View From The Top Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Yeah you know best I'm sure. Voicing it at the time no doubt. I'm pretty sure that others will support me when I say that I was saying it at the time and have never wavered from that view. George Bush Snr in his recently released memoirs places the blame at the feet of neo-cons (bar his son obviously), perhaps he knows nowt either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 I'm pretty sure that others will support me when I say that I was saying it at the time and have never wavered from that view. George Bush Snr in his recently released memoirs places the blame at the feet of neo-cons (bar his son obviously), perhaps he knows nowt either. I am not a fan but again comes back to the apologist approach - hey we're to blame not the the barbaric scum committing the crimes. Weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 And hey I also blame Charlie Hebdo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Tell me what your view was on dealing with evil despot Assad was? Vacuum or empower? Lesser of two evils. The enemy of my enemy etc. At the time I knew very little of the Assad regime bar their meddling in Lebanon where they support their Shia allies, Hezbollah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 I am not a fan but again comes back to the apologist approach - hey we're to blame not the the barbaric scum committing the crimes. Weak Really. Considering I'm advocating ex-judicial execution and no holds bar conflict I'm an apologist? Deary me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 They were on the back foot at the time but the two H Bombs did speed up the peace process. Trouble now is that our atomic capability counts for nothing. And what about all the other regimes who had to be met with force before negotiations could begin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Really. Considering I'm advocating ex-judicial execution and no holds bar conflict I'm an apologist? Deary me. No I agree totally. I didn't call you an apologist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Really. Considering I'm advocating ex-judicial execution and no holds bar conflict I'm an apologist? Deary me. But if only George Bush was taken out as a baby we'd be fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 It is, but mostly - almost entirely - because it is a war WITHIN Islam. Which is why the majority of the victims of the war, by far, are other Muslims. And it's not just Sunni vs Shia, nor even Wahhabi vs Sunni moderates - but historically violent Salafists vs the whole of the rest of the religion. The goal, as I've said, is the claiming of Mecca for Salafists and their bands of mainstream-Islam-hating, women-loathing, West-deriding lunatics. Which is why the idea of negotiating with the Salafists - IS, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc - is desperately, hopelessly missing the point. How do you negotiate with someone who doesn't want anything from you? Sad though this may be for our sense of self-importance, the West is a sideshow, an irrelevance, nothing more than a locale for 'spectaculars' in recruitment drives and popularity contests among those susceptible to the message of death cultism. Western victims of Salafist violence are victims because the West is, in the eyes of the Salafists, pathetic and weak. They are victims because the West is easy prey. Offering to 'negotiate', as SOG proposes, would be interpreted as yet another sign of inbred Western weakness. Offering to negotiate will get your head lopped off - so if those are one of the terms anyone wants to go to the negotiating table with, fine. Be it on your own detachable head. Even SOG must respect your knowledge on the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Because we won't use it..every Tom **** and Ahmed knows that. Indeed, which makes you wonder why we still spend so much money on it when it doesn't seem to "deter." But that is for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Indeed, which makes you wonder why we still spend so much money on it when it doesn't seem to "deter." But that is for another thread. Sog? Would be interested in your reply to verbal who is clearly better informed than everyone else on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Even SOG must respect your knowledge on the subject I do respect Verbal's knowledge and I do understand that side of the argument. I don't want us for one minute want us to "give" them anything and given the fact that we are bombing the cr@p out of them on a regular basis we are hardly in a position of weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 I do respect Verbal's knowledge and I do understand that side of the argument. I don't want us for one minute want us to "give" them anything and given the fact that we are bombing the cr@p out of them on a regular basis we are hardly in a position of weakness. So what do you want then? Bearing in mind what verbal has said about the futility of negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 It is, but mostly - almost entirely - because it is a war WITHIN Islam. Which is why the majority of the victims of the war, by far, are other Muslims. And it's not just Sunni vs Shia, nor even Wahhabi vs Sunni moderates - but historically violent Salafists vs the whole of the rest of the religion. The goal, as I've said, is the claiming of Mecca for Salafists and their bands of mainstream-Islam-hating, women-loathing, West-deriding lunatics. Which is why the idea of negotiating with the Salafists - IS, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc - is desperately, hopelessly missing the point. How do you negotiate with someone who doesn't want anything from you? Sad though this may be for our sense of self-importance, the West is a sideshow, an irrelevance, nothing more than a locale for 'spectaculars' in recruitment drives and popularity contests among those susceptible to the message of death cultism. Western victims of Salafist violence are victims because the West is, in the eyes of the Salafists, pathetic and weak. They are victims because the West is easy prey. Offering to 'negotiate', as SOG proposes, would be interpreted as yet another sign of inbred Western weakness. Offering to negotiate will get your head lopped off - so if those are one of the terms anyone wants to go to the negotiating table with, fine. Be it on your own detachable head. Excellent post, Verbal; really enjoyed reading that short explanation, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Billy Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 The problem with this ongoing terrorist situation is that it muddies the water as far as immigrants crossing borders is concerned. Can there be any guarantees that IS and other terrorists are not exploiting this situation?