[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[ultrablue]

Nor should we let their supporters roam free on our streets preaching hatred.

Agreed. Inciting violence and hate is a crime and no religion should be exempt from prosecution.

[Audax]

Who gets their news from the Middle East? Listening to the Ben Swann video, I go through a lot of different news including Lebanon who probably have a fairly good view of things and are probably a relatively Democratic nation.

How Syria’s Assad Helped Forge ISIS - Newsweek

Mohammed Al-Saud is under no illusions. “In 2011, the majority of the current ISIS leadership was released from jail by Bashar Al Assad,” he said. “No one in the regime has ever admitted this, or explained why.” Al-Saud, a Syrian dissident with the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, left Syria under threat of arrest in 2011.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631

Oh, the Truth in Media, Ben Swan video, wow, how credible, what great credentials this guy has:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Swann like a dime a dozen videos on youtube that can say anything you want.

Newsweek certainly is not some great organization as well, but honestly, because it's on youtube, that's the way one wants to believe things?

The truth is troops needed to be left in Iraq as in Korea but only the US was big enough for this venture of many years.

Who harbored a Nazi war criminal, Brunner for 60 years? The Assads,

All of this is verifiable historical record, not some mickey mouse stuff from RT or wherever.

Who was complained about in 2004 about Jihadis launching attack from Syria? Terrorist camps as well. Assad.

Who has had a record of genocide presented at the UN? Assad

What country funnels missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah from Iran? Syria.

One can go on and plenty of stories are out there that Assad and even the Russians somewhat haven't gone after ISIS but the Rebels instead, some of the other groups, not good guys either.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/ Syrian Human Rights Observatory in London, probably another source to at least consider.

[joey_big_nose]

Nor should we let their supporters roam free on our streets preaching hatred.

Yes, I agree with this. If there is someone actively calling for criminal acts then they should be punished according to the law.

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

[Audax]

Historic record is Assad gave harbor to Saddam Hussein's brother, eventually, the regime gave the brother to the allies, this is all historic record, not made up stuff. Might as well read RT or a number of 2nd rate outfits out there if not outright propaganda.

[joey_big_nose]

Who gets their news from the Middle East? Listening to the Ben Swann video, I go through a lot of different news including Lebanon who probably have a fairly good view of things and are probably a relatively Democratic nation.

Oh, the Truth in Media, Ben Swan video, wow, how credible, what great credentials this guy has:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Swann like a dime a dozen videos on youtube that can say anything you want.

Newsweek certainly is not some great organization as well, but honestly, because it's on youtube, that's the way one wants to believe things?

The truth is troops needed to be left in Iraq as in Korea but only the US was big enough for this venture of many years.

Who harbored a Nazi war criminal, Brunner for 60 years? The Assads,

All of this is verifiable historical record, not some mickey mouse stuff from RT or wherever.

Who was complained about in 2004 about Jihadis launching attack from Syria? Terrorist camps as well. Assad.

Who has had a record of genocide presented at the UN? Assad

What country funnels missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah from Iran? Syria.

One can go on and plenty of stories are out there that Assad and even the Russians somewhat haven't gone after ISIS but the Rebels instead, some of the other groups, not good guys either.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/ Syrian Human Rights Observatory in London, probably another source to at least consider.

I'm not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying the facts that Swann references are inaccurate? Which facts? More than happy to be corrected.

Its a simple video that states three things which are part of the historical record I think

1) The coalition toppled the Saddam Iraq government in 2003 but failed to replace it with an adequate political solution over the following years. As a result the security situation has deteriorated in Iraq hugely.

2) In 2013 the coalition took the decision to arm and finance the Syrian Free Army and other factions even though the West had minimal control over them, and many within these factions were radicals

3) Subsequently many from the Syrian Free Army and other rebel factions joined ISIS, took arms originally supplied to fight Assad, and instead used them to invade Iraq. In the huge wins they achieved their they seized more Iraqi army US equipment abandoned by the fleeing Iraqi military.

Are any of those three point incorrect? Genuinely interested as it would change my perspective on the issue if I have an incorrect understanding.

So while obviously to say "US created ISIS" is not at all accurate as it is only one of the factors, it is true without the terrible job that the coalition implemented in the region and the decision to arm the rebel factions in Syria, and the completely farcical state the Iraqi army was left in, ISIS's quick growth would not have been possible.

[Audax]

Truth in media appears to be the Libertarians, Ron Paul persons from scoping out the other videos Swan has. So, like this or not like it, that really is telling about their vantage point.

[joey_big_nose]

Truth in media appears to be the Libertarians, Ron Paul persons from scoping out the other videos Swan has. So, like this or not like it, that really is telling about their vantage point.

Generally I'm not really bothered what the political sympathies of a particular journalist is unless I believe they would willfully mis-report/twist (as Fox, the Daily Mail and others do regularly). It seems an accurate assessment of the situation to me. Well except the "US created ISIS" title which is mis-leading.

