Business Owner arrested for No Muslims sign

[Cyclone]

If that is the case, is the UK acting illegally against ISIS?

 

Is the UK a business that has refused to serve them on the basis of religion?

[retep]

I do believe that ISIS is a terrorist organisation and not a religion.

 

I believe the same, does that make us a religion?

[L00b]

There's people saying stuff on here that isn't that much different really. Last night people were advocating carpet bombing civilian areas in ISIS held territory.

Only Raqqa so far as I'm concerned (since you clearly refer to my post of yesterday in the above), as the CCC nexus of IS and therefore a legitimate military target, if you don't mind. To begin and end with, unless IS relocates what's left of their CCC, then on and on until there is no CCC left such that they cannot coordinate to mount offensives anymore and smaller, isolated groups that remain are (relatively ) easy to pick off and clean up.

 

With an ideologically-motivated enemy, if you're not fighting to win (and that means using all of your military might, because whoever was dumb enough to think a fight should be fair), you're just putting on for show and might as well not bother. Just burn piles of taxpayers' cash instead, same effect. Afghan and Iraq stand to testimony of the fact after over a decade.

 

When Britain was last at war in a major way, with an enemy that meant its population direct harm and visited that harm with bombings, it was eventually carpet-bombing civilian (industry) areas in Nazi-held territory daily and nightly. So eventually did the US, in Germany and Japan.

 

War is still hell in the 21st century

Edited November 16, 2015 by L00b

[JFKvsNixon]

I believe the same, does that make us a religion?

 

I think that we my differ when it comes to how a religion is defined.

[natjack]

I'd rather they were talking about this openly than in their mosques.

 

The comments are interesting.

it was hardly an open meeting though? In fact if not for the infiltrator, who would even have known about it?

 

There's segregated meetings like this going on here too, no doubt. Probably at the PMC where they seem to have more government officials and ministers from Pakistan addressing them than from Europe.

[JFKvsNixon]

Only Raqqa so far as I'm concerned (since you clearly refer to my post of yesterday in the above), as the CCC nexus of IS and therefore a legitimate military target, if you don't mind. To begin and end with, unless IS relocates their CCC, then on and on until there is no CCC left.

 

When Britain was last at war in a major way, with an enemy that meant its population direct harm and visited that harm with bombings, it was eventually carpet-bombing civilian (industry) areas in Nazi-held territory daily and nightly. So eventually did the US, in Germany and Japan.

 

With an ideologically-motivated enemy, if you're not fighting to win, you're just putting on for show and might as well not bother. Just burn piles of taxpayers' cash instead, same effect. Afghan and Iraq stand to testimony of the fact after over a decade.

 

War is still hell in the 21st century

 

In the media age no such war can be fought by a liberal democracy, who's population soon lose the stomach to continue the slaughter. America found this out, to their cost in Vietnam.

[bethanywalke]

Its her business she serve who she likes but in todays climate shes was a silly sausage going about it the way she did.

 

Blaming all Muslims for the terrorist acts that ISIS are doing is like blaming all Germans for Hitler and all "Christians" for the KKK. You can't tar a religion with the same brush as those who radicalise it.

[I1L2T3]

Only Raqqa so far as I'm concerned (since you clearly refer to my post of yesterday in the above), as the CCC nexus of IS and therefore a legitimate military target, if you don't mind. To begin and end with, unless IS relocates what's left of their CCC, then on and on until there is no CCC left such that they cannot coordinate to mount offensives anymore and smaller, isolated groups that remain are (relatively ) easy to pick off and clean up.

 

With an ideologically-motivated enemy, if you're not fighting to win (and that means using all of your military might, because whoever was dumb enough to think a fight should be fair), you're just putting on for show and might as well not bother. Just burn piles of taxpayers' cash instead, same effect. Afghan and Iraq stand to testimony of the fact after over a decade.

 

When Britain was last at war in a major way, with an enemy that meant its population direct harm and visited that harm with bombings, it was eventually carpet-bombing civilian (industry) areas in Nazi-held territory daily and nightly. So eventually did the US, in Germany and Japan.

 

War is still hell in the 21st century

 

Actually I wasn't referring specifically to any post. I can understand the motivation for wanting to strike back immediately and strongly but the risk is every civilian casualty just stokes things up even more.

 

The required response is obvious: containment.

 

The problem with that is containment from the south and west of the ISIS territory has Assad supported by Putin as the best option. Not really acceptable to the West.

 

Containment from the North has the Kurds as the best option. Strengthening them is not acceptable to Turkey.

 

Containment from the east means working with Iraq.

 

Can we work with all these disparate groups to contain ISIS? Western boots on the ground is not an option this time - the theatre of operation is vast, disjointed and geographically broken up.

[Jonny5]

In the media age no such war can be fought by a liberal democracy, who's population soon lose the stomach to continue the slaughter. America found this out, to their cost in Vietnam.

This is still true at the moment. It's why the West is still so hands off in Syria, which in turn has allowed ISIS to become so emboldened.

 

I think eventually this will tip and I think that tipping point is coming, because dreadfully I think that ISIS will eventually target the softest target of all.

[Branyy]

Blaming all Muslims for the terrorist acts that ISIS are doing is like blaming all Germans for Hitler and all "Christians" for the KKK. You can't tar a religion with the same brush as those who radicalise it.

 

I totally agree with the first part. But isn't the number of radicals directly determined by the ideology itself?