House of Commons shooting?

[Alpinestars]

danllama said:

Alpinestars said:

danllama said:

At this point, I don't think anything could sour relations between Muslims and the West any more than they are already, so I doubt the 200 dead will make much difference politically.

Does that mean you don't care about the 200 dead?

Are you a child?

Was the question too difficult?

[Alpinestars]

bmw535i said:

Hmmm I'm not sure that you asking questions answer mine. I'm not interrogating you, just interested in your ideas. It appears we have got the the stage where we have established you think the current policy is rubbish, but can't think of a better alternative.

I think your lack of understanding is not doing you any favours. If you don't know the answers, that's fine. We will just have to leave it that you don't like the current policy the coalition are engaged in - it's a valid point, but it would be interesting to hear a better way that nobody from the coalition has thought of yet. Are you aware of the makeup of the coalition?

I dare say you have little to no understanding of the rules of engagement either, or after action reviews?

Erudite conclusion.

[just me]

johnxjsc1985][Syria. Atrocities. Etc. No link whatsoever to House of Commons Shooting. said:

....
So there is a link between the house of commons shooting ...[

Um, you haven't shown one, but arrive at this conclusion very conveniently.

johnxjsc1985 said:

but its a very complicated one

You should be a detective.

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

bmw535i said:

Hmmm I'm not sure that you asking questions answer mine. I'm not interrogating you, just interested in your ideas. It appears we have got the the stage where we have established you think the current policy is rubbish, but can't think of a better alternative.

I think your lack of understanding is not doing you any favours. If you don't know the answers, that's fine. We will just have to leave it that you don't like the current policy the coalition are engaged in - it's a valid point, but it would be interesting to hear a better way that nobody from the coalition has thought of yet. Are you aware of the makeup of the coalition?

I dare say you have little to no understanding of the rules of engagement either, or after action reviews?

Sometimes.

Sometimes?

Alpinestars said:

bmw535i said:

Hmmm I'm not sure that you asking questions answer mine. I'm not interrogating you, just interested in your ideas. It appears we have got the the stage where we have established you think the current policy is rubbish, but can't think of a better alternative.

I think your lack of understanding is not doing you any favours. If you don't know the answers, that's fine. We will just have to leave it that you don't like the current policy the coalition are engaged in - it's a valid point, but it would be interesting to hear a better way that nobody from the coalition has thought of yet. Are you aware of the makeup of the coalition?

I dare say you have little to no understanding of the rules of engagement either, or after action reviews?

Erudite conclusion.

Conclusion to what? Would you care to answer any of my questions?

You appear to have become petulant. There is no shame in not understanding something, perhaps wise to reflect on that though before diving off the guardian cliff into the big unknown?

[Alpinestars]

bmw535i said:

Conclusion to what? Would you care to answer any of my questions?

You appear to have become petulant. There is no shame in not understanding something, perhaps wise to reflect on that though before diving off the guardian cliff into the big unknown?

I just don't fancy watching you running around in rings like you did on internment. Teflon and U turns. Life is too short. Debate away with others, but to think military action will defeat ISIS is incredibly naive. All IMHO of course.

[Countdown]

bmw535i said:

Countdown said:

Strategy? Strategy for what exactly?

To defeat ISIS. What would be your idea to defeat them?

Step 1 would be "not selling British-made weapons to their main supporters".

Our "strategy" in the ME is hypocritical and has been for a while. That's why we ignore the role that the Saudis and Qataris have played in creating ISIS. We are also supporting Al Qaeda because they're anti-Assad (or we supported them until the Russians kicked 7 bells out of them).

So, at the moment, ISIS hate us, AQ continue to hate us, and Assad hates us. So our strategy has succeeded in winning fk all and uniting all 3 combatants plus Russia and Turkey against us. Still at least the Kurds still support us....

Strategy my arse....

[johnxjsc1985]

just me said:

You should be a detective.

rather than being a smartarse like your goodself.

[Stickyfinger]

Alpinestars said:

Hello little fella. We had nothing to do with creating the Nazis.

Simplistic in that UK jihadis have stated their reasons for their actions were because of the reasons I've given? Simplistic because Chilcott concluded the Iraq war created ISIS?

Start like that do you....what a twunk.

So it all started in Iraq did it ? Islamic extremism did not exist/was not growing before that then, good to be informed. Laughable.

[Countdown]

Stickyfinger said:

Start like that do you....what a twunk.

So it all started in Iraq did it ? Islamic extremism did not exist/was not growing before that then, good to be informed. Laughable.

The Taliban are pretty extreme. Now, how exactly did they manage to defeat the Soviets......?

ETA are you asking about Islamic extremism, or ISIS, or both?

[Stickyfinger]

Countdown said:

The Taliban are pretty extreme. Now, how exactly did they manage to defeat the Soviets......?

ETA are you asking about Islamic extremism, or ISIS, or both?

The world is not simple is it.......

War is still a stty thing.

[craigjm]

Alpinestars said:

We had nothing to do with creating the Nazis.

Really? Do you think they would have formed and rose in the way they did if we hadnt won the first world war and imposed draconian conditions on their repatriations and rebuilding in the treaty of Versailles?

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

I just don't fancy watching you running around in rings like you did on internment. Teflon and U turns. Life is too short. Debate away with others, but to think military action will defeat ISIS is incredibly naive. All IMHO of course.

The debate about internment concluded there is a problem with ISIS and internment would have prevented Westminster. There was a lot of talk about rust which not even internment opposers could agree on how to deal with. Some people agreed it should be removed (internment), some said just watch it (known to police - still committing terror acts), some said not to bother looking for more etc etc. There was also talk of codes and car owners being investigated. Someone has likened getting security clearance to being investigated for terrorism

Similarly, we now have a few people who've rounded on the coalition and it's air strikes, but there doesn't seem to be any ideas being floated around. Just lots of petulance and a lack of basic understanding.

