UK terror threat level raised to 'severe'

First topic message reminder :

The terror threat to the UK has been raised from substantial to severe, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.

This means that a terrorist attack is "highly likely", although Mrs May stressed that there is no information to suggest an attack is imminent.

She said: "The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) is responsible for setting the national threat level. That informs the decisions of security professionals across the public and private sectors about the appropriate level of security in place across the United Kingdom.

"JTAC's judgements about that threat level are made on the basis of the very latest intelligence and are independent of ministers.

"JTAC has today raised the threat level to the UK from international terrorism from SUBSTANTIAL to SEVERE. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely, but there is no intelligence to suggest that an attack is imminent."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271

Wonder what this is all about?. Severe but not imminent. In other words - don't panic - YET

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:
We have goals here, showing it is a not a negative premise, that is where also you are completely wrong, the goal is to to take them out with military options and also deny them the capacity they have with gaining support as they play off the weak and vulnerable, of which at present the later is losing, so the military option is needed to contain and stop their growth and spread. The second positive aim is to correct the mistakes left by both our nations, where again we fucked up, that does not mean we thus leave a nation to its own plight after being partly responsible, saving hundreds of thousands with the aim to get a better Iraq yet another positive aim,.

We had t0-years of military options, Didge.  I promise you, they won't work next time either.  The only mistake we ever made in the Middle East was going in to begin with.

There is nothing the military can do.  Do you think if we bomb the shiet out of them, they will change their minds?  Dream on.

Didge wrote:So my end game is for the Muslim community to work on a better religious attractive approach to help deal with those looking for purpose in their lives drawn to the rhetoric of IS and other extremist organisations, which will only be achieved over time,

Didge wrote:...whilst in the mean time, military intervention is needed to both save countless lives under imminent threat to Iraq and Syria, where destroying most of its capabilities to fight will help diminish the capabilities of IS to recruit. We failed against the Taliban and AL Qeada because the Muslims themselves have not found a rhetoric way to stem disillusioned Muslim men seeking such purpose in their lives, hence why you are looking at this through tunnel vision, whilst I look at the bigger picture and the bigger threat yet to come..

Your view is waving the white flag until its late, no military strategy would advocate such a view as to ignore a growing threat.

I don't think Muslim men are disillusioned.  I think they are highly motivated.  They just have two religious views, each a dogma in itself.  It's not waving a white flag to realize that you can't command the waves to stop.

That is because the yanks are gun ho on military strategy and have never been that good within many conflicts of war, where the British have been, we know how to defeat an enemy and are not held back with such reserved attitudes as the yanks are. That is why the yanks have failed in so many conflicts, they have no idea on hearts and minds that the British developed, and why we had great success in conflicts in Asia, where the yanks utterly failed. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, but not Afghanistan, and where there was positive goals, which as stated the foot was taken off the gas with the Taliban which allowed them to recover from their initial defeat, due to the invasion of Iraq, a tactical error, a war on two fronts. We had an ally in Pakistan, who did nothing to stem the problem of the Taliban, which as seen of late has been to their own cost, where a joint military venture should have been to take them out but because of sensitivities this did not happen, another glaring strategical failure by the US.

I never claimed Muslim men per say are disillusioned, by some are, those who are vulnerable to radicalization, who are seeking meaning in their lives, many are religiously illiterate, thus religion is not the main factor that draws them to extremism, but meaning and purpose in life, thus you are not understanding the problem of who is drawn to extremism Quill buddy

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We had t0-years of military options, Didge.  I promise you, they won't work next time either.  The only mistake we ever made in the Middle East was going in to begin with.

There is nothing the military can do.  Do you think if we bomb the shiet out of them, they will change their minds?  Dream on.








I don't think Muslim men are disillusioned.  I think they are highly motivated.  They just have two religious views, each a dogma in itself.  It's not waving a white flag to realize that you can't command the waves to stop.

That is because the yanks are gun ho on military strategy and have never been that good within many conflicts of war, where the British have been, we know how to defeat an enemy and are not held back with such reserved attitudes as the yanks are. That is why the yanks have failed in so many conflicts, they have no idea on hearts and minds that the British developed, and why we had great success in conflicts in Asia, where the yanks utterly failed. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, but not Afghanistan, and where there was positive goals, which as stated the foot was taken off the gas with the Taliban which allowed them to recover from their initial defeat, due to the invasion of Iraq, a tactical error, a war on two fronts. We had an ally in Pakistan, who did nothing to stem the problem of the Taliban, which as seen of late has been to their own cost, where a joint military venture should have been to take them out but because of sensitivities this did not happen, another glaring strategical failure by the US.

I never claimed Muslim men per say are disillusioned, by some are, those who are vulnerable to radicalization, who are seeking meaning in their lives, many are religiously illiterate, thus religion is not the main factor that draws them to extremism, but meaning and purpose in life, thus you are not understanding the problem of who is drawn to extremism Quill buddy

The Yanks don't have any purpose in the Middle East. If you Brits think you do, have at it. The rest of us can sit back in our chairs, order up popcorn, and watch you guys go down too.

But methinks I see pride going before a fall.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is because the yanks are gun ho on military strategy and have never been that good within many conflicts of war, where the British have been, we know how to defeat an enemy and are not held back with such reserved attitudes as the yanks are. That is why the yanks have failed in so many conflicts, they have no idea on hearts and minds that the British developed, and why we had great success in conflicts in Asia, where the yanks utterly failed. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, but not Afghanistan, and where there was positive goals, which as stated the foot was taken off the gas with the Taliban which allowed them to recover from their initial defeat, due to the invasion of Iraq, a tactical error, a war on two fronts. We had an ally in Pakistan, who did nothing to stem the problem of the Taliban, which as seen of late has been to their own cost, where a joint military venture should have been to take them out but because of sensitivities this did not happen, another glaring strategical failure by the US.

I never claimed Muslim men per say are disillusioned, by some are, those who are vulnerable to radicalization, who are seeking meaning in their lives, many are religiously illiterate, thus religion is not the main factor that draws them to extremism, but meaning and purpose in life, thus you are not understanding the problem of who is drawn to extremism Quill buddy

The Yanks don't have any purpose in the Middle East.  If you Brits think you do, have at it.  The rest of us can sit back in our chairs, order up popcorn, and watch you guys go down too.

But methinks I see pride going before a fall.

You do have purpose there, because you fucked up there Quill and you need to clean up your mess, but if you back the view to leave a mess and not clean it up, many will look upon the US as lazy, inconsiderate and irresponsible.
You stated about aims, where you provided we have aims in WW2, as you rightly pointed out, we also have aims here too, as I have pointed out, it is no good hoping a problem will just go away, you are to far drawn into this to think you can just walk away, because the extremists will take this as a sign of weakness and to them would hail as a victory and believe me, they will not stop attempting to attack America for years to come.

Anyway, have to go buddy, all the best Quill, always interesting debates, which I really enjoy.

::D::

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The Yanks don't have any purpose in the Middle East.  If you Brits think you do, have at it.  The rest of us can sit back in our chairs, order up popcorn, and watch you guys go down too.

But methinks I see pride going before a fall.

You do have purpose there, because you fucked up there Quill and you need to clean up your mess, but if you back the view to leave a mess and not clean it up, many will look upon the US as lazy, inconsiderate and irresponsible.

Whenever I speak of having a purpose when speaking of warfare, rest assured I'm alluding to Carl von Clausewitz, and his seminal work, On War.  Clausewitz said that war is merely an extension of diplomacy, and therefore one must be very clear as to purpose.  If the West screwed up by going into Iraq and Afghanistan militarily, then going back in militarily is merely repeating the same errors.

Perhaps there is a solution to be found in diplomacy, but I doubt it.  Diplomacy requires a chain of communication, and someone to listen and respond.  There just is nothing of the sort in Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan.

Sometimes the best way to fight a fire is just to let it burn out.  That actually is what I am suggesting here.  Yes, we pulled the lid off, but even that was a fire just waiting to happen; it had been a temporary dampening at best.  Seething underneath the entire Middle East is a civil war, and it is that fire that pulling off the lid allowed to flare up.

But it has flared up.  Nothing to be gained playing the blame game.  Better for us to here dedicated to doing what is best for the Middle East.  And what is best for them is to allow them to vent their civil war.  So, we fight the fire by letting it burn out.

When you take in the entire picture--and you know how I like to look at the big picture--you see what folly it is to go in militarily.  There is no military objective to achieve.  Anything we do of that nature will just  flare up as soon as we leave.  ISIL is just the next iteration of Al Qaeda, which was the replacement for the Taliban, which all goes back to the Iranian revolution and a seething caldron of civil war in the Muslim whole wide world.  We have to let that fire burn out.  There is no military fix.  There is no diplomatic fix.  Just let them burn themselves out.

Didge wrote:You stated about aims, where you provided we have aims in WW2, as you rightly pointed out, we also have aims here too, as I have pointed out, it is no good hoping a problem will just go away, you are to far drawn into this to think you can just walk away, because the extremists will take this as a sign of weakness and to them would hail as a victory and believe me, they will not stop attempting to attack America for years to come.

Yes, but all that said, sometimes it is just best to do nothing. Haven't you ever confronted a problem where the simple answer is just to do nothing and let nature take its course? You see it a lot in medicine. And here, as with a sick patient, you just have to tell him or her to wait the fever out.

Von Clausewitz would not have taken your approach here, of inaction when there is a growing threat that has extremists citizens of our host nations out there fighting, where again this Caliphate is about growing into a global power, which no doubt your view would be until too late to stem the tide. He would of spoken of the massive errors made by the US and how to correct their poor strategy that they are using.

