US to attack IS

Yes. This annoys me too. It is my opinion that if someone leaves the UK to join a hostile force then 1) They immediately lose their British citizenship and 2) There closest associates still in the UK are immediately arrested and detained until they can prove their loyalty to Britain. This second point might sound harsh, but its war, and its exactly what happened on both sides during WW2. If you have reason to suspect that someone might have loyalties to an enemy force, how can they be allowed to wander about at leisure? I know that will be politically unpalatable in this day and age but surely we're either at war or not at war. You can't be somewhere in between. And just to clarify, no I'm not talking about arresting every foreigner or every Muslim or anything like that, I'm talking about looking with suspicion upon anyone who was clearly a close friend of someone who turns out to be the enemy.

 

Totally agree with all of this, well said clue.!!!

Val

 

Oh great, so we will now at last be joining in and throwing a few guided bombs on Iraq.
It all seems a bit pointless to me, its basically a , "lets be seen to be doing the right thing" attitude.
If the twits we want to destroy are based in Syria, and the Yanks are already bombing there what is our problem?

We maybe should have backed Asad a year ago, then maybe this bunch of religious maniacs would have been wiped out by now.

Have we learnt nothing from wiping out Saddam?

Dictators are what keeps these countries stable, without, they just go into civil war, democracy works for us,in a way, but it stands a cat in hells chance of working out there.

 

So idiots who behead people should be bombed out of existence?

Who do we bomb?:

1) Saudi Arabia?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18503550 (I think that stopped here in the late 1600's).
http://www.alipac.us/f19/saudi-princess-beheaded-adultery-95407/
etc.

or

2) 'Islamic State'?

3) Both of them, and anybody else who's asking for it?


P.S. I don't think the UK has the capability to bomb more than one.

 

It is all to scary. We do have to stop evil. Sad there is so much in the world.

 

I dont think its quite the same thing @Scrungee, they dont threaten us.

But thanks to Tony Blair we have IS living in our midst, they say they have been radicalised, its just a kop out, they hate us, but some want to live here.

They go off on a gap year, fighting for the revolution, when they and their likes can take over the world.
They might even want to come back.

They are fanatics that if they just had designs on their own region, I'd say, leave alone, but they dont.

I should add they are a very brave bunch, beheading aid workers and journalists, lets see how they get on with a tornado up their arris.

 

Personally I can't wait!!

 

Totally agree redstar...what is our world coming too...sometimes i avoid watching the news its all doom and gloom

 

Its always been doom and gloom though. There's nothing new. The only difference between now and years ago is that the media has more time to fill, so we get to hear about more stuff. Think about pre-internet and digital TV days. The news came from a newspapers, which are produced only once per day and are only a few pages thick, or the News at 10, which I think was half an hour a day. So the media companies had to cherry pick only the stuff that was most interesting (or so they decided) and had to really condense world affairs down. Now we have numerous news channels on 24/7, numerous internet based news sites, and global communication between ordinary folks on social media. There's a lot of space to fill. So we get to hear a lot more detail about a much wider range of things. I wonder what today's world would make of the so called cold war. Its alleged that there were multiple almost frequent false alarms that nearly resulted in one side throwing everything at the other, but it wasn't really reported much, because when Iran and Iraq are gassing each other, Beirut is constantly getting bombed, the British mainland is practically a civil war zone between unions and police, that alone is enough to more than fill a few newspapers and a half hour TV window. No time left to report all the less blatant stuff.

As for IS, they need to be stopped. Not just for who they are themselves, but because NATO has, in the eyes of many, become soft. You don't see IS sweeping through China, where any such antics would be nipped in the bud with no regard whatsoever for international rules of war, and where anyone stepping out of line is LUCKY if all they get is a public beating. IS are like a school bully. They target soft targets and use intimidation tactics to subdue anyone they can. Just like a school bully, they will gather support as long as it seems its safer to be their friend than their enemy. NATO needs to stop being the new age school do-gooder, and start being the formidable force it was created to be.

 

A year ago he was still chucking chemical weapons at his own people!

Still, he has been stripped of what we could find in the meantime and needs must.

 

His own people that were, and still are as far as I know, mounting an actual violent uprising against their own state.

I'm not saying he was right. I'm saying its not a simple straight forward matter. If say the English Defence League or the BNP decided to start destroying public property in the UK, and claiming ownership of entire neighbourhoods, and killing people, we'd be pretty unhappy if the authorities we pay our taxes to did nothing to restore order. How they go about that could be controversial, but we'd want them to do something. We have our own ideas as to what's acceptable, and we try to apply that to cultures that are almost totally alien to us. Its my experience in life that there's never a 'goody' and a 'baddy' in a dispute. Its just mess. There can be no winners, only least injured losers.

 

Not so much their state but more his state?

I would be seriously unhappy. But in Syria things are (and have always been) different;
1] it is frequently the state that is killing people
2] we have the luxury of being able to change things through the democratic process. That is not a possibility in Syria.

The irony is that the West is now in business with one of the states that it lists as a funder of terrorism! The role of Syria in destabilising Iraq through its support of the Baathist terrorists is so ironic that it's almost amusing.

 

So it would appear that last time we went to war in Iraq to sort out a crisis, we only got rid of the "c" and the "r"

 

I do agree that we have to sort this IS terrorists out once in for all because if we don't do it now it will only get out of hand...But it won't be done in a flash..This war could last for many years i feel

 

So we will bomb IS in Iraq but not in Syria, crazy, I just hope the yanks keep hitting them there.
We are doing the usual.
A token effort, until pushed into going the whole hog.

Just cant get my head round why they wont act in Syria, is it because it might look like we are backing Asad.
If Asad goes, god knows who will take over the place.