Just to be clear, I haven't said military action will defeat ISIS - I haven't intended to convey that message. I am merely trying to find what others would rather do.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

bmw535i said:

Countdown said:

Strategy? Strategy for what exactly?

To defeat ISIS. What would be your idea to defeat them?

Step 1 would be "not selling British-made weapons to their main supporters".

Our "strategy" in the ME is hypocritical and has been for a while. That's why we ignore the role that the Saudis and Qataris have played in creating ISIS. We are also supporting Al Qaeda because they're anti-Assad (or we supported them until the Russians kicked 7 bells out of them).

So, at the moment, ISIS hate us, AQ continue to hate us, and Assad hates us. So our strategy has succeeded in winning fk all and uniting all 3 combatants plus Russia and Turkey against us. Still at least the Kurds still support us....

Strategy my arse....

But what should we do?

[Stickyfinger]

Military action IS defeating ISIS. It may not destroy it but that is not the point of the air strikes.

[Alpinestars]

Stickyfinger said:

Start like that do you....what a twunk.

So it all started in Iraq did it ? Islamic extremism did not exist/was not growing before that then, good to be informed. Laughable.

If you want to ignore Chilcott, Blair (despite a clear vested interest to the contrary), Obama, Bin Laden, Jihadi John, Rigby's killers etc, that's your prerogative.

What Islamic terrorist acts took place in the UK before the Iraq war?

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

If you want to ignore Chilcott, Blair (despite a clear vested interest to the contrary), Obama, Bin Laden, Jihadi John, Rigby's killers etc, that's your prerogative.

What Islamic terrorist acts took place in the UK before the Iraq war?

Your question reveals a highly simplistic thought process. Do you know why we had to support America in Iraq and before that in Afghanistan?

Do you know why we form coalitions?

Do you think we might have been worried about our own 9/11?

Why did 9/11 happen? It was before the Iraq war and was an 'Islamic terrorist act', as you have called them

[tumble dryer]

bmw535i said:

The debate about internment concluded there is a problem with ISIS and internment would have prevented Westminster. There was a lot of talk about rust which not even internment opposers could agree on how to deal with. Some people agreed it should be removed (internment), some said just watch it (known to police - still committing terror acts), some said not to bother looking for more etc etc. There was also talk of codes and car owners being investigated. Someone has likened getting security clearance to being investigated for terrorism

Similarly, we now have a few people who've rounded on the coalition and it's air strikes, but there doesn't seem to be any ideas being floated around. Just lots of petulance and a lack of basic understanding.

[b]Just to be clear, I haven't said military action will defeat ISIS - I haven't intended to convey that message. I am merely trying to find what others would rather do.

[/b]


My arse.


But since you're so keen on answering questions with other questions, whilst forever remaining humble, may I ask how you think the best way forward in dealing with ISIS, in your humble opinion, might be? (I'm happy to take the smirkiness in your reply as intentional - the meat I'll judge for myself.)

[anonymous-user]

tumble dryer]/ said:

My arse.


But since you're so keen on answering questions with other questions, whilst forever remaining humble, may I ask how you think the best way forward in dealing with ISIS, in your humble opinion, might be? (I'm happy to take the smirkiness in your reply as intentional - the meat I'll judge for myself.)

I really don't know how best to defeat ISIS. I dare say far more intelligent and better paid people than you and I have been asking themselves the very same.

ETA - I think I've answered every question put to me - apart from those which have been presented as an answer to my own questions.

If there are any I've missed, please let me know.

[Alpinestars]

bmw535i said:

Your question reveals a highly simplistic thought process. Do you know why we had to support America in Iraq and before that in Afghanistan?

Do you know why we form coalitions?

Do you think we might have been worried about our own 9/11?

Why did 9/11 happen? It was before the Iraq war and was an 'Islamic terrorist act', as you have called them

Simplistic because people more expert than you or I in this area have stated that the wars had a hand in creating ISIS? And simplistic because some terrorists have stated their reasons for their acts are directly because of deaths caused by us in Muslim countries? You want me to ignore that and believe you?

Which bit of the above don't you agree with?

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

Alpinestars said:

I just don't fancy watching you running around in rings like you did on internment. Teflon and U turns. Life is too short. Debate away with others, but to think military action will defeat ISIS is incredibly naive. All IMHO of course.

The debate about internment concluded there is a problem with ISIS and internment would have prevented Westminster. There was a lot of talk about rust which not even internment opposers could agree on how to deal with. Some people agreed it should be removed (internment), some said just watch it (known to police - still committing terror acts), some said not to bother looking for more etc etc. There was also talk of codes and car owners being investigated. Someone has likened getting security clearance to being investigated for terrorism

Similarly, we now have a few people who've rounded on the coalition and it's air strikes, but there doesn't seem to be any ideas being floated around. Just lots of petulance and a lack of basic understanding.

Just to be clear, I haven't said military action will defeat ISIS - I haven't intended to convey that message. I am merely trying to find what others would rather do.

Instead of trying to be smug because you have 'understanding', perhaps suggest how IS should be handled?

So far all we know of your plan is:

Step 1 - internment without trial, indefinitely, for anyone connected to terrorism. We've yet to establish what the nebulous term 'connected to' means, or why this is somehow immune to abuse or mistakes but whatever, lets go with it for now.

Step 2 - is what??

It's pretty clear that step 1 isn't doing much to stop IS so what do you suggest?

You don't need to have served in the military to criticise ill judged military action, by the way...you're not a police offer, are you? Yet, you're fairly happy to wade into them...