He would have taken on my view that this enemy is not just about being tackled on the war front, but needs to from within the Muslim world itself, where the Muslim majority voice is being outclassed at present by the extremist rhetoric being used, which is winning over some disillusioned young Muslims, the point you are failing to see the long term battle to combat this problem with, again it is no good hoping an issue will just go away or hope others will act upon it. That is a rather naive approach thinking you are snug and safe back in your home, such glaring errors have been made in the past thinking this exact same stratagem, where again Von Clausewitz would have seen the growing threat and advocated the the tactical measures I have placed forward.

Its no good burying your head in the sand Quill, as you will not stop the growth of Islamic extremism that way and being as we have vastly superior numbers, again something Von Clausewitz would have advocated using this advantage before it is lost, because in years of inactivity, if IS take control of Syria, Iraq, Jordan etc, they will become a potentially much bigger and deadlier force to be reckoned with ad thus you will have lost the advantage, even more so if they gain nuclear capabilities through over running Iran. His views were about sound planning in advance and as seen you have no plan at all, one of inaction, which will not stop countless people suffering genocide. There is no possibility to have diplomacy with such extremists.

Didge wrote:Von Clausewitz would not have taken your approach here, of inaction when there is a growing threat that has extremists citizens of our host nations out there fighting, where again this Caliphate is about growing into a global power, which no doubt your view would be until too late to stem the tide. He would of spoken of the massive errors made by the US and how to correct their poor strategy that they are using.

But there is no threat.  We seem to have fallen prey to our own Orwellian double speak.  In this country we changed the name from Department of War to Defense Department...and apparently we believe we are acting in defense, even when we are starting all the troubles.  This is the same thing we did during the Cold War.  The USSR turned out to be a paper tiger, but we were spending billions and billions because we believed their bullshit.  And here we go again.

Von Clausewitz was speaking theoretically, that's all.  Just have a purpose before you start a war.  The Bush administration had no purpose...they just kept following slogans and pep talks: Mission Accomplished, War on Terror, and something called the surge.  But those idiots had no reason for being there, and they had no end-game.  What is it about perpetual war that is so attractive?

Now, you have no purpose.  You have a vision that there is some Muslim group that wants only love and peace, and if you can only reach them all will be Kumbya.  It's like the "silent majority" that the Nixon administration made up.  It doesn't exist.  It's just fuel to feed the wartime spending economy.

Didge wrote:He would have taken on my view that this enemy is not just about being tackled on the war front, but needs to from within the Muslim world itself, where the Muslim majority voice is being outclassed at present by the extremist rhetoric being used, which is winning over some disillusioned young Muslims, the point you are failing to see the long term battle to combat this problem with, again it is no good hoping an issue will just go away or hope others will act upon it. That is a rather naive approach thinking you are snug and safe back in your home, such glaring errors have been made in the past thinking this exact same stratagem, where again Von Clausewitz would have seen the growing threat and advocated the the tactical measures I have placed forward.

Yes, I don't see those loving Muslims who want to sing around the campfire.  Either they are non-existent, or they don't care to stop the militants.  Either way, they want a war.  And, it's not our war.  Leave it be, Didge.

You don't make peace with outsiders; by definition, you can only make peace with insiders...peacemaking must be internal.  So why confound and confuse the situation by bringing in outsiders, who will only shit-stir until there is another 9/11 or 7/7.  Both sides want 'mommy' and 'daddy' to step in and hurt the other kid.  Iraqis wanted the US to fight their civil war for them back around 2006; I spoke to some of them.  But mommy and daddy will never settle this thing.  Peacemaking is a spontaneous, internal thing.

You haven't yet responded to one point I made...perhaps the most important.  Once you remove yourself from this tar-baby, what will you do about the next group or gang that shows up?  ISIL is just one of many we have seen.  Even if we bomb the sheit out of the Middle East city-by-city, we are just repeating ourselves over and over and over, until we have saved centuries upon centuries of bleeding mothers and children, all of whom turn into next year's militant.

Don't you think that von Clausewitz would say something like, 'Hey dudes, when there's a speeding train chasing you, just step aside and get out of the way.'  We don't need to take on this one, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one ad infinitum.  The Middle East will probably see a century more of bloodshed and political upheaval, and probably triple that if we add our munitions and aircraft, so let's just step out of the way and let that train pass.

Didge wrote:Its no good burying your head in the sand Quill, as you will not stop the growth of Islamic extremism that way and being as we have vastly superior numbers, again something Von Clausewitz would have advocated using this advantage before it is lost, because in years of inactivity, if IS take control of Syria, Iraq, Jordan etc, they will become a potentially much bigger and deadlier force to be reckoned with ad thus you will have lost the advantage, even more so if they gain nuclear capabilities through over running Iran. His views were about sound planning in advance and as seen you have no plan at all, one of inaction, which will not stop countless people suffering genocide. There is no possibility to have diplomacy with such extremists.

You are treating von Clausewitz as a tactician, which he wasn't.  He was a strategist...he dealt in theories.  If you want a tactician, you could pull any Lt. Colonel out of War College and get a reasonable summary of a battle plan.  But we don't need tactics here.  We need some thinkers.  The great flaw of GWB was saying he would follow the lead of the "generals in the field."  The generals only go around in circles, and round again, and again.  Clausewitz was the kind of thinker who lifted his head above the fray and asked what it was all about.  Remember Gen. Petraeus and his surge?  And everyone was asking: "Surge for what?"  That was strategic thinking.  You haven't lifted your head up yet, Didge.

Just take a look at what you want to do.  Iranians, al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIL...they just keep coming.  And if we follow the template you want to set down, each time we will send our aircraft, drones, tanks and boots (they all start with special forces, and end up with hundreds of thousand of men--learn from Vietnam) each time, and end up with something like the Hundred Years War.

It's time to question, Didge.  What are we doing?

Lol that shows you do not understand Military history, because I was using his strategic points, do I have to keep schooling you on history? And the views I expressed were from the strategic aspects of von Clausewitz , when as seen I have had to continually correct many claims you have made about history. He had five main strategic principles in war, planning with simplicity, Unity of Command, Historical examples, the number affect, again superiority in numbers and last but not least system thinking, so please spare me the babble about von Clausewitz, when I gave you many aspects of strategy in my last posts.

Sorry but again your way is the way of being utterly naive, and in time you will see your method for its failings when it is too late, and this is just going around in circles and it is becoming very boring. Sorry again your way is one of nativity, which I guess the oly way you will understand is when it is too late and as per usual may will suffer trying to fix the problem left by such poor planning, again it is our problem with have citizens involved are partially responsible for the rising of Islamic extremism, to turn ad walk away solves nothing ad thus you allow that problem to grow and the it will be too late.

All the best

In the days of high tension with IS in Syria and Iraq and the Nato summit in Cardiff taking place it's just common sense for the authorities to raise the security level to severe simply as a reminder to the general public to be aware.

It covers them in the event that if anything does happen then they can't be accused of being complacent and doing nothing.

However, if the security level was to be raised to it's highest level of 'critical' (an attack is expected imminently) then that would be a matter for people to real care when out and about.

Didge wrote:Lol that shows you do not understand Military history, because I was using his strategic points, do I have to keep schooling you on history? And the views I expressed were from the strategic aspects of von Clausewitz , when as seen I have had to continually correct many claims you have made about history. He had five main strategic principles in war, planning with simplicity, Unity of Command, Historical examples, the number affect, again superiority in numbers and last but not least system thinking, so please spare me the babble about von Clausewitz, when I gave you many aspects of strategy in my last posts.

Sorry but again your way is the way of being utterly naive, and in time you will see your method for its failings when it is too late, and this is just going around in circles and it is becoming very boring. Sorry again your way is one of nativity, which I guess the oly way you will understand is when it is too late and as per usual may will suffer trying to fix the problem left by such poor planning, again it is our problem with have citizens involved are partially responsible for the rising of Islamic extremism, to turn ad walk away solves nothing ad thus you allow that problem to grow and the it will be too late.

All the best

It appears you don't know the difference between tactics and strategy.  Here, let me help you:   http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2013/01/14/the-difference-between-strategy-and-tactics/

Likewise, you need to learn the difference between naive and simple.  What I propose is very simple, but hardly naive.  I suggest we sit and do nothing.  This is based upon taking into account the bigger picture.  We've had Iranians, Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and now ISIL...one after the other.  Like astronomers who have given up naming constellations, perhaps we ought to just start numbering them: Here comes L-345, or we need to commit another $17-trillion to M356.  It would simplify things.

ISIL is just another movement or group that comes down the pike today.  The question is, What are you proposing to do about the overall problem--that new militant groups keep coming? We need to let Muslims have the space to conduct their civil war, internally and finally. It would be a kindness if we just stepped back and did nothing to interfere.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Lol that shows you do not understand Military history, because I was using his strategic points, do I have to keep schooling you on history? And the views I expressed were from the strategic aspects of von Clausewitz , when as seen I have had to continually correct many claims you have made about history. He had five main strategic principles in war, planning with simplicity, Unity of Command, Historical examples, the number affect, again superiority in numbers and last but not least system thinking, so please spare me the babble about von Clausewitz, when I gave you many aspects of strategy in my last posts.

Sorry but again your way is the way of being utterly naive, and in time you will see your method for its failings when it is too late, and this is just going around in circles and it is becoming very boring. Sorry again your way is one of nativity, which I guess the oly way you will understand is when it is too late and as per usual may will suffer trying to fix the problem left by such poor planning, again it is our problem with have citizens involved are partially responsible for the rising of Islamic extremism, to turn ad walk away solves nothing ad thus you allow that problem to grow and the it will be too late.

All the best

It appears you don't know the difference between tactics and strategy.  Here, let me help you:   http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2013/01/14/the-difference-between-strategy-and-tactics/

Likewise, you need to learn the difference between naive and simple.  What I propose is very simple, but hardly naive.  It has to do with taking into account the bigger picture.  We've had Iranians, Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and now ISIL...one after the other.  Like astronomers who have given up naming constellations, perhaps we ought to just start numbering them: Here comes L-345, or we need to commit another $17-trillion to M356.  It would simplify things.

