The Islamist attack in Paris 13-11-15

Wasn't looking to start a conversation, was commenting on the link Chris posted up

yes, my comment was in regards to the subject of the Video and the response within.

Okay, I get that, and I do agree with you to an extent.

 

But again, how exactly would you deal with ISIS?

This is what I would do - not perfect but a start.

First priority - protect the UK - all citizens, both British and immigrant.

- Ensure we bolster the border force to protect our borders - need to stem the illegals coming in and British citizens with jihadi temptations travelling in and out. atleast with Cameron's refugee plan we will be doing proper checks as supposed to the open border policy of Merkel with an influx of over 800K people already - all unchecked - some potentially even more ISIS in Europe. Protecting our borders is the main and only priority at this moment in time.

- this was an eye opener on Ch4 last night - as you can see we have enemies within - can we start by addressing them FIRST - l for one do not understand why these people are free - we have been hearing of these UK terrorist organisations in Britain for the past 10-15 years. If there was ever a case of holding terrorists in Camp-X then this was it. remove these people from society. like with Belgium and France - what is the plan to tackle with European Citizens who are part of ISIS or are supporters of Isis within Europe, in our case the UK?

- Everyone in Britain needs to feel like they are part of the society, we have plenty of segregated communities around Britain, some muslim others not where families live their entire lives within their community and never engage and interact with the rest of society - this needs to be fixed - else we will continue to breed the home grown terrorists as we see in the video above.

Another example - when I scroll through SKY there are atleast 20-25 religious channels - this was never the case before - why do we need so many of these channels? secondly most of these do spout out rubbish, divisive - not enough to bring them to the level of almuhajiroun and ISIS but enough to promote sympathetic emotions towards them.

- Finally - controversial - ban all extreme religious clothing (full veil, orthodox jewish clothing, etc) in places of work / schools etc, in other words limit it to religious places only. this will help with cohesion within the society.

Not a fan of Sadiq Khan - however agree with this viewpoint of his regarding this subject.

Reports going round now that the pilots were trying to parachute into government territory and were shot and killed while parachuting, which goes against the Geneva convention of not firing on troops in distress.

Very vague reports coming in that a rescue helicopter has also been downed.

pictures of a dead pilot posted on FB.

pictures of a dead pilot posted on FB.

Something doesn't add up.

They shouldn't have been flying in Turkish airspace without their permission.

They should have responded back to the numerous calls from the Turks.

Either the Russians or the Turks are not being honest.

Russia hasn't been honest since entering the conflict on day 1.

Turkey possibly overreacted but made a complaint to nato months ago about its air space being entered.

A rescue helicopter has definitely also been downed, by a part of the fsa (free Syrian army, anti assad).

Aside from the obvious concern and ignoring for a second Putin saying nato are supporting isis (!), Russia has also been using the Bosphorus to transfer it's equipment to Syria, with blessing from Turkey.

Very complex.

I don't know what's worse, the Russians helping Assad and supposedly targeting civilians, ot the Turks assisting Isis and killing the Kurds.

What is obvious though, is that neither Turkey nor Russia are our allies. They are both playing this situation for their own benefit, while countless thousands suffer.

I don't know what's worse, the Russians helping Assad and supposedly targeting civilians, ot the Turks assisting Isis and killing the Kurds.

 

What is obvious though, is that neither Turkey nor Russia are our allies. They are both playing this situation for their own benefit, while countless thousands suffer.

if i remember correctly you support military action, correct - and if so like I have said before we will be playing right into the hands of ISIS - that is exactly what they want - this will further fuel the business model that I described earlier (hence why you see such a political urgency in rallying support for a united military front). Like before - it is all a facade and ISIS are playing their role in the business model.

With military action not only will we make the situation worse for the innocent in Syrian (look at our past invasions since 1990) - we will unleash potential sleeper cells within Britain & Europe.

time to wake up and smell the coffee - as per my post above - I would love to see David C look after Britain FIRST

Since 2014 we have been at emergency level SEVERE - what are they doing about addressing that OR severe the new normal?

