One thing thing that seems to feed the Jihadist cells is constant and seemingly large supplies of money..in order for them to live under the radar and also to travel extensively,particularly in the EU Schengen area..If that financial lifeline was severed then the cells might begin to dwindle..
This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
They remind me of the Nazis tbh.
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
"They'll like us when we win."
"I don't remember having to tell the Italians that it was only Mussolini we had a problem with! Why does the US have to take every Arab country out for an ice cream cone?! They'll like us when we win!"
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
They didn't sign up to have to fight a crazy death cult with one hand tied behind their backs, but that is what the guys I know fear will happen. They ain't looking forward to it, that's for sure.
Corbyn states that war should be the last resort...good idea..except he needs to realise that ISIS has already declared war ..on everybody.....Come on Labour ... get rid of your idiot leader..
Looks like you're suggesting Cameron thinks that war should be a first resort. However, I am more cynical. Nearly every time a tory government gets into political trouble, it seems to get involved in some form of war to divert attention away from the problems.
And what a lot of fine messes Cameron and Osborne have got themselves in to. NHS Trusts in debt, doctors going on strike, police, power supply, military and navy cuts, immigration, Europe and UKIP, and let's not forget the massive upcoming cuts to government department budgets which will affect everything and everyone in the UK.
Even rumours of a police investigation into possibly senior members of the tory party, yet what is the media doing? Trying to destroy the leader of the Opposition, at least 4 years away from any chance of him winning power.
This continues to look like a government run using the scripts of "Yes Prime Minister" as a bible.
That's an indictment of the Labour Party. They've saddled themselves with an unelectable leadership team, and so they can make no headway, even when the government runs into problems.
This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
They remind me of the Nazis tbh.
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
One of the most important factors in the solution to the post-Nazi Germany Problem was the largest example of Ethnic Cleansing in history. The other big factor was massive financial investment in a willing population
I sense the West is not willing to go to such lengths and that there is no actual solution being put forward by the West, The West will not Ethnically Cleanse, will not create new states such as Kurdistan, will not provide huge pots of money and the populace do not appear entirely willing to accept any solution the West might offer.
The game is a bogey before it's begun, military action in Syria (and Iraq) is utterly pointless.
ISIS may well be wiped off the map in short order. It's already struggling. Its millennarianist ideology will continue to gain adherents for generations. That will need continual containing and confronting.
Raqqa looks safe for them to me right now - who is going to take it. Our best allies in the area, the Kurds... well it is nowhere near Kurdistan.
Mosul/Irbil/Kirkuk OTOH are.
But Raqqa will endure whilst Assad is fighting for his survival near the coast, and it just isn't near Kurdistan.
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
I was being serious, our lads will be itching to get out there. It's unfathomable to 99% of us but they love it.
Then they come back in bits and whinge forever about people not fawning over them.
What an unpleasant man you are.
What an absolute idealistic stupid plank you are. Desperate for idiots to go and either murder other people or get themselves blown to bits. Unpleasant is to much of an accolade for someone like you , living your life vicariously through others deeds whilst you hide behind the sofa cheering.
RUBIO combines the sunny optimism of Reagan with the affable , slick debating skills of Bill Clinton and the youth , freshness and minority status of Obama ...he's the obvious winner !
American politics is becoming increasingly intertwined with Hollywood and the entertainment industry where youth , freshness and slick presentation beats experience , gravitas and wisdom ....this first appeared with the Hollywood-esque Kennedy , then in 1992 when Clinton defeated the statesman-like Bush , did the same with the aging WW2 veteran Dole and then reappeared again in 2008 with the rise of the ''American Idol'' Barrack Obama who took the nomination from right under Hillary and then decisively defeated the aging Vietnam war hero John Mccain
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
Some people enjoy fighting. They're unusual, but they certainly exist.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
RUBIO combines the sunny optimism of Reagan with the affable , slick debating skills of Bill Clinton and the youth , freshness and minority status of Obama ...he's the obvious winner !
