Front cover of today's Times.

[benjj]

Driller said:

...You think they're going to invade us?...

Actually invade us - no. Want to invade us - Yes with a capital Y. They want to convert us to their specific type of a specific religion. If we don't agree they want to kill us. Do you really not get that?

Anyway, it matters not. You're right, this is a no win / no-win situation. There is no way that they can be contained. There is no way we can completely destroy them. This whole situation is down to a number of factors, some of which the west had a hand in creating, many others they did not.

However, in my opinion only a fool would think that this is a problem that can be ignored, no matter the reasons behind its creation or reason for being.

People need to stop dwelling on the why/who/where and knuckle down with some proper problem solving. The west and ISIL are incompatible and that won't ever change.

[grumbledoak]

scorp said:

Do you think after their takeover of half the middle east is done they will sit inside their own border content ?

What are they going to do? Their Sunni support is likely temporary, the Kurds, Iran, Saudi, and al Quaedo all hate them. They would have as many local enemies as Israel and no bigger brother over the ocean.

What are they going to do?

[paranoid airbag]

BillPeart said:

Driller said:

BillPeart said:

/\


Get them now kill as many as possible, weaken their corps and, certainly, stop them pushing even further.

You war mongering people never, ever learn do you? Ever.

You are Neville Chamberlain aicmp.


Of course we could just do as you apologists suggest. Leave them be. Leave them and their hosts victims to their pre-Medieval Caliphate. Let them get on with life unfettered by us meddling westerners.

Then they'd start being nice. Stop hitting out and railing and sniping and murdering and torturing. Become tolerant and civilized. And present no further threat to the peoples in the region, or us.

Yes, that's what would happen. For sure.

Yup - we managed it (or have you never read horrible histories? European states really weren't much different not that long ago). That, or they become a failed "state", usurped by some other radical ideology - which would put us in the exact same situation as every other time the west intervenes, except we'd have saved a bit of money.

It's all smoke and mirrors. At some point the trick wears thin and you have to actually govern. We should intervene against genocides if our conscience demands it and wallet allows. We should consider larger scale action if another "state" represents a threat to our security, which currently these amateurs do not. We should not play kingmaker, it hasn't worked.

[Driller]

Driller said:

Am I the only one to think that the West were frustrated that they were unable to convince the world to let them change the regime in Syria so they orchestrated a few beheadings of a few Americans and now English to whip up a bit of public opinion in favour of going in?

Or is that too much of a conspiracy theory?


Will they "behead" a Frenchie or an Autralian soon?

And here is the newly beheaded Frenchman in question:


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29352537

[BillPeart]

Driller said:

Driller said:

Am I the only one to think that the West were frustrated that they were unable to convince the world to let them change the regime in Syria so they orchestrated a few beheadings of a few Americans and now English to whip up a bit of public opinion in favour of going in?

Or is that too much of a conspiracy theory?


Will they "behead" a Frenchie or an Autralian soon?

And here is the newly beheaded Frenchman in question:


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29352537

If you think that proves your mentalist supposition you are truly cracked. Get help, or stop posting this distasteful drivel? Just a thought.

[Driller]

Ooh, attack the man to bring him into disrepute as a way to damage his argument. That's a good one.

And I suppose you're one of those folk who believe everything they tell you in the news.

[7mike]

Driller said:

Ooh, attack the man to bring him into disrepute as a way to damage his argument. That's a good one.

And I suppose you're one of those folk who believe everything they tell you in the news.

1. Has the West played a part in stirring up a bunch of murderous nut jobs? Yes, most of us agree with you.

2. Has the West beheaded a load of Western blokes whilst pretending to be said nut jobs so that Joe Public will support more military action? No, don't be so fking stupid.

[Driller]

7mike said:

1. Has the West played a part in stirring up a bunch of murderous nut jobs? Yes, most of us agree with you.

2. Has the West beheaded a load of Western blokes whilst pretending to be said nut jobs so that Joe Public will support more military action? No, don't be so fking stupid.

Just for interest's sake, would you say this idea is more outlandish and unbelievable than taking a corpse, dressing it up in civilian clothes, handcuffing a document case to it's wrist and dumping it in the ocean?

Oh yeah and I see no need for insults either.

Edited by Driller on Thursday 25th September 19:41

[BillPeart]

Driller said:

Ooh, attack the man to bring him into disrepute as a way to damage his argument. That's a good one.

And I suppose you're one of those folk who believe everything they tell you in the news.

I'm trying, I really am, but it's very hard not to use terms you'll find insulting when your arguments are so utterly potty. Or to divorce the man (and his suggested idiocy) from his argument, one follows or goes with the other.

So, just to be clear, the point I'm trying to make is that you suggesting that the western governments have deliberately arranged for or manipulated the be-headings of their citizens to give a pretext for war (which is different to their general incompetence and the dumb ass policies that helped lead to the mess that is the middle east, which is granted) is pretty much tantamount to lunacy. And bad form given the misery behind the events.

I guess I find your line and the public broadcasting of it as insulting and distasteful as you do my comments, so one-one there. Though mine are pretty inconsequential in tone, context and impact compared to yours, when you're making plays out of the misery and murder of actual, real people with families etc.

You might just be trolling or exaggerating for effect or to stretch a point, but if you really believe it, to hold that level of conspiracy really does call into question your sense and sanity in my mind. If you think that's an "attack the man to avoid tackling his argument" ploy you're wrong. Your line is so dumb it doesn't need any wary maneuvering around. It really isn't a difficult one to dismiss, given how obviously stupid it is.

[Driller]

If it helps you, I'm not saying that's what I absolutely believe, just that it is possible in my view.

Are you denying that America et al would have been desperately looking for an excuse to go into Syria after being snubbed?

I don't understand why you would find it so hard to believe what lengths any of the governments of the world would go to to get what they want when this has been often clearly demonstrated.

It seems so many have the brainwashed idea of "Western government truthful/pure , all the rest corrupt/lying/manipulating the truth.

For example, answer me this: David Kelly death, clear cut suicide (of course the government would never do such a thing) or something doesn't seem quite right?

As for my comments being in poor taste regarding those who died I think war is in poor taste period, when you take into account the millions that have died.