Shootings and explosions in Paris

[Jonny5]

That said, maybe ISIS are political terrorists. Every Muslim I've discussed them with does not identify with their brand of Islam. What's left after that.

Political terrorists want something tangible, either land or self rule. Religious terrorists want land as well but also have a predilection to kill any non-believers they come into contact with.

 

There is a line between the two but its not that thin!

[Harrystottle]

Don't misunderstand. I believe there is a need for military intervention but I also believe there is a danger that we will cause untold future problems by not planning it properly.

 

This x 100.

 

We have bombed Iraq, bombed Libya. Look at them now. Libya has two governments, fgs! One "western backed" the other Islamist. Iraq has much of it's territory ruled by ISIS.

 

Either we are slinging bombs about with gay abandon and no thoughts of the future, or western policy in the middle east is simply to deliberately smash countries knowing that they will become lawless - and how I wish some reporter would ask Obama or Cameron or Hollande which one it is.

[sgtkate]

This is a quote from Adam Hills. Now obviously I can't vouch for what he was told by officials at the dinner, but it seems fairly likely to be true given that the same officials have said the same thing multiple times in the press, in parliament, in interviews. We even have the Prevent program designed to help do exactly this. Anyway, over to Adam:

 

I’ve been called a lot of things in the past few days, many of them deserved. “Leftie ******”. “Islam apologist”. “Unfunny ****.” I’ve also been called a “traitor” and even worse, “un-Australian.”

 

Here’s why I don’t think those last two apply.

 

Earlier this year I was invited to an Australia Day drinks function at the Australian High Commission in London. As the beer flowed and the lamingtons were passed around I found myself in deep conversation with a variety of governmental experts on The Middle East and in particular, Syria.

 

As this was a few weeks after the Charlie Hebdo attacks I took the opportunity to find out all I could about this so-called Islamic State group.

 

I learned a lot of things that night, but the one that stood out was this: Islamic State need recruits and they have two steps to get them.

 

1) Create an uprising against Muslims in the West by carrying out attacks in the name of Allah.

2) Then when young Muslims feel rejected by Western society, make ISIS look like a cool alternative.

 

Please remember, this was all expressed to me by officials of both the Australian and British Governments.

 

It seemed to me that a good way of combatting this would be 1) be nice to non-ISIS related Muslims (ie the vast majority of Muslims) and 2) make ISIS look like idiots.

 

I ran this past my friends at the High Commission, who agreed that this was indeed a good thing to do.

 

Now there aren’t a lot of things a one-legged comedian can do to combat a bunch of pricks like ISIS, but when experts in the field from your own government tell you what you can do – you damn well do it.

 

The next week on the show I host - “The Last Leg” - we ran an on-air competition to rename ISIS. The winner was a lady who tweeted “Cyst-ISIS: cos they’re irritating *****”. From that day forth we only ever referred to them as Cystisis.

 

We then ran a weekly segment called “The G-Hadi Spot” in which we attempted to ridicule them whenever we could.

 

We played Cystisis training videos with the Benny Hill music over the top. We celebrated the young girls who defrauded them out of thousands of dollars. We made our own ads for the caliphate, in which we clearly mocked them.

 

We also increased security at the studios. A live TV show would be the perfect target for these arseholes, and to this day my Mum still pleads with me not to provoke them each week.

 

In amongst all this, I did my best to remind our viewers that Cystisis are interpreting the Islamic faith in a highly extreme, and self-serving way, and that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims – around 99.997 per cent – disapprove of them.

 

I did all this, not because I am a hippy dippy idealist who believes that fairy wings and puppy dog farts can change the world. I did this because I was advised by representatives of my government who are way smarter than I am, that it was the right thing to do.

 

I might be an unfunny leftie ******, but I’m no traitor.

 

And the thing is – you can do it too. There are countless memes going around at the moment decrying Islam; there are people saying their businesses are closed to Muslims; there are jokes going around making Muslims the punchline.

 

All you have to do is use the word ISIS instead of Islam. Mock the arseholes who are really causing the damage. Cos they hate that. Call them Cystisis. Say your business is closed to any Cystisis member who wants your services. Make a meme about how deluded Cystisis are.

 

It’s what your government wants you to do.

 

And what could be more Australian than taking the **** out of those who deserve it, while giving a fair go to those who need it?

