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

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Tell you what I find sad, people who continue to focus on minor targets because verbally attacking by lightyears the biggest and most concerning one doesn't fit with what's fashionable, doesn't fit with their own agenda, or is simply difficult so makes them feel uncomfortable.

Quite aside from the short-term goal of IS, we're also getting tasters here and there of how they would behave in the long term. Palestinians are systematically murdering Jews on a daily basis in Israel, the number of attacks on Jews in every European country has sky rocketed, and every time one is killed the likes of IS and Hamas enthusiastically cheer on social media, before egging on their supporters to commit more attacks. I sincerely believe Muslim extremists are trying to wipe out the Jewish religion, and with its ever dwindling followers due to violence and intimidation, I think before too long they will succeed. Then who will be next? You can guarantee some group will be. Its easier to eradicate minorities so probably Sikhs, then Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Atheists.

One day they'll properly go after with people with exactly your view on things ultrablue. And no amount of distraction techniques, like having a go at easy, fashionable targets such as Republicans or American gun lobbyists or UKIP, will spare them from being killed. IS and the thousands of groups and hundreds of thousands of supporters it has inspired must be stopped. And I'm sorry but the people with your viewpoint who seem obsessed with criticising the minutiae of how its done are part of the problem in my opinion. America should be being cheered from the rafters for leading the bombing campaign, the only criticism I can possibly level at them is that it clearly doesn't go far enough.

Making a serious attempt to solve the Palestine issue would be a good start. Try not annexing land that doesn't belong to you.

[RibbleValleyRover]

UN Resolution 2249 to 'eradicate ISIL' has just been approved.

UK Air Strikes on ISIL targets in Syria are now inevitable. Cameron will win that parliament vote.

[BigUts]

It's inevitable now, but something has to be done. It's a shame western politics is so reactive rather than proactive!

[Jimmy612]

Saw it last night and can think of only one word to describe it,

SUPERB

I can think of another. Courageous.

[joey_big_nose]

It's inevitable now, but something has to be done. It's a shame western politics is so reactive rather than proactive!

We are reactive because we haven't got an effective long term plan to implement and we still don't.

There are basically two viable long term plans imo

1) Restore the system of secular dictators in the region who rule through viloence and human rights abuses. This is infinitely cheaper and quicker but totally morally bankrupt.

2) Commit huge financial, military and political resources over decades (in the theme of the investment in Germany and Japan post World War II) to build a stable democracy which provide quality economic lives to young people in the region.

However neither the political nor public opinion can stomach either option at the moment.

We want quick solutions which don't exist. And Id count the billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost over eight years in Iraq and Afganistan as short term. It's not an issue you can be solved in eight years. More like thirty years at least.

[yoda]

We are reactive because we haven't got an effective long term plan to implement and we still don't.

There are basically two viable long term plans imo

1) Restore the system of secular dictators in the region who rule through viloence and human rights abuses. This is infinitely cheaper and quicker but totally morally bankrupt.

2) Commit huge financial, military and political resources over decades (in the theme of the investment in Germany and Japan post World War II) to build a stable democracy which provide quality economic lives to young people in the region.

However neither the political nor public opinion can stomach either option at the moment.

We want quick solutions which don't exist. And Id count the billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost over eight years in Iraq and Afganistan as short term. It's not an issue you can be solved in eight years. More like thirty years at least.

You could try to educate the morons to respect life and others, cups of tea and everything

[BiggusLaddus]

How can you expect to educate without stable government?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

UN Resolution 2249 to 'eradicate ISIL' has just been approved.

UK Air Strikes on ISIL targets in Syria are now inevitable. Cameron will win that parliament vote.

Another knee-jerk reaction we'll probably all live to regret. I heard a Tory MP on the radio this morning criticising the concept of UK air strikes. I don't usually agree with Tory MP's but he made total sense. The gist of what he was saying was that if we weren't prepared to put very large amounts of troops in on the ground and expect them to be there for years just bombing would be counterproductive. Air strikes alone have never been successful in any campaign.

All those who would vote to bomb Syria , would you vote to put our troops in on the ground as well ? Seems to me you can't have one without the other.

[Pedro]

Another knee-jerk reaction we'll probably all live to regret. I heard a Tory MP on the radio this morning criticising the concept of UK air strikes. I don't usually agree with Tory MP's but he made total sense. The gist of what he was saying was that if we weren't prepared to put very large amounts of troops in on the ground and expect them to be there for years just bombing would be counterproductive.

