Air strikes against Islamic State/ISIS..

[firemanbob]

But you haven't explained how bombing IS fighters in Iraq will prevent Islamic terrorists who are not there from hijacking airliners? You can't reduce the threat by bombing and the evidence clearly shows you are likely to make it worse.

 

 

 

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn't have any WMD. Our actions did not reduce threat and prevent attacks but increased the threat and brought on attacks i.e. the opposite of the objective.

 

We can't turn back the clock but we can at least learn lessons. Bombing and invading countries in the Middle East does not reduce the terrorism threat but increases it. Why the hell do it when it gives you pain but no gain?

 

We reduce the threat by helping Muslims destroy ISIS, the threat to us increases if ISIS wins and takes full control of Iraq and Syria, they will try to expand their empire and it is easier for us to stop them now than in a few years time.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 16:56 ----------

 

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn't have any WMD. Our actions did not reduce threat and prevent attacks but increased the threat and brought on attacks i.e. the opposite of the objective.

 

 

What do you consider the difference to be between the Muslims that killed 3000 people on 9/11 and the Muslims fighting for ISIS?

Edited September 30, 2014 by firemanbob

[Zamo]

Can you name these agencies rather than just inventing them and the opinions that they hold?

 

In the USA "The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the number of terrorist groups worldwide and "made the overall terrorism problem worse," a U.S. intelligence official said in a secret study.

 

The assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, CBS News learned Sunday." Another report here confirm the same thing.

 

And in this country said "The former head of Britain's MI5 (Military Intelligence), disputed claims made by former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, regarding the Iraq war. Eliza Manningham-Buller discredited Blair's George W. Bush fed assertions that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions.

 

Manningham-Buller stated during the Chilcot Inquiry this week, that as a result of the Iraq war, terrorist incidents grew exponentially, as people began to believe, "The West is attacking Muslims." "

 

So presumably IS pose no threat to Syria or Iraq. Why it would be like an under-8 football team taking on the Brazilian national team.You need a reality check?

 

They are a threat to Syria who are being attacked on multiple fronts and they are a threat to Iraq whose are struggling to coordinate a defence because their armed forces remain inept and the political system is paralysed by corruption (legacies of our invasion). But we don't live in those countries.

 

They do not threaten Pakistan because it would be 30k against 500k who have an air force, Navy and massively superior weaponry... including nuclear weapons. They would also need to go through Iran who have an equally frightening arsenal of weapons and troops.

 

Seriously, you need to stop automatically believing all the spin from politicians about them being a direct threat because they are not. They are part of a regional/culture problem that we cannot bomb away. They are far enough away for us to leave them to it and if we are not going to do that then we should drop the pretense, invade properly, take over and take the spoils of war.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 17:16 ----------

 

We reduce the threat by helping Muslims destroy ISIS, the threat to us increases if ISIS wins and takes full control of Iraq and Syria, they will try to expand their empire and it is easier for us to stop them now than in a few years time.

 

That was the theory when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The theory was tested and we now know it is wrong. Worse than that... it is proven to make things worse.

 

What do you consider the difference to be between the Muslims that killed 3000 people on 9/11 and the Muslims fighting for ISIS?

 

I don't see any difference - I wish they were all dead and that their mad religion and culture went with them. But I am not blinded by my loathing and can see that repeating a strategic response that is proven to make things worse instead of better is a bad idea.

[linderman]

Can you name these agencies rather than just inventing them and the opinions that they hold?

 

In the USA "The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the number of terrorist groups worldwide and "made the overall terrorism problem worse," a U.S. intelligence official said in a secret study.

 

The assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, CBS News learned Sunday." Another report here confirm the same thing.

 

And in this country said "The former head of Britain's MI5 (Military Intelligence), disputed claims made by former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, regarding the Iraq war. Eliza Manningham-Buller discredited Blair's George W. Bush fed assertions that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions.

 

Manningham-Buller stated during the Chilcot Inquiry this week, that as a result of the Iraq war, terrorist incidents grew exponentially, as people began to believe, "The West is attacking Muslims." "

 

 

 

They are a threat to Syria who are being attacked on multiple fronts and they are a threat to Iraq whose are struggling to coordinate a defence because their armed forces remain inept and the political system is paralysed by corruption (legacies of our invasion). But we don't live in those countries.

 

They do not threaten Pakistan because it would be 30k against 500k who have an air force, Navy and massively superior weaponry... including nuclear weapons. They would also need to go through Iran who have an equally frightening arsenal of weapons and troops.

 

Seriously, you need to stop automatically believing all the spin from politicians about them being a direct threat because they are not. They are part of a regional/culture problem that we cannot bomb away. They are far enough away for us to leave them to it and if we are not going to do that then we should drop the pretense, invade properly, take over and take the spoils of war.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 17:16 ----------

 

 

That was the theory when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The theory was tested and we now know it is wrong. Worse than that... it is proven to make things worse.

 

 

 

I don't see any difference - I wish they were all dead and that their mad religion and culture went with them. But I am not blinded by my loathing and can see that repeating a strategic response that is proven to make things worse instead of better is a bad idea.