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 10:54 ----------

 

just been talking about this today at work with the woman suicide bomber who blew her self up this morning. what would happen if the police had shot her and was still alive to make sure they don't get injured themselves do they just shoot her again to make sure shes dead or do they send in the remote control bomb disposal thingy and blow her up ?

 

That's a good point...Shoot her hands off?

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 10:57 ----------

 

So does anyone actually believe we can sit round a table with IS and have meaningful discussions with them that will bring an end to IS doing what they do.

 

No, but we can sit around a table with the next generation before they join ISIS and convince them not to. And a good part of that will be not adding civilian casualties to the list of things to hate the West for. As Mafya said, if we carry out incredibly accurate strikes with only ISIS leaders killed and no collateral, even if it's costs us more short term to do it, then I'd be totally supportive. ISIS members now are a lost cause and we cannot hope to rehabilitate them, so our focus must be on stopping them getting more soldiers, and we do that with talking and not bombs.

 

Double headed strategy needed. Precise, clean military action against the current leaders, and discussion, talks and hugs with the potential next generation.

 

Sound like a reasonable plan?

[Eric Arthur]

Bigots tend not to listen and retaliate with terms such as "Muslimy"

 

If you think that my use of "muslimy" makes me out to be a bigot you can't have listened very hard in reading comprehension class at primary school. Go and read it again and wipe the spittle from your mouth while you're at it.

 

And yes, I'm patronising you with an S, not a Z, since you obviously didn't listen in spelling class either.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 11:16 ----------

 

The Taliban were publicly stoning and beheading people. Five years later they were sat round the negotiating table.

Five years later the Taliban were sat round the negotiating table AND publicly stoning and beheading people.

 

The trouble is that this year's peace talks were called off but at least the Taliban have managed to keep up the public stoning and beheadings. For balance, ISIL are also stoning and beheading Taliban as well as civilians.

 

I do agree that it would always be best not to to have Western military intervention but they aren't making it easy out there. It's hard to see what realistic options there are left unless we are to stand by and let the religious zealots increase their power and kill millions while they move closer to our door.

 

I'm left wondering if there are many or any UK nationals (i.e. muslims) who are making the same journey as their brethren to fight against ISIL, or is it a case of it's nothing to do with us.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Eric Arthur

[tinfoilhat]

This is a quote from Adam Hills. Now obviously I can't vouch for what he was told by officials at the dinner, but it seems fairly likely to be true given that the same officials have said the same thing multiple times in the press, in parliament, in interviews. We even have the Prevent program designed to help do exactly this. Anyway, over to Adam:

 

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 10:54 ----------

 

 

That's a good point...Shoot her hands off?

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 10:57 ----------

 

 

No, but we can sit around a table with the next generation before they join ISIS and convince them not to. And a good part of that will be not adding civilian casualties to the list of things to hate the West for. As Mafya said, if we carry out incredibly accurate strikes with only ISIS leaders killed and no collateral, even if it's costs us more short term to do it, then I'd be totally supportive. ISIS members now are a lost cause and we cannot hope to rehabilitate them, so our focus must be on stopping them getting more soldiers, and we do that with talking and not bombs.

 

Double headed strategy needed. Precise, clean military action against the current leaders, and discussion, talks and hugs with the potential next generation.

 

Sound like a reasonable plan?

 

So no air strikes then? They don't as rule separate themselves away from civilians most of the time to the best of my knowledge. If your idea became policy it would be even worse - it wouldn't be hard to stick a bus full of civilians in every convoy making it untouchable.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 11:35 ----------

 

Against the wishes of the clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

Heard of democracy?

 

Of course, and without derailing the read it was how to hypothetically stop the IRA. That was always their demand, a united Ireland.

[L00b]

I'm left wondering if there are many or any UK nationals (i.e. muslims) who are making the same journey as their brethren to fight against ISIL, or is it a case of it's nothing to do with us.

There are a few Brits I've heard of over the months through media, both muslims and non-muslims. I distinctly recall reading about an Iraqi from Wakefield Keighley going over and fighting not so long ago.

 

Same with French muslims and (mostly-) non-muslims fighting alongside the Peshmerga under the Assyrian French Legion or the Task Force Lafayette banners. Many Dutch, Danes and US non-muslims as well.

 

Mix of ex-forces and not and, without exception (that I'm aware of), all self-financing volunteers.

 

We talk the talk. They do the walking

Edited November 19, 2015 by L00b
links and correction of place

[Guest]

We didn't bomb the 7/7 bombers....they still blew up the underground

 

Didn't bomb them literally but the whole issue revolved around (and still does) foreign policy.

