Paris Shootings

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:So sassy cannot answer any points and instead try to derail the thread making accusations on posters thus deflecting.


For sassy to answer




Is that the vast majority of religious leaders/scholars and political leaders who have condemn what these Jordanians did the other day?

Again what is being done is miniscule and a token jesture as constantly many things by groups are allowed to go unchallenged.

Your last point just sums up the fact you cannot counter what I am saying is true, because it is. As otheriwse you would not have a systematic belief found widespread throughout the Muslim world that promotes hate to both Israel and America. Where what is taught deligitimizes them. By doing this, you then allow for a belief that it is acceptable to attack innocent civillians etc, as you have classified the people of these nations as evil. fundemnetally dehumanizing them. You have opposition to problems, not a promotion of hate. be critical, not promote a view of hate and look what you and some of the left do in regards to your rhetoric of hate against Zionism, which is just another means of justifying hate of israel and many of its citzens.

We have seen of late what condemnations against Abbas and other Fatah and hamas leaders for promoting murderers as Martyrs and justifyiung their murdereous acts? So where is this condemnation which you should be able to show that is so vocal in every Muslim country condemning those murderers classified as Martyrs? Where they condemn the march in Morocco, where they created mock executions of Jews. That they denounced the march in Tunisa, which supported a claim to a Palestinian rising, of which is being done through murder?

You see its the denial that is the major obsticle that you and other Muslims are creating based off anger as seen above. Until you have a centralised and majority vocally condemnation of all acts of violence and hate to people. Then the token efforts done, count for very little. You need seperation, that makes the stand point within islam, against violence. To then more so champion peace. Ignore this  all you like, but you are fundementally ignoring a problem that stems from a central core belief in islam of brotherhood and sisterhood. The bigggest factor and core reason to why some Muslims, with no connection to a nation and wrongs done there, have a connection and a perceived injustice, created around the faith itself. So please spare me your poor defense here zack, with deflecting claiming this is like smelly and mentor. If you had bothered to read, I am actually trying to help Muslims and even its religion, becaome seperate from the extremists. Its time you and countless other  Muslims did actually something to reclaim your religion. Ignoring these fundemental problems, will just continue to allow the extremism to grow.

Lol! Of course Islam and over a billion Muslims need St Didge, the patron saint of arrogance and sanctimony.

Perhaps start by getting to know a few Muslims and perhaps visit a Mosque, like you've always wanted to. Give a speech there and discuss.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I'm sorry Sass, I was reasonable earlier this year when this happened. But Europe has done its best for refugees coming to Europe under immense strain. How many attacks must we be forced to endure (and that is exactly what you and Zack are asking for here).

It isn't racism or extremism to ask for a heavy reaction when many innocent people have been murdered by these cowards twice in one year in France. I don't care how they treat terror suspects, I care about more innocent people just having a good time being killed in large numbers  by bitter, ruthless, brainwashed cowards.

You think Sassy and I want to risk our own lives? Really? Do you think you're being reasonable right now?

Cass wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and Enochs nightmare comes one step closer

Bull....this is history coming back to bite the West in the ass.....why the hell no one can see that is beyond me.

Cass wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It could be a deterrent, depending on whether Islamic terrorists care what happens to their bodies after death or not.

If someone is willing to die for a cause, they already believe that their souls will get their reward, desecration to their remains will only enrage those left behind.

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I'm wondering exactly what you and sassy think should be done to stop this happening again.

nicko wrote:"A vigilant and well trained Police Force"

You don't really have a clue do you?

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:"A vigilant and well trained Police Force"

You don't really have a clue do you?

More than you, nonce.  More than you.  You want to go in their like a bull in a china shop, wasting your time, resources...and our children's lives.  All to gratify your pathetic ego.

Been there; done that...got the ticket stubs to prove it!  You waste our time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

More than you, nonce.  More than you.  You want to go in their like a bull in a china shop, wasting your time, resources...and our children's lives.  All to gratify your pathetic ego.

Been there; done that...got the ticket stubs to prove it!  You waste our time.

That post was out of order. Nicko is not a nonce.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That post was out of order. Nicko is not a nonce.

What is a nonce?