[yoda]

Hollande says France is going to destroy IS and they are at war

[joey_big_nose]

Hollande says France is going to destroy IS and they are at war

Great. How is he going to do that? And more importantly what is he going to do after he does it?

Invade in haste, repent at leisure - as seen in Iraq and Afganistan. It is far preferable to have an achievable plan of some quality than to make policy on the back inflamed emotions .

Nothing wrong with military options but the goal is not revenge, the goal is justice, and to produce a safer more controlled environment (for people in the Middle East as much as the West) so these sorts of atrocities are less likely to happen again.

[yoda]

Great. How is he going to do that? And more importantly what is he going to do after he does it?

Invade in haste, repent at leisure - as seen in Iraq and Afganistan. It is far preferable to have an achievable plan of some quality than to make policy on the back inflamed emotions .

Nothing wrong with military options but the goal is not revenge, the goal is justice, and to produce a safer more controlled environment (for people in the Middle East as much as the West) so these sorts of atrocities are less likely to happen again.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, take it up with Hollande,

ps looks like he is putting a plan together, along with Putin and Obama

[joey_big_nose]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, take it up with Hollande,

ps looks like he is putting a plan together, along with Putin and Obama

Sorry - not having a go at you!

Well hope its a bloody good plan for all our sakes.

[joey_big_nose]

Great article from a former ISIS hostage

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet%3FCMP%3DShare_AndroidApp_Tweet

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Islamic extremism is like a playground bully who comes back stronger every time he's beaten up.

So to be honest I've gotta say I've no idea how we beat it, or even if we can. Fighting it, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, does nothing in the long term.

But equally this passive resistance the political left preach, which is in effect no resistance at all, does nothing either. Every time someone like Corbyn talks about air operations in Syria and other active resistance making the situation worse, that is another victory for IS. That's how bullies thrive, making the people they're bullying think things will be even worse if they stand up to them.

The only way IS and other Muslim extremist groups can be beaten is by being hounded out of existence by moderate Muslims, and that's where I get worried. Say you had an estate with a paedophile living on it, who was known to some members of that estate. Chances are he/she would suffer verbal/physical abuse, be reported to the police, or any number of other hostile actions to expel him/her from the community. That's how societies remove (or at least keep at a very low level) the toxic elements within them.

So what happens when an extremist terrorist or IS defector is discovered by police within Muslim communities in this country (e.g. the ANZAC lad from Blackburn)? Usually everyone connected to him/her in the community denies all knowledge of what they were up to, professes what a nice young man/woman they always appeared, and then quite often twists the focus and says they hope this doesn't lead to persecution/stigmatisation of their community.

In my opinion, this type of stock reaction is never going to create the repulsive stigma of terrorists that it needs to. Only revulsion and indeed hatred from the mainstream Muslim community for its extremist elements will allow them to be dealt with. UAF was created amongst the white community in determined and vitriolic opposition to groups such as the BNP and EDL, and organisations that even come close to xenophobia (such as the Daily Mail) are regularly demonised by mainstream white culture on forums like this.

Where is the Muslim equivalent? The Muslim Council of Britain had a strongly worded statement for the Paris attacks, which is a start, but that's all.

[K-Hod]

I'm also stumped on how we deal with these cowardly horrible wrong'uns. But they do need to be dealt with.

[DE.]

ISIS are mainly interested in Syria and Iraq. They are losing territories there and lashing out because the likes of Russia, France and the States are making things a lot worse for them with bombing raids. They're hoping that they will scare these countries into backing off, and also trying to stop the mass migration to Europe. They're succeeding to an extent with aim number 2, but not with aim number 1.

A couple of good videos below explaining the Syrian conflict as well as what ISIS are trying to achieve with the Paris attack, as well as the Russian airliner bombing:

Suffice to say it's a real mess.

[Amo]

I'm also stumped on how we deal with these cowardly horrible wrong'uns. But they do need to be dealt with.

Carpet bombing certainly won't be the answer. It didn't work before ISIS and it won't work this time.

[Amo]

A couple of good videos below explaining the Syrian conflict as well as what ISIS are trying to achieve with the Paris attack, as well as the Russian airliner bombing:

Except that first video states conclusively that Assad was behind the chemical attack. There's no proof of that.

[DE.]

Even if he wasn't, the conflict is mainly a power play between the US, Russia and Iran. I don't think ISIS will give the UK their attention unless we get involved directly. They are losing ground in their stronghold and need to focus on the nations who are having a direct impact on those losses, rather than provoking another foreign military into getting involved.

[Ewooduknow]

I don't think its an intelligent policy to make enemies of the USA, Russia and Britain all combined. These people are mad men, simple as that.

[DE.]

Whilst the religious ideals of ISIS are very much illogical (the Qur'an forbids the majority of what they are doing), their political aims are not necessarily mad - and they are, IMO, primarily a political group hiding under the Islamic banner.

Their aims are fairly obvious:

1) Seize as much land as possible in the chaotic regions of Syria and Iraq, imposing their own law through fear.

