the middle east Thread

[mnb089mnb]

Are we saying that this attack was orchestrated and British Muslims knew it was going to happen?

And Radio Merseyside and Sky are reporting it.

But it hasn't made it online yet?

 

[silkyman]

Cameron has promised a 'full spectrum' response.

I don't think a marathon Manic Miner session will cut the mustard here, Dave..

 

[johnnytodd]

Are we saying that this attack was orchestrated and British Muslims knew it was going to happen?

And Radio Merseyside and Sky are reporting it.

But it hasn't made it online yet?

yes its online, its on this phone in between 12.30 - 1.30 i'm told, basically some man rings in to ask why nothing has been reported about what i heard on the news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02trfcv

 

[johnnytodd]

Are we saying that this attack was orchestrated and British Muslims knew it was going to happen?

And Radio Merseyside and Sky are reporting it.

But it hasn't made it online yet?

that link works its 1h24 mins into the show

 

[Dave-Vale]

It's probably just the same nutters from 10 years ago, except now they've moved franchise from Al-Qaeda to Islamic State...

From what I've read even ISIS are too extreme for Al-Qaeda and they're no longer get backed by them.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

I've said before and i'll say again...time to get the troops right into the country and finish it off.

I fully blame the 'pull the troops out' brigade for the full ISIS mess, people blame going into Iraq, but for me it was still the right thing to do, the problem is we left that country far far far too early.

 

[Modernist]

I've said before and i'll say again...time to get the troops right into the country and finish it off.

I fully blame the 'pull the troops out' brigade for the full ISIS mess, people blame going into Iraq, but for me it was still the right thing to do, the problem is we left that country far far far too early.

That is just what ISIS want.

 

[Womble98]

Think logically about this. The deaths of these people are tragic, and we should mourn them and show full respect to them. But the actual threat that IS poses to this country is so minimal. Over a year since they came to prominence really, with promises that our citizens would be murdered in the street. Lee Rigby is the sole incident on British soil. They have failed in every other attempt, or just haven't had attempts.

Our involvement should be limited to assiting the Kurds and the Iranians with air strikes, intel, and arms.


I have also heard the same story that Johnny said about a man being warned to stay away.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

I've said before and i'll say again...time to get the troops right into the country and finish it off.

I fully blame the 'pull the troops out' brigade for the full ISIS mess, people blame going into Iraq, but for me it was still the right thing to do, the problem is we left that country far far far too early.

That would be an utterly horrendous thing to do, it'd pull the whole thing into the Islam v 'The West' thing that ISIS want to fuel, in order to further their claims of legitimacy in the Islamic world, by shouting 'look we told you so, they're invading again and they're invading our state'.

ISIS can only be stopped by Islam itself. Although it's deeper than that, as not even Shia Islam can intervene too far because that also plays to the Shia v Sunni divide that ISIS want to fuel. Ultimately ISIS can only be stopped by Sunnis themselves.

 

[johnnytodd]

approximately 1000 illegal immigrants have entered the UK since the Tunisia massacre alone ( government estimates)

it's just a matter of time until there is a massacre in the UK

 

[Modernist]

approximately 1000 illegal immigrants have entered the UK since the Tunisia massacre alone ( government estimates)

it's just a matter of time until there is a massacre in the UK

You can say that about any country in the world, and it doesnt take illegal immigrants either, infact its less likely to be illegal immigrants and more likely to be home grown, but if you want to put the worlds ills on immigrants then carry on with your misguided view.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

I have to disagree with you guys who say going in is exactly what ISIS want us to do.............it won't at all generate a 'them and us'

clearly you lot do not realize the even larger bigger threat which comes from allowing them time to develop.

In the places they currently own the schools will be developing hundreds maybe thousands of new radicals all of whom will be out to cause much larger problems in 5-6 years time, it'll be then people finally act.

going in would at least stop them having a focus and allowing the media to give them massed publicity all the time, they'd be wiped out as an effective force within a week.

 

[johnnytodd]

You can say that about any country in the world, and it doesnt take illegal immigrants either, infact its less likely to be illegal immigrants and more likely to be home grown, but if you want to put the worlds ills on immigrants then carry on with your misguided view.

Whats misguided? people are entering the country from these collapsed states EVERY minute and your telling me ISIS has not had the idea to send Jihadists to the home of people they hate and want to kill, they will have plenty of welcoming people too......guaranteed massacre on the cards.

It wont be the politicians who get slaughtered it will be the men women and children who have done fuck all.

 

[Red]

I have to disagree with you guys who say going in is exactly what ISIS want us to do.............it won't at all generate a 'them and us'

clearly you lot do not realize the even larger bigger threat which comes from allowing them time to develop.

In the places they currently own the schools will be developing hundreds maybe thousands of new radicals all of whom will be out to cause much larger problems in 5-6 years time, it'll be then people finally act.

going in would at least stop them having a focus and allowing the media to give them massed publicity all the time, they'd be wiped out as an effective force within a week.

