Wars on the cards... Isis threat!

[Twiggster]

I'm not suggesting sending in our ground forces at all. I suggest that the Iraqis and Kurds take responsibility there.

From what I gather from Kurdish refugees at our school - they detest Iraqis, cos they suffered as much at iraqi hands as they do from isis. Why would they work together, when they are seemingly more interested in killing each other?

With today's announcement that Denmark will send an airborne strike force, there is massive Islam immigrants' dissent on Danish streets tonight. The same immigrants that Denmark give a home and security to. Pro isis flags openly being paraded. Imams provoking the Danish muslims to violence and protesting to the media here. Fukkin SCUM.

Religion of peace my arse.

[drsdadsotherson]

You obviously have a poor grasp of human nature. People will always band together against a common threat if their survival is at risk, just look at the people that fought for the same cause with Russia in WWII. They may well go back to killing and hating each other afterwards, but that's their issue.
As for the imams encouraging protest, they need a bloody good slapping. IS are killing more Muslims than anyone else if they refuse to convert to their sick and twisted version. I just wish people would stop directing their anger at all Muslims and at Islam. The issue is the extremist minority of pillocks, not the enormous majority of decent and peaceful people.

Finally remind yourself of this. The techniques and equipment may be different, but the attitudes and desires of the current crop of Islamic extremist groups are no different to those of the Christian crusaders and the medieval popes. They were following their interpretation of the 'peaceful' Bible. Is Christianity therefore evil?
It's not the fault of the religion, but the people who use it to justify their own revolting goals. They are the ones that deserve taking out, not the innocent folk around them.

[Twiggster]

You obviously have a poor grasp of human nature. People will always band together against a common threat if their survival is at risk, just look at the people that fought for the same cause with Russia in WWII. They may well go back to killing and hating each other afterwards, but that's their issue.
As for the imams encouraging protest, they need a bloody good slapping. IS are killing more Muslims than anyone else if they refuse to convert to their sick and twisted version. I just wish people would stop directing their anger at all Muslims and at Islam. The issue is the extremist minority of pillocks, not the enormous majority of decent and peaceful people.

Finally remind yourself of this. The techniques and equipment may be different, but the attitudes and desires of the current crop of Islamic extremist groups are no different to those of the Christian crusaders and the medieval popes. They were following their interpretation of the 'peaceful' Bible. Is Christianity therefore evil?
It's not the fault of the religion, but the people who use it to justify their own revolting goals. They are the ones that deserve taking out, not the innocent folk around them.

Christianity is very evil - as is any religion. I agree with your post absolutely.
Your closing sentence says it all - but unfortunately in the case of Islam today, those "innocent folks" are largely those who will defend their faith and it's leaders to death - and kill those who oppose their faith.

[drsdadsotherson]

Christianity is very evil - as is any religion. I agree with your post absolutely.
Your closing sentence says it all - but unfortunately in the case of Islam today, those "innocent folks" are largely those who will defend their faith and it's leaders to death - and kill those who oppose their faith.

Defend their faith, yes. Defend the extremists, no.
Do you seriously believe that the majority of Muslims today will kill people who disagree with their faith? There are 1 billion Muslims on this planet. If that were the case they'd have wiped out us heathens long ago...
Think of it this way, if you were a media mogul what would you put in your news broadcasts? A group of extremists blew up a car bomb in a crowded market? Or nearly 1 billion people completely failed to do anything naughty today?

You're allowing the media to put you in a state of mostly unjustified fear. Yes the extremists are dangerous, but that doesn't mean you should cross the road to avoid walking past a mosque.

[barryanorak]

Oh, and Twiggs - check your world history, Dresden is considered, by many, including many from the Allied sides to be one of the worst episodes of WWII - a 'soft' target, a cultural, rather than a military centre, and, at the time of the bombing, was housing many refugees. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki - which wasn't even originally a target - was intended for another city, further north and the decision to change was made only because of poor weather at the intended drop zone.

As to whether either episode 'worked', by the time the firestorm was created in Dresden, 'the Florence of the North', the war in Europe was heading towards an inevitable conclusion. It is unclear if the deaths of 25ooo people actually added much to this.
The war in Japan was also changing rapidly. The entry of Russia into the conflict, and Moscow declaring war on Japan was almost certainly more significant as it meant that there was no chance of Russia mediating the conflict as an ally of Japan.

History is written by the victors. If you replace the word Dresden with Coventry, it didn't really work, did it...

[Martyn]

Well said BA. In fact, the Japanese were trying to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb, but the Manhattan project had come up with two separate designs for atomic bombs, and the US military were keen to see which design caused more destruction - or in their terms was "more efficient" - hence the attack on a second city before the attempted surrender was acknowledged. In my mind that constitutes a war crime.