American politics is becoming increasingly intertwined with Hollywood and the entertainment industry where youth , freshness and slick presentation beats experience , gravitas and wisdom ....this first appeared with the Hollywood-esque Kennedy , then in 1992 when Clinton defeated the statesman-like Bush , did the same with the aging WW2 veteran Dole and then reappeared again in 2008 with the rise of the ''American Idol'' Barrack Obama who took the nomination from right under Hillary and then decisively defeated the aging Vietnam war hero John Mccain
A presidential candidate MUST be in the zeitgeist
Rubio is also lurking around with Carson and Cruz on ~ 10-15%, a mile behind the Donald. His 6-4 and below price is ludicrous.
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
How very original.
Why don't we just nuke Raqqa - might as well get some use from Trident before its replaced and nobody would ever doubt our willingness to use it again.
Alternatively we could let other countries meddle in Syria and concentrate on the Islamic bigotry in this country - there's plenty of it in Rotherham, Bradford, Birmingham, London etc etc etc.
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
Some people enjoy fighting. They're unusual, but they certainly exist.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
Some people enjoy fighting. They're unusual, but they certainly exist.
Malcolmg says we should stop fawning over them. I suppose he feels the same about the police in Paris.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal
Only the truly insane cold post a sentiment such as this.
ISIS may well be wiped off the map in short order. It's already struggling. Its millennarianist ideology will continue to gain adherents for generations. That will need continual containing and confronting.
Raqqa looks safe for them to me right now - who is going to take it.
After last week, the volunteers seem to be queuing up.
Personally, I remain highly sceptical about British military intervention. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?" is not a foreign policy.
We need clear aims, an understanding of what success looks like and a clear plan for the area after the military victory is won.
This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
They remind me of the Nazis tbh.
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
I'm not sure they're much like the Nazis. What did the Nazis want? Amongst other things, they wanted a greater Germany that was the world's dominant power / empire, ruled by the Aryan race. The other aspects of Nazism were more means to the end, despicable as they were. Nazism was a political ideology.
What do IS want? Their own perverted version of Islam to rule either the extents of Muslim power in the past, or the world, with an added apocalyptic twist. It is a religious ideology.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
Destroy IS, and the aims IS want will still exist and appeal to many sick adherents. The ideology will keep on popping up whenever countries with significant Muslim populations have internal strife.
Basically: for many people, religion matters more than politics. Someone is more likely to change vote than change religious views, especially over many years.
This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
They remind me of the Nazis tbh.
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
One of the most important factors in the solution to the post-Nazi Germany Problem was the largest example of Ethnic Cleansing in history. The other big factor was massive financial investment in a willing population
I sense the West is not willing to go to such lengths and that there is no actual solution being put forward by the West, The West will not Ethnically Cleanse, will not create new states such as Kurdistan, will not provide huge pots of money and the populace do not appear entirely willing to accept any solution the West might offer.
The game is a bogey before it's begun, military action in Syria (and Iraq) is utterly pointless.
Worse than pointless, and where are the locals , nowhere to be seen. Another shambles these warmongering halfwits are going to get us into.
Corbyn states that war should be the last resort...good idea..except he needs to realise that ISIS has already declared war ..on everybody.....Come on Labour ... get rid of your idiot leader..
Looks like you're suggesting Cameron thinks that war should be a first resort. However, I am more cynical. Nearly every time a tory government gets into political trouble, it seems to get involved in some form of war to divert attention away from the problems.
And what a lot of fine messes Cameron and Osborne have got themselves in to. NHS Trusts in debt, doctors going on strike, police, power supply, military and navy cuts, immigration, Europe and UKIP, and let's not forget the massive upcoming cuts to government department budgets which will affect everything and everyone in the UK.
Even rumours of a police investigation into possibly senior members of the tory party, yet what is the media doing? Trying to destroy the leader of the Opposition, at least 4 years away from any chance of him winning power.
This continues to look like a government run using the scripts of "Yes Prime Minister" as a bible.
