that extremism in this form will not be tolerated and will be dealt with harshly. Subsequent to this make it clear that grievances will be listened to and try to negotiate a peaceful compromise with the moderates who have been left behind whilst continuing to be uncompromising in rooting out and destroying Islamic extremism. It's the best plan I've heard so far and certainly much more realistic than anything you have come up with.

 

But once again you seem to ignore the fact that these people aren't sitting in a squat in Syria waiting for a drone strike. The cells are spread far and wide and seemingly operate independently. There are probably a number in this country just waiting to set up ops as we speak. We have been making it clear that terrorism will not be tolerated and we have been dealing with it harshly yet this morning body bags are being filled with innocent people yet again, and so it will go on.

[sadoldgit]

Maidstone FFS!

 

Exactly! Lets not get into anyone's maidenhead!

[hypochondriac]

But once again you seem to ignore the fact that these people aren't sitting in a squat in Syria waiting for a drone strike. The cells are spread far and wide and seemingly operate independently. There are probably a number in this country just waiting to set up ops as we speak. We have been making it clear that terrorism will not be tolerated and we have been dealing with it harshly yet this morning body bags are being filled with innocent people yet again, and so it will go on.

 

Nope you've just ignored my post. At no point did I say my plan would eradicate IS, but they do have strongholds and that's what a broad coalition should target along with targeting their ways for producing money, combating their propaganda etc. Some troops on the ground (be that middle eastern troops or whatever) would probably help with this as well. We've spoken tough words but at no point have we sought to bring the disparate groups fighting IS together to make a meaningful difference. This plan would go a long way to reduce the capability of IS and hopefully prevent some of these types of atrocities in the future. Now seeing as you don't even have a plan, I'm going to say that what I've suggested is a slightly better plan than your non existent proposal. It's quite simple to pick holes in a plan that I've already admitted isn't perfect but you haven't even bothered to offer an alternative. Until you do, your criticisms of my plan lack credibility.

Edited 22 March, 2016 by hypochondriac

[Verbal]

It is quite simple. The aim of the IRA was to kick the Brits out of Ireland and to create a complete Republic. They killed innocent people in a terror campaign that failed. They were never going to succeed and they finally decided that terror wasn't the way forward (although sadly killings still happen but not on the scale that they did before). ISIS want to destroy the West and are employing terrorist tactics to further their aims. They will fail of course and at some point they will see that unless they are prepared to see hundreds more of their own people die by their own hands that they will need to have a rethink. The alternative is that this killing will go on and on for many years to come and they will be no nearer to bringing The Infidel to their knees.

 

As I've said, it's nowhere on the ISIS agenda to destroy the West. We have nothing they want that we can negotiate with. (And they don't use the word Infidel - that's a Christian invention!)

 

But if your argument is correct, that more Western responses breeds more ISIS 'retaliation', then there's the inconvenient case of Israel. Israel is most certainly (to use bin Laden's terminology) the 'near enemy'. And it resorts to military violence at the mere suggestion of an incoming handmade missile. But Israel is absolutely not seen by Salafists as 'weak', in the way they see the West is weak. Can you think of any successful attacks, or even attempts at attacks, conducted by ISIS on Israel? There are none, and Israel's military strengths and willingness to strike are genuinely feared in a way that the West simply is not. No, it doesn't 'stop the killings' in the broader sense, but it makes Tel Aviv a rather safer place to stand and wait for a plane than Brussels.

 

As I say, it's inconvenient for all those (like me) who take the optimistic view that less violence, in general, will produce less violence.

[sadoldgit]

I hear what you are saying Verbal but although ISIS might not involve themselves in Israel the Israelis still have their hands full with the Palestinians etc.

[sadoldgit]

Nope you've just ignored my post. At no point did I say my plan would eradicate IS, but they do have strongholds and that's what a broad coalition should target along with targeting their ways for producing money, combating their propaganda etc. Some troops on the ground (be that middle eastern troops or whatever) would probably help with this as well. We've spoken tough words but at no point have we sought to bring the disparate groups fighting IS together to make a meaningful difference. This plan would go a long way to reduce the capability of IS and hopefully prevent some of these types of atrocities in the future. Now seeing as you don't even have a plan, I'm going to say that what I've suggested is a slightly better plan than your non existent proposal. It's quite simple to pick holes in a plan that I've already admitted isn't perfect but you haven't even bothered to offer an alternative. Until you do, your criticisms of my plan lack credibility.

 

I am sorry I didn't realise it was incumbent upon me to solve the Middle East crisis. As you seem to have cracked it I suggest that you hot foot it up to Downing Street and share it with Mr Cameron. Let me know how you get on.

[Verbal]

I hear what you are saying Verbal but although ISIS might not involve themselves in Israel the Israelis still have their hands full with the Palestinians etc.