ISIL is just another movement or group that comes down the pike today.  The question is, What are you proposing to do about the overall problem--that new militant groups keep coming?

Really?
When as seen by the points of strategy that I used were of his 5 main strategic points and where again I am having to educate you on this Quill. Are you now claiming the points of his main 5 are now tatical and ot strategic?
take your time on that one

http://futureofcio.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/five-principles-of-carl-von-clausewitzs.html

It is completely naive your view which was the same that allowed Hitler to grow and prepare for war, that is the avenue you are taking
Yes we have had many different extremists groups, which is why the discourse needs to change from the Islamic community to combat the spread of Islamic extremism being promoted, this is an area you seem to understand little about where all experts state this is the area that needs best tackling in the log term, but for the shirt term military assistance is required.
As I say it is getting boring, but I do wish you would get your facts straight on history

Irn Bru wrote:In the days of high tension with IS in Syria and Iraq and the Nato summit in Cardiff taking place it's just common sense for the authorities to raise the security level to severe simply as a reminder to the general public to be aware.

It covers them in the event that if anything does happen then they can't be accused of being complacent and doing nothing.

However, if the security level was to be raised to it's highest level of 'critical' (an attack is expected imminently) then that would be a matter for people to real care when out and about.

But as I predicted, raising the threat level was just a prelude to new commitments. Cameron has just proposed new assaults on civil liberties. http://www.wcvb.com/national/cameron-to-address-terror-threat-level-rise/27821938#!bNUjDQ

"Threat response" is as much a weapon as artillery or aircraft. Both al Qaeda and ISIL have mastered that weapon, and there is no response from the West. Perhaps we should look at as a new type of battle.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:In the days of high tension with IS in Syria and Iraq and the Nato summit in Cardiff taking place it's just common sense for the authorities to raise the security level to severe simply as a reminder to the general public to be aware.

It covers them in the event that if anything does happen then they can't be accused of being complacent and doing nothing.

However, if the security level was to be raised to it's highest level of 'critical' (an attack is expected imminently) then that would be a matter for people to real care when out and about.

But as I predicted, raising the threat level was just a prelude to new commitments.  Cameron has just proposed new assaults on civil liberties.  http://www.wcvb.com/national/cameron-to-address-terror-threat-level-rise/27821938#!bNUjDQ

"Threat response" is as much a weapon as artillery or aircraft.  Both al Qaeda and ISIL have mastered that weapon, and there is no response from the West.  Perhaps we should look at as a new type of battle.

So you think we should let trained suspected terrorists back into the country?

No thanks.


Have a read:


http://news.sky.com/story/1327867/captured-is-suicide-bomber-reveals-threat

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

There are plenty of books out there by eminent scholars who have plenty of proof about how govt and media manipulate the public.

Google manufacturing consent.

When you said Muslim leader, I thought you meant like the pope. Imams and media establishments are speaking out. My facebook feed is full of it.

Mate I research as you well know, so tell me how many thwarted attempts were told as imminent?
None were, most were kept under raps.
The fact is Muslims are as a group here and elsewhere not stemming the battle against the Rhetoric conflict fight with extremists, they are winning this and it will take in my view a religious view point to combat the misconceptions that are leading disillusional Muslims to their cause.


Have to go zack, but my later point rings true, this is the way to combat extremism, and it will take Muslim community top do

Night mate and peace be with you.

The counter religious view point has already been made. Even the parents of Foley and the parents of other captured journalists have used the number of counter points to appeal to ISIS directly.

So the view points are well known and ISIS cannot defend its methods with scripture. This is why these people avoid 'debates' or any such contact with normal Muslims and target those who are young, naive and 'ready to join a cause'.

This is no longer about making a counter religious view point and more about what makes people/boys join a gang - and the motivation used to entice these youngsters. This has more to do with foreign policy rather than religious conviction.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Mate I research as you well know, so tell me how many thwarted attempts were told as imminent?
None were, most were kept under raps.
The fact is Muslims are as a group here and elsewhere not stemming the battle against the Rhetoric conflict fight with extremists, they are winning this and it will take in my view a religious view point to combat the misconceptions that are leading disillusional Muslims to their cause.


Have to go zack, but my later point rings true, this is the way to combat extremism, and it will take Muslim community top do

Night mate and peace be with you.

The counter religious view point has already been made. Even the parents of Foley and the parents of other captured journalists have used the number of counter points to appeal to ISIS directly.

So the view points are well known and ISIS cannot defend its methods with scripture. This is why these people avoid 'debates' or any such contact with normal Muslims and target those who are young, naive and 'ready to join a cause'.

This is no longer about making a counter religious view point and more about what makes people/boys join a gang - and the motivation used to entice these youngsters. This has more to do with foreign policy rather than religious conviction.

Disagree Zack, they are targeting those who have little purpose in their lives looking for meaning and they use foreign policies to instill anger to entice them to join, it is not though because of foreign policy, but then using this as the carrot on a stick. Again the Muslim community world wide is failing to counter the rhetoric being spouted and it will continue to fail, with the present methods. Yes identifying those who are vulnerable is key and denying the extremists a voice and channel is also key, but so a unified Muslim voice against extremism, which would be better suited coming from the religious angle, where again many terrorists are basically religiously illiterate.
This comes from most experts and is the long term way to deal with extremism, of which I have provide you links as to what is making them join, you should read them.







However, as Ed Hussain told a group of journalists on a conference call with the Council on Foreign Relations, the long-term solution will not come through the military but rather by understanding the appeal of ISIS to those who join, and working to cut off its supply of potential recruits. In other words, while military tactics can be effective in the short term, you can't bomb an ideology. You have to combat it with better ideology.

According to Hussain, who is a senior fellow at CFR, there is a profile that describes many of those who join ISIS. They tend to be young people aged 18-25 who lack a strong network and are seeking a sense of belonging and identity. The allure of a group like ISIS is that it gives these seekers a sense of purpose and being a part of something larger than themselves. It also gives them an outlet for their sense of injustice in the world and the opportunity to be part of a global struggle against injustice -- with the target being "The West," capitalism, or what they see as corrupt Muslim governments.

This view of ISIS is also held by Prof. John Esposito who stressed in an excellent piece on The Huffington Post called "The Challenges of Defeating ISIS" that the "drivers of radicalization include moral outrage, disaffection, peer pressure, the search for a new identity, and for a sense of meaning, purpose and belonging."

What struck me in these expert assessments is the continued use of the word "meaning," and how a lack of a sense of meaning and purpose in life, coupled with the experience of alienation within one's society, has led to many young (mostly) men, to turn towards such deadly violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/isis-and-the-crisis-of-meaning_b_5730284.html


Bye for now

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The counter religious view point has already been made. Even the parents of Foley and the parents of other captured journalists have used the number of counter points to appeal to ISIS directly.

So the view points are well known and ISIS cannot defend its methods with scripture. This is why these people avoid 'debates' or any such contact with normal Muslims and target those who are young, naive and 'ready to join a cause'.

This is no longer about making a counter religious view point and more about what makes people/boys join a gang - and the motivation used to entice these youngsters. This has more to do with foreign policy rather than religious conviction.

Disagree Zack, they are targeting those who have little purpose in their lives looking for meaning and they use foreign policies to instill anger to entice them to join, it is not though because of foreign policy, but then using this as the carrot on a stick. Again the Muslim community world wide is failing to counter the rhetoric being spouted and it will continue to fail, with the present methods. Yes identifying those who are vulnerable is key and denying the extremists a voice and channel is also key, but so a unified Muslim voice against extremism, which would be better suited coming from the religious angle, where again many terrorists are basically religiously illiterate.
This comes from most experts and is the long term way to deal with extremism, of which I have provide you links as to what is making them join, you should read them.







However, as Ed Hussain told a group of journalists on a conference call with the Council on Foreign Relations, the long-term solution will not come through the military but rather by understanding the appeal of ISIS to those who join, and working to cut off its supply of potential recruits. In other words, while military tactics can be effective in the short term, you can't bomb an ideology. You have to combat it with better ideology.

According to Hussain, who is a senior fellow at CFR, there is a profile that describes many of those who join ISIS. They tend to be young people aged 18-25 who lack a strong network and are seeking a sense of belonging and identity. The allure of a group like ISIS is that it gives these seekers a sense of purpose and being a part of something larger than themselves. It also gives them an outlet for their sense of injustice in the world and the opportunity to be part of a global struggle against injustice -- with the target being "The West," capitalism, or what they see as corrupt Muslim governments.

This view of ISIS is also held by Prof. John Esposito who stressed in an excellent piece on The Huffington Post called "The Challenges of Defeating ISIS" that the "drivers of radicalization include moral outrage, disaffection, peer pressure, the search for a new identity, and for a sense of meaning, purpose and belonging."

What struck me in these expert assessments is the continued use of the word "meaning," and how a lack of a sense of meaning and purpose in life, coupled with the experience of alienation within one's society, has led to many young (mostly) men, to turn towards such deadly violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/isis-and-the-crisis-of-meaning_b_5730284.html


Bye for now

Lol! Don't think we disagree at all, actually.

Part of why people join gangs is that there normal life has no meaning.

Foreign policy is still the motivation. We seem to agree on this also. Not sure what posts you're reading.

http://www.soundvision.com/info/youth/extremismcommunities.asp

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Disagree Zack, they are targeting those who have little purpose in their lives looking for meaning and they use foreign policies to instill anger to entice them to join, it is not though because of foreign policy, but then using this as the carrot on a stick. Again the Muslim community world wide is failing to counter the rhetoric being spouted and it will continue to fail, with the present methods. Yes identifying those who are vulnerable is key and denying the extremists a voice and channel is also key, but so a unified Muslim voice against extremism, which would be better suited coming from the religious angle, where again many terrorists are basically religiously illiterate.
This comes from most experts and is the long term way to deal with extremism, of which I have provide you links as to what is making them join, you should read them.