I'm in favour of military action, but one lead by the Gulf states. I agree that Western forces going in would be a very bad idea, though I still think that would be preferable to the status quo.

But they won't do anything, because if we're being honest many people in those countries support Isis. You only have to look at the many thousands of jihadis who pour out of even moderate nations like Morocco and Tunisia to see this.

IMO the time for a peaceful solution came and went a long time ago. I agree with your previous post about addressing our internal issues entirely, but at the same time we live in a globalised society. This problem is only going to continue to escalate, and pulling up the drawer bridge won't do a great deal in the long run.

IMO the time for a peaceful solution came and went a long time ago. I agree with your previous post about addressing our internal issues entirely, but at the same time we live in a globalised society. This problem is only going to continue to escalate, and pulling up the drawer bridge won't do a great deal in the long run.

My stance is that it is NOT our problem to solve so we should keep out.

The UN however should and can address this by doing the following.

Cut off the supply of funds / arms to ISIS.

Someone is buying 2M barrels of Oil from ISIS everyday - name and shame them and shut that down.

To all the countries that have supported ISIS to promote their ideology / sell them weapons - name and shame and shut that down and bring those countries to Trial.

If the UN really wants to put an end to this then we must break the business model - else it will be a repeat of Iraq until the next country a few years down the line.

Cameron must investigate ISIS terror funding by Gulf allies

Example - we destroyed Iraq - its in a far worse situation today than under Saddam - there is NO plan to rebuild the country for the Iraqi people. please dont tell me that we now suddenly care about the Syrians. Military action will make it worse for the Syrians like their neighbours before them - it will just fuel the business model for the next country down the line.

I am sorry I have seen this same movie play out many times since 1990 - will be disingenuous to fall for the same lies again. it makes it worse for the region we invade and destroy and makes Britain and Europe a much more dangerous place.

I think the families of the victims of the 7/7 bombers, the Paris victims etc might dispute that.

And allowing the existence of a country that cuts off westerners heads for fun, and forces people to convert to religion under pain of death is not something we should be allowing in the 21St century.

The idea of standing to one side and letting these attrocities continue is an affront to all of our supposed 'values'.

Imi, I agree with your sentiment.

But we are involved, we are already knee-deep in it.

I think the families of the victims of the 7/7 bombers, the Paris victims etc might dispute that.

 

And allowing the existence of a country that cuts off westerners heads for fun, and forces people to convert to religion under pain of death is not something we should be allowing in the 21St century.

 

The idea of standing to one side and letting these attrocities continue is an affront to all of our supposed 'values'.

this is the problem with your line of thinking.

I think the families of the victims of the 7/7 bombers, the Paris victims etc might dispute that.

cheap shot -- however for the effected families that are sane and look at it objectively they will agree with my post above - that you have conveniently ignored.

for others that are looking for revenge - well, an eye for eye is what Bushair and Bush Senior before him have already tried - The irony is that they are the ones truly responsible for 7/7 and Paris - remember the business model _6 years and still waiting for the chilcot report.

And allowing the existence of a country that cuts off westerners heads for fun, and forces people to convert to religion under pain of death is not something we should be allowing in the 21St century.

Country?? by that logic why not destroy London / UK - as the lunatic cut off Rigby's head not so long ago here - on our soil. by the Ch4 program that was broadcasted last night (link posted above) we are harbouring terrorists - perhaps we should start by bombing ourselves??????

The idea of standing to one side and letting these attrocities continue is an affront to all of our supposed 'values'.

Unfortunately seems like you are fixated on your hatred of the media-fed ISIS inspired version of Islam, this has exasperated your hatred of muslims, your view of muslim lives therefore being dispensable compared to European lives. Thats the only way I can explain your trigger happy attitude towards Syria while completely ignoring the issues at home + looking at the bigger picture and trying to address the root causes of these issues - either that or you are incredibly naive and stupid.

Very disappointed - even more so as the powers to be seem to be playing the same old tune again.

As they say - Charity starts at home - and we seem to be ignoring that - yet again (once is an accident, twice is stupidity, more is deliberate)

???

By country I was referring to Islamic state. Which is effectively a country now, and if we stand by and allow it's formation it will remain so.