 

The Palestinians are a defeated people whose defeats deepen with every year that passes. The Israelis have their hands full with their own extremists, in the settler movement especially. Not the Palestinians.

[sadoldgit]

http://api.theweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/tw_image_9_4/public/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%207.40.44%20AM.png?itok=gdY1Bl1P

[hypochondriac]

I am sorry I didn't realise it was incumbent upon me to solve the Middle East crisis. As you seem to have cracked it I suggest that you hot foot it up to Downing Street and share it with Mr Cameron. Let me know how you get on.

 

What a pathetic response. Can you point me to someone more qualified than yourself who has come up with a solution that you would be happy with? You haven't been able to find a realistic strategy but you are happy to rubbish or make fun of others who stick their head above the parapet and offer a suggestion.

[sadoldgit]

What a pathetic response. Can you point me to someone more qualified than yourself who has come up with a solution that you would be happy with? You haven't been able to find a realistic strategy but you are happy to rubbish or make fun of others who stick their head above the parapet and offer a suggestion.

 

Yes it was a glib response. But we are two people who support the same football club exchanging emails on an internet football forum. Do you really expect either of us to have a solution to a problem that has stumped people whose job it is to find solutions to these extremely complex issues? Going way back in this thread I seemed to have upset you by saying that it is time for the killing and the bombing to stop and for us (The West) to find other ways to deal with these issues. Not long after Parliament voted to bomb Syria. Wonderful, that has helped hasn't it? Not once did I say that I have a solution but I did say that it would be helpful perhaps if we stopped the aggression in the Middle East. I also agree with those who want to work to try and find a solution that doesn't involve further bombing and killing. You disagree it appears and want to carry on with the bombing. Fine that is your view. I made fun of you because you seem irritated that I don't have a solution. Interesting to read that it is "your plan."

[Fatboy40]

...(And they don't use the word Infidel - that's a Christian invention!)

 

I think we're Dhimmi ?... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

[Batman]

big man hunt in Belgium now.

I think Europe is in danger of letting this go too far with the lack of doing anything that will lead to something serious.

 

 

shame

[Orange]

I think I'll watch the Euros in the summer on tele.

 

Can't let the Islamists dictate where we can and can't go.Even if there is an obvious risk.

[whelk]

big man hunt in Belgium now.

I think Europe is in danger of letting this go too far with the lack of doing anything that will lead to something serious.

 

 

shame

 

Trump's solution is to go after the families.

 

As would Assad, Sadam Hussain.

[Batman]

Trump's solution is to go after the families.

 

As would Assad, Sadam Hussain.

 

Ok.

[buctootim]

Can't let the Islamists dictate where we can and can't go.Even if there is an obvious risk.

 

Theres not a substantial risk though. Around 26,000 people will die in road crashes in the EU this year, some 70 a day, double the Brussels tragedy. Awful though it is, people blow things out of proportion.

[Orange]

Theres not a substantial risk though. Around 26,000 people will die in road crashes in the EU this year, some 70 a day, double the Brussels tragedy every day. Awful though it is, people blow things out of proportion.

 

They've been many other plots though, thankfully they've just been stopped. There is a Jihadi network across Europe now, many of whom have been out fighting in war zones and have now come back to live in European communities wanting to wage a war here. I don't think it's irrational for people to be fearful of the future. As for the Euros, there is clearly an element of risk at England v Russia in Marseille, two countries which have been involved in bombing campaigns, playing in Marseille a city with a massive muslim population. All in today's current climate. Let's hope not though anyway.

[Wade Garrett]

Closing the borders will not prevent those intent on maiming and killing carrying out their attacks.

 

Bit hard to carry out a suicide bomb attack remotely.

[CB Fry]

Bit hard to carry out a suicide bomb attack remotely.

 

Why would Islamic extremist terrorists born in Leeds need to work remotely?

[Wade Garrett]

Why would Islamic extremist terrorists born in Leeds need to work remotely?

 

Radicalised by who?

[Jonnyboy]

As I've said, it's nowhere on the ISIS agenda to destroy the West. We have nothing they want that we can negotiate with. (And they don't use the word Infidel - that's a Christian invention!)

 

But if your argument is correct, that more Western responses breeds more ISIS 'retaliation', then there's the inconvenient case of Israel. Israel is most certainly (to use bin Laden's terminology) the 'near enemy'. And it resorts to military violence at the mere suggestion of an incoming handmade missile. But Israel is absolutely not seen by Salafists as 'weak', in the way they see the West is weak. Can you think of any successful attacks, or even attempts at attacks, conducted by ISIS on Israel? There are none, and Israel's military strengths and willingness to strike are genuinely feared in a way that the West simply is not. No, it doesn't 'stop the killings' in the broader sense, but it makes Tel Aviv a rather safer place to stand and wait for a plane than Brussels.

 

As I say, it's inconvenient for all those (like me) who take the optimistic view that less violence, in general, will produce less violence.

 

That's good then that Israel killed those 2000 odd Palestinian civilians a couple of years back. I wish we were more like Israel.

[Jonnyboy]

Theres not a substantial risk though. Around 26,000 people will die in road crashes in the EU this year, some 70 a day, double the Brussels tragedy. Awful though it is, people blow things out of proportion.

 

Exactly, the media practically cream themselves on air when there's a whiff of an explosion somewhere. IS must absolutely love it.

[benjii]

IS should develop tax-cheating, suicide paedos.

 

That really would put the qitta amongst the alhammam.

[Verbal]

That's good then that Israel killed those 2000 odd Palestinian civilians a couple of years back. I wish we were more like Israel.

 

If you wish that you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

[Jonnyboy]

If you wish that you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

 

Sorry, forgot the #sarcasm.

[CB Fry]

Radicalised by who?

 

People in Syria that don't need to leave Syria.

[dan17]

God knows what the solution will be, but bombing the **** out of people in Syria/Iraq is not going to solve anything on it's own.

 

Correct - but, and I might well be considered short sighted with this, I think the only possible way of eliminating this utter cancer from our world is boots on the ground in both these countries. I just don't see any alternative anymore. Will it solve the problem forever? No. Will anything solve the problem forever? No. Does our planet have any hope of being war-less whilst humans are here? No.

 

Depressing isn't it?

[buctootim]

I think the only possible way of eliminating this utter cancer from our world is boots on the ground in both these countries.

 

They'd love that, up the body count no end. Its difficult and expensive for a middle east based organisation to launch operations in Europe. Far easier if we bring soldiers to them. Handy roadside bomb locations is manna from heaven. An occupation force helps with recruitment too

Edited 22 March, 2016 by buctootim

[melmacian_saint]

You can't compare the IRA with ISIS.

 

They don't have a list of demands. They don't want disputed land back (like the IRA) or independence (like ETA). This is an ideological war which cannot be negotiated. There is no peaceful settlement. They want the destruction of our way of life. There is nothing to negotiate. Do people not get this???

 

This is pretty accurate, though it is comparable in the sense that right now it is a homegrown problem, like those evolved to become.

 

The damage is done and really as long as certain countries are powerful economically it will be impossible to really deal with the problem, which is why I'm rather pessimistic about the future, in the EU or not. It's not like our "close allies" in the region that fund these movements in the most spectacular, long-standing geopolitical backstabbing in history will cease being so if we leave.

 

If we move to suppress that economic power, or humiliate them, we can certainly expect attacks like this on a close to monthly basis. Then again, it will always become more violent before things improve.

[Lighthouse]

They'd love that, up the body count no end. Its difficult and expensive for a middle east based organisation to launch operations in Europe. Far easier if we bring soldiers to them. Handy roadside bomb locations is manna from heaven. An occupation force helps with recruitment too

 

Agree with this, airborne drones are the way forward. Never sleeping, never resting, never giving in, not caring if they get shot down, like something out of a Terminator film. If you think we live in fear, imagine what it must be like for an IS warrior, never knowing when a laser guided missile might come through the kitchen window. That's the way forward; an enemy in the sky you can't see and couldn't hurt even if you knew they were coming. Keep taking out the leaders and eventually IS will descend into chaos, fear and lose its appeal to young European Muslims.

[hutch]

Agree with this, airborne drones are the way forward. Never sleeping, never resting, never giving in, not caring if they get shot down, like something out of a Terminator film. If you think we live in fear, imagine what it must be like for an IS warrior, never knowing when a laser guided missile might come through the kitchen window. That's the way forward; an enemy in the sky you can't see and couldn't hurt even if you knew they were coming. Keep taking out the leaders and eventually IS will descend into chaos, fear and lose its appeal to young European Muslims.

The "Solar Impulse" round-the-world solar powered experiment is interesting. Charge the batteries in flight during the day to provide power to fly through the night. Airborne 24/7.

 

A bit like having your own personal ankle tag in the sky.

[Batman]

ISIS say there are more of these attacks coming.

 

thing is, they were pretty open how they were going to get into europe when the doors were wide open. Yet we did nothing

all well and good for pictures of the flags and lighting up buildings with the colours of Belgium. How about, the powers in europe actually did something to look after its people

 

how long before a dirty bomb or chemical attack in say, downtown Amsterdam, or Hamburg?

Can't remember Belgium tearing up the middle east in the last 20 years. Why them?

Edited 23 March, 2016 by Batman