Am I missing something?

Trouble is I guess, Isis don't actually own anything. They've simply stolen everything they currently have. I guess the goal is to eliminate IS and still have things to give back to the owners afterwards.

I know that can't work in every case, but we must remember the very delicate position we're in. There are factions even within our own borders that are utterly opposed to us (by us I mean our allies and/or the UK) bombing anything, even if the target is the manifestation of pure evil. Some such factions mean well, some not so, but in any case us targeting anything will upset some people.

The tricky situation we're in is that we have to somehow take out the pure evil that is IS, while not doing anything to make us look like the aggressor, and by minimizing collateral damage, we hopefully don't fuel the IS propaganda machine too much.

 

Also, after we've sorted out someone else's war for them, guess who will be expected to pay for the rebuild.

 

Russia can do what they like. I'm sure us, the US and our 'western' allies would be only too happy for Russia to make a lot of enemies.

As for us just blowing them all up, who though? If we were to indiscriminately bomb things, we'd soon have lots more enemies.

Also, with IS claiming to have blown up that Russian passenger plane, they may well have done. The likes of you and I will never know for sure, but it certainly suitsthe US government, who can't seem to accept that Russia is a potential strong ally on this, but had adopted a strategy that the US didn't approve of. Russia's strategy was to back the Syrian government so that a unified force. could tackle IS. US can't abide Russia and can't accept the possibility that the Russian strategy is likely to be more effective than theirs, so anything that might make Russia go ballistic with IS will be considered advantageous to the US.

 

Wasn't the case with Saddam and Ghaddafi 'palaces' and 'control & command centres' that they'd wait until they thought they were occupied by legit targets, rather than being stuffed with hostages/women/children/etc., before bothering to blast them?


P.S. Really hope they got the evil b*******. If special forces lives had been risked trying to bring him to trial, that would've only risked a whole load of further hostage taking, plus this action might be a bit of a disincentive to potential future IS recruits.

 

I hope they got him, trouble is we are probably breeding the next generation looking to take his place right now.
I'm sure he was a very nice person, before he became "radicalised".

Is it just me or is that word, "radicalised" just getting over used, for a bunch of murdering fanatics?

 

Yes. It takes some of the blame away and puts it on someone else.

There used to be a saying when I was a kid. "if they told you to jump off a cliff, would you?". The obvious meaning being that it doesn't matter what anyone else says, we're each responsible for our own actions.

That's not to say that the people doing the radicalising are without blame. There have always been erm poo stirrers and nobody ever likes them.

It's about time we all just tell it like it is. People are not 'vulnerable to radicalisation', some people are just fundamentally bad. If someone has an ounce of decency, no amount of poo stirring will persuade them to lop an aid worker's head off.

 

If we managed to 'eliminate' IS that would still leave Al Qaeda, they merged for a while but are now separate again.

 

I dont think we will ever be clear of this bunch of fanatics in the future, they will continue to reinvent themselves what ever we do.

Its actually been going on for a long time already.

The destruction of dictators in the middle east appears to leave the power vacuums for them to fill, so I'm all for Russia supporting Asad in Syria, he might not be our idea of a leader but he is better than the alternative.

 

I've only just read what happened in Paris. Obviously I'm saddened by the actual incident, but I also feel a sense of something between despondency and despair at the knowledge that there's not a think anyone can or will do to prevent it happening again.

The fact is, and the dogooders won't like or accept this, but Europe has in recent weeks granted total freedom of movement to IS.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting for a second that every refugee is a terrorist. But with borders being left wide open to thousands coming in from an IS held territory, and absolutely no screening going on, how can anyone think that IS would not take advantage of that? They've already, some time ago, publicly stated that they intend to take much of Europe. If all the thousands of people coming in are genuine refugees, then why are they walking straight through perfectly safe countries? And why are they breaching border fences when the actual crossing points are open? And why are so many able bodied young men running away and leaving their families behind? And when we would naturally refuse to open our homes to, say, a homeless ex British soldier, so many people offered to open their homes to complete strangers coming in from IS held territory.

And why, if you ask such logical questions, are you automatically a heartless racist? You should see the Facebook chatter. It is largely divided between those that believe all those coming in from Syria are terrorists, and those that believe they are all saints. Why can't people see that while the vast majority are likely to be innocent, there will always be a minority that take advantage of the situation.

 

Today the decision will be made by government whether or not to bomb IS in Syria.

While I agree in principle that we need to tackle IS, I worry that as things stand, it will be war just for Cameron's sake.

Turkey is allegedly trading with IS while claiming to be fighting them.Russia is just bombing everything and threatening everyone, the French are bombing sites that independent observers claim had already been abandoned, and the US is too busy arguing with Russia to focus on the task at hand. Oh and the Germans have got involved, in a non-combat roll, while their own government admits that most of their aircraft are actually bust.

So what will our involvement be? All we're being told is more air strikes. Well, I'm no tactician, but I'd kind of believed that to win a war you have to engage the enemy on every level. Air strikes are one part of that, but then you need ground forces to capture and hold land, you need to improve conditions for the innocent bystanders so that they don't grow to hate you, you have to cut off funding and supplies and freedom of movement for the enemy, you have to win the propaganda war to prevent them acquiring new recruits, and you have to have a clear exit strategy that involves ensuring stability and reducing the risk of it flaring up again when the next group of maniacs see a power vacuum to be filled.

If Cameron knows all this, he either doesn't care or is keeping it quiet. Either way will not do him, us, or anyone else any favours.