House of Commons shooting?
Discussion
You can't bomb ISIS. They don't have bases and airfields to bomb and even where they do bombing them won't change the ability of ISIS to inspire some people to commit terrorist atrocities.
It's alright to say that we shouldn't intervene in the middle east at all but it's not as easy as that. If you take the post cold war era we initially intervened to liberate Kuwait in coalition with various Arab governments. Had we simply left after that with or without Saddam in place we would have been responsible for an almighty blood bath.
If we can agree that we need to defeat them can see 3 possible approaches to ISIS now.
1) Boots on the ground all out military campaign to secure the territory ISIS currently control and install a civilian government.
2) Containment. By any sensible measure that means backing Assad and the other nasty governments whose territory ISIS controls, with opportunistic military action where there is a clear benefit and a simple out once achieved.
3) Give them their apocalyptic battle at Dabiq. Draw all their forces and allies out and comprehensively destroy them.
We didn't have the stomach for 1 in Iraq and doubt we have it now.
2 keeps us entangled in the middle east though is probably the lowest risk.
3 runs the risk that the support for ISIS is actually far greater than is immediately obvious and we might end up fighting Turkey and Saudi Arabia as well as a rag tag bunch of lunatics.
On the other hand it might well turn out to be a flop and only a handful of die hards turn out and are easily killed.
That still leaves the question of what happens next, but doesn't really obligate the west to determine what happens next.
It's alright to say that we shouldn't intervene in the middle east at all but it's not as easy as that. If you take the post cold war era we initially intervened to liberate Kuwait in coalition with various Arab governments. Had we simply left after that with or without Saddam in place we would have been responsible for an almighty blood bath.
If we can agree that we need to defeat them can see 3 possible approaches to ISIS now.
1) Boots on the ground all out military campaign to secure the territory ISIS currently control and install a civilian government.
2) Containment. By any sensible measure that means backing Assad and the other nasty governments whose territory ISIS controls, with opportunistic military action where there is a clear benefit and a simple out once achieved.
3) Give them their apocalyptic battle at Dabiq. Draw all their forces and allies out and comprehensively destroy them.
We didn't have the stomach for 1 in Iraq and doubt we have it now.
2 keeps us entangled in the middle east though is probably the lowest risk.
3 runs the risk that the support for ISIS is actually far greater than is immediately obvious and we might end up fighting Turkey and Saudi Arabia as well as a rag tag bunch of lunatics.
On the other hand it might well turn out to be a flop and only a handful of die hards turn out and are easily killed.
That still leaves the question of what happens next, but doesn't really obligate the west to determine what happens next.
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
How patronising. Why did we HAVE to "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the U.S. So far you've said it's because they spend the most money on their military - so what? Which infers those that spend less and are their allies, should join in any wars they decide to start.
In your answer, can you detail all other U.S. allies, NATO and EU members who didn't take part in the war and why they had a choice and we didn't.
Are you happy with the price the Iraqi's have paid for our weak leadership and the price we are now paying at the hands of Islamist terrorists? Is it all just collateral damage?
I have actually said it's because we need them. The extent of their defence spending was an aside just to illustrate their dominance.In your answer, can you detail all other U.S. allies, NATO and EU members who didn't take part in the war and why they had a choice and we didn't.
Are you happy with the price the Iraqi's have paid for our weak leadership and the price we are now paying at the hands of Islamist terrorists? Is it all just collateral damage?
We have a different relationship with America than their other allies. It's just fact.
Of course I'm not happy with the failures in Iraq and elsewhere and the consequences of those failures. We're on the same side mate, I agree with some of the things your saying, but you seem unable to comprehend the bigger picture or accept anything I say.
I doubt there are many people who would say we made a great success of Iraq or Libya or our continued operations in Syria. What is the alternative though?
Just so you're aware, we're currently deployed in about 40 countries around the world - it's a busy time and we need allies for intelligence sharing, mutual support etc etc. Give and take. I know you don't like it, but it's just the way it is.
If we refused to help America, it'd be curtains if we ever needed them in the future.
Please answer the question as to why other allies, NATO and EU countries who didn't fight CHOSE to invade, including the reasons for each one having a choice cf we had no choice.
Can you also set out the tangible benefits to us of the invasion, against the costs, including, lives lost, both there and here.
And yes, I was aware it was a coalition of many countries. Another "so what".
danllama said:
Alpinestars said:
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? bmw535i said:
rscott said:
I can find several reports which say he lived near some of those involved in that plot and went to the same gym. The reports also say he was investigated and they found no link. So no grounds to lock him up indefinitely then.