All those who would vote to bomb Syria , would you vote to put our troops in on the ground as well ? Seems to me you can't have one without the other.

I honestly think that's what all this is about. They want to invade and take control of something there. Whether it's a tactical position, resources, oportunity to extend Israel or something else entirely. There's certainly more to this than meets the eye in my opinion. (I posted something similar some time back and I've seen nothing to change my mind). Troops will be put on the ground there and the media fear factor has played it's part in the population's minds. People fear the Bogey Man, that's what has been created here.

[joey_big_nose]

You could try to educate the morons to respect life and others, cups of tea and everything

That's the thirty years and huge investment I'm talking about.

[Amo]

Really, really scary that literally anyone in the educated world believes that moronic, racist conspiracy. And the Daily Mail get labelled paranoid/alarmist, how phenomenally hypocritical.

Israel has been allowed to illegally occupy a country, appropriate more and more of its land, and develop a nuclear program. None of which could've happened without the support of the Western superpowers.

[Audax]

A conversation with a Muslim London taxi driver after the Paris attacks that should shame us all

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/11/a-conversation-with-a-muslim-london-taxi-driver-after-the-paris-attacks-that-should-shame-us-all-voices-the-independent/

Agree or not, an interesting read.

[yoda]

Israel has been allowed to illegally occupy a country, appropriate more and more of its land, and develop a nuclear program. None of which could've happened without the support of the Western superpowers.

he started it, no I didn't he started it

etc etc etc

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

he started it, no I didn't he started it

etc etc etc

It's no longer about who started it. It's still going on. It's about who's at fault now.

[yoda]

It's no longer about who started it. It's still going on. It's about who's at fault now.

Only one answer to that then

[Pedro]

Only one answer to that then

Jason Lowe?

[Steve Moss]

Yes thanks I'm fully aware of that. I am supportive of the targeted, precision airstrikes on ISIS the US has been carrying out for over a year now under the approval of President Obama. Rightfully he has also implemented a zero tolerance for civilian casualties. Syrians need to know that the US and coalition nations are not at war with the Syrian people.

It's sad to see an American such as yourself Steve, who does not hold his own country to a higher humanitarian standard than Putin's Russia.

Then why try to assign blame to Republican memos?

I think the main focus should be winning the war. Humanitarianism comes second. Targetted airstrikes with 0% collateral damage are: 1) ineffective; and, 2) fantasy.

War is hell. Trying to make war "nice" only prolongs to conflict, prolongs the pain and adds to the suffering of innocents.

And there is nothing to stop us from being humanitarians within their borders via safe zones and camps. There is NO need to bring them within our borders.

Don't you think blanket bans like propsed by Trump show huge cowardice? Refusing to help thousands of people in desperate need because of an attack in one city thousands of miles away. Many of these refugees are desperate, and he and others (maybe you also?) want to blanket deny orphans, women, children, good people your help?

How would have anything good be achieved if people made decisions only based on what was the absolute safest option. Would the US War of Independence happened? Would we have resisted Hitler? Would the French Revolution have happened?

Life isn't easy. It isn't easy to be humane. We have to not let cowardice rule our values.

I have no issue with the UK taking proportionate numbers of Syrian refugees. I accept some (a very small number - I don't buy 13% for a minute) of them will be ISIS sympathisers. I believe in the ability of our intelligence and security forces to manage that. I want our response to this to be proportionate and considered, not hysterical and absolute.

1. Bans are not cowardice. It is common sense.

2. Bans on refugees entering the country does not mean one will not help. There is plenty of space and plenty of money in the Middle East for their coreligionists to play at humanitarians if they like. If they won't then safe zones within their borders would be "help". Why are they call coming into the West?

3. Using your brain is not cowardice. In fact, letting them in is cowardice. It's an abject failure of leadership to put the safety of their own people first, likely out of fear of being insufficiently PC or progressive.

4. Proportionate? Take them all. If you refuse, that's cowardice. You said so.

[yoda]

How can you expect to educate without stable government minds?

Jason Lowe?

coco

[joey_big_nose]

Then why try to assign blame to Republican memos?

I think the main focus should be winning the war. Humanitarianism comes second. Targetted airstrikes with 0% collateral damage are: 1) ineffective; and, 2) fantasy.

War is hell. Trying to make war "nice" only prolongs to conflict, prolongs the pain and adds to the suffering of innocents.