I'm afraid I don't know why you think I'm trying to tar all Muslims with the Isis brush, I have said nothing at all to that effect.

And what's trigger happy about repeatedly saying I don't think we should be sending troops in? By your rationale, your ambivalence towards the Caliphate could be seen as an endorsement of it's inception and ascension.

Looking back, I think you've crossed some wires actually.

I wasn't advocating some sort of mass genocide of the occupants of Syria. I meant that the Islamic state itself should not be tolerated and should be destroyed. Not the Syrian cities or its people, but the structures and hierarchy of the Islamic state itself.

. I meant that the Islamic state itself should not be tolerated and should be destroyed. Not the Syrian cities or its people, but the structures and hierarchy of the Islamic state itself.

Agree with the above

How do you propose we do that without killing innocent people or as the military prefer to call them collateral damage?

How do we do the above without destroying the civilian infrastructure that the innocent Syrians heavily depend on?

How many British military lives are we willing to put on the line? Who is answerable to those families?

How come we are so trigger happy to attack a foreign country and yet turning a blind eye to problems at home.

What if A neibouring European country were to decide to attack the UK for harbouring ISIS sympathisers or even worse sleepers? Not as if our intelligence agencies seem to be doing anything about it

We do have issues with cohesion within British society, but those aren't solved by the military. Education and integration are the answer.

Someone, eventually, is going to have to send troops into Iraq and Syria. I cannot think of another way. I would much prefer that it wasn't us, but I don't see a que of other countries waiting to do it. And as we have some responsibility in the mess that created Isis, doesn't that make it our responsibility?

We could leave it to the Russians, but if you think Western forces create civilian casualties, wait to see what they will do.

And as I have said before, people are dying there as we speak. Who's to say that our inaction now won't make the situation much worse in the long run? Chamberlain appeased Hitler at a point when the British and French could have stopped him. That inaction caused the worst war in history, and 60million + deaths.

I'm honestly the last person who wants British troops spilling blood on foreign soil, but it seems that events are conspiring in that direction again.

Taken from the Guardian an hour ago.

Despite earlier reports that the two pilots are dead, a Turkish official has told Reuters otherwise.

Turkey believes the two pilots from a Russian war plane it shot down close to the Syrian border on Tuesday are still alive and is working to secure their release from Syrian rebels, a Turkish government official told Reuters. “Our units, who received the information that the two pilots were alive, are working to get them from opposition rebels safely,” the official said.

Taken from the Guardian an hour ago.

 

Despite earlier reports that the two pilots are dead, a Turkish official has told Reuters otherwise.

Turkey believes the two pilots from a Russian war plane it shot down close to the Syrian border on Tuesday are still alive and is working to secure their release from Syrian rebels, a Turkish government official told Reuters. “Our units, who received the information that the two pilots were alive, are working to get them from opposition rebels safely,” the official said.

That's damage limitation from Turkey.

One is 100% dead.

We do have issues with cohesion within British society, but those aren't solved by the military. Education and integration are the answer.

 

Someone, eventually, is going to have to send troops into Iraq and Syria. I cannot think of another way. I would much prefer that it wasn't us, but I don't see a que of other countries waiting to do it. And as we have some responsibility in the mess that created Isis, doesn't that make it our responsibility?

 

We could leave it to the Russians, but if you think Western forces create civilian casualties, wait to see what they will do.

 

And as I have said before, people are dying there as we speak. Who's to say that our inaction now won't make the situation much worse in the long run? Chamberlain appeased Hitler at a point when the British and French could have stopped him. That inaction caused the worst war in history, and 60million + deaths.

 

I'm honestly the last person who wants British troops spilling blood on foreign soil, but it seems that events are conspiring in that direction again.

Military action against whom?

Where would you send our troops?

Islamic state.

Now bare in mind I'm not a military strategist, but destroying IS stockpile of weapons and vehicles would come first. Use coalition troops to complement existing resistance fighters in areas where they're fighting IS. Leave Assad alone for the time being. Destroy rail links, ports etc where IS can move people, weapons and oil.