Are you going to start talking about rusty cars in a minute? 
Give it a rest.
To be quite honest I'm not convinced we do need to do anything different. If the best isis (or let's face it a random nutter) can manage deliberately is to to kill fewer people than a bin lorry driver did accidentally our security services are doing pretty well. That's not to say I don't care about the deaths, I do.
The only way to stop someone repeating what he did is to take away all the cars and knives, which I don't think it's a fair compromise.
Unfortunately the police have to right 100% of the time to stop terrorists: that's just not possible. No doubt there will be things that could be done better but I also doubt they'll be headline grabbing. So no open encryption for the government, more paperwork for the spooks.
SKP555 said:
You can't bomb ISIS. They don't have bases and airfields to bomb and even where they do bombing them won't change the ability of ISIS to inspire some people to commit terrorist atrocities.
I'd go a step further and suggest ISIS is now just a philosophy to some people. The Police are saying that the Westminster terrorist had no links to ISIS, however his attacked was clearly inspired by them.Unfortunately, the more you bomb from drones, the more this feeds into the ISIS philosophy, recruiting more followers. It seems that the Pandora's box was opened around the 1st Gulf war and now we can't put the lid back on.
It may not be a popular idea, but I would support putting a lot more money into propaganda and support for the communities / countries that ISIS are trying to gain support in.
Bottom line from what I can see is that we need communities all over the world to reject the ISIS idea and I can't see how we achieve that by bombing them.
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
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...
1. No, anybody involved in terrorism. Don't misquote me.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...
2. I don't know how to defeat ISIS as I've already said.
3. Step 1 (internment) isn't happening so I'm not sure how you know it isn't working?
4. I have already mentioned the police and the way I wade into them - very often with an alternative method to the ones I'm criticising.
1. Define 'involved with terrorism' and explain how last week's attacker would qualify?
2. So why are you suggesting what the authorities should do? Seems pretty irresponsible to start locking people up and bombing the Middle East if we don't know it will work.
3. Because it's obvious. Last week was home grown and didn't appear to have anything to do with IS.
4. So? My point was that you don't have to be a soldier to criticise military action.
I tend to agree with what bmw535i is saying.
The second Iraq war tended to be a failure but we must not forget that the evil dictator Saddam Hussein was still flexing his muscles prior to this, unbeknown to majority an even more evil lot filled the void once he went. There's plenty of hindsight on why it was a mistake now but it does make me wonder if these people were around in the thirties they would have said no to war then as well.
Regarding the terrorist who committed the latest atrocity it does seem he was a thug during his lifetime spending time in jail which seems to be the theme by these muslims who carry out these acts.
The second Iraq war tended to be a failure but we must not forget that the evil dictator Saddam Hussein was still flexing his muscles prior to this, unbeknown to majority an even more evil lot filled the void once he went. There's plenty of hindsight on why it was a mistake now but it does make me wonder if these people were around in the thirties they would have said no to war then as well.
Regarding the terrorist who committed the latest atrocity it does seem he was a thug during his lifetime spending time in jail which seems to be the theme by these muslims who carry out these acts.
Raygun said:
I tend to agree with what bmw535i is saying.
The second Iraq war tended to be a failure but we must not forget that the evil dictator Saddam Hussein was still flexing his muscles prior to this, unbeknown to majority an even more evil lot filled the void once he went. There's plenty of hindsight on why it was a mistake now but it does make me wonder if these people were around in the thirties they would have said no to war then as well.
Regarding the terrorist who committed the latest atrocity it does seem he was a thug during his lifetime spending time in jail which seems to be the theme by these muslims who carry out these acts.
The fallout from Iraq was well predicted so hindsight not needed.The second Iraq war tended to be a failure but we must not forget that the evil dictator Saddam Hussein was still flexing his muscles prior to this, unbeknown to majority an even more evil lot filled the void once he went. There's plenty of hindsight on why it was a mistake now but it does make me wonder if these people were around in the thirties they would have said no to war then as well.
Regarding the terrorist who committed the latest atrocity it does seem he was a thug during his lifetime spending time in jail which seems to be the theme by these muslims who carry out these acts.
Even George Galloway (who to be fair, much as I loathe him, is pretty clued up on the ME) pronounced where we are now in almost perfect detail at an 'intimate' dinner debate with Michael Portillo and chums which was televised. It makes for quite sobering viewing if you get the chance.
Alpinestars said:
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
How patronising. Why did we HAVE to "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the U.S. So far you've said it's because they spend the most money on their military - so what? Which infers those that spend less and are their allies, should join in any wars they decide to start.