Collins English Dictionary wrote:n.
abstracted from phrase for þe naness (c.1200) "for a special occasion, for a particular purpose," itself a misdivision (see N for other examples) of for þan anes "for the one," in reference to a particular occasion or purpose, the þan being from Middle English dative definite article þam (see the ). The phrase used from early 14c. as an empty filler in metrical composition. As an adjective from 1884.

Lord Foul wrote:As if quill didnt know that

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I'm wondering exactly what you and sassy think should be done to stop this happening again.

Stop it happening again?  How do you stop any crime?  With a vigilant and well-trained police force.  

Stormee wrote:Ethnic cleansing is the only CERTAIN way to get them OUT.

Any other way is futile.

When we get them out of here we can deal with them if they are norty.

HoratioTarr wrote:We need to close our borders or at least stop letting anyone in willy nilly.  Australia have got it right.   It's not about being un-PC, it's about common sense.  Nobody wants to go down the route of tarring all Muslims with the same brush, but sadly, it's going to happen.   Most of know we should be logical and compassionate, but when a civil war breaks out, all that goes to the wall.    We may not have a civil war here in the UK...yet...but it's probably heading that way in other countries if this carries on.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:As if quill didnt know that

Well if he didn't, he does now, so I daresay he'll be apologising to Nicko.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if he didn't, he does now, so I daresay he'll be apologising to Nicko.

I doubt it...notice how he ran away immediately after posting and being challenged

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:We need to close our borders or at least stop letting anyone in willy nilly.  Australia have got it right.   It's not about being un-PC, it's about common sense.  Nobody wants to go down the route of tarring all Muslims with the same brush, but sadly, it's going to happen.   Most of know we should be logical and compassionate, but when a civil war breaks out, all that goes to the wall.    We may not have a civil war here in the UK...yet...but it's probably heading that way in other countries if this carries on.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Stormee wrote:Ethnic cleansing is the only CERTAIN way to get them OUT.

Any other way is futile.

When we get them out of here we can deal with them if they are norty.

What's your definition of 'ethnic cleansing'?

Stormee wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

What's your definition of 'ethnic cleansing'?

Getting shot of all muzziz from our island.

Didge wrote:We have arrived at a crossroads. Few can have believed that the bloody killings of Charlie Hebdo's staff would be the end of it. Today many may hope, but virtually no one will believe, that the ghastly attacks on the concert hall and restaurants in Paris will either be the end of it or, terrifyingly, the worst of it.

Since 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria, and with so many other conflicts in between, instability has spread outwards and progressed ever closer towards us in Europe, while engulfing much of the Middle East and Islamic world in a fire which seems unquenchable.

In Europe there seemed to be a pause in the threat for a while after the attacks in Madrid and London, but Syria's descent into unimaginable carnage and the accompanying rise of Isis and their deliberate strategy to terrorise through deed and propaganda are a game-changer. The attacks in France this year have now brought this war to Europe. We feel under attack from without and within. People here in France have referred to last night's attack both as a civil war as well as war with the self-styled Islamic State.

Where does this end? How does it stop? What is fuelling this? Certainly the fight between Sunni and Shia fought between Iran and Iraq in the eighties casts a long shadow. It's been continued by proxy ever since, funded and encouraged by Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is seen right now in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. Iran supports and arms and funds its proxy armies, and Saudi Arabia matches it in each country, but there is a fundamental difference. Isis are now a threat on a different level, either by deliberate plan or inspiration.

The causes of this spread of terrorism are complex, but one aspect we have to tackle head on -- its ideological roots in Wahhabi Islam, the official religion of Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud rules at the mercy of the clerics, some of whom see jihadism as a legitimate method of advancing their religion. The state in Saudi Arabia may not directly fund Isis, but the fundamentals of the Saudi state and society mean many of its people do.

The tenets of Islam have become distorted for too many believers. When I was a child I was taught about the Prophet, and about Mecca. My lessons contained no sense of threat. There was even a whiff of romance about it. But across North and West Africa, leaking into Europe; across the Middle East leaking into Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and now frighteningly newly, into Bangladesh, the intractable Wahhabi fundamentalist belief system is spreading fast. But "leaking" is a generous word. Radical Wahhabi Islam has not so much "leaked" as it has been exported, financed, and pushed into and beyond these countries.