 

I don't think I have ever come across anyone quite so inept at the thought process as you. IS are 30,000 now. They didn't exist a few years back. They grow and get money by capturing territory and forcing people to joing their armed rebelion. It is quite easy to do if you threaten to kill their family, control the water supply and the supply of food. If IS take over in Syria and Iraq they pose an immediate threat to Turkey Israel, Saudi Arabia. Jordan Iran and Lebanon. It is rather easier to tackle them when they are 30,000 strong than when they are 30 million.

 

Have you ever heard of the Gulf of Hormuz. It is on the Persian Gulf and a large part of the worlds oil has to pass through a narrow passage that can be controlled by whoever occupies the surrounding land.

Edited September 30, 2014 by linderman

[firemanbob]

 

 

 

 

 

That was the theory when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The theory was tested and we now know it is wrong. Worse than that... it is proven to make things worse.

 

 

 

I don't see any difference - I wish they were all dead and that their mad religion and culture went with them. But I am not blinded by my loathing and can see that repeating a strategic response that is proven to make things worse instead of better is a bad idea.

 

But we are not repeating the same mistake, this time we going at the request of the Iraqi government to help them keep control of their country. Its an entirely different situation.

[Anna B]

The irony is, that if Cameron had had his way, we might now be fighting alongside IS and against President Assad. A similar situation occurred with Al Queda, whom the Americans armed and trained before they turned on the West.

 

With such constantly shifting sands, is it wise to get involved at all?

[Mr Bloom]

To have Tony Blair as 'peace envoy to the middle east' must be like waving a red flag in a field full of stroppy bulls. It's an insult to them.

 

But he's doing such a good job!

[tinfoilhat]

The irony is, that if Cameron had had his way, we might now be fighting alongside IS and against President Assad. A similar situation occurred with Al Queda, whom the Americans armed and trained before they turned on the West.

 

With such constantly shifting sands, is it wise to get involved at all?

 

Like it or not we are still a major power, and American is still the superpower. Do we not have an obligation to try and stop people getting massacred? We can't be everywhere (I don't know why we weren't involved in places like Sri Lanka and darfour.) but if we don't - who does? Do we just look at it as global population control?

[johncocker]

......................................

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 14:58 ----------

 

Has anyone considered talking to these people? Is what they are doing any worse than what us and the French did in Palestine? Is forcing the creation of a Muslim state any worse than forcing the creation of a Jewish state?

 

I'm pretty sure the have killed less people than we did in Palestine, though I am posting this claim before verifying it.

 

 

 

no I don't think anyone as considered that charmer ,that is anyone who likes walking around with his head still on is shoulders.

send someone in and politely ask them to stop ?

 

That has never worked, genocidely speaking.

What did work was de-toxification. Giving another option more breathing space and nurturing that.

_______

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 15:01 ----------

 

The irony is, that if Cameron had had his way, we might now be fighting alongside IS and against President Assad. A similar situation occurred with Al Queda, whom the Americans armed and trained before they turned on the West.

 

With such constantly shifting sands, is it wise to get involved at all?

 

 

these people "isis" really are that bad. We really are morally superior to them. If they're allowed to hold on to the territory they've amassed and enlarge its boundaries they will continue to find reasons to murder large numbers of people who fail to fit their virtue template. There's nothing that gets their version of god clammily excited like a mass execution, unless it's the prospect of a terrified seventeen-year-old girl being made to submit to marital rape. It would be immoral to acquiesce in what ISIS have done by leaving them to get on with it.

[Anna B]

......................................

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 14:58 ----------

 

 

 

 

no I don't think anyone as considered that charmer ,that is anyone who likes walking around with his head still on is shoulders.

send someone in and politely ask them to stop ?

 

That has never worked, genocidely speaking.

What did work was de-toxification. Giving another option more breathing space and nurturing that.

_______

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 15:01 ----------

 

 

 

these people "isis" really are that bad. We really are morally superior to them. If they're allowed to hold on to the territory they've amassed and enlarge its boundaries they will continue to find reasons to murder large numbers of people who fail to fit their virtue template. There's nothing that gets their version of god clammily excited like a mass execution, unless it's the prospect of a terrified seventeen-year-old girl being made to submit to marital rape. It would be immoral to acquiesce in what ISIS have done by leaving them to get on with it.

 

Yes I agree with that to a large extent, but then we get involved trying to help, and the whole of the middle east turns on us and blames us for the carnage. Can bombing ever deal with a terrorist/guerilla type war, where it's thousands of innocent people that get killed?

[johncocker]

Yes I agree with that to a large extent, but then we get involved trying to help, and the whole of the middle east turns on us and blames us for the carnage. Can bombing ever deal with a terrorist/guerilla type war, where it's thousands of innocent people that get killed?

 

 

 

 

. I think given the choice between being left to their own devices to massacre half of Iraq and Syria, or being bombed into a position where they need to hide to avoid being dead, they would certainly chose the former.

These situations do not have easy answers. Just as action can have in unpredictable consequences, so too can inaction.

Given the nature of this group and the evidence of what they will do if left alone, I'd just like to see what an highly co-ordinated international military response to limit their ability to... exist would achieve

 

 

leave them alone?

Leaving them alone is also what they would undoubtedly want but What better way to get rid of Islamic extremists than have them drawn to an 'Islamic caliphate'? Rather than chasing round half the planet looking for extremists, you'll now find the majority of them exactly where the west wants them. With a large 'x' on them in the middle of nowhere.