In your answer, can you detail all other U.S. allies, NATO and EU members who didn't take part in the war and why they had a choice and we didn't.
Are you happy with the price the Iraqi's have paid for our weak leadership and the price we are now paying at the hands of Islamist terrorists? Is it all just collateral damage?
I have actually said it's because we need them. The extent of their defence spending was an aside just to illustrate their dominance.In your answer, can you detail all other U.S. allies, NATO and EU members who didn't take part in the war and why they had a choice and we didn't.
Are you happy with the price the Iraqi's have paid for our weak leadership and the price we are now paying at the hands of Islamist terrorists? Is it all just collateral damage?
We have a different relationship with America than their other allies. It's just fact.
Of course I'm not happy with the failures in Iraq and elsewhere and the consequences of those failures. We're on the same side mate, I agree with some of the things your saying, but you seem unable to comprehend the bigger picture or accept anything I say.
I doubt there are many people who would say we made a great success of Iraq or Libya or our continued operations in Syria. What is the alternative though?
Just so you're aware, we're currently deployed in about 40 countries around the world - it's a busy time and we need allies for intelligence sharing, mutual support etc etc. Give and take. I know you don't like it, but it's just the way it is.
If we refused to help America, it'd be curtains if we ever needed them in the future.
Please answer the question as to why other allies, NATO and EU countries who didn't fight CHOSE to invade, including the reasons for each one having a choice cf we had no choice.
Can you also set out the tangible benefits to us of the invasion, against the costs, including, lives lost, both there and here.
And yes, I was aware it was a coalition of many countries. Another "so what".
2. I have explained the reasons why we had to invade.
3. I don't know of any countries who chose to invade but didn't fight.
4. I don't know about the tangible benefits. You appear to suggest I support the recent and on-going conflicts. That's not necessarily true, I have only asked what the alternative are to deal with the problem of ISIS. We seem to have become fixated on Iraq which seems pointless. We are where we are - what are we going to do now?
mcdjl said:
bmw535i said:
rscott said:
I can find several reports which say he lived near some of those involved in that plot and went to the same gym. The reports also say he was investigated and they found no link. So no grounds to lock him up indefinitely then.
Are you going to start talking about rusty cars in a minute? Give it a rest.
To be quite honest I'm not convinced we do need to do anything different. If the best isis (or let's face it a random nutter) can manage deliberately is to to kill fewer people than a bin lorry driver did accidentally our security services are doing pretty well. That's not to say I don't care about the deaths, I do.
The only way to stop someone repeating what he did is to take away all the cars and knives, which I don't think it's a fair compromise.
Unfortunately the police have to right 100% of the time to stop terrorists: that's just not possible. No doubt there will be things that could be done better but I also doubt they'll be headline grabbing. So no open encryption for the government, more paperwork for the spooks.
Disastrous said:
A bit mealy mouthed tbh.
1. Define 'involved with terrorism' and explain how last week's attacker would qualify?
2. So why are you suggesting what the authorities should do? Seems pretty irresponsible to start locking people up and bombing the Middle East if we don't know it will work.
3. Because it's obvious. Last week was home grown and didn't appear to have anything to do with IS.
4. So? My point was that you don't have to be a soldier to criticise military action.
1. Already covered.1. Define 'involved with terrorism' and explain how last week's attacker would qualify?
2. So why are you suggesting what the authorities should do? Seems pretty irresponsible to start locking people up and bombing the Middle East if we don't know it will work.
3. Because it's obvious. Last week was home grown and didn't appear to have anything to do with IS.
4. So? My point was that you don't have to be a soldier to criticise military action.
2. I haven't condoned the bombing in the Middle East. I have put an idea forward for internment - as I've said before, it's just an idea not without its drawbacks.
3. I think it's likely he was inspired by ISIS.
4. No you don't, I believe the term is 'armchair warrior'.
danllama said:
Alpinestars said:
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? bmw535i said:
1. I will answer everything I can. If I don't know the answer I will say so, and have done so.
2. I have explained the reasons why we had to invade.
3. I don't know of any countries who chose to invade but didn't fight.
4. I don't know about the tangible benefits. You appear to suggest I support the recent and on-going conflicts. That's not necessarily true, I have only asked what the alternative are to deal with the problem of ISIS. We seem to have become fixated on Iraq which seems pointless. We are where we are - what are we going to do now?
