• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Paris

Agree money helps. But we need some strong case studies on people who have joint ISIS. Returning Jihadists who are caught need to be studied and then we need to understand their motivations and influences so we can try and root those out in the community.

The prevent system is what the govt has come up with. It's crap but it's premise is ok.
 
More often than not it comes from the money trail.

Sauce: The guy who follows that trail, a friend of mine for over 20 years.

Yeah i would assume that would be a very affective way to seek out these f#cks... as would information from the community.
 
In terms of what to do, for me this should be seen as a declaration of war. I think it is time (has been for a while) to put ground troops in. Isis are the closest thing to pure evil since the nazis. I think this should be done in conjunction with players on the ground and promises of new nation states for those that fight with us, iraq and syria are little more than poorly concieved western colonial constructs anyway (ignoring strong sectarian fault lines).

How can you have a ground war against a belief? This extreme form of Islam is not unique to Syria.

If we drove them out of Iraq and Syria, they would just pop up in the next failing state in the Middle East or north Africa.

If we defeat ISIS miliatarily then the likelihood is that it will splinter and form a new group, in the same way that al qaeda became ISIS.

That is not to say that part of the solution should not involve military action, just that it is naïve to believe that it could succeed on its own.
 
All for that.

I was referring more to the suggestion of troops on the ground and driving ISIS out of Syria and Iraq. I think that the likelihood is that in time they will morph into another organisation and pop up somewhere else unstable.

Agreed sadly. This is the problem that poverty creates. Combine it with rampant ignorance and very very loud voices in your ear and on your door, telling you what 'they' aren't doing for you and saying what can be done for you in exchange for support (and, BTW, if you say no you will be treated as 'the enemy' so you have no choice) and it is a hydra which is spreading wildly out of control.
 
I agree @scaramanga and I don't have aclue what the answer is either.

With regards to Putin, we have both continued a cold war by proxy in the Middle East since the end of the real one. Their involvement in Syria has made a difficult situation even more complex.

Have you seen Bitter Lake?

Sadly I have been saying this for a couple of decades, and it is what made the Bush/Bliar responses to 9/11 so catastrophic. Interesting reading for anyone inclined, All The Shah's Men.
I am also starting David Talbot's latest, The Devil's Chessboard, about Dulles and the CIA...

None of it, BTW, excuses or exonerates these extremist clams, and I don't want anyone assuming I am trying to say so...but I do think we need to understand the wider reasons behind conversion and how these utter plankton antics manage to get any traction at all.
 
@milo the Russian support of Assad is not black and white. There are many EU and US officials who also wanted to back Assad when ISIS and the instability became apparent. He represented the best of a bad bunch as it were, and the only foundation of stability left. So Russia is not really acting as such a maverick as the western media/ politicians make out as many would have liked to have done the same and backed Assad.

It is a horribly complex mess, probably caused by other peoples interventions and funding. Turkey-PKK - both fighting common enemies, but also each other! US, Israel other middle east countries backing Syrian rebels, Russia backing Assad who's fighting ISIS and rebels. The worst thing is, it is all caused by outside interventions. The more the west and others intervene the more instability is caused. "Regime Change" may as well be called 'Anarchy Creation'.

As to solutions. The outcome is already, and will increasingly be, cold war like state policing. Everything potential terror candidates do will be analysed and watched. State run agencies will use new technologies to watch as never before. People will ask why the French were so behind the curve and while watching they let these things happen.

Really most elements of these awful events are not new. The Ottoman empire had suicidal soldiers, albeit more regimented. Terrorists have been placing bombs since they figured out how to rig explosives. What is new is the use of communication tools to orchestrate acts and recruit new fanatics. Governments have been slow to react to this. On one hand you have Snowden, liberty etc, on the other people want answers as to why such atrocities were not intercepted by intelligence.

The Assad question is as you say complex. The biggest issue the west has, is that it claims altruism as a reason for intervention when that has never been the case in any of these things. People see through it. Unfortunate. Again, no doubting whatsoever that Assad is a bastard, a dirty horrible bastard. But no-one should be fooled into thinking the west backed his ousting because he was a bastard. That has nothing to do with it (sadly), as if it did, we could at least call 'naivety'...we continue to mess in regions, and destabilize countries, we do not fully understand.
 
How can you have a ground war against a belief? This extreme form of Islam is not unique to Syria.

If we drove them out of Iraq and Syria, they would just pop up in the next failing state in the Middle East or north Africa.

If we defeat ISIS miliatarily then the likelihood is that it will splinter and form a new group, in the same way that al qaeda became ISIS.

That is not to say that part of the solution should not involve military action, just that it is naïve to believe that it could succeed on its own.

Little to do with Islam, they are just like skinheads with Kalashnikovs, the use of Islam is an attempt to legitimise thier thuggery.
 
I think that the problem with this approach is that we need we need moderate Muslims to win the war of ideas with the extremists.

Agreed 1000%!!!!!
The biggest issue of all.
Moderate Muslims have been dragged into a battle, and it is a hard one. On the one hand, the west has swathes of idiots who call them 'all terrorists' thus they feel shamed. On the other, the extremists threaten them. We HAVE to help moderates win the fight. And that means NOT collapsing to 'divide and conquer'...it is the only way we can stop the hydra growing, otherwise more will be lost. I actually find religion generally a hopeless thing, but accept that for many it offers comfort and security. Fine if it doesn't hurt people. I think the time has sadly come for Muslims to defend their faith against not just ignorant non-muslims, but ignorant, vile and disgusting extremists, who are hijacking their belief system and twisting it. We are beyond 'they shouldn't have to'...it is our only hope of stopping this IMO.
 
