Colinjb

They will undoubtably use the same tactics as they have done in the Levant. Fear, violence... indoctrination. This is not a sensible force, this is ideologically driven genocidal mob. Given the choice of submit or die, a higher proportion of people then are desirable will submit and go along with it. The Rwandan genocide in the 1990's shows that normal sensible people will succumb to horror if it saves their skin. This evil must be opposed now otherwise more will submit to it to survive.

But based in the Levant, and directing things from there. Cut off the head, the body withers. Those that are more moderate find another way. Points made earlier. Points you keep ignoring. Points you keep asking us to repeat.

That is their intent, to over-run the world. To eradicate anyone they consider infidel by any means necessary. And you want to invite them to tea.

You're on a wind up aren't you. This is about destroying an extremist faction. Not a people or a populace. Daesh is about destroying anything that is separate to them. Be it moderate Sunni's, Shi'a, Jew, Catholic, Sikh, Buddist, Agnostic ANYONE different. This is not about advocating Genocide, this is about stopping it.

Your solution is to bargain with an entity that would see death as glorious and anything other then our own destruction as an affront to their beliefs. The origin of that is our responsibility as you pointed out. We must get involved to stop them before they come and end us. Stop arguing for something that is pointless. There were radical Nazis, sympathisers and traitors in WW2, that is an obsolete argument. A war against ISIS has the potential to galvanise the West and moderate middle east together to stop a greater threat. Those that misrepresent Islam for their own genocidal means. Your moderate stance just plays into the hands of the greatest threat to the modern world since National Socialism.

He handled the war war rather well. Keep flailing.

That took a long time to respond to.... They were the heads of the organisation though, deposed by the war effort and then killed. Their deaths broke the resistance of their organisations, their states. They could not be negotiated with but their deaths were a powerful statement that broke the beast. Your point was that negotiation will always be a possibility, that the deaths of the power brokers was required to stop the enemy and bring hostilities to a final cessation undermines your point entirely. You are backed into a corner and flailing.

...As well as anyone that doesn't acquiesce to their will.

After the issue is forced. It will get worse before it gets better. Critically, it may never stop. Ideals do not die, but entities can. We should destroy the cancer of ISIS (Actually, had enough of legitimising their claim on Islam with that acronym. Daesh is their name) first and then worry about the long process of mopping up the smaller areas of metastasised cells after. They will not go away together.

I'm sure you felt the same fear with the IRA. We are already at risk of reprisal/incident. Just by our very nature. ISIS wants nothing less then the destruction of anyone different. Do not forget that. If we sit on our hands they will eventually be knocking on the door regardless. Ignoring it will not make it go away, but take this issue head on and we have a chance of making things safer in the future.

Of course the West isn't squeaky clean. I'm not blind to that truth. Humanity is morally dubious by it's very nature. And Terrorism cannot be beaten by a war, they do not have convenient armies. Terrorism is based on ideals, not territory. Isis however do, they have armies and Militias that have captured swaythes of the Levant. They have a capital, Raqqa. ISIS can be fought conventionally. Militant Islamic terrorism and ISIS may have intrinsic links, but they are not one and the same. This is an enemy that can be fought and it's back can be broken. You cannot destroy an ideal, but you can destroy a construct. ISIS.... Islamic State.... That is an entity that can be crushed.

His point I think is that people can change.... except the ones who cannot..... but don't kill them..... unless the only to way to negotiate and find peace is to get them out of the way..... oh, and anyone who is arguing against his points thinks that Islam/ISIS is the same thing...... unless they have made that difference clear first..... Or something. I actually think there is a degree of common ground between my opinion and perspective and Sadoldgits..... but he is too preoccupied with the moral high ground to see it. Hands are going to be dirtied one way or another here. Lets not get caught up in the undesirable details lest it put you off. Tough situations require tough decisions. No win scenarios are simply life itself.

You really don't understand this, do you?

No, you have no basis to your argument, we are not going around in circles i'm just showing how utterly and fundamentally flawed it is. I will not agree to disagree because I think your concepts are horribly dangerous. You seek to appease an entity that would see everything you believe in burn and believe themselves righteous in the process. Frankly, you scare me.

I have not said that Muslims have no right to follow their religion. As you say, Islam is fundamentally peaceful, therefore stop associating ISIS and their warped interpretation and ideology as one and the same. Equally, where in Christianity does it say 'Kill all Jews?' Didn't stop Nazi Germany. We didn't sit around the table with the key perpetrators of World War 2, they died. Mussolini was strung up and paraded through the streets, Hitler was incinerated by Joseph Goebells shortly before he himself committed suicide. We dealt with the moderate underlings to push forward.

How would you stop someone believing in their religion? Their religious interpretation? How does you, the infidel, the creation of an evil, decadent, destructive society convince someone that they have been warped onto a path of sin? Of the two perspectives we are coming from, one humours the faction that wants to destroy, the other seeks to stop it. Good luck Chamberlain, I'm sticking with the Churchillian route. Sticking with the past precedents that you enjoy, out of Nazi Germany and WW2 came the United Nations, European union and institutionalised peace in a part of the world (Yes, Europe) that had nothing but a history of bloody international wars.

You are missing the point. ISIS exist to destroy. Not survive, but actively destroy anything separate to their own ways. The core of their being is to be in a constant state of war with anything that is different. You are treating them as something akin to a freedom fight, they are however genocidal fanatics that have a broader agenda then Nazi Germany. Trying to find common ground here is pointless and simply prolongs the suffering of those caught in the middle. They must be destroyed and the longer we dilly dally the stronger they become and the weaker we appear.

The IRA wanted Irish independence, not the extermination of all Protestants. The wars in the old Empire where equally about the right to self determination. ISIS want to destroy, kill, convert, fundamentally end anything that has a different perspective. To top it off they see their own deaths as being a glorious martyrdom to their god and beliefs... They would embrace a war to the death. How do you negotiate with that? By their own perspective they cannot lose! Do God's work or die trying and go to heaven. As for killing all militant Muslims, I would rather have a different solution. But can I see one? I would only hope that should the core of ISIS be destroyed then common sense would prevail in those who submitted to their will for the sake of staying in their homes and having a semblance of an easier life.

How do you negotiate with an enemy that sees only your death and the destruction of your way of life as acceptable? I also hope that you do not associate the moderate Muslim majority with the fanatics of ISIS? They must be referred to separately.

He has done well to get the record. The self indulgence of it all however speaks volumes of how rotten our national game is. Let's only be congratulatory if it means something in the grander scheme of things, shall we?

Can they also opt out of the UK in the event of foreign aggression?

There does seem to be something of a contradiction there mate. That it was kept quiet in the first place but then tactically made public.... But of course, the reason for the eventual release makes sense in the context you express.

That is a bit of a logic flaw, but, who would have had the same impact as Bale for them when he was at his height? So much of what he did was individual brilliance rather then based upon team-work.

Which brings us into a far deeper discussion of freedom of expression or whether this should have been reported in the first place. Clearly, this information was made public as a deterrent to those who may be tempted to join ISIS and seek to kill people in this country. Should that be something they are considering it is my feeling that a newspaper headline is probably not a key factor behind it.

Seems that it has now.