However, as Ed Hussain told a group of journalists on a conference call with the Council on Foreign Relations, the long-term solution will not come through the military but rather by understanding the appeal of ISIS to those who join, and working to cut off its supply of potential recruits. In other words, while military tactics can be effective in the short term, you can't bomb an ideology. You have to combat it with better ideology.

According to Hussain, who is a senior fellow at CFR, there is a profile that describes many of those who join ISIS. They tend to be young people aged 18-25 who lack a strong network and are seeking a sense of belonging and identity. The allure of a group like ISIS is that it gives these seekers a sense of purpose and being a part of something larger than themselves. It also gives them an outlet for their sense of injustice in the world and the opportunity to be part of a global struggle against injustice -- with the target being "The West," capitalism, or what they see as corrupt Muslim governments.

This view of ISIS is also held by Prof. John Esposito who stressed in an excellent piece on The Huffington Post called "The Challenges of Defeating ISIS" that the "drivers of radicalization include moral outrage, disaffection, peer pressure, the search for a new identity, and for a sense of meaning, purpose and belonging."

What struck me in these expert assessments is the continued use of the word "meaning," and how a lack of a sense of meaning and purpose in life, coupled with the experience of alienation within one's society, has led to many young (mostly) men, to turn towards such deadly violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/isis-and-the-crisis-of-meaning_b_5730284.html


Bye for now

Lol! Don't think we disagree at all, actually.  

Part of why people join gangs is that there normal life has no meaning.

Foreign policy is still the motivation. We seem to agree on this also. Not sure what posts you're reading.

http://www.soundvision.com/info/youth/extremismcommunities.asp

We do disagree on what the Muslim world should be doing, so that point we do disagree/ Foreign policy is a just a carrot, because as seen many Muslims are not motivated or turned by it, thus it is one aspect but one of many as seen and it is used by the extremists to play on guilt of Muslims.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Don't think we disagree at all, actually.  

Part of why people join gangs is that there normal life has no meaning.

Foreign policy is still the motivation. We seem to agree on this also. Not sure what posts you're reading.

http://www.soundvision.com/info/youth/extremismcommunities.asp

We do disagree on what the Muslim world should be doing, so that point we do disagree/ Foreign policy is a just a carrot, because as seen many Muslims are not motivated or turned by it, thus it is one aspect but one of many as seen and it is used by the extremists to play on guilt of Muslims.

Many Muslims not motivated by foreign policy? Lol! Are you kidding me?

There 2 Muslims on this board that I know you know, you may know more in the non cyber world. And I assure you even they are motivated by FP. There isn't a British Muslims who isn't.

So you couldn't be more wrong about the Muslim community. Maybe it's because you're looking from the outside, in.

The problem is 'how' FP motivates you.

Nor does it have anything to do with guilt. The emotion you're looking for is 'anger'. A great motivator.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But as I predicted, raising the threat level was just a prelude to new commitments.  Cameron has just proposed new assaults on civil liberties.  http://www.wcvb.com/national/cameron-to-address-terror-threat-level-rise/27821938#!bNUjDQ

"Threat response" is as much a weapon as artillery or aircraft.  Both al Qaeda and ISIL have mastered that weapon, and there is no response from the West.  Perhaps we should look at as a new type of battle.

So you think we should let trained suspected terrorists back into the country?

No thanks.

Have a read:

http://news.sky.com/story/1327867/captured-is-suicide-bomber-reveals-threat

They are neither trained, nor terrorists.  The threat level is misnamed.  I should be anxiety level.  

Those of us in American have already learned this trick from GWB.  Whenever Cameron or some conservative wants a war, or to send in troops for any reason, he raises the threat level.  It's so much easier than actually having to make the case.  You just reach over there and move the dial; basically the message is: trust me, you don't want to know.  Don't you worry your pretty little head at all.  Just hand over your civil rights, and Papa Cameron will take care of all your needs.  Lol.

Conservatives are good at wars, and they are good at elitist tricks.  This one smells of both.  Fortunately, Obama wants none of the Bush antics.  Neither does America.  After hundreds of thousands of lives, and $17-trillion of American money wasted, Cameron is on his own.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

We do disagree on what the Muslim world should be doing, so that point we do disagree/ Foreign policy is a just a carrot, because as seen many Muslims are not motivated or turned by it, thus it is one aspect but one of many as seen and it is used by the extremists to play on guilt of Muslims.

Many Muslims not motivated by foreign policy? Lol! Are you kidding me?

There 2 Muslims on this board that I know you know, you may know more in the non cyber world. And I assure you even they are motivated by FP. There isn't a British Muslims who isn't.

So you couldn't be more wrong about the Muslim community. Maybe it's because you're looking from the outside, in.

The problem is 'how' FP motivates you.

Nor does it have anything to do with guilt. The emotion you're looking for is 'anger'. A great motivator.

Well that is a tad worrying if Muslims are, which further backs my point, but was not the point on this I was making, it was about being turned to extremist motivated by FP, where many Muslims are not. Then this is the problem, not every Non_Muslim is motivated by FP, why should they be? Thus you provide many people to view Muslims with skepticism where religious loyalties are superseding the nation they are born unto. It has everything to do with guilt of those who are turned, being angry about something does not mean you will change as you have not, but guilt is the factor that entices people to join extremism. The rhetoric is used by a play on words about how for example they use brother and sister whilst you sit there and do nothing Muslims die, that is a play on guilt Zack, so you are very wrong on that aspect. Again may Christians are suffering at the hands of extremism in the Middle East, but how many Christians are motivate by FP here?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you think we should let trained suspected terrorists back into the country?

No thanks.

Have a read:

http://news.sky.com/story/1327867/captured-is-suicide-bomber-reveals-threat

They are neither trained, nor terrorists.  The threat level is misnamed.  I should be anxiety level.  

Those of us in American have already learned this trick from GWB.  Whenever Cameron or some conservative wants a war, or to send in troops for any reason, he raises the threat level.  It's so much easier than actually having to make the case.  You just reach over there and move the dial; basically the message is: trust me, you don't want to know.  Don't you worry your pretty little head at all.  Just hand over your civil rights, and Papa Cameron will take care of all your needs.  Lol.

Conservatives are good at wars, and they are good at elitist tricks.  This one smells of both.  Fortunately, Obama wants none of the Bush antics.  Neither does America.  After hundreds of thousands of lives, and $17-trillion of American money wasted, Cameron is on his own.

So naive it makes me laugh, you claim they are not trained or being trained in the art of bomb making, that is the left for you, make out any excuse until its too late and the left are bad at wars, their strategy is to wait until it is too late and then what they face is even more difficult to defeat. This is nothing as before with GWB, which shows your poor understanding here, as nobody backed the war with Iraq, may however did with Afghanistan, where clearly many terrorists were being trained in camps there. Most rational people will see the threat and as seen eve the Kurds fighting this are warning of the threat to come, nobody is stating it is imminent, but this is where your views fall apart, in time it will be only because their attention is fully focused on a conflict at preset, they thus need all personnel in Iraq and Syria and when it is over, whether they win or lose, then the problem becomes a reality i the west, time you woke up and smelt the coffee, because your views are so out of touch with reality

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you think we should let trained suspected terrorists back into the country?

No thanks.

Have a read:

http://news.sky.com/story/1327867/captured-is-suicide-bomber-reveals-threat

They are neither trained, nor terrorists.  The threat level is misnamed.  I should be anxiety level.  

Those of us in American have already learned this trick from GWB.  Whenever Cameron or some conservative wants a war, or to send in troops for any reason, he raises the threat level.  It's so much easier than actually having to make the case.  You just reach over there and move the dial; basically the message is: trust me, you don't want to know.  Don't you worry your pretty little head at all.  Just hand over your civil rights, and Papa Cameron will take care of all your needs.  Lol.

Conservatives are good at wars, and they are good at elitist tricks.  This one smells of both.  Fortunately, Obama wants none of the Bush antics.  Neither does America.  After hundreds of thousands of lives, and $17-trillion of American money wasted, Cameron is on his own.

So naive it makes me laugh, you claim they are not trained or being trained in the art of bomb making, that is the left for you, make out any excuse until its too late and the left are bad at wars, their strategy is to wait until it is too late and then what they face is even more difficult to defeat. This is nothing as before with GWB, which shows your poor understanding here, as nobody backed the war with Iraq, may however did with Afghanistan, where clearly many terrorists were being trained in camps there. Most rational people will see the threat and as seen eve the Kurds fighting this are warning of the threat to come, nobody is stating it is imminent, but this is where your views fall apart, in time it will be only because their attention is fully focused on a conflict at preset, they thus need all personnel in Iraq and Syria and when it is over, whether they win or lose, then the problem becomes a reality i the west, time you woke up and smelt the coffee, because your views are so out of touch with reality

Dude, do you not realize that nothing has changed? Think the masterminds behind ISIS have been waiting all this time to recruit people to carry out terrorist attacks in the West? Of course they haven't.

Nidal Halik Hasan killed 13 and wounded 30 others FIVE YEARS AGO at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas. He was radicalized over the Internet, by people who didn't care what happened to him as long as he killed as many American military personnel as possible. He didn't have to go to Syria or anywhere else to be convinced to carry out his killing spree; anybody who ends up killing Americans or Britons was probably already going to do it and didn't need to travel.

ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc., only protects its leaders from harm -- the foot soldiers can paint the streets with their own viscera as far as they're concerned. They only have interest in bringing people into battles in order to serve as cannon fodder, and if they survive they can eventually ascend in the ranks. But your basic Hasan-style berserker doesn't really need training; people are only trained when their leaders want a bunch of them to survive. Terrorist leaders will happily take all the idiot recruits they can get, strap them up with suicide vests, slap them on their asses and send them to their deaths as long as it sows fear, and they don't need to meet the idiots in person these days.