Blimey, you are cynical. Cameron using ISIS to divert attention? Harsh.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
A detached house? Wow I apologise, I didn't realise I was in the presence of such genius.
No doubt the spare bedrooms are stuffed full of refugees
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal
Only the truly insane cold post a sentiment such as this.
A nutjob who obviously has never read anything about the war
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
Mature, not on the evidence of your posts.
Gentleman, not on the evidence of your posts
Sad Bastard, on the evidence of your posts. Detached house, hahaha, pathetic attempt at showing you have somehow succeeded in life. What's next, are you going to tell us abut the car you own that makes up for your inadequate penis?
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
RUBIO combines the sunny optimism of Reagan with the affable , slick debating skills of Bill Clinton and the youth , freshness and minority status of Obama ...he's the obvious winner !
American politics is becoming increasingly intertwined with Hollywood and the entertainment industry where youth , freshness and slick presentation beats experience , gravitas and wisdom ....this first appeared with the Hollywood-esque Kennedy , then in 1992 when Clinton defeated the statesman-like Bush , did the same with the aging WW2 veteran Dole and then reappeared again in 2008 with the rise of the ''American Idol'' Barrack Obama who took the nomination from right under Hillary and then decisively defeated the aging Vietnam war hero John Mccain
A presidential candidate MUST be in the zeitgeist
So why hasn't he? Rubio's been in the race for seven months and is way behind Trump and treading water at 9-12% in the polls. To the extent that anyone has caught the zeitgeist, it's the Donald, frightening though that might be.
He said it "may well be the right answer" to accept victory for Assad as the price of defeating Isil.
"We are still faced with a civil war [in Syria] in which there are two sides, both of them unpleasant, and the West seems to want a third alternative which there is little sign of existing," he said.
"We are faced with a choice of evils: either the Islamists will win or the Syrian government will win and there is little sign of non-Islamist forces coming out on top."
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
Some people enjoy fighting. They're unusual, but they certainly exist.
Malcolmg says we should stop fawning over them. I suppose he feels the same about the police in Paris.
Now you have lost the argument , you start pointing at squirrels. What has Paris got to do with desperate idiots from this country wanting to go and shoot people in Syria. The police there are doing their jobs against terrorists, we decry people going from UK to fight in Syria and yet we have nutjobs like you who think sending our paid mercenaries over to kill the same people are heroes. Weak , shallow people like you cause the troubles we see around the world.
This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
They remind me of the Nazis tbh.
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
I'm not sure they're much like the Nazis. What did the Nazis want? Amongst other things, they wanted a greater Germany that was the world's dominant power / empire, ruled by the Aryan race. The other aspects of Nazism were more means to the end, despicable as they were. Nazism was a political ideology.
What do IS want? Their own perverted version of Islam to rule either the extents of Muslim power in the past, or the world, with an added apocalyptic twist. It is a religious ideology.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
Destroy IS, and the aims IS want will still exist and appeal to many sick adherents. The ideology will keep on popping up whenever countries with significant Muslim populations have internal strife.
Basically: for many people, religion matters more than politics. Someone is more likely to change vote than change religious views, especially over many years.
Long term all the Abrahamic religions will be seen alongside Greek/Egyptian/Norse mythology for the tales they are, but that's a VERY long way off. Since Islam is one of those, and it's currently growing I guess there will always be the malcontents.
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
Some people enjoy fighting. They're unusual, but they certainly exist.
They are paid to do a job , if they want to go and get blown up then they should get on with it when it happens.
One thing thing that seems to feed the Jihadist cells is constant and seemingly large supplies of money..in order for them to live under the radar and also to travel extensively,particularly in the EU Schengen area..If that financial lifeline was severed then the cells might begin to dwindle..
The people involved in the Paris attack seem to have been long-term resident, so presumably they had jobs or families or benefits rather than relying on external funding from ISIS. I guess the investigations will show how much money was involved in bringing the attack off, but it doesn't seem obvious that it was expensive.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
A detached house? Wow I apologise, I didn't realise I was in the presence of such genius.
No doubt the spare bedrooms are stuffed full of refugees
MalcG is actually the Merry Automatic Language Caricature Generator, an ELIZA programmed by drunken first-year students at the University of the West of Scotland.
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
Some people enjoy fighting. They're unusual, but they certainly exist.
Malcolmg says we should stop fawning over them. I suppose he feels the same about the police in Paris.
Now you have lost the argument , you start pointing at squirrels. What has Paris got to do with desperate idiots from this country wanting to go and shoot people in Syria. The police there are doing their jobs against terrorists, we decry people going from UK to fight in Syria and yet we have nutjobs like you who think sending our paid mercenaries over to kill the same people are heroes. Weak , shallow people like you cause the troubles we see around the world.
Oh dear Malcolm, your temper has got the better of you again.
If it wasn't for the police and troops where would the Paris tragedy have ended, I'm very grateful we have people prepared to defend the rest of us
RUBIO combines the sunny optimism of Reagan with the affable , slick debating skills of Bill Clinton and the youth , freshness and minority status of Obama ...he's the obvious winner !
American politics is becoming increasingly intertwined with Hollywood and the entertainment industry where youth , freshness and slick presentation beats experience , gravitas and wisdom ....this first appeared with the Hollywood-esque Kennedy , then in 1992 when Clinton defeated the statesman-like Bush , did the same with the aging WW2 veteran Dole and then reappeared again in 2008 with the rise of the ''American Idol'' Barrack Obama who took the nomination from right under Hillary and then decisively defeated the aging Vietnam war hero John Mccain
A presidential candidate MUST be in the zeitgeist
So why hasn't he? Rubio's been in the race for seven months and is way behind Trump and treading water at 9-12% in the polls. To the extent that anyone has caught the zeitgeist, it's the Donald, frightening though that might be.
Rubio's diminutive and Americans like tall Presidents.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
A fundamental root of Nazism was virulent anti-semitism. Sadly, there are still people with those kinds of views and probably will be for a very long time.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
Mature, not on the evidence of your posts.
Gentleman, not on the evidence of your posts
Sad Bastard, on the evidence of your posts. Detached house, hahaha, pathetic attempt at showing you have somehow succeeded in life. What's next, are you going to tell us abut the car you own that makes up for your inadequate penis?
Along comes another sad failed individual. Unlike you I at least have one and a pair to go with it ,saddo. Jog on.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
Mature, not on the evidence of your posts.
Gentleman, not on the evidence of your posts
Sad Bastard, on the evidence of your posts. Detached house, hahaha, pathetic attempt at showing you have somehow succeeded in life. What's next, are you going to tell us abut the car you own that makes up for your inadequate penis?
Along comes another sad failed individual. Unlike you I at least have one and a pair to go with it ,saddo. Jog on.
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
Some people enjoy fighting. They're unusual, but they certainly exist.
Malcolmg says we should stop fawning over them. I suppose he feels the same about the police in Paris.
Now you have lost the argument , you start pointing at squirrels. What has Paris got to do with desperate idiots from this country wanting to go and shoot people in Syria. The police there are doing their jobs against terrorists, we decry people going from UK to fight in Syria and yet we have nutjobs like you who think sending our paid mercenaries over to kill the same people are heroes. Weak , shallow people like you cause the troubles we see around the world.
Oh dear Malcolm, your temper has got the better of you again.
If it wasn't for the police and troops where would the Paris tragedy have ended, I'm very grateful we have people prepared to defend the rest of us
What are you wittering about , are you gaga. The police in Paris indeed did their job, and most of the nutjobs were locals. That is far from killing innocent people in Syria for no reason whatsoever, what has happened in the UK that would justify us murdering Syrians.
''True. That's just life - events, dear boy, events as MacMillan said. Osborne will still have to face the music next week.''
Indeed. I get the feeling many tories are losing patience with Osborne. His budget cut choices are proving to be rather unpopular, particularly police and army.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
Mature, not on the evidence of your posts.
Gentleman, not on the evidence of your posts
Sad Bastard, on the evidence of your posts. Detached house, hahaha, pathetic attempt at showing you have somehow succeeded in life. What's next, are you going to tell us abut the car you own that makes up for your inadequate penis?
Along comes another sad failed individual. Unlike you I at least have one and a pair to go with it ,saddo. Jog on.
Hush, you cock.
You seem a bit obsessed by a certain appendage , bit worrying that people like you are roaming the streets. Wishing for one is not healthy.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
I agree that the programme of De-Nazification, De-Prussification worked after a fashion after WW2, but the only Ethnic Cleansing was done by the Nazis on the Jews, Gypsies and other untermenchen.
Old and unreconstructed Nazis were brought back into the Allied Occupation Government by the U.S. with the start of the cold war in 1946, and remained there to join the new West German government when it was established later.
German populations were replaced by Polish and Czech in the lost territories but it was not ethnic cleansing in any sense. Most of the replaced population remained alive.
Long term all the Abrahamic religions will be seen alongside Greek/Egyptian/Norse mythology for the tales they are, but that's a VERY long way off. Since Islam is one of those, and it's currently growing I guess there will always be the malcontents.
I'm not convinced - given that religious beliefs have developed in pretty much every society, it would suggest there is some evolutionary benefit (especially as the decline of traditional religions in the UK seem to have been offset by a form of mild spiritualism).
There are two few examples to really look at, but the worst examples of human behaviour (Russia, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany etc) appear to have been in avowedly secular/non-religious societies suggesting that humans need some kind of belief in an external force to keep their worst instincts in check
One thing thing that seems to feed the Jihadist cells is constant and seemingly large supplies of money..in order for them to live under the radar and also to travel extensively,particularly in the EU Schengen area..If that financial lifeline was severed then the cells might begin to dwindle..
The people involved in the Paris attack seem to have been long-term resident, so presumably they had jobs or families or benefits rather than relying on external funding from ISIS. I guess the investigations will show how much money was involved in bringing the attack off, but it doesn't seem obvious that it was expensive.
Be careful edmund that's rather too sensible a comment for the frothers to understand.
This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
They remind me of the Nazis tbh.
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
I'm not sure they're much like the Nazis. What did the Nazis want? Amongst other things, they wanted a greater Germany that was the world's dominant power / empire, ruled by the Aryan race. The other aspects of Nazism were more means to the end, despicable as they were. Nazism was a political ideology.
What do IS want? Their own perverted version of Islam to rule either the extents of Muslim power in the past, or the world, with an added apocalyptic twist. It is a religious ideology.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
Destroy IS, and the aims IS want will still exist and appeal to many sick adherents. The ideology will keep on popping up whenever countries with significant Muslim populations have internal strife.
Basically: for many people, religion matters more than politics. Someone is more likely to change vote than change religious views, especially over many years.
For the extremist, the religious and the political are effectively one and the same; it is about blind faith in the mission of redeeming humanity, which is held to be of such critical importance that nothing can be allowed to stand in its way. Look at the deification of Hitler by the regime, as the relevant example in this case; or the principle of submission to the anointed authority (Islam meaning submission, of course).
For ISIL, the need to establish a pure Caliphate is as important as the Nazi's vision of an Aryan-dominated Reich. To the extent that there's a difference, one focusses on purity of thought and deed and the other on purity of blood but those are essentially details as interpretation of the faith is held in the hands of the all-powerful and can change on a whim, as is the right of gods.
Anther Richard... sorry ..I have never advocated sending British Troops into anywhere..not when there are locals to do the job..massive support ..yes...Carry on with your misinformed bile... quite amusing and I am waiting for the rain to ease off.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
Mature, not on the evidence of your posts.
Gentleman, not on the evidence of your posts
Sad Bastard, on the evidence of your posts. Detached house, hahaha, pathetic attempt at showing you have somehow succeeded in life. What's next, are you going to tell us abut the car you own that makes up for your inadequate penis?