It is not a movement that represented the majority of Muslim believers, but its spread and growth mean it can now appear as the strongest force within Islam - a force that is deeply attractive to alienated young people across the Muslim world and Northern Hemisphere. That sense springs both from the economic and social alienation many of them experience, and from a deep-seated resentment against the way Islam's holy places and the heartland of Wahhabism are managed. This explains, in part, why so many young Saudis have left and joined the so-called Islamic State. Indeed it explains why Wahhabi-believing jihadists joining Isis are revolted by the shopping malls and glitzy hotels that have come to dominate the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, located in Saudi Arabia, as they are by the Assad brutality backed up by Shia Iran and infidel Russia.

We in the West can do something to try to reach out to the economically and socially alienated Muslim. But tackling those alienated by the management of their faith in a far-away land upon which we are so dependant for both exports and imports of oil, is a far, far, greater challenge. We need to tackle the unending rivalry between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, which splits the region and fuels the violence. The war in Syria has been sustained and worsened by Iran's backing for a leader who started brutalising and massacring his own people the moment they demonstrated against him, and which has most recently been characterised by the routine barrel bombing of civilian areas. We may not blame Iran for the terror on our streets but many Syrians driven towards Isis blame them for the bombs on theirs.

We don't yet know the balance between internal French-based Islamic radicals and external Isis-centred forces, in the planning and execution of these latest atrocities in Paris. But we do know that Saudi Arabia has a problem, and it looks like the rest of us have little chance of being able to influence its resolution. The Kingdom is under threat from the very ideology upon which its twentieth century founders centered their entire philosophy and belief system.

The more the Royal family bows to Western demands for women's rights - car driving, voting, and the rest - the worse the confrontation with the Wahhabi zealots becomes. Indeed a recently retired British General, well versed in Saudi relations, told me only last week that if the House of Saud were to fall, the consequences for the world could be devastating. Yet there is a terrifying fusion between the Western resentment of the Saudi Royal Family's failure to modernise, and the Islamic State's conviction that the country's rules have already joined the ranks of blasphemers.

For too many young Wahhabi zealots across the Northern hemisphere, Isis had become the guardian of the "true way." Yet Saudi money continues to fund radical Wahabi preachers to establish Wahhabi radical Madrassas (faith schools) right across western Europe, North Africa and seamlessly through the Arabian peninsula into Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent. What role any of this "export" played upon the distorted minds of those who loathed themselves enough to kill so many souls and then destroy themselves we don't yet know.

But we are now confronted by one of the gravest threats to our world and our way of life, since rise of the Nazism. We'd better start talking about it openly not only amongst ourselves, but with everyone with whom we relate who plays a role in its sustenance, and that of course includes the Saudis. They are increasingly themselves afraid of Isis, perhaps even more frightened of them that we are. Air strikes will not resolve what many Muslim scholars regard as a deep and insidious distortion of religious belief.

Indeed they may make it worse. Isis is winning converts with every passing day of war; Assad's brutality has created fertile territory. We may even have to start looking for other ways to engage with the self-styled Islamic State itself. Somehow the self-loathing, the hatred, and fear of others together with a fundamentalist commitment to a world that predates mechanisation, let alone digitalisation has to be combated. Governments in the northern hemisphere may have to be prepared to move aggressively to staunch the funding and manning of this terrifying movement. Pray God it is already not too late.

This post was first published on the Channel 4 News website on Jon Snow's blog here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-snow/paris-attacks-middle-east_b_8564342.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Stormee wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

What's your definition of 'ethnic cleansing'?

Getting shot of all muzziz from our island.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:We have arrived at a crossroads. Few can have believed that the bloody killings of Charlie Hebdo's staff would be the end of it. Today many may hope, but virtually no one will believe, that the ghastly attacks on the concert hall and restaurants in Paris will either be the end of it or, terrifyingly, the worst of it.

Since 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria, and with so many other conflicts in between, instability has spread outwards and progressed ever closer towards us in Europe, while engulfing much of the Middle East and Islamic world in a fire which seems unquenchable.