There's nothing new to fear, in other words -- this threat has been with us for years now. The threat level should not have been changed.

Why do you keep claiming fear Ben?
This has nothing to do with fear but a growing threat and strategies how to deal with that threat whilst at present Isis are small, which the last thing people want to see is them grow and to claim they are not well trained is not what all the experts think, even more so how they have made many gains, against a far better equipped army. You do need training in bombing making and some of the best are in Yemen, who have developed very sophisticated devices. It is no good hoping and thinking the problem will not eventually come to our shores, it will.





Brutal ISIS terrorists resemble trained army

(CNN) - ISIS forces have quickly seized control of large amounts of Iraqi territory by using disciplined military tactics and brutality.

They're ferocious and relentless, capturing huge swaths of territory at a time.

ISIS is unlike any other terror group on the battlefield.

"This is not your father's al-Qaida,” said Iraq combat veteran Douglas Ollivant.

The old militant tactics: Hit-and-runs, ambushes, roadside bombs.

When other terrorist groups went to battle against well-trained armies they were often wiped out.

Ollivant says ISIS is much more disciplined than militant forces of the past, with good unit-commanders, better tactics.

"But for the black flags, this could be a platoon of American Army soldiers or Marines circa 2004 or 2005. Moving in formation, soldiers throughout the column. We can see the crew-served weapons, the machine guns in the vehicles that they can use to establish a base of fire,” Olivant said.

Training is a big difference with ISIS, analysts say.

They're getting help with that from outside.

"They also now have been bolstered by a significant number of Chechen fighters who have joined their ranks. Also foreign fighters from across the Arab world, some with significant experience in urban warfare,” said Paul Cruickshank, a terrorism analyst.

What also makes ISIS dangerous on the battlefield: The way they get the most from their arsenal.

"Some of it is more primitive like this tank. But perversely the more primitive the equipment they capture, the more likely they are to be able to use it, to maintain it. Simpler is better in their case. Mobile artillery pieces, other pieces of captured armored vehicles. We see several of them here,” Olivant said pointing to a video.


http://www.live5news.com/story/26238408/brutal-isis-terrorists-resemble-trained-army

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Many Muslims not motivated by foreign policy? Lol! Are you kidding me?

There 2 Muslims on this board that I know you know, you may know more in the non cyber world. And I assure you even they are motivated by FP. There isn't a British Muslims who isn't.

So you couldn't be more wrong about the Muslim community. Maybe it's because you're looking from the outside, in.

The problem is 'how' FP motivates you.

Nor does it have anything to do with guilt. The emotion you're looking for is 'anger'. A great motivator.

Well that is a tad worrying if Muslims are, which further backs my point, but was not the point on this I was making, it was about being turned to extremist motivated by FP, where many Muslims are not. Then this is the problem, not every Non_Muslim is motivated by FP, why should they be? Thus you provide many people to view Muslims with skepticism where religious loyalties are superseding the nation they are born unto. It has everything to do with guilt of those who are turned, being angry about something does not mean you will change as you have not, but guilt is the factor that entices people to join extremism. The rhetoric is used by a play on words about how for example they use brother and sister whilst you sit there and do nothing Muslims die, that is a play on guilt Zack, so you are very wrong on that aspect. Again may Christians are suffering at the hands of extremism in the Middle East, but how many Christians are motivate by FP here?

No guilt implies you've done something wrong. Quite different from 'doing nothing'.

Take SM for example, she tried to do something for Gaza - not because of guilt (she wasn't responsible) but out of sheer anger and frustration.

But you want to call it 'guilt', go ahead.

And yes, of course religious loyalty supersedes loyalty to queen and country. I admitted that to Mentor and Smelly many years ago. Maybe you weren't around then.

But it's not an irrational loyalty to my Muslim brothers and sisters. It's a loyalty to God and righteousness (doing the right thing, when and where you can). In my eyes, that will not only supersede queen and country, it will also supersede my mother.

Sorry but again disagree on all factors, sexy read a poem that played on the inactivity of Muslims, and stated after reading that she would go, that is being played upon by guilt and sorry I have more understanding on this and experience that you could ever hope to understand and where my loyalty has always been with Britain.

I am of Irish ethnicity and my family has been divided for years, on my Mothers side and in conflict, over the a fact some of them are IRA supporters and I grew up in summers i Ireland at times around people who were most definitely terrorists and friends of some my Irish family and there is little difference in the rhetoric played and used by them.

I have always been a believer in a united Ireland, but one by self determination and not violence and thus I saw the IRA as nothing more than vile scum, the same as the Loyalist terrorist groups, they had utterly no care for the sanctity of life and came to any of them dying as a just cause. This is why I have no time for Hamas either being the fact such groups create the violence and bloodshed through their goals and Palestinian people suffer for this. Israel would have to bow through pressure through peaceful means in the end, but whilst Hamas is active, that will never happen, something you need to grasp, their means are terror

Now there has been many wrongs done by Britain to Ireland, and can understand the fighting in the early 20th century for independence, but not again the terrorism. Now discrimination in Northern Ireland towards Catholics was rife. My parents married in Canada, so if my mother had like the climate I would in reality be Canadian, but she did not and am thankful as I love Britain. They moved to Northern Ireland and many employers were very keen to speak to my father about a job until he told them he was a Catholic, which in the end the only job he could get was with the British Army, so on religious aspects and loyalty to God and all that bollocks I understand very well, being as I was brought up in a strict Catholic family. My Mother then received hate from some of her own family, calling her a traitor and that my Father was a target, which my Father was not going to be ruled by fear ad as seen nothing happened to him, but two of my uncles died, one before I was born and another when I was 5, both anti IRA, who served in the RUC, both hated terrorists and saw that the IRA were nothing short of evil.

Now about from 5 onward we started to go to Ireland for longs summers, though my father could only join us for a few weeks and had left the army by then anyway, but I remember being around one particular uncle, and some of his extremist friends, though he was no terrorist himself and the arguments and hate spouted towards Britain and in their eyes there was no doubt they were at war with Britain and I heard all the arguments from foreign policy, to religious beliefs, where the Queen was seen as one of the biggest targets being the head of the English church etc, the claim my direct family should be behind them and anti British, the claim we were letting our brothers and sisters down with words played on British foreign policy, so I have been through all this and even more so growing up in Britain and in fact it made us more united as feeling British, as we wanted no part of that. Where I had many ethnic Irish friends, some for and against the IRA, fights were had and where all of us were at times like Muslims today ostracized or treated as terrorists, even more so after an attack. So been it, done it painted the picture, I even wanted to join the British army when I was 17, but my mother begged me not to in tears, with complete fear I would be murdered..

Now I heard the complete narrative of these people who had no care and at what cost in waging war on Britain, which at points started to cost them dear where later because of public views on their bombings they changed to warnings, but their intent was the same, terror. Again though my loyalty was to my country, religion should not supersede anyone being part of a nation, they should go together and to think making a choice to have your religion over your faith leaves the door open then to people completely having mistrust ad yes I know Christians with a literal view of their faith places theirs first also. When the SAS shot some IRA in broad daylight, to me they had a licence to kill those who were and stated clearly that they were at war with Britain and to me their deaths were justifiable. It also scared the IRA, because now Britain as not afraid to hit back with assassinations, but the public as usual, those on the left of course were up in arms, not understanding a thing. I was not angry and why I wanted to join was to stop the terrorist, my views were what was best for all people and terrorism had to be stopped by military means.

The point is and why Quill gets it so wrong is he failed to see the resolve of the Islamic extremists and to them, they are at war with the west and have been for some time and have changed tactics, because, they have not overthrown any Muslim country by just terrorism. Their aim is to grow and conquer vast territories so eventually they can attack the west, though the possibility is this may happen sooner. Though if you have a growing extremist group that is at constant war for years to come, they will be battle hardened, experienced and will have no problem taking the battle to the west through sheer terror tactics, their resolve is not going to stop at the creation of some Caliphate and this is why people are being naive to terrorist groups and their aims. For those claiming it has nothing to do with the west, give it time because they will ensure they involve the west, as to them, we are evil, America the great Satan, thus people need to stop with all the soft naive views.


P.S>

Sorry any deity that calls for people to be more loyal to them over their family, well we have all read the story of Job, just about the most sickest bet played, where this deity is claimed to know all, would put this person through all this knowing he will stay loyal anyway. That is twisted in my book

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are neither trained, nor terrorists.  The threat level is misnamed.  I should be anxiety level.  

Those of us in American have already learned this trick from GWB.  Whenever Cameron or some conservative wants a war, or to send in troops for any reason, he raises the threat level.  It's so much easier than actually having to make the case.  You just reach over there and move the dial; basically the message is: trust me, you don't want to know.  Don't you worry your pretty little head at all.  Just hand over your civil rights, and Papa Cameron will take care of all your needs.  Lol.

Conservatives are good at wars, and they are good at elitist tricks.  This one smells of both.  Fortunately, Obama wants none of the Bush antics.  Neither does America.  After hundreds of thousands of lives, and $17-trillion of American money wasted, Cameron is on his own.

So naive it makes me laugh, you claim they are not trained or being trained in the art of bomb making, that is the left for you, make out any excuse until its too late and the left are bad at wars, their strategy is to wait until it is too late and then what they face is even more difficult to defeat. This is nothing as before with GWB, which shows your poor understanding here, as nobody backed the war with Iraq, may however did with Afghanistan, where clearly many terrorists were being trained in camps there. Most rational people will see the threat and as seen eve the Kurds fighting this are warning of the threat to come, nobody is stating it is imminent, but this is where your views fall apart, in time it will be only because their attention is fully focused on a conflict at preset, they thus need all personnel in Iraq and Syria and when it is over, whether they win or lose, then the problem becomes a reality i the west, time you woke up and smelt the coffee, because your views are so out of touch with reality

You say the left is bad at war.  But your only proof is that you disagree with my assessment…ergo: your disagreement is proof that your disagreement is right.  That’s called a tautology…you disagree and your proof is that you disagree.  (A tautology is repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology to say that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.)