Along comes another sad failed individual. Unlike you I at least have one and a pair to go with it ,saddo. Jog on.
Hush, you cock.
You seem a bit obsessed by a certain appendage , bit worrying that people like you are roaming the streets. Wishing for one is not healthy.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
A fundamental root of Nazism was virulent anti-semitism. Sadly, there are still people with those kinds of views and probably will be for a very long time.
I'm not sure - the Nazis seemed fairly non-discriminatory in the "other" that they sought to massacre: they didn't really care if you were Jewish, Roma, homosexual or whatever.
Nazism had its roots in economic dislocation, a sense of national betrayal, and a lack of hope for the future. The creation of an Other as a focus for discontent is a part of the process, but not a fundamental root.
Actually virulent antisemitism is a common link between the Islamic scumbags and the Nazis.
Master race = master religion
Dealing with them in Syria is an act of pest control.
They'll still carry on existing in some shape or form, and doing what they do. It's about taking necessary steps to minimise the effects and scale.
If they agitate enough in Europe, Europe will inevitably respond with increasingly unsympathetic treatment towards perceived sympathisers within it's borders.
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
Mature, not on the evidence of your posts.
Gentleman, not on the evidence of your posts
Sad Bastard, on the evidence of your posts. Detached house, hahaha, pathetic attempt at showing you have somehow succeeded in life. What's next, are you going to tell us abut the car you own that makes up for your inadequate penis?
Along comes another sad failed individual. Unlike you I at least have one and a pair to go with it ,saddo. Jog on.
Hush, you cock.
You seem a bit obsessed by a certain appendage , bit worrying that people like you are roaming the streets. Wishing for one is not healthy.
Actually virulent antisemitism is a common link between the Islamic scumbags and the Nazis.
But they're not the only regimes who have been virulently anti-Semitic in history: the Jews have been common target for hatred for hundreds of years; even in this country as far back as ?1290?.
The belief that 'we' are the true people, and everyone else are either inferior, or Untermensch, has been used by tyrants for generations. IS does not use this, at least openly: they'll accept recruits from any country. The 'we' is based on religion, not race.
(It'd be interesting to know if this is really what IS is like for recruits; whether recruits are treated equally whatever their race, as I believe they claim).
You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45
Dresden
Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.
Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
I see the Nats are rewriting history now
Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
Are you this obnoxious in "real life" or is this an Internet persona?
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
You are as stupid as your posts then , I am a mature gentleman in a nice detached house , and not at all like your personal description of yourself. Hard to believe you can actually read.
Mature, not on the evidence of your posts.
Gentleman, not on the evidence of your posts
Sad Bastard, on the evidence of your posts. Detached house, hahaha, pathetic attempt at showing you have somehow succeeded in life. What's next, are you going to tell us abut the car you own that makes up for your inadequate penis?
Along comes another sad failed individual. Unlike you I at least have one and a pair to go with it ,saddo. Jog on.
Hush, you cock.
You seem a bit obsessed by a certain appendage , bit worrying that people like you are roaming the streets. Wishing for one is not healthy.
SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.
They didn't sign up to have to fight a crazy death cult with one hand tied behind their backs, but that is what the guys I know fear will happen. They ain't looking forward to it, that's for sure.
We did it in Iraq, we did it in Afghanistan and now it would seem we are about to do it in Syria. Committing to combat without a clear idea of what constitutes victory and therefore without a strategy to achieve it is futile. We will spend very serious amounts of money we haven't got and, possibly, blood to no good effect.
I don't think it is possible to bomb an ideology out of existence.
Long term all the Abrahamic religions will be seen alongside Greek/Egyptian/Norse mythology for the tales they are, but that's a VERY long way off. Since Islam is one of those, and it's currently growing I guess there will always be the malcontents.
I'm not convinced - given that religious beliefs have developed in pretty much every society, it would suggest there is some evolutionary benefit (especially as the decline of traditional religions in the UK seem to have been offset by a form of mild spiritualism).