In Europe there seemed to be a pause in the threat for a while after the attacks in Madrid and London, but Syria's descent into unimaginable carnage and the accompanying rise of Isis and their deliberate strategy to terrorise through deed and propaganda are a game-changer. The attacks in France this year have now brought this war to Europe. We feel under attack from without and within. People here in France have referred to last night's attack both as a civil war as well as war with the self-styled Islamic State.

Where does this end? How does it stop? What is fuelling this? Certainly the fight between Sunni and Shia fought between Iran and Iraq in the eighties casts a long shadow. It's been continued by proxy ever since, funded and encouraged by Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is seen right now in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. Iran supports and arms and funds its proxy armies, and Saudi Arabia matches it in each country, but there is a fundamental difference. Isis are now a threat on a different level, either by deliberate plan or inspiration.

The causes of this spread of terrorism are complex, but one aspect we have to tackle head on -- its ideological roots in Wahhabi Islam, the official religion of Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud rules at the mercy of the clerics, some of whom see jihadism as a legitimate method of advancing their religion. The state in Saudi Arabia may not directly fund Isis, but the fundamentals of the Saudi state and society mean many of its people do.

The tenets of Islam have become distorted for too many believers. When I was a child I was taught about the Prophet, and about Mecca. My lessons contained no sense of threat. There was even a whiff of romance about it. But across North and West Africa, leaking into Europe; across the Middle East leaking into Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and now frighteningly newly, into Bangladesh, the intractable Wahhabi fundamentalist belief system is spreading fast. But "leaking" is a generous word. Radical Wahhabi Islam has not so much "leaked" as it has been exported, financed, and pushed into and beyond these countries.

It is not a movement that represented the majority of Muslim believers, but its spread and growth mean it can now appear as the strongest force within Islam - a force that is deeply attractive to alienated young people across the Muslim world and Northern Hemisphere. That sense springs both from the economic and social alienation many of them experience, and from a deep-seated resentment against the way Islam's holy places and the heartland of Wahhabism are managed. This explains, in part, why so many young Saudis have left and joined the so-called Islamic State. Indeed it explains why Wahhabi-believing jihadists joining Isis are revolted by the shopping malls and glitzy hotels that have come to dominate the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, located in Saudi Arabia, as they are by the Assad brutality backed up by Shia Iran and infidel Russia.

We in the West can do something to try to reach out to the economically and socially alienated Muslim. But tackling those alienated by the management of their faith in a far-away land upon which we are so dependant for both exports and imports of oil, is a far, far, greater challenge. We need to tackle the unending rivalry between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, which splits the region and fuels the violence. The war in Syria has been sustained and worsened by Iran's backing for a leader who started brutalising and massacring his own people the moment they demonstrated against him, and which has most recently been characterised by the routine barrel bombing of civilian areas. We may not blame Iran for the terror on our streets but many Syrians driven towards Isis blame them for the bombs on theirs.

We don't yet know the balance between internal French-based Islamic radicals and external Isis-centred forces, in the planning and execution of these latest atrocities in Paris. But we do know that Saudi Arabia has a problem, and it looks like the rest of us have little chance of being able to influence its resolution. The Kingdom is under threat from the very ideology upon which its twentieth century founders centered their entire philosophy and belief system.

The more the Royal family bows to Western demands for women's rights - car driving, voting, and the rest - the worse the confrontation with the Wahhabi zealots becomes. Indeed a recently retired British General, well versed in Saudi relations, told me only last week that if the House of Saud were to fall, the consequences for the world could be devastating. Yet there is a terrifying fusion between the Western resentment of the Saudi Royal Family's failure to modernise, and the Islamic State's conviction that the country's rules have already joined the ranks of blasphemers.

For too many young Wahhabi zealots across the Northern hemisphere, Isis had become the guardian of the "true way." Yet Saudi money continues to fund radical Wahabi preachers to establish Wahhabi radical Madrassas (faith schools) right across western Europe, North Africa and seamlessly through the Arabian peninsula into Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent. What role any of this "export" played upon the distorted minds of those who loathed themselves enough to kill so many souls and then destroy themselves we don't yet know.

But we are now confronted by one of the gravest threats to our world and our way of life, since rise of the Nazism. We'd better start talking about it openly not only amongst ourselves, but with everyone with whom we relate who plays a role in its sustenance, and that of course includes the Saudis. They are increasingly themselves afraid of Isis, perhaps even more frightened of them that we are. Air strikes will not resolve what many Muslim scholars regard as a deep and insidious distortion of religious belief.