So your answer is perpetual war (“Most rational people will see the threat…and they thus need all personnel in Iraq and Syria…”).  Distilled down, that’s what your thesis amounts to.  What an opportunity for a conservative, eh?  Perpetual war…an expanding economy…new lands and resources to conquer…a state of true capitalist gluttony.

My theory is that if you “run it out of them” they will cease of their own volition.  Let them have their war and try to stay as far away from it as possible.  Let them arrive at the conclusion that peace is better, on their own accord.

If we enter the affray, the Muslims become the coat-holders (“Here, let me hold your coat while you do the fighting…”).  That’s what they actually want: they have a civil war that they want the West to fight for them.  It’s called vindication by authority; they know we are better at warfare, and thus they want the best in order to win.  That’s why a Saudi King is warning the West if they don’t go to war, bad things will happen.  

Faux News wrote:While not mentioning any terrorist groups by name, King Abdullah's statement appeared aimed at drawing Washington and NATO forces into a wider fight against the Islamic State terror organization and its supporters in the region. Saudi Arabia openly backs rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad, but is concerned that the breakaway Al Qaeda group could also turn those very same weapons on the kingdom.

This is the Muslim practice.  Enlist the West to fight their wars for them.  Insurgents are doing the same: look at Hamas, milking the tears for the Palestinian mothers and children while firing off missiles of their own.  And of course, Faux News publicizes all of it because conservatives love war.  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08/30/saudi-king-warns-isis-terror-threat-to-europe-us/

My thesis is, if the West stays away it will be the Muslim’s own affair.  The sooner they use up all their own resources, kill all of their own people, and end up with lands that are smoldering and barren, they will ask what it was all about.  At that point they are ready to believe…they are ready to subscribe to peace.  

Is that naïve?  No, it’s harsh and seemingly uncaring.  But sometimes the physician has to let the body heal itself.  It is the only thing that will wake up a combatant in a temper tantrum...which is what we have here.

Yet more babble, never claimed any such thing the poor deluded mind of the left seem to just make it up as they go along, where my view was to always send in special forces to take out ISIS with assassinations and  with air support, which is basically what we did in Afghanistan, which worked. What failed was the fact of the Iraq war and the job was not finished in Afghanistan, because they did not go after the Taliban into Pakistan, that was the failing. So again this is why the left fail, they fail as seen strategically and where the right are not afraid to make difficult decisions.


Sorry but you have not the first clue what you are talking about Quill and an understanding of terrorism full stop and their means and resolve, again I have first hand experience and knowledge of meeting such people, yet you are stuck behind just reading bools, where as seen nothing has coutered the extremist cause yet, which needs two aspects, one to counter those being drawn to extremism, and to take out those following ISIS now, the former is needed to when this group has been all but destroyed and your view is nothing short of irresponsible being as America as partly responsible for their rise because of their completely incompetence with the occupation of Iraq

You really are so naive here it really is getting quite embarrassing now and the reality is if ISIS overrun these nations, we see a global economic crisis and an even bigger threat to then not only other Arab nations but to Europe and Africa. You are so naive to think, someone else will do something about it or hoping Israel will, which they will protect their borders. Your view is to make a mess and then not clean it up, were you never taught manners?

This is more th just saving many ethnic and religious people, but the bigger greater threat later if they win, you ensure that does not happen, because then you will have war on American soil, one of which you will not know the enemy, this again you are niave too.

Thus America has a duty to clean up its fuck up.

A duty to thus save millions from possible genocide.

They have a duty to protect themselves from a later threat on their own soil.

Bury your head in the sand if you want to the left are very apt at doing that. The left have been poor in war, left views, get in the way of carrying out war where they try to ensure no civilian casualties or view extremists as military personnel and thus prisoners if captured, while morally right, it is a flawed military tactic and why the left will continue to lose wars, that is a fact.

Didge wrote:Yet more babble, never claimed any such thing the poor deluded mind of the left seem to just make it up as they go along, where my view was to always send in special forces to take out ISIS with assassinations and  with air support, which is basically what we did in Afghanistan, which worked. What failed was the fact of the Iraq war and the job was not finished in Afghanistan, because they did not go after the Taliban into Pakistan, that was the failing. So again this is why the left fail, they fail as seen strategically and where the right are not afraid to make difficult decisions.

Haha...perhaps if you constructed a single sentence properly, we could understand you.  But I don't think I have misunderstood.  I do think you have misunderstood the implications of what you are saying.  You disregard the overall picture, and wish to fight each little battle as an episode of its own.  That's perpetual war.

Didge wrote:Sorry but you have not the first clue what you are talking about Quill and an understanding of terrorism full stop and their means and resolve, again I have first hand experience and knowledge of meeting such people, yet you are stuck behind just reading bools, where as seen nothing has coutered the extremist cause yet, which needs two aspects, one to counter those being drawn to extremism, and to take out those following ISIS now, the former is needed to when this group has been all but destroyed and your view is nothing short of irresponsible being as America as partly responsible for their rise because of their completely incompetence with the occupation of Iraq

Didge, you are being absurd.  When have you ever had experience with "special forces?"  And what do special forces have to do with it anyway?  They are not policy makers.

Didge wrote:You really are so naive here it really is getting quite embarrassing now and the reality is if ISIS overrun these nations, we see a global economic crisis and an even bigger threat to then not only other Arab nations but to Europe and Africa. You are so naive to think, someone else will do something about it or hoping Israel will, which they will protect their borders. Your view is to make a mess and then not clean it up, were you never taught manners?

More conservative buffoonery,  This is important to me...HOW?  Conservatives are the first to jump up and down and scream, We need a war!  Do they want to go and fight the war themselves?  No, they want to send others.

Let Muslims handle their own affairs themselves.  Let them "run it out."  It's none of our business.

Didge wrote:This is more th just saving many ethnic and religious people, but the bigger greater threat later if they win, you ensure that does not happen, because then you will have war on American soil, one of which you will not know the enemy, this again you are niave too.

No one is going to attack American soil.  And If they do, we can handle it.

Didge wrote:Thus America has a duty to clean up its fuck up.

A duty to thus save millions from possible genocide.

The best way to do it is to give them their lead and let them run out of wind.

Didge wrote:They have a duty to protect themselves from a later threat on their own soil.

Bury your head in the sand if you want to the left are very apt at doing that. The left have been poor in war, left views, get in the way of carrying out war where they try to ensure no civilian casualties or view extremists as military personnel and thus prisoners if captured, while morally right, it is a flawed military tactic and why the left will continue to lose wars, that is a fact.

  Another hundred thousand lives?  Another $17-trillion?  Running up the debt?  Creating a world-wide Depression?  These are Conservative and Republican programs.  When teachers asks: what did you do over the summer vacation?...they can say I ran up daddy's credit cards, saving the world from evil and destruction!

All you need to do is sit down and stop waving your arms and screaming The sky is falling...the sky is falling!  Hmmm...$17-trillion, on the one hand.  Nothing happening on the home-front lately, on the other hand.  Tough choice.  This all comes about because you don't realize that, while there are dangers out there, terrorism is nothing but criminality.  We can handle it without a dial and a 'threat level'...and without another $trillion and troops, to be sure.

lol are you the grammar Police now Quill?

Do me a favour you have failed to respond to my points countless times and you are naive to think you can handle it was it will create w massive problem for the Muslim community who already live there.


I know plenty about the special forces, no doubt more than you and we have elements of extremist Muslims in both our countries, thus it is no good to ignore the problem.

Again simple points, take out ISIS

Second, work on the aspects of people who are being drawn to extremists groups, where at preset the extremist propaganda has been allowed to thrive. They are looking for meaning to their lives.

Seriously your view is one that hopes the problem will go away and even worse neglect the economic problems that could escalate. Your view they will seek for peace, would only happen if they are under threat of being destroyed, because as seen other extremist Islamic groups are not and are continuing to commit atrocities.

Its a good thing we did not take your stance with Poland in 1939 ad hope Hitler would just sue for peace, he played that card which was easily bought and then 6 years later 60 million people are left dead. He was allowed to grow and rearm for years because of your approach. I fact there has been plenty of leaders where inaction has led to many dying, Idi Ami, Pol Pot, Jean Bedel Bokassa, the list is endless and in each scenario only after many had died was action taken, all allowed to grow, even though the warning signs were there.

Question still remains: why was the threat level raised to 'an attack is HIGHLY LIKELY' without any intelligence of an attack, if it wasn't to stoke up fear of the public.

As for Al Qeada still being linked to ISIS:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/02/islamic_state_vs_al_qaeda_next_jihadi_super_power?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=2014_FlashPoints%20%5BManual%5D-test-sept2

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Question still remains: why was the threat level raised to 'an attack is HIGHLY LIKELY' without any intelligence of an attack, if it wasn't to stoke up fear of the public.

As for Al Qeada still being linked to ISIS:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/02/islamic_state_vs_al_qaeda_next_jihadi_super_power?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=2014_FlashPoints%20%5BManual%5D-test-sept2

Are you privy to what the intelligence services knows?

Didge wrote:lol are you the grammar Police now Quill?

Do me a favour you have failed to respond to my points countless times and you are naive to think you can handle it was it will create w massive problem for the Muslim community who already live there.


I know plenty about the special forces, no doubt more than you and we have elements of extremist Muslims in both our countries, thus it is no good to ignore the problem.

Again simple points, take out ISIS

Second, work on the aspects of people who are being drawn to extremists groups, where at preset the extremist propaganda has been allowed to thrive. They are looking for meaning to their lives.