And there is nothing to stop us from being humanitarians within their borders via safe zones and camps. There is NO need to bring them within our borders.

1. Bans are not cowardice. It is common sense.

2. Bans on refugees entering the country does not mean one will not help. There is plenty of space and plenty of money in the Middle East for their coreligionists to play at humanitarians if they like. If they won't then safe zones within their borders would be "help". Why are they call coming into the West?

3. Using your brain is not cowardice. In fact, letting them in is cowardice. It's an abject failure of leadership to put the safety of their own people first, likely out of fear of being insufficiently PC or progressive.

4. Proportionate? Take them all. If you refuse, that's cowardice. You said so.

1) A total ban on refugees is not common sense. It is not remotely common sense. It is the act of a disproportionately scared fearful country running from risk. Risks its worth adding the US has played a significant part, alongside with many other western countries (including the UK), in creating through the appalling bungeling of Iraqi nation building and the Syrian civil war.

2) The co-religionists in the region are either run by oppressive anti-humane regimes (many of them such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar backed by the West to our eternal shame) who refuse to take refugees as they are worried it will destabalise their own countries. They are savage cowards. Others like Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey have taken absolutely vast numbers but lack the economic resources to provide livelihoods for these people.

3) No it isn't. A blanket ban on thousands of perfectly innocent people fleeing a war which the West was instrumental in creating is the result of a total breakdown of human decency. It's shameful cowardice. There's no way away from it. It makes everything the West purports to offer decency, liberty, human rights, sound a total sham.

4) How is that true. Taking a fair proportionate share is reasonable. Explain your logic? How can all the countries take all of the refugees?

History will judge the US very poorly if this happens. France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Serbia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc will all take refugees and the US will be left looking isolated, morally bankrupt and cowardly. So quick to throw the bombs, destroy nations yet unwilling to burden the risks they have helped architect.

[yoda]

1) A total ban on refugees is not common sense. It is not remotely common sense. It is the act of a disproportionately scared fearful country running from risk. Risks its worth adding the US has played a significant part, alongside with many other western countries (including the UK), in creating through the appalling bungeling of Iraqi nation building and the Syrian civil war.

2) The co-religionists in the region are either run by oppressive anti-humane regimes (many of them such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar backed by the West to our eternal shame) who refuse to take refugees as they are worried it will destabalise their own countries. They are savage cowards. Others like Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey have taken absolutely vast numbers but lack the economic resources to provide livelihoods for these people.

3) No it isn't. A blanket ban on thousands of perfectly innocent people fleeing a war which the West was instrumental in creating is the result of a total breakdown of human decency. It's shameful cowardice. There's no way away from it. It makes everything the West purports to offer decency, liberty, human rights, sound a total sham.

4) How is that true. Taking a fair proportionate share is reasonable. Explain your logic? How can all the countries take all of the refugees?

History will judge the US very poorly if this happens. France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Serbia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc will all take refugees and the US will be left looking isolated, morally bankrupt and cowardly. So quick to throw the bombs, destroy nations yet unwilling to burden the risks they have helped architect.

What would be your solution ?

[joey_big_nose]

What would be your solution ?

Everyone takes the refugees as we were, handling through security checks as we have done since 2001. We all work on a long term plan to stabalise the region and promote economic growth. There is no easy answer to that. It will take a long time.

[yoda]

Everyone takes the refugees as we were, handling through security checks as we have done since 2001. We all work on a long term plan to stabalise the region and promote economic growth. There is no easy answer to that. It will take a long time.

I assume that would involve trying to talk to IS

[joey_big_nose]

I assume that would involve trying to talk to IS

No, not at all. They need to be utterly destroyed.

[Baz]

The first things to do with IS are to cut off their money, by stopping the trade in black market oil, and secondly cut off their media.

The anonymous hacker group managed to take out thousands of their Twitter accounts within hours, surely an organised effort could do this across all platforms to a greater extent?

Id agree that air strikes only is a bad idea, boots on the ground though may be pointless, as the IS troops will not stand and be obliterated.

Getting rid of the IS troops is childs play, the harder aspect to all this, is what happens afterwards. That is the vital point for me, leave a power vacuum, and itll start over again. Democracy with a credible legal system is key, but I can't see anyone looking into this aspect.

[old darwen blue]

Agree or not, an interesting read.

Agree or not, an interesting read.

Sadly so true, unfortunately your link does not appear in your post when I quoted it.