Indeed they may make it worse. Isis is winning converts with every passing day of war; Assad's brutality has created fertile territory. We may even have to start looking for other ways to engage with the self-styled Islamic State itself. Somehow the self-loathing, the hatred, and fear of others together with a fundamentalist commitment to a world that predates mechanisation, let alone digitalisation has to be combated. Governments in the northern hemisphere may have to be prepared to move aggressively to staunch the funding and manning of this terrifying movement. Pray God it is already not too late.

This post was first published on the Channel 4 News website on Jon Snow's blog here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-snow/paris-attacks-middle-east_b_8564342.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

What should be done, didge?

Lord Foul wrote:Interesting to note though.....

that flat liner junker and the rest of his lefty "european high command" are saying oh dont change refugee policy, dont stop taking em in by the million...

carry on and keep dieing

these are the very bastards that live behind high level security shields. these quivering brain dead useless lumps of gristle are full of "good advice" from the safety of their armoured vehicles, armoured offices and rings of countless security men.....

lets have them surrender those  and see how they squeal when its them and theirs that "get it"

Lord Foul wrote:as for te other crap I have been reading about how this puts the shennagen treaty "at risk"...well so it should

ask yourself this....


what would you rather have, a passport to travel round europe...a system that worked well enough for years

OR

a terrorists bullet in your guts???

Cass wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and Enochs nightmare comes one step closer

Bull....this is history coming back to bite the West in the ass.....why the hell no one can see that is beyond me.

veya_victaous wrote:

Cass wrote:
Bull....this is history coming back to bite the West in the ass.....why the hell no one can see that is beyond me.

it is obvious Cass. I cant see why people cant see it either.

I guess they are little people pushing big barrows and cant see past the huge pile of crap they are trying to push up hill

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I'm wondering exactly what you and sassy think should be done to stop this happening again.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I'm wondering exactly what you and sassy think should be done to stop this happening again.

Sassy can speak for herself.

But what you're really asking me is "What do you do once the milk has been spilt?"  

How about not spilling the milk in the first place? Case and others have already said this is just a repeat of history and we don't seem to be able to learn from it.

That's becuase this is as old as Christian Imperialism. Which then transformed in to the Victorian Mission, where the aim was to steal another country's resources in the guise of civilising them with Christianity.

The missionary methods have changed in the 20th century but we are still stealing resources in the guise of civilising the people. This is how empire works.

Bernard Shaw once remarked: “They send in the missionaries. The natives kill the missionaries. The soldiers take revenge, take the country and give thanks to God that more land has been added to the empire.”

https://kenbaker.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/christian-mission-and-victorian-imperialism/

In other words, we meant to spill the milk. So people like you feel like our soldiers should take revenge and give permission to your government to take revenge and steal their resources.

Like Veya says, I'm surprised people can't see it.

What should be done now to wipe up the milk? Not continue to spill more by bombing innocent civilians who are taken out when targeting the enemy.

In fact, how about getting out of there completely? No planes, bombs, soldiers and aid workers (who are the modern missionaries). Then help your allies in the region (Iraq, The Turks and especially the Kurds) take control from ISIS. That way there is less chance of a power vacuum, which would happen if we just invade like we did Iraq.

Of course this is a simple summary - but you get the gist.

Tommy Monk wrote:
I bet that for every excuse you can come up with to try to show that the Muslims are the victims and just reacting etc... I can come up with a slightly earlier example of Muslim aggression against others...!


This will go all the way back to the very start of the Muslim 'religion', where their leader and his gang of bandits were carrying out countless acts of aggression against others, robbing, raping and killing throughout their evil and barbaric quest for wealth and power!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I'm wondering exactly what you and sassy think should be done to stop this happening again.

Sassy can speak for herself.

But what you're really asking me is "What do you do once the milk has been spilt?"  

How about not spilling the milk in the first place? Case and others have already said this is just a repeat of history and we don't seem to be able to learn from it.

That's becuase this is as old as Christian Imperialism. Which then transformed in to the Victorian Mission, where the aim was to steal another country's resources in the guise of civilising them with Christianity.