How can you categorically state we had to join the invasion and not be able to back it up other than with "it's a fact". How can you categorically state we had to join the invasion and not know why other "allies" didn't and didn't HAVE to. Without understanding at least the above, your categoric statement is nothing more than your view. Don't hold out views to be facts. 2. I have explained the reasons why we had to invade.
3. I don't know of any countries who chose to invade but didn't fight.
4. I don't know about the tangible benefits. You appear to suggest I support the recent and on-going conflicts. That's not necessarily true, I have only asked what the alternative are to deal with the problem of ISIS. We seem to have become fixated on Iraq which seems pointless. We are where we are - what are we going to do now?
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
A bit mealy mouthed tbh.
1. Define 'involved with terrorism' and explain how last week's attacker would qualify?
2. So why are you suggesting what the authorities should do? Seems pretty irresponsible to start locking people up and bombing the Middle East if we don't know it will work.
3. Because it's obvious. Last week was home grown and didn't appear to have anything to do with IS.
4. So? My point was that you don't have to be a soldier to criticise military action.
1. Already covered.1. Define 'involved with terrorism' and explain how last week's attacker would qualify?
2. So why are you suggesting what the authorities should do? Seems pretty irresponsible to start locking people up and bombing the Middle East if we don't know it will work.
3. Because it's obvious. Last week was home grown and didn't appear to have anything to do with IS.
4. So? My point was that you don't have to be a soldier to criticise military action.
2. I haven't condoned the bombing in the Middle East. I have put an idea forward for internment - as I've said before, it's just an idea not without its drawbacks.
3. I think it's likely he was inspired by ISIS.
4. No you don't, I believe the term is 'armchair warrior'.
2. OK, not that useful then.
3. Maybe. It's hard to know as he's dead but they've not found any links. So not really relevant at this point I don't think.
4. I don't think that's an official term but whatever. It's pretty accepted by most of the world that it's perfectly possible to have opinions on lots of things you haven't done personally. Politics, sport and music are just three things that people routinely criticise without experience. It's allowed.
Countdown said:
bmw535i said:
Countdown said:
Strategy? Strategy for what exactly?
To defeat ISIS. What would be your idea to defeat them?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 f
k all and uniting all 3 combatants plus Russia and Turkey against us. Still at least the Kurds still support us....Strategy my arse....
Sounds horrible, but it's the way of the world - control or be controlled.
BigLion said:
It is a clever strategy depending on the objective - we have helped destabilised the region thereby ensuring it stays in the technical dark ages, we have helped ensure the Middle East never groups together to become one power house which could directly challenge us (divide and rule), we have secured a lot of oil both immediately and in the future, we have supported our arms sales etc. etc.
Sounds horrible, but it's the way of the world - control or be controlled.
Nail and head come to mind. Sounds horrible, but it's the way of the world - control or be controlled.
Alpinestars said:
BigLion said:
It is a clever strategy depending on the objective - we have helped destabilised the region thereby ensuring it stays in the technical dark ages, we have helped ensure the Middle East never groups together to become one power house which could directly challenge us (divide and rule), we have secured a lot of oil both immediately and in the future, we have supported our arms sales etc. etc.
Sounds horrible, but it's the way of the world - control or be controlled.
Nail and head come to mind. Sounds horrible, but it's the way of the world - control or be controlled.
k up the Middle East.For fk sake, The Guardian...
"Masood’s phone was reported to have connected with the *encrypted* messaging app WhatsApp just before the attack"
"... and echoes the rhetoric of Islamic State leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians, *but at this stage I have no evidence he discussed this with others*"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/we...
Bearing in mind the context of the article, in which his family have roundly condemned his actions. So the actions of one (seemingly lone) nut job is apparently enough to further erode our civil liberties?
Everybody is on WhatsApp. Everyone I know - who owns a smart phone - is on WhatsApp. It is not some underground messaging service used by terrorists and drug dealers etc etc. To describe it as such is pure propaganda. Papers like The Guardian should not be entertaining such bullst.
k sake, The Guardian..."Masood’s phone was reported to have connected with the *encrypted* messaging app WhatsApp just before the attack"
"... and echoes the rhetoric of Islamic State leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians, *but at this stage I have no evidence he discussed this with others*"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/we...
Bearing in mind the context of the article, in which his family have roundly condemned his actions. So the actions of one (seemingly lone) nut job is apparently enough to further erode our civil liberties?
Everybody is on WhatsApp. Everyone I know - who owns a smart phone - is on WhatsApp. It is not some underground messaging service used by terrorists and drug dealers etc etc. To describe it as such is pure propaganda. Papers like The Guardian should not be entertaining such bulls
t. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff