I guess that depends which is deemed to be the lesser evil. The people I.S. followers are killing constantly around the world or the number of casualties it would take to remove their base.
It's not "casualties" it's killing I know you probably didn't mean it but I don't like it when people use words to minimize the action itself. What you are talking about is us deliberately killing innocent people for a greater good. I can understand the argument but it makes me really uncomfortable when anyone feels they have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Is there a set number of civilian deaths you're willing to accept as being necessary to attack Raqqa or a percentage or just however many it takes to destroy that symbol of ISIS power?
I'm not actually saying that what you're talking about is wrong I do understand the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" argument and can think of a few situations where it may be justified I just wanted to know where your personal red line is and what you would and wouldn't be happy with happening.
But to make an example it really needs to be obliterated (think what
Bomber Command did to Dresden). I don't think we're up to that sort of
violence any more - it would need carpet bombing and 1000s of bombers.
Osama bin Laden must be laughing his head off, when he can take time away from his virgins, that is.
I don't think he could have imagined in his wildest dreams that taking down the Twin Towers would get him such a result.
The west took the bait and started two wars which have done exactly what he would have wanted them to do, that is, to act as a recruiting sergeant for the larger force which is now causing an escalation in conflict between the Islamic world and the west.
Afghanistan and Iraq failed to achieve their military objectives, although some may try to paint a positive picture on it. There is a simple maxim when engaging in an insurgency war: If they win, we lose. If we don't win, we lose. There were no WMD, we failed to stabilise either country in the way our governments said we would, and we didn't defeat terrorism. No win = we lost.
Our freedoms and liberties are being systematically taken away from us in the name of "fighting terror", if people are deterred from going abroad on holiday then it will make us prisoners in our own land, too frightened to go anywhere, and in order to fight the conflicts that those who don't think beyond the barrel of a gun want, we will have to commit vast financial, manpower and materiel resources which will degrade our economies for generations to come.
It is a very easy and trite thing to talk about "Boots on the ground." It's a snappy little soundbite and it trips off the tongue easily, but as one of my teachers said back in September 2001. It's one thing to send the troops in, it's another thing entirely to get them out. And far too many come home in body bags for our public's or politicians liking.
When we talk of "Boots on the ground" remember, there are human beings inside those boots and they don't want to be martyrs, nor do we want them to be. Unlike ISIS fighters, they aren't driven by religious fervour, they don't believe there will be a reward in paradise if they "die gloriously" in combat and as much as they are prepared to take the severe and extreme risks that come with combat, I do not believe that they are suicidal.
We need to pursue every possible avenue of settlement of this crisis, in my opinion, and if that means recognising the leadership of this organisation, as odious as it is, and engaging in dialogue with them then we should do so. They must have goals and targets. They must have some idea of an end game. Let's find out what it is..... and please let's not have any emotive runaway Daily Mail-esque "They want to rule the world for Islam and wipe us all out....... we're all doooooomed..!!" Even the most fanatical Jihadist would never consider that a realistic possibility.
No, there must be some room for negotiation. Some way of applying the brakes in this situation that doesn't involve escalating military action.
Osama bin Laden must be laughing his head off, when he can take time away from his virgins, that is.
I don't think he could have imagined in his wildest dreams that taking down the Twin Towers would get him such a result.
The west took the bait and started two wars which have done exactly what he would have wanted them to do, that is, to act as a recruiting sergeant for the larger force which is now causing an escalation in conflict between the Islamic world and the west.
Afghanistan and Iraq failed to achieve their military objectives, although some may try to paint a positive picture on it. There is a simple maxim when engaging in an insurgency war: If they win, we lose. If we don't win, we lose. There were no WMD, we failed to stabilise either country in the way our governments said we would, and we didn't defeat terrorism. No win = we lost.
Our freedoms and liberties are being systematically taken away from us in the name of "fighting terror", if people are deterred from going abroad on holiday then it will make us prisoners in our own land, too frightened to go anywhere, and in order to fight the conflicts that those who don't think beyond the barrel of a gun want, we will have to commit vast financial, manpower and materiel resources which will degrade our economies for generations to come.
It is a very easy and trite thing to talk about "Boots on the ground." It's a snappy little soundbite and it trips off the tongue easily, but as one of my teachers said back in September 2001. It's one thing to send the troops in, it's another thing entirely to get them out. And far too many come home in body bags for our public's or politicians liking.
When we talk of "Boots on the ground" remember, there are human beings inside those boots and they don't want to be martyrs, nor do we want them to be. Unlike ISIS fighters, they aren't driven by religious fervour, they don't believe there will be a reward in paradise if they "die gloriously" in combat and as much as they are prepared to take the severe and extreme risks that come with combat, I do not believe that they are suicidal.
We need to pursue every possible avenue of settlement of this crisis, in my opinion, and if that means recognising the leadership of this organisation, as odious as it is, and engaging in dialogue with them then we should do so. They must have goals and targets. They must have some idea of an end game. Let's find out what it is..... and please let's not have any emotive runaway Daily Mail-esque "They want to rule the world for Islam and wipe us all out....... we're all doooooomed..!!" Even the most fanatical Jihadist would never consider that a realistic possibility.
No, there must be some room for negotiation. Some way to put the brakes on that doesn't involve escalating military action.
Osama bin Laden must be laughing his head off, when he can take time away from his virgins, that is.
I don't think he could have imagined in his wildest dreams that taking down the Twin Towers would get him such a result.
The west took the bait and started two wars which have done exactly what he would have wanted them to do, that is, to act as a recruiting sergeant for the larger force which is now causing an escalation in conflict between the Islamic world and the west.
Afghanistan and Iraq failed to achieve their military objectives, although some may try to paint a positive picture on it. There is a simple maxim when engaging in an insurgency war: If they win, we lose. If we don't win, we lose. There were no WMD, we failed to stabilise either country in the way our governments said we would, and we didn't defeat terrorism. No win = we lost.
Our freedoms and liberties are being systematically taken away from us in the name of "fighting terror", if people are deterred from going abroad on holiday then it will make us prisoners in our own land, too frightened to go anywhere, and in order to fight the conflicts that those who don't think beyond the barrel of a gun want, we will have to commit vast financial, manpower and materiel resources which will degrade our economies for generations to come.
It is a very easy and trite thing to talk about "Boots on the ground." It's a snappy little soundbite and it trips off the tongue easily, but as one of my teachers said back in September 2001. It's one thing to send the troops in, it's another thing entirely to get them out. And far too many come home in body bags for our public's or politicians liking.
When we talk of "Boots on the ground" remember, there are human beings inside those boots and they don't want to be martyrs, nor do we want them to be. Unlike ISIS fighters, they aren't driven by religious fervour, they don't believe there will be a reward in paradise if they "die gloriously" in combat and as much as they are prepared to take the severe and extreme risks that come with combat, I do not believe that they are suicidal.
We need to pursue every possible avenue of settlement of this crisis, in my opinion, and if that means recognising the leadership of this organisation, as odious as it is, and engaging in dialogue with them then we should do so. They must have goals and targets. They must have some idea of an end game. Let's find out what it is..... and please let's not have any emotive runaway Daily Mail-esque "They want to rule the world for Islam and wipe us all out....... we're all doooooomed..!!" Even the most fanatical Jihadist would never consider that a realistic possibility.
No, there must be some room for negotiation. Some way of applying the brakes in this situation that doesn't involve escalating military action.
Shouldn't we be calling for that instead..?
The end game might very well be to provoke armageddon etc.
Then judgement day comes - which is the aim.
The end game might very well be to provoke armageddon etc.
Then judgement day comes - which is the aim.
I did ask for no Daily Mail-esque silliness.
But, if you are serious about that comment, please clarify just exactly how a bunch of insurgents, with nothing remotely resembling WMD, much less nuclear weapons would be able to achieve "armageddon" and precisely what they would hope to achieve by that.
Osama bin Laden must be laughing his head off, when he can take time away from his virgins, that is.
I don't think he could have imagined in his wildest dreams that taking down the Twin Towers would get him such a result.
The west took the bait and started two wars which have done exactly what he would have wanted them to do, that is, to act as a recruiting sergeant for the larger force which is now causing an escalation in conflict between the Islamic world and the west.
Afghanistan and Iraq failed to achieve their military objectives, although some may try to paint a positive picture on it. There is a simple maxim when engaging in an insurgency war: If they win, we lose. If we don't win, we lose. There were no WMD, we failed to stabilise either country in the way our governments said we would, and we didn't defeat terrorism. No win = we lost.
Our freedoms and liberties are being systematically taken away from us in the name of "fighting terror", if people are deterred from going abroad on holiday then it will make us prisoners in our own land, too frightened to go anywhere, and in order to fight the conflicts that those who don't think beyond the barrel of a gun want, we will have to commit vast financial, manpower and materiel resources which will degrade our economies for generations to come.
It is a very easy and trite thing to talk about "Boots on the ground." It's a snappy little soundbite and it trips off the tongue easily, but as one of my teachers said back in September 2001. It's one thing to send the troops in, it's another thing entirely to get them out. And far too many come home in body bags for our public's or politicians liking.
When we talk of "Boots on the ground" remember, there are human beings inside those boots and they don't want to be martyrs, nor do we want them to be. Unlike ISIS fighters, they aren't driven by religious fervour, they don't believe there will be a reward in paradise if they "die gloriously" in combat and as much as they are prepared to take the severe and extreme risks that come with combat, I do not believe that they are suicidal.
We need to pursue every possible avenue of settlement of this crisis, in my opinion, and if that means recognising the leadership of this organisation, as odious as it is, and engaging in dialogue with them then we should do so. They must have goals and targets. They must have some idea of an end game. Let's find out what it is..... and please let's not have any emotive runaway Daily Mail-esque "They want to rule the world for Islam and wipe us all out....... we're all doooooomed..!!" Even the most fanatical Jihadist would never consider that a realistic possibility.
No, there must be some room for negotiation. Some way of applying the brakes in this situation that doesn't involve escalating military action.
Shouldn't we be calling for that instead..?
lol
What do you think we should do?
Integrate more? Spend more tax money on inclusive organisations headed up by ex muslim terrorists?
And double those efforts each time there is another atrocity?
Not a chance, we should leave it those states out there to deal with and do it their way.. cut them off and wipe them out completely - no prisoners at all, it's the only language IS know.
Integrate more? Spend more tax money on inclusive organisations headed up by ex muslim terrorists?
And double those efforts each time there is another atrocity?
Now you are being silly. I said none of those things. Please read my post (the one you linked to) again. I made it quite clear what I think.
I think that a political solution should be sought.
Politics is the art of achieving the possible. If a resolution to this situation is politically possible, then it should be sought.
I do so hope you won't try putting any more words that I never said in my mouth. I'm quite capable of making my own case thank you very much. All you need to do is either read it and respond according to what I actually say, or leave it alone.
But, if you are serious about that comment, please clarify just exactly how a bunch of insurgents, with nothing remotely resembling WMD, much less nuclear weapons would be able to achieve "armageddon" and precisely what they would hope to achieve by that.
Come on now, please try to be sensible.
The BBC
IS's magazine is called Dabiq - and that is the location of Armageddon.
It's not "casualties" it's killing I know you probably didn't mean it but I don't like it when people use words to minimize the action itself. What you are talking about is us deliberately killing innocent people for a greater good. I can understand the argument but it makes me really uncomfortable when anyone feels they have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Is there a set number of civilian deaths you're willing to accept as being necessary to attack Raqqa or a percentage or just however many it takes to destroy that symbol of ISIS power?
No i wasn't. What i said was that strikes are normally planned. I don't know your opinion of our government or those of our allies but as far as i'm aware no government the UK supports agrees with deliberately killing innocent people. It is ofcourse inevitable but that's far from going in with that intention.
I'm not actually saying that what you're talking about is wrong I do understand the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" argument and can think of a few situations where it may be justified I just wanted to know where your personal red line is and what you would and wouldn't be happy with happening.
I'm not happy about any of it. The fact though is that its not going to be beaten politically and it would be a lot harder to persuade people to join a "state" that wasn't actually based anywhere.
We need to pursue every possible avenue of settlement of this crisis, in my opinion, and if that means recognising the leadership of this organisation, as odious as it is, and engaging in dialogue with them then we should do so. They must have goals and targets. They must have some idea of an end game. Let's find out what it is..... and please let's not have any emotive runaway Daily Mail-esque "They want to rule the world for Islam and wipe us all out....... we're all doooooomed..!!" Even the most fanatical Jihadist would never consider that a realistic possibility.
No, there must be some room for negotiation. Some way of applying the brakes in this situation that doesn't involve escalating military action.
Shouldn't we be calling for that instead..?
That's the problem though, isn't it ? They don't appear to have any ultimate goals, other than forcing their own brand of Islam (Wahhabism) on the world.
If we believe Islamic State’s countless propaganda videos and encyclicals, we can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle. That it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of the apocalypse. Any sort of dialogue with people of that mind-set seems practically impossible.
Of course, ISIS does rely heavily on financial support from Saudi Arabia. But the ruling Saud family need the support of the hard-line Wahhabists to survive. It doesn't look as if the west has any intention of tackling Saudi Arabia any time soon, so I don't know what the answer is.
The Saudi's could stop propagating their Wahhabi belief throughout the Middle East and Africa.
Fat chance of that happening. We're in bed with them, just like the US is.