 

If you want to blame someone, blame the foreign policy in the ME.

 

It's idiotic to think that you can bomb the hell out of people and expect nothing in return.

 

It does not justify the killing of innocent people- but the way these groups see it, is that you kill ours, so we will kill yours.

 

There must be countless people whose lives have been destroyed due to the foreign policy upheld in these countries. If a drone lands in an area and wipes out someones family- it doesn't take a lot to give motivation for some to join with nutters like ISIS.

 

I recall a video from one of the 7/7 bombers mentioning the foreign policy...unfortunately it still goes on deaf ears.

[sgtkate]

So no air strikes then? They don't as rule separate themselves away from civilians most of the time to the best of my knowledge. If your idea became policy it would be even worse - it wouldn't be hard to stick a bus full of civilians in every convoy making it untouchable

 

I think we would be better off with soldiers on the ground if I'm honest. They can make a better judgement call than someone watching via a video. They can try to win over hearts and minds of the local people as they go, they can use snipers to take out specific targets.

 

To win we have to make sacrifices, and I'd never be happy with my ex-colleagues dying in Syria, but I honestly don't think we have much choice to avoid killing civilians and fueling ISIS's argument.

 

For those who are likely to say that it's easy for me to say as I wouldn't be going, I am ex-forces, so I still have many friends who fight. Technically I'd be sending my friends to Syria and you know what a lot of them agree with me and would be far happier going to fight a war that really means something and would save lives of many, many people around the world, than fighting a war over oil.

[tinfoilhat]

Didn't bomb them literally but the whole issue revolved around (and still does) foreign policy.

 

If you want to blame someone, blame the foreign policy in the ME.

 

It's idiotic to think that you can bomb the hell out of people and expect nothing in return.

 

It does not justify the killing of innocent people- but the way these groups see it, is that you kill ours, so we will kill yours.

 

There must be countless people whose lives have been destroyed due to the foreign policy upheld in these countries. If a drone lands in an area and wipes out someones family- it doesn't take a lot to give motivation for some to join with nutters like ISIS.

 

I recall a video from one of the 7/7 bombers mentioning the foreign policy...unfortunately it still goes on deaf ears.

 

7/7 is a weird one. It's alright then banging on about UK foreign policy in the Middle East but they were british by birth FFS. Still can't get my head around that. If you hate this country so much sod off elsewhere.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 12:29 ----------

 

I think we would be better off with soldiers on the ground if I'm honest. They can make a better judgement call than someone watching via a video. They can try to win over hearts and minds of the local people as they go, they can use snipers to take out specific targets.

 

To win we have to make sacrifices, and I'd never be happy with my ex-colleagues dying in Syria, but I honestly don't think we have much choice to avoid killing civilians and fueling ISIS's argument.

 

For those who are likely to say that it's easy for me to say as I wouldn't be going, I am ex-forces, so I still have many friends who fight. Technically I'd be sending my friends to Syria and you know what a lot of them agree with me and would be far happier going to fight a war that really means something and would save lives of many, many people around the world, than fighting a war over oil.

 

Would you be happy for them to Syria using the same ludicrous rules of engagement as they had to work with in Afghanistan because I absolutely wouldnt.

[sgtkate]

7/7 is a weird one. It's alright then banging on about UK foreign policy in the Middle East but they were british by birth FFS. Still can't get my head around that. If you hate this country so much sod off elsewhere.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 12:29 ----------

 

 

Would you be happy for them to Syria using the same ludicrous rules of engagement as they had to work with in Afghanistan because I absolutely wouldnt.

 

Too open a question for me I'm afraid, can you be more specific? We need to define the 'enemy' carefully. We have to win the propaganda war too and that will not happen by a too wide definition of any enemy allowing for civilian casualties. I'd suggest all soldiers have head cams so we can use the footage to show people we are there to help and not to kill them (also allows us to call ******** on when ISIS inevitably kill civilians and try to blame us). Send soldiers who understand there is more to this than just shooting, make sure they are fully briefed and trained in dealing with civilians who are scared and are not a threat. Do short, well defined missions, isolate a target, get in there and kill him and get out again. Do not have soldiers staying/living on the ground in high risk zones. Do not have a huge military presence that's a target for suicide bombers.

 

That's for starters. This isn't easy, but we have the skills in the SAS and paras to carry out these type of operations., and almost certainly in other specialised infantry divisions too.