Seriously your view is one that hopes the problem will go away and even worse neglect the economic problems that could escalate. Your view they will seek for peace, would only happen if they are under threat of being destroyed, because as seen other extremist Islamic groups are not and are continuing to commit atrocities.

Its a good thing we did not take your stance with Poland in 1939 ad hope Hitler would just sue for peace, he played that card which was easily bought and then 6 years later 60 million people are left dead. He was allowed to grow and rearm for years because of your approach. I fact there has been plenty of leaders where inaction has led to many dying, Idi Ami, Pol Pot, Jean Bedel Bokassa, the list is endless and in each scenario only after many had died was action taken, all allowed to grow, even though the warning signs were there.

Well, we do wish you would pay a little attention to your sentence structure.  Your stream-of-consciousness writing style leaves us dizzy with questions as to where one thought leaves off, and another begins.  That’s all.

Lol.  I suspect that neither of us knows anything about special forces.  But special forces are all and only about tactics.  This is not the time for a discussion on tactics; it's a time for figuring out strategy.

Take out ISIS—why bother?  There is another group waiting in the wings.  However, there is an ancient battle tactic used to take cities and/or regions: isolate and let alone.  With castles, they used to call it siege.  When the sieged get hungry, they will trickle out and ask questions.

This is the same tactic we should use in the Middle East.  Starve them of their ability to fight.  Why do you think they keep chopping off heads of western journalists stupid enough to wander in there?  They are desperate.  They need you….  They are begging for you to come…  You have to come and fight their wars for them!!!  

So it's the last thing you should do.  War only breeds more war.  The thing to do is leave them alone.  Haha—they’ve even written a poem about it:

Lil' Bo Peep wrote:Leave them alone,
And they will come home,
Wagging their tails behind them.

The last thing you should do is give them what they want…a bigger war.

Your second point—about reeducating the masses—has been tried many times, particularly in the communist countries.  The Communist Chinese experimented with something called brainwashing, with little success.  I question whether it works, but it is harmless compared with war, I admit.  However, you should know that you are facing a religion, not an ideology.

Now, we can either try to supplant that religion, or we work within it and urge that Islam doesn’t necessarily mean war.  First, I believe that supplanting a religion is too big a task.  It has approximately 15-centuries, and religions fare poorly against existential reasoning.  Second, if you try to persuade people within Islam that your way is better, you are up against mullahs who are far more familiar and skilled with the religion than are you.

I have developed a second career in negotiation and mediation.   I have studied politics and I have studied psychology—both mass and individual, with the aim of creating conflict resolution.  The key to getting people to settle on a single solution or peace plan, is to get them to arrive at that conclusion on their own.  No guns, no aircraft, and no tanks or bombs, on the one hand.  And, no population reeducation centers, on the other hand.

Rather, we should create the external conditions—in isolation—that permit a people to arrive at their own conclusions.  Isolation is space…the space to sit and contemplate their situation.  (Within the individual, we call that meditation.)  In a population, it is a matter of removing the distractions that cloud up the thought processes…war, and theories of politics.  Leave them alone, and they'll come home...

In sum, the only difference between you and me, is you want to impose your will (war and reeducation centers) on the masses, while I want people to arrive at their own conclusions, on their own time and in their own way.

My way builds a stronger foundation.  It is the concrete of self-determination.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Question still remains: why was the threat level raised to 'an attack is HIGHLY LIKELY' without any intelligence of an attack, if it wasn't to stoke up fear of the public.

As for Al Qeada still being linked to ISIS:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/02/islamic_state_vs_al_qaeda_next_jihadi_super_power?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=2014_FlashPoints%20%5BManual%5D-test-sept2

Are you privy to what the intelligence services knows?

When it's terror threat level is raised Severe, that usually means there is intelligence.

That's why that threat level is categorised as 'highly likely'.

Cameron has admitted there's no intelligence of an attack in this case. It was raised so the public can keep an eye on 'anything suspicious'. Thus raising our 'fear level' for no good reason.

It's pure manipulation. And EVERYBODY knows it. Except, apparently you.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:lol are you the grammar Police now Quill?

Do me a favour you have failed to respond to my points countless times and you are naive to think you can handle it was it will create w massive problem for the Muslim community who already live there.


I know plenty about the special forces, no doubt more than you and we have elements of extremist Muslims in both our countries, thus it is no good to ignore the problem.

Again simple points, take out ISIS

Second, work on the aspects of people who are being drawn to extremists groups, where at preset the extremist propaganda has been allowed to thrive. They are looking for meaning to their lives.

Seriously your view is one that hopes the problem will go away and even worse neglect the economic problems that could escalate. Your view they will seek for peace, would only happen if they are under threat of being destroyed, because as seen other extremist Islamic groups are not and are continuing to commit atrocities.

Its a good thing we did not take your stance with Poland in 1939 ad hope Hitler would just sue for peace, he played that card which was easily bought and then 6 years later 60 million people are left dead. He was allowed to grow and rearm for years because of your approach. I fact there has been plenty of leaders where inaction has led to many dying, Idi Ami, Pol Pot, Jean Bedel Bokassa, the list is endless and in each scenario only after many had died was action taken, all allowed to grow, even though the warning signs were there.

Well, we do wish you would pay a little attention to your sentence structure.  Your stream-of-consciousness writing style leaves us dizzy with questions as to where one thought leaves off, and another begins.  That’s all.

Lol.  I suspect that neither of us knows anything about special forces.  But special forces are all and only about tactics.  This is not the time for a discussion on tactics; it's a time for figuring out strategy.

Take out ISIS—why bother?  There is another group waiting in the wings.  However, there is an ancient battle tactic used to take cities and/or regions: isolate and let alone.  With castles, they used to call it siege.  When they get hungry, they will trickle out and beg.

This is the same tactic we should use in the Middle East.  Starve them of their ability to fight.  Why do you think they keep chopping off heads of western journalists stupid enough to go in there?  They are disparate.  They need you….  They are begging for you to come…  You have to come and fight their wars for them!!!  Haha—they’ve even written a poem about it:

Lil' Bo Peep wrote:Leave them alone,
And they will come home,
Wagging their tails behind them.

The last thing you should do is give them what they want…a bigger war.

Your second point—about reeducating the masses—has been tried many times, particularly in the communist countries.  I question whether it works, but it is harmless, I admit.  However, you should know that you are facing a religion, not an ideology.

Now, we can either try to supplant that religion, or we work within it and urge that Islam doesn’t necessarily mean war.  First, I believe that supplanting a religion is too big a task.  It has approximately 15-centuries, and religions fare poorly against existential reasoning.  Second, if you try to persuade people within Islam that your way is better, you are up against mullahs who are far more familiar and skilled with the religion than are you.

I have developed a second career in negotiation and mediation.   I have studied politics and I have studied psychology—both mass and individual.  The key to getting people to settle on a single solution or peace plan, is to get them to arrive at that conclusion on their own.  No guns, no aircraft, and not tanks or bombs, on the one hand.  And, no population reeducation, on the other hand.

Rather, we should create the external conditions—in isolation—that permit a people to arrive at their own conclusions.  Isolation is space…the space to sit and contemplate their situation.  (Within the individual, we call that meditation.)  In a population, it is a matter of removing the distractions that cloud up the thought processes…war, and theories of politics.

In sum, the only difference between you and me, is you want to impose your will (war and reeducation centers) on the masses, while I want people to arrive at their own conclusions, on their own time and in their own way.

My way builds a stronger foundation.  It is the concrete of self-determination.

We, who is we?
Poor deflection Quill which has no relevance to the debate.
I do not want to impose my will on anyone, like most rational minded people I want to stop an ongoing genocide that is being committed as we speak ad we are facing an ideology, not a religion, by and large the followers of that religion do not view IS a Muslim, except of course Saudi Arabia, where when polled 92% viewed them as conforming to the values of Islam, which is no surprise when Isis is very much an extremist form of Wahhabism. What is the bigger and even greater concern here, is that Isis clearly have a goal to tale over Saudi Arabia and thus would control the center of the Islamic world, imagine what would be the consequences of that?

Your way can allow a situation to get out of hand and become uncontrollable, o there i both negative and positives to both as you well know and of which we are never going to agree on, but I do not want to force my view, but rather people see sense as to what i practical and the best policy going forward, though having said that this former MI5 agent backs you view,which you might find interesting, though again I differ:





Middle East Time Bomb: The Real Aim of ISIS Is to Replace the Saud Family as the New Emirs of Arabia


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are you privy to what the intelligence services knows?

When it's terror threat level is raised Severe, that usually means there is intelligence.

That's why that threat level is categorised as 'highly likely'.

Cameron has admitted there's no intelligence of an attack in this case. It was raised so the public can keep an eye on 'anything suspicious'. Thus raising our 'fear level' for no good reason.

It's pure manipulation. And EVERYBODY knows it. Except, apparently you.

Haha...not laughing at you, but with you Zack.  You have fallen into the Bush trap.  There's no intelligence...it's a one-way communication.  You announce a "threat" in order to create a war...or wartime situation.

Cameron is simply less adept at it than the Bush administration.  When asked about intelligence, the proper (Bush/Cheney) answer is that the "intelligence must be kept confidential."  You never admit there is no intelligence.  Sname, shame...tories.

Of course it's all a ruse.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are you privy to what the intelligence services knows?

When it's terror threat level is raised Severe, that usually means there is intelligence.

That's why that threat level is categorised as 'highly likely'.

Cameron has admitted there's no intelligence of an attack in this case. It was raised so the public can keep an eye on 'anything suspicious'. Thus raising our 'fear level' for no good reason.

It's pure manipulation. And EVERYBODY knows it. Except, apparently you.

Again are you privy to the intelligence service?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

When it's terror threat level is raised Severe, that usually means there is intelligence.