Stopping ISIS doesn't halt the civil war in Somalia which due to fundamentalists wanting to everyone to live under Sharia and persecuting the Sufi's.
If you want to look at conflicts, any conflicts, you need to get to the root of the problem. We did that with the IRA and there's relative peace in NI.
That's the problem though, isn't it ? They don't appear to have any ultimate goals, other than forcing their own brand of Islam (Wahhabism) on the world.
If we believe Islamic State’s countless propaganda videos and encyclicals, we can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle. That it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of the apocalypse. Any sort of dialogue with people of that mind-set seems practically impossible.
Of course, ISIS does rely heavily on financial support from Saudi Arabia. But the ruling Saud family need the support of the hard-line Wahhabists to survive. It doesn't look as if the west has any intention of tackling Saudi Arabia any time soon, so I don't know what the answer is.
Thank you for that very cogent and well put argument.
Yes, I quite agree with you that ISIS' political aims are unclear and the political thinking behind their actions does seem haphazard. Whatever constitutes their leadership does not appear to have properly thought out their aims and objectives, but that does not mean that they don't have any.
The problem is, we don't know what they are.
Now, I'm no politician, much less any sort of expert on global affairs or military strategy, but it is inconceivable that their only aim is to wage endless war until everybody on the face of the planet is wiped out. That is the ultimate lose / lose scenario. Even the Saudis wouldn't go for that.
The west does have influence with the Saudi regime, we just choose never to exercise it for a multitude of reasons. Is it not time that we started to prioritise our relations with this regime and decide what really is the most pressing issue here..??
Also, do you not think that if a dialogue was attempted with ISIS, would it not be possible that it might start a process within their ranks where it might be possible for a leader to emerge with more earthly goals...?
These things must be tried, I'm quite convinced of that. If our only response is a military one, then ISIS have already won. They will only continue to draw more and more recruits to their cause. Surely Iraq and Afghanistan taught us something... didn't it..?
Comments
Thank you. Wrong thread?
We did that before and what was achieved? - Try absolutely nothing. Just more civilians and soldiers killed.
Oops, so oi is..
What was achieved - better skilled terrorists, the rise of Isis
I know. I can use a search engine too.
It's not "casualties" it's killing I know you probably didn't mean it but I don't like it when people use words to minimize the action itself. What you are talking about is us deliberately killing innocent people for a greater good. I can understand the argument but it makes me really uncomfortable when anyone feels they have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Is there a set number of civilian deaths you're willing to accept as being necessary to attack Raqqa or a percentage or just however many it takes to destroy that symbol of ISIS power?
I'm not actually saying that what you're talking about is wrong I do understand the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" argument and can think of a few situations where it may be justified I just wanted to know where your personal red line is and what you would and wouldn't be happy with happening.
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8852217/isis-tal-abyad-raqqa
But to make an example it really needs to be obliterated (think what
Bomber Command did to Dresden). I don't think we're up to that sort of
violence any more - it would need carpet bombing and 1000s of bombers.
I don't think he could have imagined in his wildest dreams that taking down the Twin Towers would get him such a result.
The west took the bait and started two wars which have done exactly what he would have wanted them to do, that is, to act as a recruiting sergeant for the larger force which is now causing an escalation in conflict between the Islamic world and the west.
Afghanistan and Iraq failed to achieve their military objectives, although some may try to paint a positive picture on it. There is a simple maxim when engaging in an insurgency war: If they win, we lose. If we don't win, we lose. There were no WMD, we failed to stabilise either country in the way our governments said we would, and we didn't defeat terrorism. No win = we lost.
Our freedoms and liberties are being systematically taken away from us in the name of "fighting terror", if people are deterred from going abroad on holiday then it will make us prisoners in our own land, too frightened to go anywhere, and in order to fight the conflicts that those who don't think beyond the barrel of a gun want, we will have to commit vast financial, manpower and materiel resources which will degrade our economies for generations to come.
It is a very easy and trite thing to talk about "Boots on the ground." It's a snappy little soundbite and it trips off the tongue easily, but as one of my teachers said back in September 2001. It's one thing to send the troops in, it's another thing entirely to get them out. And far too many come home in body bags for our public's or politicians liking.
When we talk of "Boots on the ground" remember, there are human beings inside those boots and they don't want to be martyrs, nor do we want them to be. Unlike ISIS fighters, they aren't driven by religious fervour, they don't believe there will be a reward in paradise if they "die gloriously" in combat and as much as they are prepared to take the severe and extreme risks that come with combat, I do not believe that they are suicidal.
