hypochondriac

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.

That's just rubbish. The front of the zero has virtually zero impact on people becoming terrorists. You're trying to make an issue that isn't there.

As someone said earlier, I don't think you should start censoring things because of the chance of a terrorist attack. There is freedom of speech to be considered here. You could of course argue for it to be removed because it's a rubbish headline or a bit insensitive but not imo because you may p*ss off some extremists. From the sun's point of view it's a great headline anyway because it gets them talked about.

If someone is turned into an isis fighter on the back of a sun headline then you have to question if they weren't really already in that mindset in the first place. Everyone knows what the sun is like, it's not like it has huge amounts of credibility to begin with.

This basically. It's an idiotic headline designed to attract attention and sell papers from an idiotic paper that has previous for doing stuff like this. It's hardly a surprise and they will probably sell more papers from it.

I expect the knowledge that their loved ones joined isis and were plotting to kill people is harder to bear than some silly little headline from the Sun.

That's an idiotic conclusion.

Just so people can't misquote me and think I was opposing migrants here is what I said in this thread originally. I actually think the strategy of taking those from Syria rather than encouraging others to take the dangerous trip here is the correct one.

What on earth are you talking about not wanting refugees here? I didn't say that.