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 The problem with this ongoing terrorist situation is that it muddies the water as far as immigrants crossing borders is concerned. Can there be any guarantees that IS and other terrorists are not exploiting this situation?. something nearly happened at Gatwick as some bloke with guns strapped to him legged it. (before being caught) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 And what about all the other regimes who had to be met with force before negotiations could begin? Hypo, I have never said that we should not use force. I am just saying that it is getting us no where. We have discussed this problem before. The threat we face in the west in trying to deal with a guerrilla war. There is no standing army, just ordinary people who emerge from nowhere are cause mayhem. IS aren't in the least bothered about our firepower are they? The more we kill Muslims in "their" part of the world the more we play into their hands in terms of recruiting and drumming up hatred towards The West. What we are doing is not working. We need to do something different don't we? We don't have to say to them please stop these killings and we will give you something. Talking to the opposition or "enemy" shouldn't be seen as being weak. You can use a dialogue to push home how it is impossible for them to achieve their aim, and lets face it, unless they get hold of a nuclear capability they are never going to achieve their aims even then. Clearly I am no diplomat but there are ways of negotiating in all sorts of areas that may seem hopeless at the start but positions can change. I haven't listened to it yet but there was a Radio 4 programme the other week about how you deal with very difficult positions in negotiation using psychology. These people aren't the only people in history who don't want anything from their enemies other than to change them to their way they are or kill them. It might take a year, two years, five years, more. It certainly isn't going to happen soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 So what do you want then? Bearing in mind what verbal has said about the futility of negotiation. One person on a football internet chat forum says that negotiation wont work so we don't bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Perhaps the only counter is to tell them that when they get all the Virgins they are promised is to inform them that each one comes with a mother in law, that'll sort it Is there anything that actually states the virgins would be female ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 It is, but mostly - almost entirely - because it is a war WITHIN Islam. Which is why the majority of the victims of the war, by far, are other Muslims. And it's not just Sunni vs Shia, nor even Wahhabi vs Sunni moderates - but historically violent Salafists vs the whole of the rest of the religion. The goal, as I've said, is the claiming of Mecca for Salafists and their bands of mainstream-Islam-hating, women-loathing, West-deriding lunatics. Which is why the idea of negotiating with the Salafists - IS, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc - is desperately, hopelessly missing the point. How do you negotiate with someone who doesn't want anything from you? Sad though this may be for our sense of self-importance, the West is a sideshow, an irrelevance, nothing more than a locale for 'spectaculars' in recruitment drives and popularity contests among those susceptible to the message of death cultism. Western victims of Salafist violence are victims because the West is, in the eyes of the Salafists, pathetic and weak. They are victims because the West is easy prey. Offering to 'negotiate', as SOG proposes, would be interpreted as yet another sign of inbred Western weakness. Offering to negotiate will get your head lopped off - so if those are one of the terms anyone wants to go to the negotiating table with, fine. Be it on your own detachable head. So how do we deal with this then Verbal? Despite the deployed firepower in Syria and taking out specific targets on a regular basis with drone strikes, we don't seem to be making any progress. What is the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 So how do we deal with this then Verbal? Despite the deployed firepower in Syria and taking out specific targets on a regular basis with drone strikes, we don't seem to be making any progress. What is the answer? We have to go in, hard and properly - now is the time. We're not talking the Iraq war or anything like that - this should be a proper concerted effort, land, sea, air - take the whole region and return it back to its original state. I think VFTT already said this and I agree - this needs to be stamped out now. We may well get the odd disgruntled nutjob still, but at least there won't be a whole region radicalising people that would probably lead more normal lives. Let's face it, I suspect many people going there are bored, jobless or just weird and if that region didn't exist they'd have nowhere to go. More likely than not, they'd probably normally just get on with life. So yes, I advocate going in properly. Just my view as one person on the internet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Is there anything that actually states the virgins would be female ? And the problem with virgins is that once you use them they lose their status. I doubt that these psychopaths are doing this for the virgins. At this stage we can only restate our sympathy and support with the French people. Sadly I can only see more incidents of this type and no easy solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 In theorising about 'negotiating', it isn't just who we might try to negotiate with, but who the we would be ; As has been said, IS isn't really an identifiable entity, it's an umbrella under which diverse, self-interested, sociopathic warlords can