We need to pursue every possible avenue of settlement of this crisis, in my opinion, and if that means recognising the leadership of this organisation, as odious as it is, and engaging in dialogue with them then we should do so. They must have goals and targets. They must have some idea of an end game. Let's find out what it is..... and please let's not have any emotive runaway Daily Mail-esque "They want to rule the world for Islam and wipe us all out....... we're all doooooomed..!!" Even the most fanatical Jihadist would never consider that a realistic possibility.
No, there must be some room for negotiation. Some way of applying the brakes in this situation that doesn't involve escalating military action.
Shouldn't we be calling for that instead..?
The end game might very well be to provoke armageddon etc.
Then judgement day comes - which is the aim.
I did ask for no Daily Mail-esque silliness.
But, if you are serious about that comment, please clarify just exactly how a bunch of insurgents, with nothing remotely resembling WMD, much less nuclear weapons would be able to achieve "armageddon" and precisely what they would hope to achieve by that.
Come on now, please try to be sensible.
lol
What do you think we should do?
Integrate more? Spend more tax money on inclusive organisations headed up by ex muslim terrorists?
And double those efforts each time there is another atrocity?
Not a chance, we should leave it those states out there to deal with and do it their way.. cut them off and wipe them out completely - no prisoners at all, it's the only language IS know.
Now you are being silly. I said none of those things. Please read my post (the one you linked to) again. I made it quite clear what I think.
I think that a political solution should be sought.
Politics is the art of achieving the possible. If a resolution to this situation is politically possible, then it should be sought.
I do so hope you won't try putting any more words that I never said in my mouth. I'm quite capable of making my own case thank you very much. All you need to do is either read it and respond according to what I actually say, or leave it alone.
The BBC
IS's magazine is called Dabiq - and that is the location of Armageddon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30083303
Hmmmm..... I think they key word in the BBC article is "propaganda".
Propaganda: noun
prɒpəˈɡandə/
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
This sort of rabble-rousing is intended for gullible, impressionable muslims who they want to motivate to join their cause.
Perhaps it's also aimed at gullible, impressionable westerners too to frighten them.
Very effective, this propaganda stuff, isn't it..?
No i wasn't. What i said was that strikes are normally planned. I don't know your opinion of our government or those of our allies but as far as i'm aware no government the UK supports agrees with deliberately killing innocent people. It is ofcourse inevitable but that's far from going in with that intention.
I'm not happy about any of it. The fact though is that its not going to be beaten politically and it would be a lot harder to persuade people to join a "state" that wasn't actually based anywhere.
That's the problem though, isn't it ? They don't appear to have any ultimate goals, other than forcing their own brand of Islam (Wahhabism) on the world.
If we believe Islamic State’s countless propaganda videos and encyclicals, we can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle. That it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of the apocalypse. Any sort of dialogue with people of that mind-set seems practically impossible.
Of course, ISIS does rely heavily on financial support from Saudi Arabia. But the ruling Saud family need the support of the hard-line Wahhabists to survive. It doesn't look as if the west has any intention of tackling Saudi Arabia any time soon, so I don't know what the answer is.
And what's a viable alternative?
Endless war?
The Saudi's could stop propagating their Wahhabi belief throughout the Middle East and Africa.
Stopping ISIS doesn't halt the civil war in Somalia which due to fundamentalists wanting to everyone to live under Sharia and persecuting the Sufi's.
Fat chance of that happening. We're in bed with them, just like the US is.
If you want to look at conflicts, any conflicts, you need to get to the root of the problem. We did that with the IRA and there's relative peace in NI.
Thank you for that very cogent and well put argument.
Yes, I quite agree with you that ISIS' political aims are unclear and the political thinking behind their actions does seem haphazard. Whatever constitutes their leadership does not appear to have properly thought out their aims and objectives, but that does not mean that they don't have any.
The problem is, we don't know what they are.
Now, I'm no politician, much less any sort of expert on global affairs or military strategy, but it is inconceivable that their only aim is to wage endless war until everybody on the face of the planet is wiped out. That is the ultimate lose / lose scenario. Even the Saudis wouldn't go for that.
The west does have influence with the Saudi regime, we just choose never to exercise it for a multitude of reasons. Is it not time that we started to prioritise our relations with this regime and decide what really is the most pressing issue here..??
Also, do you not think that if a dialogue was attempted with ISIS, would it not be possible that it might start a process within their ranks where it might be possible for a leader to emerge with more earthly goals...?
These things must be tried, I'm quite convinced of that. If our only response is a military one, then ISIS have already won. They will only continue to draw more and more recruits to their cause. Surely Iraq and Afghanistan taught us something... didn't it..?