March coalition troops into the cities en masse, make them safe for the Syrians and Iraqis to return to.

And importantly, a UN peacekeeping force must reside in these areas to stop the return of Isis. These must remain there long term.

Once this has been achieved, there needs to be a diplomatic settlement with Assad. He cannot remain in power after what he has done, but equally if he is dealt with too harshly, he will simply entrench himself. I would suggest an exile of some kind, maybe the Russians would have him.

Example - we destroyed Iraq - its in a far worse situation today than under Saddam - there is NO plan to rebuild the country for the Iraqi people. please dont tell me that we now suddenly care about the Syrians. Military action will make it worse for the Syrians like their neighbours before them - it will just fuel the business model for the next country down the line.

Where do you get this information from?

We didn't destroy Iraq.

We did rebuild it, gave them an infrastructure, gave them a police force, army and navy.

Trained them, gave the weapons, money, buildings etc

Gave them courts, trained judges.

Gave them democracy, they elected their own government.

Built schools, businesses etc.

The drama was terrorists, where the majority weren't even Iraqi.

After we left, which was after the agreed date of aid it was fine, until Isis got a foot in the door.

This is fact, I've seen it with my own eyes, helped do many of the things mentioned and helped train their army.

Islamic state.

 

Now bare in mind I'm not a military strategist, but destroying IS stockpile of weapons and vehicles would come first. Use coalition troops to complement existing resistance fighters in areas where they're fighting IS. Leave Assad alone for the time being. Destroy rail links, ports etc where IS can move people, weapons and oil.

So we invade Syria, and go against Russia & Iran and Assad himself?

Which resistance fighters do you choose to side with?

The Kurds who are the most effective anti-isis force currently out there but who are also classed as a terrorist organisation by our Nato ally Turkey?

How about Hezbollah, who have also pledged holy war against isis but are classed as terrorists by Israel?

Or the FSA, currently supplied by America & Saudi Arabia but also made up of over 200 different factions a large number of whom are Al Qaeda?

What about when one of them remembers several years ago our own leader pledging support to Assad?

What happens when we come up against Iranian troops embedded within Assads military?

Or Turkish troops battling the Kurds?

What happens when an American squad gets wiped out by an American supplied TOW mounted onto an Italian truck supplied by China?

What happens when we come up against a Russian infantry squad embedded with Assads forces disguised as advisors & tank mechanics?

What happens when we come up against an Iraqi intelligence officer trained by us but now advising Isis?

March coalition troops into the cities en masse, make them safe for the Syrians and Iraqis to return to.

March troops where?

Where Russia is blind dropping barrel bombs en masse?

And importantly, a UN peacekeeping force must reside in these areas to stop the return of Isis. These must remain there long term.

The UN are utterly irrelevant in this situation as a peacekeeping force. Chocolate fireguard springs to mind.

Once this has been achieved, there needs to be a diplomatic settlement with Assad. He cannot remain in power after what he has done, but equally if he is dealt with too harshly, he will simply entrench himself. I would suggest an exile of some kind, maybe the Russians would have him.

So he's left to seek exile as he wishes, after a toll of currently over 250,000 civilian deaths alone?

The situation is beyond a mess and changes daily.

It's taking me a week to write a coherent blog with even a remote idea of a solution (if there is one) and you want to drop troops into that situation?

No, I've already said, repeatedly, I don't want us to put troops in for the very reasons you describe. Today's incident with the jet is a prime example of how so many major powers operating in such a small area can quickly go awry.

When I use the world coalition, I'm talking about a coalition. NOT a Western coalition.

I would consider US or British troops going in to be very much a last resort. But that doesn't mean we can act in a support and consultative role, although that also presents its own issues.

I just can't see any sort of future for Syria or Iraq while Isis exist.

I just can't see any sort of future for Syria or Iraq while Isis exist.

Honestly, I'm struggling to see a future for the region at all.

Which is grim.

It's getting far worse and more complex day by day.

Superpowers are using it as a proxy war & show of force & advertising arena, and you've got an extremist group equivalent to the early days of the Nazis brainwashing people, marginalising an entire religious group and sitting on an annual income from oil of $500million.