I'm not sure why you supported the war in Iraq that was proven to be predicated on a lie. The problem is Dave is that the British public don't want another war. Out of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and a potential war with ISIS I'd say the latter would have been most justifiable, but getting involved in the other two has rendered the chance of war with ISIS much, much slimmer.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

You can't eradicate a disease by bombing the symptoms. Iraq is a country but not a nation. It's artificial, it doesn't make sense, and we shouldn't be trying to hold it together.

 

[Alty]

You can't eradicate a disease by bombing the symptoms. Iraq is a country but not a nation. It's artificial, it doesn't make sense, and we shouldn't be trying to hold it together.

There's a misguided view that nationlism is inherently bad which helps to support the ill-conceived notion that stability and the status quo go hand in hand. If Kurdistan (or a version thereof), a Shia state and a Sunni one makes more sense than a country called Iraq, then that's probably better for everyone's happiness and for regional stability long-term.

 

[Alty]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33338647

Not directly related but...fuck.

 

[SUTSS]

You can't eradicate a disease by bombing the symptoms. Iraq is a country but not a nation. It's artificial, it doesn't make sense, and we shouldn't be trying to hold it together.

That doesn't necessarily lead to instability though surely? There are plenty of countries in the world that are made up of several nations.

Although I agree with the overall point you're making. The Middle East and Africa are full of countries whose borders have been drawn by foreign politicians with no regard to history and culture and this is a huge factor in the instability.

 

[Gladders]

Only a matter of time before troops end up getting sent in, most likely not long after the US elections. Air strikes aren't enough especially as ISIS are just moving into cities and using civilians as shields.

 

[Dave-Vale]

If Jeb Bush gets in he can be the 3rd Bush family member to wage war on the Middle East.

I very much doubt that ISIS would be thriving as they are if we had never invaded Iraq/Afghanistan.

I'm not an advocate of war, simply because there are going to be civilian casualties in the thousands. That said, ISIS are more of a reason to send troops in and start air strikes than any reason given for the previous invasion of Iraq.

What is it about the people from that part of the world and their inability to resolve shit without resorting to war and violence?

 

[mnb089mnb]

Resolving shit with war and violence is what you're advocating though?

 

[Dave-Vale]

Resolving shit with war and violence is what you're advocating though?

I KNEW somebody would say that.

I simply stated that they're giving the west more of a reason to send troops in than Saddam Hussein ever did.

I never said, or even implied that was what I wanted to happen.

That is what will eventually happen though.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

Sitting back isn't always the answer......sometimes you have to act.

I still 100% back the Iraq war as it was the right thing to do................he was a horrendous person and removing him wasn't a bad thing anyway (but yes the US reasons in the end were bad)

the problem is people seem to think once you remove the dictator countries should magically transform into some whimsical wonderland. it could take year and years.

we ditched Iraq far too early, if we'd stayed we'd not have this now.

 

[SUTSS]

I agree with Dave to an extent. I think our big failure in Iraq was having no plan about what happens next. The sectarian divides in the country were well established so it shouldn't have come as a surprise to any of the invading countries that this sort of thing could happen. Soldiers aren't nation builders and it was stupid to think that we could stabilise a country with the military alone.

I think we're in a lose/lose situation with ISIS. We go in with military force and risk further entrenching the 'West v Islam' narrative that is an effective recruiting tool. We don't go in with military force and we risk ISIS become stronger and genuinely threatening Europe. I think if there is going to be any military action then it has to be with Islamic countries at our side.

Also, if we genuinely want to defeat them we need to be investing in renewable and nuclear energy like no tomorrow so that we can end our relationship with the Saudis.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

Well the good thing is ISIS are digging their own grave by deciding to attack every other terrorist force at the same time and thus removing the 'them vs us' argument.

already attacking Al Qaeda and now attacking Hamas.....it at least means that frankly they won't get support if others attacked.

the big thing is it needs supported from most areas.....US-Russia-China-Middle East.

I think ISIS have done enough for it to be supported by all 4 areas.

 

[Stagat]

the big thing is it needs supported from most areas.....US-Russia-China-Middle East.

I think ISIS have done enough for it to be supported by all 4 areas.

Admittedly based on nowt but what I reckon, but if you're on about sending in ground troops... then I can't see China getting involved. Not unless IS directly brings them into it, and I don't reckon IS would be daft enough to do that.

China have nothing to lose by not getting involved in the way that countries closer to home have because nobody really expects them to. They can (and I reckon will) happily sit thousands of miles away safe in the opinion it's nowt really to do with them.

 

[.V.]

If we do decide to go in and remove ISIS, I do hope our post war planning is significantly better than it was 12 years ago.

 

[Red]

Right, this might sound daft but what do ISIS and isil stand for? I get that the is part obviously stands for Islamic state. I thought the is and il bits stood for in Syria and in Libya respectively, but today I heard Cameron say 'isil in Syria '

 

[mnb089mnb]

I KNEW somebody would say that.

I simply stated that they're giving the west more of a reason to send troops in than Saddam Hussein ever did.

I never said, or even implied that was what I wanted to happen.

That is what will eventually happen though.

"What is it about the people from that part of the world and their inability to resolve shit without resorting to war and violence?"

But this is what the US and UK do in this part of the world, isn't it?

 

[SUTSS]

The L is for Levant surely?