There are two few examples to really look at, but the worst examples of human behaviour (Russia, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany etc) appear to have been in avowedly secular/non-religious societies suggesting that humans need some kind of belief in an external force to keep their worst instincts in check
Even if all the Abrahamic religions do fade away, the likelihood is they'd be replaced by other religions. The evolutionary benefit from religious practice seems to be in the form of high birthrates and resilience in the face of massive external shocks, like the Black Death.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
I agree that the programme of De-Nazification, De-Prussification worked after a fashion after WW2, but the only Ethnic Cleansing was done by the Nazis on the Jews, Gypsies and other untermenchen.
Old and unreconstructed Nazis were brought back into the Allied Occupation Government by the U.S. with the start of the cold war in 1946, and remained there to join the new West German government when it was established later.
German populations were replaced by Polish and Czech in the lost territories but it was not ethnic cleansing in any sense. Most of the replaced population remained alive.
It varied by territory, in those parts of East Prussia that became Poland, the ethnic German populaiton was incentivised to move West - not entirely carrot, there was a bit of stick (understandably perhaps) from the ethnic Poles.
But in Kaliningrad Oblast, Lithuania, Ukraine, it was almost entirely stick - ethnic Germans were expelled. Kaliningrad Oblast has less than 1% ethnic Germans today.
This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
That Majiid Nawaz article quoted yesterday has some ideas. So does Ayan Hirsi Ali. There are other Muslim writers who have come up with ideas. They have not been listened to as they should be. And there have been ideas posted on this forum during this year (at least).
3 initial thoughts:-
1. An ideological battle starts by recognising that you are in such a battle and that you have to fight a bad ideology by pointing out repeatedly and forcefully in as many fora and in as many different ways as possible why it is bad and how bad it is. This requires more than emoting and wailing. Pointing out the hypocrisies and self-delusions of the bad ideology is also needed.
2. You defeat bad ideas by promoting better ones.
3. You do not hold back in doing 1 and 2 because the bad ideas you are fighting are grounded in and/or have some tenuous connection with a religion.
The West has failed to do 1, has been pathetic in doing 2 and has done far too much of 3.
Change that and we have made a start. And there are other practical measures we can take.
If the advocates of the Caliphate had not gone off piste in a manner of speaking..with regard to their attacks outside their immediate area of operations..and resisted killing people all round the globe..they might indeed have succeeded in establishing their aims without the rest of the world interfering..then they could have opened their outreach centres of death and terrorism from a slightly more fortified and organised religious citadel
RUBIO combines the sunny optimism of Reagan with the affable , slick debating skills of Bill Clinton and the youth , freshness and minority status of Obama ...he's the obvious winner !
American politics is becoming increasingly intertwined with Hollywood and the entertainment industry where youth , freshness and slick presentation beats experience , gravitas and wisdom ....this first appeared with the Hollywood-esque Kennedy , then in 1992 when Clinton defeated the statesman-like Bush , did the same with the aging WW2 veteran Dole and then reappeared again in 2008 with the rise of the ''American Idol'' Barrack Obama who took the nomination from right under Hillary and then decisively defeated the aging Vietnam war hero John Mccain
A presidential candidate MUST be in the zeitgeist
Rubio is also lurking around with Carson and Cruz on ~ 10-15%, a mile behind the Donald. His 6-4 and below price is ludicrous.
