hypochondriac

So we FINALLY get there. You would support military action but only if it's done in partnership with other Arab nations and the likes of Russia. Good we agree although I would argue that in this specific case it was possibly due to an imminent threat to the UK and so they needed to be dealt with quickly. I don't know how true that is, I'm guessing based on the available information.

OK so you DO agree with 'stepping in' as long as it's a coalition and not just us on our own. So it's really not the aggression bit you are concerned with then just that it's us doing it? You aren't seriously trying to compare crimes that occur in the West with the situation that is currently going on in Syria are you? FFS you must have seen the pictures and heard the stories of sex slaves, beheadings, being burnt alive etc. The situation in the West is not remotely comparable.

So in summary, the thread has moved on from the original post to talk about the conflict more generally. You want to do something to combat ISIS but you can't articulate what that is. You don't agree with any sort of bombing or aggression and want to talk to these murderous people but other than that you can't articulate any alternative strategy and when asked to provide one you whine that that isn't what the thread is about (despite having discussed it all day on here.) Seems pretty clear to me that you simply haven't thought this through very well.

Yep. All of that could easily be fought and destroyed and it would significantly reduce their ability to operate and remove their influence from the majority of people's lives. That's what we should be aiming for.

That's plainly nonsense. The chances of defeating every person perpetrating this is very small I agree, but the chance of a concerted and joint effort to break the ISIS regime, remove them from the lives of civillians, reduce their numbers significantly and make it much harder for them to operate has a good chance of success. How do you suggest we form an impasse with ISIS?

OK well it's fine them. We will just leave them to it so they can rape, murder and pillage to their hearts content. Except that you just said you don't want to do nothing and leave them to it. So what exactly do you want to do?

Don't be so absurd. We had no alternative to confront Hitler on the battlefield just as we have no alternative here. You still haven't set out what you would be doing if you were Prime Minister. You have offered no solutions just said no to the fighting and yes to talking to people who don't want to do anything other than murder us and our way of life. You aren't really making any sense at all.

But that 'some point' was after they had been defeated on the battlefield so I am really struggling to understand your point here. It was only after they had been engaged in battle and lost that they were prepared to negotiate and it seems you are ignoring the whole battle bit and suggesting that they will skip straight to the negotiation bit without the defeat. It's bizarre.

Exactly! We would all rather have had peace than war but it gets to a point where you have to recognise that some people cannot be bargained with and they have to be destroyed. Shall we call you Neville Chamberlain soggy?

OK but everything we know so far strongly suggests that this is doomed to fail. If we try what you say and it fails (as it almost certainly would) then what would you propose?

So what do you advocate then? What would you do?

Weird then that he felt the need to go to war and kill a bunch of people before we could have peace then. Almost as if he agreed that there was no negotiating with those in charge of that awful regime...

Now you are just arguing semantics. So now are you saying that your solution to this is to try to negotiate with the more moderate underlings (if they exist) with the fanatical bit still in place? How is that going to work then?

If action taken is hard enough and taken in partnership with others then there simply won't be the manpower or organisational structure available to replace i as quickly as it is defeated. The Taliban are basically nothing now and they were crushed and then engaged with to try to find a peaceful solution. Of course many of the tactics against the Taliban were wrong but doing nothing to combat them was never the answer. We can't crush the idea, we will probably never be free of the underground movement or guerrilla attacks but as already stated above, we can do a lot to crush the organisation and prevent them from terrorising native citizens in their own lands. There is a lot we can do to get rid of ISIS the organisation and it's much better than waiting around for dialogue or doing nothing in the hope that the will suddenly stop. They won't.

Well that's an odd argument then. It's not impossible that tomorrow I could wake up and sprout wings so I can go for a fly around the common. Doesn't mean it's in any way likely or that I should start planning for that scenario. If you were the Prime Minister now what stance would you be advocating? Should we immediately halt operations against Islamic State and try to broker a dialogue with the mad men? When that fails what do you propose? Wait it out in the hope that their rhetoric softens over time and they are inclined to negotiate?

Yeah this pretty much. If we can accept that we will never get rid of it totally, that doesn't mean that we can't mortally wound the ISIS regime, disrupt their operations and remove the majority.

ARGH that is simply not true! They will never realise that, that's the whole point. They believe that strikes, death and barbarism are the answer and that they will get their rewards after their life in heaven so don't give a toss about their lives here. They will never surrender, negotiate or suddenly decide to be more moderate. Never.

My solution is to form a proper alliance with neighbouring arabic countries, Russia and Europe to make concerted attacks against the fighters to wipe out the majority and crush the organisation. Subsequent to that we should then negotiate. I think your belief that ISIS will be up for negotiating is hideously naive and won't work in any way. The only thing we can do is remove the worst perpetrators as quickly and as efficiently as possible in coalition with other arab natiions in the region.

I don't think you understand who these Isis terrorists are. These aren't the IRA, there in't anything that they want from us other than complete subservience and ultimately our destruction. How exactly do you begin negotiations on that basis. Are you suggesting that they would suddenly stop what they are doing if we simply pulled out and left them alone?

The main perpetrators were killed which is what we are currently doing in Syria against Isis. I really don't understand your argument. You agree that there is no negotiating with the main fanatics and that we should seek to negotiate with those who are less extreme once the extremists have been wiped out. So what's the argument? What would you do differently? Seek to get round a table to talk with jihadi John?

So what you are saying then is that we have to get rid of the main perpetrators until the only ones left are the more moderate ones who we can then talk to in order to negotiate something. Good we agree.

The perpetrators of the second world war were all killed! It was only after that that the non fanatical murderous ones were talked to. There is no getting round the table with isis. They have no interest in any sort of negotiation.

Precisely. Any animosity is due to brainwashing and indoctrination and can't be blamed on the crusades in the slightest.

Don't be so ridiculous. Long memories??? It's 800 years ago ffs...

Because in the same way that the gotcha headline didn't create any terrorists, this one has also failed to create Islamic ones.