2) Strike fear into other nations through videos of brutality, inside attacks within these nations and direct threats through audio-visual channels.

3) Stop migration of Muslims to Europe by making the population of Europe afraid and hateful towards Muslims, largely by using Islam as their vehicle for recruitment/brainwashing and promoting their version of Islam.

4) Stop Europeans coming over to the Middle-East entirely, again by killing Europeans in popular holiday destinations like Tunisia and Egypt, whilst pursuing and murdering any Europeans/Americans who are in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, etc.

Their primarily goal is point 1, the others are designed to strengthen their position in Syria/Iraq. The more land they lose, the more frequent their attacks will become until they begin gaining land again or their organisation falls apart to be replaced by the next faction intent on taking control.

The stuff about ISIS wanting to take over Europe, the UK or whatever else is just scaremongering. I'm sure they would like to do that, but they don't have the resources even begin an operation on that scale. They're struggling to hold on to what they have in Syria and Iraq, let alone trying to infiltrate and take over other nations.

[Ewooduknow]

Whilst the religious ideals of ISIS are very much illogical (the Qur'an forbids the majority of what they are doing), their political aims are not necessarily mad - and they are, IMO, primarily a political group hiding under the Islamic banner.

Their aims are fairly obvious:

1) Seize as much land as possible in the chaotic regions of Syria and Iraq, imposing their own law through fear.

2) Strike fear into other nations through videos of brutality, inside attacks within these nations and direct threats through audio-visual channels.

3) Stop migration of Muslims to Europe by making the population of Europe afraid and hateful towards Muslims, largely by using Islam as their vehicle for recruitment/brainwashing and promoting their version of Islam.

4) Stop Europeans coming over to the Middle-East entirely, again by killing Europeans in popular holiday destinations like Tunisia and Egypt, whilst pursuing and murdering any Europeans/Americans who are in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, etc.

Their primarily goal is point 1, the others are designed to strengthen their position in Syria/Iraq. The more land they lose, the more frequent their attacks will become until they begin gaining land again or their organisation falls apart to be replaced by the next faction intent on taking control.

The stuff about ISIS wanting to take over Europe, the UK or whatever else is just scaremongering. I'm sure they would like to do that, but they don't have the resources even begin an operation on that scale. They're struggling to hold on to what they have in Syria and Iraq, let alone trying to infiltrate and take over other nations.

They'll take what they can and giving in will only encourage them to go as far as they can. No different to the like of Hitler at the end of the day.

[DE.]

They'll take what they can and giving in will only encourage them to go as far as they can. No different to the like of Hitler at the end of the day.

Hitler had a far greater military force at his disposal. He was the leader of a powerful European nation.

ISIS are a small politically-motivated military organisation relying on brainwashing people into their version of Islam to carry out attacks, whilst using their own forces primarily in Syria and Iraq to try and hold onto what they currently have.

As aforementioned, they are losing ground right now, not gaining it. Russia, the US and France are bombing them (and many civilians) fairly regularly as it is, they certainly aren't being allowed to do anything.

I would suggest they are lashing out now in fear of their organisation falling apart, as they lose ground and their supporters lose faith. These type of organisations will exist for as long as there is chaos in Syria and Iraq, but ISIS are not as strong as they or the tabloids would like you to believe.

[Ewooduknow]

Hitler had a far greater military force at his disposal. He was the leader of a powerful European nation.

ISIS are a small politically-motivated military organisation relying on brainwashing people into their version of Islam to carry out attacks, whilst using their own forces primarily in Syria and Iraq to try and hold onto what they currently have.

As aforementioned, they are losing ground right now, not gaining it. Russia, the US and France are bombing them (and many civilians) fairly regularly as it is, they certainly aren't being allowed to do anything.

I would suggest they are lashing out now in fear of their organisation falling apart, as they lose ground and their supporters lose faith. These type of organisations will exist for as long as there is chaos in Syria and Iraq, but ISIS are not as strong as they or the tabloids would like you to believe.

Different tactics but ultimately the same aim. Their version of a master race.

[DE.]

Different tactics but ultimately the same aim. Their version of a master race.

They just want land. They perpetuate the religious ideology to recruit the disenfranchised and those who crave power over others.

Regardless, my original point was that labeling them mad men is wide of the mark. They have a plan and are executing it with the resources at their disposal. Their moves are calculated and have a purpose. They would not be as prominent as they are if they were simply insane, they would have faded away alongside the countless other extremist groups of the past two decades.

[Ewooduknow]

They just want land. They perpetuate the religious ideology to recruit the disenfranchised and those who crave power over others.

Regardless, my original point was that labeling them mad men is wide of the mark. They have a plan and are executing it with the resources at their disposal. Their moves are calculated and have a purpose. They would not be as prominent as they are if they were simply insane, they would have faded away alongside the countless other extremist groups of the past two decades.

Sorry? You have a sane rationale for murdering 120 odd innocent people?