hypochondriac

Why on earth would I need to address something I have never ever denied?

there aren't enough emoticons in the world for that. Sorry but once again you have made up stuff and made yourself look silly as you did on the last thread. You would have thought you had learnt by now. No one has denied that Christianity has had a violence problem in the past. Loads of people said that Islam has a violence problem now. You either didn't understand that or chose to ignore it.

No one has said that Christians are a more peace loving folk historically- you just invented that as you like to do. We are talking about the present time not peering into history where there is no doubt that Christianity has had its own share of atrocities committed in its name. It's an inarguable fact that Islam has a greater violence problem now than any other world religion.

Again you're just making stuff up. We aren't talking about hundreds of years ago, we are talking about now. Here and now Islam has a much bigger problem with violence than any other religion.

You also made up stuff on that thread too.

Though TBF an awful lot of Christians don't subscribe to that outdated view of homosexuality. I know many do.

I don't really agree with sour mash but you don't have the same scale of problem from people acting in the name of Christianity.

That is all true but clearly in this day and age Islam has a bigger problem with this sort of thing than Christian nutters. Clearly.

Which is why I said an aggressive offensive in agreement with other Arab states is the best way forward. It's not ideal by any means but it's the least worst option. Certainly better than some vague talk about negotiations.

Personally I would like to see a proper coalition of nations who oppose IS (including the likes of Russia and Iran) and a much greater effort to destroy their bases and leaders. This would involve cutting them off financially combined with military force. Part of the problem in Iraq was that we destabilised the country and then left due to political pressure before we had seen through the changes required so we should ensure that does not happen again. I would get agreements in place with neighbouring Arabic countries to assist in these operations and if needs be I would tolerate criminals like Assad in the short term as the lesser of two evils to help to bring stability to the region once the bulk of IS has been destroyed. Longer term and once the bulk of IS has been crushed, I would like to see some attempts at engagement with those survivors still disaffected. I would make clear to them that dialogue and engagement is always open but that dissent would be met with force. Whilst that is not a perfect plan, I think that's a much more realistic plan than engaging in negotiation at this time with an enemy who doesn't want to negotiate.

So what do you want then? Bearing in mind what verbal has said about the futility of negotiation.

Sog? Would be interested in your reply to verbal who is clearly better informed than everyone else on here.

And what about all the other regimes who had to be met with force before negotiations could begin?

Or indeed the Italians and nazis. It was after the fighting that they were willing to discuss things. We tried the negotiation route with Hitler and all it did was give him more time to get stronger before he attacked. In many ways this situation is actually worse because IS do not have a specific aim beyond killing everyone.

They aren't ridiculing you for stating that (which is very obvious.) you leave yourself open to ridiculing by suggesting things but having no strategy or detail to back it up with.

But who is to say that you decide not to kill them and then even more come along to join them. At least in the first scenario we have less extremists.

So are you suggesting that laying down our arms and allowing Islamic state to expand will decrease the chances of last night happening? Are you suggesting that we ignore them until some indeterminate point in the future when they decide that they cannot bring down the west and want to start negotiations? Just as the last time we discussed this, you are happy to call for negotiations but when asked to elaborate you are unable to.

Hold on we are discussing how best to deal with these people. Soggy says negotiation but won't give any other details despite being invited to do so a number of times. Tell me how else we are supposed to debate like adults as you put it?

Soggy have you ever seen that Halloween Simpsons episode where they wish for world peace and then some aggressive aliens come down and enslave mankind who are powerless to fight back? Your solutions remind me of that for some reason.

Because they don't want to coexist with us, they want to murder us. It's not difficult to understand.

I note you have no answers. It's why you get the responses you do because you come out with obvious stuff like peaceful solutions are preferable (clearly) but then come up with no ideas about how that would be achieved. You suggest negotiation but give no more details than that. Is it any wonder people dismiss you arguments?

Well just for a start as verbal said the fact that a hostage tried negotiating with them and they brutally murdered and tortured him along with a number of other examples. Why are you being so idiotic by suggesting anyone said kill them all? When you say all who are you referring to?

Maybe best not to mention those certain people who you won't lower yourself to by point scoring then.

I was referring to your point about "certain parties" and "point scoring."

I love that chapel end Charlie's response about how bad taste point scoring is is in itself a form of point scoring. Be honest, your post would not exist had the conversation about homosexual footballers never happened. You're just as pompous and prepared to point score as everyone else on this message board. Maybe a bit more pompous tbh.