Another 'Terrorist attack' in Paris tonight.
- Thread starter ben g
- Start date
south yorkshire
Firstly thoughts and prayers to all affected from this atrocity.
Being Belfast born and bred I am reluctant to ever suggest that you negotiate with terrorists- I'd love to say tackle the f@£res head on but sadly you can't win against those who don't fear death. We have stuck our noses in now and can't walk away and so we have two choices 1. increase control/power of intel services to arrest and detain any suspected terrorist indefinitely. 2. Open direct dialogue with their leaders (painful as it is).
Being Belfast born and bred I am reluctant to ever suggest that you negotiate with terrorists- I'd love to say tackle the f@£res head on but sadly you can't win against those who don't fear death. We have stuck our noses in now and can't walk away and so we have two choices 1. increase control/power of intel services to arrest and detain any suspected terrorist indefinitely. 2. Open direct dialogue with their leaders (painful as it is).
The problem with a ground invasion is how do you distinguish between those that are IS and those that are on the other sides (there seem to be lots) and civilians. The enemy won't be wearing a certain colour or uniform to identify themselves. I think a ground invasion would be a Vietnam type situation.
If there was an easy way of doing that, it would have already happened IMO. Much as I want IS vapourised, I don't think a ground invasion would work. The terrorists would just melt into the background, only to rise again when we've gone. Seems to be what happened in Iraq and afghanistan.
Besides, I don't see why young British troops should be going to Syria and risking their lives when Syrians men of a similar age are coming in the opposite direction. It won't happen but they should be trained up and sent back, not our troops.
If there was an easy way of doing that, it would have already happened IMO. Much as I want IS vapourised, I don't think a ground invasion would work. The terrorists would just melt into the background, only to rise again when we've gone. Seems to be what happened in Iraq and afghanistan.
Besides, I don't see why young British troops should be going to Syria and risking their lives when Syrians men of a similar age are coming in the opposite direction. It won't happen but they should be trained up and sent back, not our troops.
ronk said:
Really; evil is evil . . .
We had a disenfranchised community feeling badly done by following the 1st World War, a charismatic promise that things would be better and the answer being a finger pointed to the only way forward and at groups that were causing the problem who were to be wiped out.
Now we have a disenfranchised community feeling badly done by following western imperialism and interference, a promise that there is only one way forward and anyone or anything that does not agree with that should be wiped out. . . .
Do we never learn from history?
I've seen video of ISIS transporting groups of men in lorries, bundling them off the back of the lorries and running them through lines of armed men in black outfits, made to lie in shallow graves and then machine gunned to death. Others run past the same attired men and one after another shot in the head to fall into a river . . .
Historical parallels anyone . . . . .
dans6490 said:
Yes it would be difficult but who are the Americans and Russians bombing at the moment? seems we can differentiate between Isis and others. I think unless ground troups are sent in then things will get alot worse in Europe and thats what we are protecting. Isis will continue to train and radicailise people and pack them off to France and the UK. It will be nasty but then invading the Normandy beaches and pushing the Nazis back to Germany was nasty. Its a risk worth taking for all countries in the west if we are to uphold our present values.
Alas it won't happen. The French President has been all fighting talk today so lets see what he ACTUALLY does. I'm not holding my breath.
Tim.
As someone living in Northern Ireland (and I'll stress that I'm not comparing the two) but whilst the dialogue has moved things forward a lot here, the threat level is still at severe and small cells of hard core republicans are intent on maintaining a terror campaign. This doesn't really get publicised but it happens on a weekly basis.
Anyway, I personally think that IS are far too extreme for any sort of dialogue to have a peaceful resolution. Their propaganda is quite frankly terrifying and the sheer level and extremity of the violence and execution methods levelled against victims is appalling. Religion has a lot to answer for.
Anyway, I personally think that IS are far too extreme for any sort of dialogue to have a peaceful resolution. Their propaganda is quite frankly terrifying and the sheer level and extremity of the violence and execution methods levelled against victims is appalling. Religion has a lot to answer for.
Out of interest, from what script are they getting the violent side from to kill all infidels ? I hear often about that the Koran does not preach violence, but why are so many of the preachers doing exactly that?
Also curious where it states some other behaviour - like covering women completely, or just a scarf or something in between. So many things I can not imagine that they are written anywhere but so many people seem to follow / enforce.
Also curious where it states some other behaviour - like covering women completely, or just a scarf or something in between. So many things I can not imagine that they are written anywhere but so many people seem to follow / enforce.
pvr said:
In the same way you can interpret the saying "an eye for an eye" to mean revenge. Like in the Bible, it is allowed in warfare or in self-defence.
But it doesn't state anywhere that women have to cover completely - it is down to choice.
How people interpret scripts, and what makes one person read into something one way and another person a different way, is the right question to be asking though.