The missionary methods have changed in the 20th century but we are still stealing resources in the guise of civilising the people. This is how empire works.

Bernard Shaw once remarked: “They send in the missionaries. The natives kill the missionaries. The soldiers take revenge, take the country and give thanks to God that more land has been added to the empire.”

https://kenbaker.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/christian-mission-and-victorian-imperialism/

In other words, we meant to spill the milk. So people like you feel like our soldiers should take revenge and give permission to your government to take revenge and steal their resources.

Like Veya says, I'm surprised people can't see it.

What should be done now to wipe up the milk? Not continue to spill more by bombing innocent civilians who are taken out when targeting the enemy.

In fact, how about getting out of there completely? No planes, bombs, soldiers and aid workers (who are the modern missionaries). Then help your allies in the region (Iraq, The Turks and especially the Kurds) take control from ISIS. That way there is less chance of a power vacuum, which would happen if we just invade like we did Iraq.

Of course this is a simple summary - but you get the gist.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I'm wondering exactly what you and sassy think should be done to stop this happening again.

Sassy can speak for herself.

But what you're really asking me is "What do you do once the milk has been spilt?"  

How about not spilling the milk in the first place? Case and others have already said this is just a repeat of history and we don't seem to be able to learn from it.

That's becuase this is as old as Christian Imperialism. Which then transformed in to the Victorian Mission, where the aim was to steal another country's resources in the guise of civilising them with Christianity.

The missionary methods have changed in the 20th century but we are still stealing resources in the guise of civilising the people. This is how empire works.

Bernard Shaw once remarked: “They send in the missionaries. The natives kill the missionaries. The soldiers take revenge, take the country and give thanks to God that more land has been added to the empire.”

https://kenbaker.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/christian-mission-and-victorian-imperialism/

In other words, we meant to spill the milk. So people like you feel like our soldiers should take revenge and give permission to your government to take revenge and steal their resources.

Like Veya says, I'm surprised people can't see it.

What should be done now to wipe up the milk? Not continue to spill more by bombing innocent civilians who are taken out when targeting the enemy.

In fact, how about getting out of there completely? No planes, bombs, soldiers and aid workers (who are the modern missionaries). Then help your allies in the region (Iraq, The Turks and especially the Kurds) take control from ISIS. That way there is less chance of a power vacuum, which would happen if we just invade like we did Iraq.

Of course this is a simple summary - but you get the gist.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Sassy can speak for herself.

But what you're really asking me is "What do you do once the milk has been spilt?"  

How about not spilling the milk in the first place? Case and others have already said this is just a repeat of history and we don't seem to be able to learn from it.

That's becuase this is as old as Christian Imperialism. Which then transformed in to the Victorian Mission, where the aim was to steal another country's resources in the guise of civilising them with Christianity.

The missionary methods have changed in the 20th century but we are still stealing resources in the guise of civilising the people. This is how empire works.

Bernard Shaw once remarked: “They send in the missionaries. The natives kill the missionaries. The soldiers take revenge, take the country and give thanks to God that more land has been added to the empire.”

https://kenbaker.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/christian-mission-and-victorian-imperialism/

In other words, we meant to spill the milk. So people like you feel like our soldiers should take revenge and give permission to your government to take revenge and steal their resources.

Like Veya says, I'm surprised people can't see it.

What should be done now to wipe up the milk? Not continue to spill more by bombing innocent civilians who are taken out when targeting the enemy.

In fact, how about getting out of there completely? No planes, bombs, soldiers and aid workers (who are the modern missionaries). Then help your allies in the region (Iraq, The Turks and especially the Kurds) take control from ISIS. That way there is less chance of a power vacuum, which would happen if we just invade like we did Iraq.

Of course this is a simple summary - but you get the gist.

ISIS don't care about innocent civilians being bombed in Syria or Iraq - they're killing them themselves.

So your suggestion is to not bomb Syria directly, but to help groups in the region to fight ISIS? Is that by providing arms? That's a bad idea for a start because today's ally could be tomorrow's enemy. In addition to that, what happens if those allies do take control? Are they going to be any better than the current lot of terrorists?

ISIS would also not really distinguish between direct bombing and helping their enemies, so I don't think that would stop terrorist attacks.