pledge a degree of mutual support and 'fraternal love', viz Boko Haram's pledge of allegiance. In terms of the 'we', who would represent the Shia communties, who are all effectively under sentence of death as they are viewed as apostate - I'm not sure IS would be interested in settling peaceably with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 take the whole region and return it back to its original state. Which is what exactly ? The old boundaries of the Ottoman Empire pre 1918 ? Or restoring Syria, Iraq, and Libya back to their pre Desert Storm / Iraqi Freedom / Arab Spring status - because politically these states required their strong man dictators to supress the inter-faith and inter-tribe antagonisms created when we split the old empire up between the WW1 victors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Slightly separate note but heard friendly on Tuesday is going ahead at Wembley and plans get all the England fans to sing La Marseillaise - hope that happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Which is what exactly ? The old boundaries of the Ottoman Empire pre 1918 ? Or restoring Syria, Iraq, and Libya back to their pre Desert Storm / Iraqi Freedom / Arab Spring status - because politically these states required their strong man dictators to supress the inter-faith and inter-tribe antagonisms created when we split the old empire up between the WW1 victors. Not my area of knowledge - I was just referring to the countries in modern times and the areas of land IS have 'taken'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Slightly separate note but heard friendly on Tuesday is going ahead at Wembley and plans get all the England fans to sing La Marseillaise - hope that happens Strange you say that but I've friends going and they said today that they intend to sing it loud and proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Not the easiest though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Not the easiest though.... I think I'd stick to Allez Les Bleus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Not my area of knowledge - I was just referring to the countries in modern times and the areas of land IS have 'taken'. But then what to do with the 'Free Syrian Army' who the West have encouraged to stand up to Assad ? Or the Kurds in the north of both Syria and Iraq, whom the Turks are pretty hostile towards ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoPints Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 We have to go in, hard and properly - now is the time. We're not talking the Iraq war or anything like that - this should be a proper concerted effort, land, sea, air - take the whole region and return it back to its original state. I think VFTT already said this and I agree - this needs to be stamped out now. We may well get the odd disgruntled nutjob still, but at least there won't be a whole region radicalising people that would probably lead more normal lives. Let's face it, I suspect many people going there are bored, jobless or just weird and if that region didn't exist they'd have nowhere to go. More likely than not, they'd probably normally just get on with life. So yes, I advocate going in properly. Just my view as one person on the internet though. Maybe get the view of the families of the hundreds of British servicemen who lost their lives fighting another unwinnable war in Afghanistan before you 'go in hard' with our troops? Yesterday was a tragic day for France, the French people and any right minded person in this world but many many more lives will be lost sending our troops in to fight an invisible enemy. If ISIS lose ground, they'll just, move elsewhere. There are plenty of despotic countries in this world to shelter them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 They will just be going, "der der, der de der der de derr, de de derr de derr". Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 This was inevitable, thank you Merkel. Two of attackers now alleged to have passed through Greece in the last month, it was so f*cking obvious to so many, yet here we are. We already had millions of questionable Muslims in our lands, now we have fresh terrorists from isil, we have ushered them through. No doubt the families, friends and neighbours of these scum will now say how surprised they are that they were terrorists, how they were nice little Muslim llads etc.... Never suspected anything, not a sign, not a hint, nothing! They're hiding these people IMO, Verbal may correct me but I understand the saying is 'al Taqiyya'. I'm devestaed for the good people of France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 As long as Man has walked the earth there have been conflicts and guess what, eventually they get resolved. Normally through subjugation by the victors of the conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Normally through subjugation by the victors of the conflict. A very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 14 November, 2015 Share Posted 14 November, 2015 I note you have no answers ... Can't you see man that no one has the 'answer' to the problem of Sunni extremism at this time. The Western world has been attempting militarily for decades now to combat the growing threat of religious extremism, with what can only be described as a singular lack of sustained success. Indeed, all our efforts seem only to have made the situation worse if anything. Even were NATO to invade Syria tomorrow for example, then who on here would be so foolish as to predict that outcome would result in the final destruction of Jihadism? No, what would almost certainly happen is that this organisation would be swiftly defeated in the field by vastly superior Western firepower, but equally swiftly reinvent itself as yet another 'Guerilla Army' type force (akin to the Taliban) that would wage war on our occupying forces from now until we reached the limit of our endurance oncer again - just like Afghanistan or Vietnam in other words. There are no easy solutions on offer here, if there were then we would have taken them. But as neither side are about to go away anytime soon one fine day it will have to end with some kind of accommodation being reached by people of good will or at least those who have grown tired of war. When that will be ... well only God (or Allah) knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 