[Martyn]

I commend this excellent article for an intelligent approach to ISIS

[HarryofOz]

I commend this excellent article for an intelligent approach to ISIS

I'm not going to blame the West entirely for Islamic extremism because that type of thing happens anyway. But while there is a need to fight IS in the short term, in the medium to long term what must be done is to stop people from being attracted to the forces of hatred. Some will go anyway but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Easier said than done I admit.

The trouble with arming the Kurds to fight the war is that no doubt they will be allowed to behave as they want, the concept my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Dictators who were anti-communist were allowed to behave as they liked, the Mujahedin were given blind support in their fight against the Soviets, Saddam was armed to the teeth to fight the Iranians and got away with gassing the Kurds as a friend of the west. If the West is going to back/arm the Kurds they must take steps to ensure that they behave in a humane way towards others otherwise you'll get and breed hatred from the other side and of course give the Kurds the impression that they can do what they like and that inevitably leads to the worst.

[Martyn]

I agree with pretty much all of that Harry, the important thing for me in that piece is the need to recognise that The West cannot and should not try to impose its own style of life, including its governmental style, on the rest of the world.

Unpleasant though Saddam was, there were no terrorists on Iraq before 2003,
He hated and crushed Al Qaeda and their ilk and ran Itaq as a secular Muslim state.

It was only when we invaded, dismissed all their security forces and opened the borders that the terrorists flooded in. We created that problem, as we created the Mujahadeen as an opposition to the Soviets and as the Israeli security service Mossad created Hamas as a means to destabilise Yasser Arafat.

[hector]

One slight point (me being pedantic I suppose) Martin.
We (the west) did not create the Mujahadeen, they were already there in opposition to the Soviets.. We just armed and trained them better.

[Martyn]

One slight point (me being pedantic I suppose) Martin.
We (the west) did not create the Mujahadeen, they were already there in opposition to the Soviets.. We just armed and trained them better.

Correct hecto,we created them as a fearsome well armed fighting force, compared to the poorly equipped rebels they were previously.

[hector]

I'll give you that one.... It was soul destroying to see them firing old rifles at armed helicopter gun ships and hoping to do some damage, and then trying to outrun them..

[hector]

How time and more recent events make you think that you shouldn't have bothered though...

[Wolfetoneleeds]

I agree with pretty much all of that Harry, the important thing for me in that piece is the need to recognise that The West cannot and should not try to impose its own style of life, including its governmental style, on the rest of the world.

Unpleasant though Saddam was, there were no terrorists on Iraq before 2003,
He hated and crushed Al Qaeda and their ilk and ran Itaq as a secular Muslim state.

It was only when we invaded, dismissed all their security forces and opened the borders that the terrorists flooded in. We created that problem, as we created the Mujahadeen as an opposition to the Soviets and as the Israeli security service Mossad created Hamas as a means to destabilise Yasser Arafat.

Correcto, this would if never happend on saddams watch.

Should of never gone in

[becchio bear]

the important thing for me in that piece is the need to recognise that The West cannot and should not try to impose its own style of life, including its governmental style, on the rest of the world.

Rather interesting that you put that seeing as IS seem to want to impose their own style of life on the rest of the world!

[Twiggster]

Well said BA. In fact, the Japanese were trying to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb, but the Manhattan project had come up with two separate designs for atomic bombs, and the US military were keen to see which design caused more destruction - or in their terms was "more efficient" - hence the attack on a second city before the attempted surrender was acknowledged. In my mind that constitutes a war crime.

More than justified, considering the war crimes committed by Japan, in their their POW camps. Starvation, torture for the fun of it, etc.

[Twiggster]

Rather interesting that you put that seeing as IS seem to want to impose their own style of life on the rest of the world!

Well said.

[Martyn]

More than justified, considering the war crimes committed by Japan, in their their POW camps. Starvation, torture for the fun of it, etc.

So war crimes by the West are justified? That attitude is no better than that of the jihadists.

[Martyn]

Rather interesting that you put that seeing as IS seem to want to impose their own style of life on the rest of the world!

That's what religions do. Christianity did it to much of the world too.

[Twiggster]

That's what religions do. Christianity did it to much of the world too.

The emphasis being on your word "DID". Christians have been guilty of many atrocities in the PAST. And even today with the continuing revelations of their clergy abusing children in the past.
All religions are abhorrent to me, with their abuse of power.

But I don't recall any christian suicide bombers, or christian terrorists beheading "heathens" in recent years? Or declaring a holy war on non believers? Or stoning/whipping women who have been raped. Or advocating female circumcision. Or preaching hatred against westerners in immigrant "churches" their (western) host countries helped to fund and who gave them a better life than in their land of origin.

It gave me ironic pleasure today, to read that the major leading the current air strikes against the isis...is a woman!

SUPERB!