betterman Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) All wars end with negotiation. It's always possible. Most wars end when one side diffeats the other side and leaves them with no choice but to surrender and submit. ISIS won't surrender so will have to be killed Edited December 2, 2015 by betterman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 So you are aware that it's going to go 'tits up' then. I think most people are. Except Cameron. I thought Corbyn handled Cameron's despicable ccomments very well. He was very calm and collected and did not milk it at all. He didn't demand an apology. He invited Cameron to apologise. Cameron was stupid not to apologise. I think Corbyn made some very good points. Especially about establishing which banks are supporting Daesh and making attempts to cut off their funding sources. Corbyn's got his own problem's on that score. He's upset Saudi Arabia with his suggestions that it is funding IS. Saudi Araba’s ambassador to the UK has attacked Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for suggesting the kingdom supports Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). https://www.rt.com/uk/324275-corbyn-saudi-funding-isis/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 No they don't. You don't usually get death cults declaring war on you. This war will only end with the deaths of lots of IS fighters and leaders. You've still not quite grasped the basic point of IS have you? Quite so...I found this somewhat lengthy and in depth description of 'exactly' what (so called) IS want..and it makes for some scary reading, which the likes of JC etc, seem not to be aware of. Even if it's only 'partly' right, it's still flippin' scary. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exxon Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Quite so...I found this somewhat lengthy and in depth description of 'exactly' what (so called) IS want..and it makes for some scary reading, which the likes of JC etc, seem not to be aware of. Even if it's only 'partly' right, it's still flippin' scary. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ So they want to kill all non muslims and take over the world. So compromise would be to give them Europe Africa and Asia and just allow them to kill half of us. The problem with negotiating with folk who even want to negotiate is that discussion shuts down the moment you suggest bringing war criminals to account. Morality goes out the window the moment you let it drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Most wars end when one side diffeats the other side and leaves them with no choice but to surrender and submit. ISIS won't surrender so will have to be killed ISIS is a cult within a country. We are not at war with the country. Most Syrians living here do not agree with bombing. We didn't bomb Ireland to stop terrorists and bring about a peace agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 ISIS is a cult within a country. We are not at war with the country. Most Syrians living here do not agree with bombing. We didn't bomb Ireland to stop terrorists and bring about a peace agreement. You reckon the IRA bear any resemblance at all to Daish or whatever you want to call them..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Most Syrians living here do not agree with bombing. I'd be interested in your evidence for this. Many Syrian victims of Assad’s regime want us to take action in Syria against ISIS as well as Assad's regime. Not that Diane Abbott would want us to know about Syrians supporting bombing. http://leftfootforward.org/2015/11/stop-the-war-refuse-to-listen-to-syrians-during-debate-on-syria/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The very same BBC that won't use the term Daesh because IS find it offensive. Anyone would think that they had an agenda. Is IS incorrect? Got anything to back up your claim? Preferably non Daily Mail and a credible source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Is IS incorrect? Got anything to back up your claim? Preferably non Daily Mail and a credible source. No, actually it's not...IS, infers that it's a state, which it isn't...Whatever they are called it should be preceded with So-called ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Is IS incorrect? Got anything to back up your claim? Preferably non Daily Mail and a credible source. Calling them IS validates 2 claims which we do not wish to validate. 1. They're a state. 2. They represent Islam. Daesh is an arabic word which is insulting, and a homophone for another arabic word which is insulting. It's also an acronym for the organisation in Arabic. It's the name the locals use for IS (when they can't hear them) and it's the name the friendlies in and around IS territory have asked us to use. So, no: IS is not incorrect. It's just not the best term for a variety of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now