14 November, 2015 Normally through subjugation by the victors of the conflict. Okay, but how do we win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 15 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 15 November, 2015 Actually screw that. Forget winning, how do we stop the killing on both sides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 Actually screw that. Forget winning, how do we stop the killing on both sides? Oh it's easy. We just let them kill every last man on Earth who doesn't confirm to their insane religious fantasy, then they should be happy and stop killing people. Actually they probably wont because Al Quaeda and ISIS have been killing each other despite having similar ideology but it's worth a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 The problem with this ongoing terrorist situation is that it muddies the water as far as immigrants crossing borders is concerned. Can there be any guarantees that IS and other terrorists are not exploiting this situation?. Anybody else feel that its a little convenient that this bomber had a Syrian passport on him? Seems a bit odd to take your passport with you on a suicide mission.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 Anybody else feel that its a little convenient that this bomber had a Syrian passport on him? Seems a bit odd to take your passport with you on a suicide mission.. Passport Control for when they get to "paradise"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 (edited) Anybody else feel that its a little convenient that this bomber had a Syrian passport on him? Seems a bit odd to take your passport with you on a suicide mission.. I was always told to carry id in France as the police can hold you for up to 4 hours whilst they establish who you are . I would imagine that the bombers travelled separately from the weapons and therefore may have had id on them in case they were stopped during the journey to meet up with the weapons . Maybe they calculated that showing a passport would arouse less suspicion than having no ID. It's not like they were wanted for anything at that time, so would have shown the passport and be sent on their way. Obviously it's speculation, but that makes more sense than somebody planting a passport on a dead bomber or somebody making up a factious passport story . I would have thought if there was going to be a cover up by the establishment it's more likely to involve covering up the fact they came in via Greece than make up thy they did when they didn't . As it shows the utter failure of their beloved EU to police its border. Didn't they identify the ones that came via Greece by the fingerprints taken when they applied for asylum anyway? Edited 15 November, 2015 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 Fairly long read about the ex-Baathists and ISIS. They needed the money. The one hope maybe that many of their strategic commanders aren't principled jihadists and could change sides. http://wapo.st/1GUR7Oc?tid=ss_tw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 Actually screw that. Forget winning, how do we stop the killing on both sides? We all get round the table and negotiate, like we did to stop the first and second world war and, like, all wars ever or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 I've only just remembered that Euro 2016 is in France. Crikey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 yeah, it's either do nothing or kill all muslims NOTHING in between What is in the between then? There really is no end to this cluster ****. Every time the West retaliates we create more enemies every time extremists carry out an attack westerners become more entrenched in their views on all Muslims which in turn fosters more bad feeling among western Muslim populations ( many who are second generation or older). The whole thing is a vicious circle that seems unbreakable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 They will just be going, "der der, der de der der de derr, de de derr de derr". Obviously. Hon he hon he hon he hon he hon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 What is in the between then? There really is no end to this cluster ****. Every time the West retaliates we create more enemies every time extremists carry out an attack westerners become more entrenched in their views on all Muslims which in turn fosters more bad feeling among western Muslim populations ( many who are second generation or older). The whole thing is a vicious circle that seems unbreakable. You think there is nothing this side of killing all Muslims? Killing all Muslims. Okay then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint86 Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 Simplistically we have to find a way of living together and that will only happen by speaking to each other. The only alternative is to carry on killing each other in perpetuity. Hypo is convinced that the only way to deal with the situation is to kill all Extreme Muslims on the basis that they will never give up. There were people in Japan ion WW2 who vowed to fight to the death as also in the Korean War, Vietnamese War etc but eventually these conflicts do end and that involves both sides talking to each other. The other alternative is genocide. We make a big fuss about killing Jihadi John and they go a step further and butcher more innocent civilians. What have we gained? The killing just goes spiralling on and on. We share this planet and we have to find a way to co-exist. You are basically arguing that we should have let JJ go... Which is utter tripe. We are at war and there will be no peace ever with the fanatics. Kill them all and stop them spreading their filth to other decent Muslims. I wonder, would you have shot Hitler or Sat around and tried to talk to him? Just like WW2 people are pussy footing around the issue, allowing the axis of evil to develop a stranglehold over a region and meaning more lives will be lost when actions finally has to be taken. The human race is cursed to always repeat the mistakes of history and this time around we have no Churchill and no Roosevelt to stand up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 15 November, 2015 Share Posted 15 November, 2015 axis of evil Haven't heard that one for a while. Straight out of the Rumsfeld propaganda kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now