That's why that threat level is categorised as 'highly likely'.

Cameron has admitted there's no intelligence of an attack in this case. It was raised so the public can keep an eye on 'anything suspicious'. Thus raising our 'fear level' for no good reason.

It's pure manipulation. And EVERYBODY knows it. Except, apparently you.

Again are you privy to the intelligence service?

All I have said is in the public domain.

When was the last time the terror threat was raised to severe without any intelligence?

In fact both you and Quill are wrong on this and it does not matter if a threat is not immediately imminent, but it is calculated is based on risk methods of the possible likelihood of an attack.
It has nothing to do with scare tactics.


The levels are based on the assessment of a range of factors including current intelligence, recent events and what is known about terrorist intentions and capabilities.
"This information may well be incomplete and decisions about the appropriate security response are made with this in mind," the site says.

Security services and police change their behaviour accordingly and assessments are produced when deemed necessary for public figures and events.


So it has fuck all to with both your incorrect claims chaps

Didge wrote:In fact both you and Quill are wrong on this and it does not matter if a threat is not immediately imminent, but it is calculated is based on risk methods of the possible likelihood of an attack.
It has nothing to do with scare tactics.


The levels are based on the assessment of a range of factors including current intelligence, recent events and what is known about terrorist intentions and capabilities.


So it has fuck all to for with both your incorrect claims chaps

In that case you'll have no problem answering my question above. Give me 1 example.

Didge wrote:In fact both you and Quill are wrong on this and it does not matter if a threat is not immediately imminent, but it is calculated is based on risk methods of the possible likelihood of an attack.
It has nothing to do with scare tactics.


The levels are based on the assessment of a range of factors including current intelligence, recent events and what is known about terrorist intentions and capabilities.
"This information may well be incomplete and decisions about the appropriate security response are made with this in mind," the site says.

Security services and police change their behaviour accordingly and assessments are produced when deemed necessary for public figures and events.


So it has fuck all to with both your incorrect claims chaps

And I never said imminent. Nice try.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:In fact both you and Quill are wrong on this and it does not matter if a threat is not immediately imminent, but it is calculated is based on risk methods of the possible likelihood of an attack.
It has nothing to do with scare tactics.


The levels are based on the assessment of a range of factors including current intelligence, recent events and what is known about terrorist intentions and capabilities.


So it has fuck all to for with both your incorrect claims chaps

In that case you'll have no problem answering my question above. Give me 1 example.

2010 was the last time and again you have of comprehension of risk analysis, with no understanding how they calculate as seen, you may want to research this more before making many unfounded and unsubstantiated claims as you and Quill both are

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:In fact both you and Quill are wrong on this and it does not matter if a threat is not immediately imminent, but it is calculated is based on risk methods of the possible likelihood of an attack.
It has nothing to do with scare tactics.


The levels are based on the assessment of a range of factors including current intelligence, recent events and what is known about terrorist intentions and capabilities.
"This information may well be incomplete and decisions about the appropriate security response are made with this in mind," the site says.

Security services and police change their behaviour accordingly and assessments are produced when deemed necessary for public figures and events.


So it has fuck all to with both your incorrect claims chaps

And I never said imminent. Nice try.

Sorry bruv but your claims are speculative bullshit and as seen you have no understanding how the threat levels are calculated here, for example the threat level for Northern Ireland is also severe

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

In that case you'll have no problem answering my question above. Give me 1 example.

2010 was the last time and again you have of comprehension of risk analysis, with no understanding how they calculate as seen, you may want to research this more before making many unfounded and unsubstantiated claims as you and Quill both are

That's right, 4 years ago.

And was there any intelligence pointing to an attack back then?

No there wasn't.

So for what reason should the public remain in a state of alertness and fear?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

2010 was the last time and again you have of comprehension of risk analysis, with no understanding how they calculate as seen, you may want to research this more before making many unfounded and unsubstantiated claims as you and Quill both are

That's right, 4 years ago.

And was there any intelligence pointing to an attack back then?

No there wasn't.

So for what reason should the public remain in a state of alertness and fear?

You are still not grasping this are you, where again you have no idea on intelligence and again on how it is calculated, you are thus making assumptions based only on what you know you read about in the media.


There have been plenty of incidents also, but again the threat levels are calculated on may factors, of which you are not privy to or even understand it seems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, we do wish you would pay a little attention to your sentence structure.  Your stream-of-consciousness writing style leaves us dizzy with questions as to where one thought leaves off, and another begins.  That’s all.

Lol.  I suspect that neither of us knows anything about special forces.  But special forces are all and only about tactics.  This is not the time for a discussion on tactics; it's a time for figuring out strategy.

Take out ISIS—why bother?  There is another group waiting in the wings.  However, there is an ancient battle tactic used to take cities and/or regions: isolate and let alone.  With castles, they used to call it siege.  When they get hungry, they will trickle out and beg.

This is the same tactic we should use in the Middle East.  Starve them of their ability to fight.  Why do you think they keep chopping off heads of western journalists stupid enough to go in there?  They are disparate.  They need you….  They are begging for you to come…  You have to come and fight their wars for them!!!  Haha—they’ve even written a poem about it:



The last thing you should do is give them what they want…a bigger war.

Your second point—about reeducating the masses—has been tried many times, particularly in the communist countries.  I question whether it works, but it is harmless, I admit.  However, you should know that you are facing a religion, not an ideology.

Now, we can either try to supplant that religion, or we work within it and urge that Islam doesn’t necessarily mean war.  First, I believe that supplanting a religion is too big a task.  It has approximately 15-centuries, and religions fare poorly against existential reasoning.  Second, if you try to persuade people within Islam that your way is better, you are up against mullahs who are far more familiar and skilled with the religion than are you.

I have developed a second career in negotiation and mediation.   I have studied politics and I have studied psychology—both mass and individual.  The key to getting people to settle on a single solution or peace plan, is to get them to arrive at that conclusion on their own.  No guns, no aircraft, and not tanks or bombs, on the one hand.  And, no population reeducation, on the other hand.

Rather, we should create the external conditions—in isolation—that permit a people to arrive at their own conclusions.  Isolation is space…the space to sit and contemplate their situation.  (Within the individual, we call that meditation.)  In a population, it is a matter of removing the distractions that cloud up the thought processes…war, and theories of politics.

In sum, the only difference between you and me, is you want to impose your will (war and reeducation centers) on the masses, while I want people to arrive at their own conclusions, on their own time and in their own way.

My way builds a stronger foundation.  It is the concrete of self-determination.

We, who is we?

Well, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I assume you have more than one reader. A little attention to proper sentence structure is a blessing on your reader.

Didge wrote:Poor deflection Quill which has no relevance to the debate.
I do not want to impose my will on anyone, like most rational minded people I want to stop an ongoing genocide that is being committed as we speak ad we are facing an ideology, not a religion, by and large the followers of that religion do not view IS a Muslim, except of course Saudi Arabia, where when polled 92% viewed them as conforming to the values of Islam, which is no surprise when Isis is very much an extremist form of Wahhabism. What is the bigger and even greater concern here, is that Isis clearly have a goal to tale over Saudi Arabia and thus would control the center of the Islamic world, imagine what would be the consequences of that?

You can't stop the genocide anymore than you can stop crime. And you are facing a religion...an ideology embedded in a religion. That was my point. If you undertake the task of reeducating the masses, you have to be adept at not only the ideology, but the religion. Why not by-pass both and allow people to arrive at their own conclusion, unencumbered by any intellectual mumbo-jumbo.

Didge wrote:Your way can allow a situation to get out of hand and become uncontrollable, o there i both negative and positives to both as you well know and of which we are never going to agree on, but I do not want to force my view, but rather people see sense as to what i practical and the best policy going forward, though having said that this former MI5 agent backs you view,which you might find interesting, though again I differ:

The situation is already out of hand. The people who have been killed are already dead. Those destined to be killed, are gonna get killed anyway. Although, ostensibly you are advocating a mission of peace, you are suggesting going in with guns. Don't you see the irony in that?

Frankly, things have happened so fast that you don't know who is the enemy. ISIL is a new factional insurgency. What happened to al Qaeda? It's a lot like the Taliban: one day you are fighting beside them; the next, they are the enemy. Which way is the wind blowing today?

That's why I insist you have no strategy. You are swatting flies with a flyswatter.

Didge wrote:Middle East Time Bomb: The Real Aim of ISIS Is to Replace the Saud Family as the New Emirs of Arabia

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

Yes, that's why the Saudi king is asking for the west to come in and help. "Here, go get 'em...I'll hold your coat." Fortunately, the oil extortion doesn't affect us. We have enough oil within the confines of our own borders.

How ridiculous to say we cannot stop the genocide, that is babble Quill, of course you can.
You still cannot see the bigger picture and look further afield, and that is your failure here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

This is what I have been saying all along. It is a religious issue, not a factional one.

There is a civil war brewing, and the contestants want the west to come in and fight it for them.

Didge wrote:How ridiculous to say we cannot stop the genocide, that is babble Quill, of course you can.
You still cannot see the bigger picture and look further afield, and that is your failure here.

How, by getting them all to sing Kumbya?

Didge, you don't have the power to stop the genocide.  You have only the power to add to it.

Remembers, peacekeepers carry guns?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:How ridiculous to say we cannot stop the genocide, that is babble Quill, of course you can.
You still cannot see the bigger picture and look further afield, and that is your failure here.

How, by getting them all to sing Kumbya?

Didge, you don't have the power to stop the genocide.  You have only the power to add to it.

Remembers, peacekeepers carry guns?

Again complete babble, we stop genocide by taking out those committing it, maybe you want to sing hymns around the campfire, but that is not going to help those in immediate danger, let alone those displaced and starving. Again you fail to see the bigger picture or the long term outcomes if IS are successful and what affects it will have on the world, even more so if they gain Mecca.