What a horrible situation.

As the events unfolded last night I was replete with a number of emotions. Sadness. Anger. Hope. Fear. Confusion.

Sadness because innocent human beings were being killed.

Anger at the perpetrators.

Hope that it wasn't being carried out by people who claim to be of my faith even though I had little doubt in my heart and mind.

Fear because the backlash could be awful for moderates like me but we are powerless to stop them.

Confusion because there's not a single iota in my persona and being which can relate with what these people/monsters have done.

Thoughts are with the victims families. The French people. Anyone who has been affected.

Root cause analysis is a huge topic. Why did they do it. Fek knows. I would guess extremism of any form can push people to such madness. Desensitisation to violence. Indifference to others suffering. ISIS being allowed to grow as an idea not just as a group.

One of the problems for us moderates is that we have no idea how to reach out to these guys, they are radicalised online more often than not, and we are not sure they are more our responsibility than anybody elses. We are just people trying to get along for the most part.

But after all of that I am overwhelmed with sadness more than anything else. Horrible night.

This is the worst of the worst and I sympathize tremendously. I can only say (and in no way to trivialize it, but this is the best I can do) in the early 80s, if racists popped up at the Lane around me and my mates, we would hound them out and chase them away because they didn't represent our club,culture or reputation. It's similar, except we thankfully didn't have to deal with the threat of death as a reprisal act against us...good luck and know many of us are with you in your fight mate.
 
How can you have a ground war against a belief? This extreme form of Islam is not unique to Syria.

If we drove them out of Iraq and Syria, they would just pop up in the next failing state in the Middle East or north Africa.

If we defeat ISIS miliatarily then the likelihood is that it will splinter and form a new group, in the same way that al qaeda became ISIS.

That is not to say that part of the solution should not involve military action, just that it is naïve to believe that it could succeed on its own.

It is not an answer on its own no. But i think now its an integral part of the solution. Thats why the second part of my solution is to found new nation states with those that assist. Alqaeda in iraq was defeated by the local sunni populations uprising against them and assisting the americans. Shia dominated iraqi government meant that they were then marginalised, and Isis filled that vacuum. Im using an oversimplification here. Iraq to be split between arab shia arab sunni kurdish and turkmen groups. Syria to be split between sunni arab, alwaite arab kurdish and Turkmen groups. Population exchanges being part of this as well (although they can be awful in themselves) all this laid out before hand with cast iron promises with those that participate.
 
My heart goes out to our neighbours in France. I can't begin to comprehend what the people there, and especially the families of those killed, are going through. Saying it's barbaric is putting it mildly. No words can describe it.

If there is an after life those who took life's so callously will burn for all of eternity. Sadly, I don't think that's the case and they'll never face any kind of justice. They've just taken and destroyed life's in the name of a GHod that does not, never has and never will exist. What a waste.
 
It is not an answer on its own no. But i think now its an integral part of the solution. Thats why the second part of my solution is to found new nation states with those that assist. Alqaeda in iraq was defeated by the local sunni populations uprising against them and assisting the americans. Shia dominated iraqi government meant that they were then marginalised, and Isis filled that vacuum. Im using an oversimplification here. Iraq to be split between arab shia arab sunni kurdish and turkmen groups. Syria to be split between sunni arab, alwaite arab kurdish and Turkmen groups. Population exchanges being part of this as well (although they can be awful in themselves) all this laid out before hand with cast iron promises with those that participate.

Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't defeated. We locked them up in prison camps with Sadam's military police and they merged and became ISIS.
 
Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't defeated. We locked them up in prison camps with Sadam's military police and they merged and became ISIS.

But they were defeated in the battlefield i assune thats how they were locked up. My opinion is that if the sunni arabs kurds turkmen and shia were giv3n their own states and iraq broken up with population exchanges, then Isis would not in any way the factor that they are today.

Isis recruitment on the ground in iraq is based on it saying something along the lines of the shia repressed you, but we will 'liberate'... by the time the population knows what that 'liberation' means its too late.
 
But they were defeated in the battlefield i assune thats how they were locked up. My opinion is that if the sunni arabs kurds turkmen and shia were giv3n their own states and iraq broken up with population exchanges, then Isis would not in any way the factor that they are today.

Isis recruitment on the ground in iraq is based on it saying something along the lines of the shia repressed you, but we will 'liberate'... by the time the population knows what that 'liberation' means its too late.

If you give the Kurds their own state will it include the Kurdish part of Turkey? What do you think the Russian response would be to breaking up Syria? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers here.

If ISIS are driven out of Syria and Iraq then I think that they would concentrate on Libya, Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen.
 
If you give the Kurds their own state will it include the Kurdish part of Turkey? What do you think the Russian response would be to breaking up Syria? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers here.

If ISIS are driven out of Syria and Iraq then I think that they would concentrate on Libya, Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen.

The kurdish part of turkey is not part of this problem... its a problem in its self... but its not clear cut.... with the majority of kurds are not united for independence. But thats a different subject of discussion anyway.

In terms of them moving to ther places, its not that simple and if it comes to that we should follow them there as well using the same methods of giving the people there something to fight for and want to hold.
 
The kurdish part of turkey is not part of this problem... its a problem in its self... but its not clear cut.... with the majority of kurds are not united for independence. But thats a different subject of discussion anyway.

What I am saying is that breaking up countries to move back to historic borders can also create problems. Turkey would be against the creation of a Kurdish state because it would increase pressure for the independence of the Kurdish areas of Turkey. I am not against a Kurdish state but creating problems for our allies in the region would not be without consequences.
 
Back