===================================== You don't know how to ''read between the lines '' ...if you were a homicide detective you couldn't identify your own feet by looking down
Trump and Carson are just noise , nothing more ; only Rubio and then Cruz are serious contenders ....Rubio will win N H and MAY even win Iowa ....Rubio or CRUZ will win Iowa
Rubio is going to catch afire and then burn all the way to the convention, building up a momentum that will steamroll over Hillary
Short of an ''act of God '' , Rubio will win ! .....naturally , It's possible that he gets caught in Flagrante Delicti , a la Gary Hart , or God forbid , gets assassinated by an Arab terrorist like Bobby Kennedy in 1968 .... or even becomes the victim of an aircraft disaster like Paul Wellstone ! But let's face it , he would have to be very , very unlucky indeed ...it's much more likely that he just becomes president of the United States
Rubio is like Reagan insomuch that his sunny optimism and affable nature makes him a ''lucky politician ''
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
I agree that the programme of De-Nazification, De-Prussification worked after a fashion after WW2, but the only Ethnic Cleansing was done by the Nazis on the Jews, Gypsies and other untermenchen.
Old and unreconstructed Nazis were brought back into the Allied Occupation Government by the U.S. with the start of the cold war in 1946, and remained there to join the new West German government when it was established later.
German populations were replaced by Polish and Czech in the lost territories but it was not ethnic cleansing in any sense. Most of the replaced population remained alive.
The Nazis practised genocide. Ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocidal. The expulsion of Germans from Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia, and Sudetenland involved mass killing and mass rape, although it fell short of genocide.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
A fundamental root of Nazism was virulent anti-semitism. Sadly, there are still people with those kinds of views and probably will be for a very long time.
I'm not sure - the Nazis seemed fairly non-discriminatory in the "other" that they sought to massacre: they didn't really care if you were Jewish, Roma, homosexual or whatever.
Nazism had its roots in economic dislocation, a sense of national betrayal, and a lack of hope for the future. The creation of an Other as a focus for discontent is a part of the process, but not a fundamental root.
Indeed, the Fascists in both Spain and Italy (until it became German puppet state near the end) had no anti-Semetic laws.
We did it in Iraq, we did it in Afghanistan and now it would seem we are about to do it in Syria. Committing to combat without a clear idea of what constitutes victory and therefore without a strategy to achieve it is futile. We will spend very serious amounts of money we haven't got and, possibly, blood to no good effect.
I don't think it is possible to bomb an ideology out of existence.
This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
They remind me of the Nazis tbh.
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
"They'll like us when we win."
"I don't remember having to tell the Italians that it was only Mussolini we had a problem with! Why does the US have to take every Arab country out for an ice cream cone?! They'll like us when we win!"
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
A fundamental root of Nazism was virulent anti-semitism. Sadly, there are still people with those kinds of views and probably will be for a very long time.
I'm not sure - the Nazis seemed fairly non-discriminatory in the "other" that they sought to massacre: they didn't really care if you were Jewish, Roma, homosexual or whatever.
Nazism had its roots in economic dislocation, a sense of national betrayal, and a lack of hope for the future. The creation of an Other as a focus for discontent is a part of the process, but not a fundamental root.
No, virulent anti-Semitism was absolutely core to Nazi ideology. You're right that it was far from the only group singled out. All 'deviant' lifestyles and sub-Aryan races were indeed subject to at best discrimination and at worst extermination but the Jews were held by the Nazi race-based ideology to be in a class of their own as, unlike blacks for example, Jews were held to be clever, corrupting and untrustworthy: capable of insidiously gaining control of countries while simultaneously undermining their cultural and moral strength. By contrast, blacks were not seen to pose that same threat, being mentally inferior to whites but suitable for menial work. As such, had the Nazis won the war, it's unlikely that there'd have been plans for mass extermination across Africa: attempts at re-enslavement would be much more likely. The Roma, however, may have ended up being targeted for extermination as a 'parasite' race.
Long term all the Abrahamic religions will be seen alongside Greek/Egyptian/Norse mythology for the tales they are, but that's a VERY long way off. Since Islam is one of those, and it's currently growing I guess there will always be the malcontents.
I'm not convinced - given that religious beliefs have developed in pretty much every society, it would suggest there is some evolutionary benefit (especially as the decline of traditional religions in the UK seem to have been offset by a form of mild spiritualism).
There are two few examples to really look at, but the worst examples of human behaviour (Russia, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany etc) appear to have been in avowedly secular/non-religious societies suggesting that humans need some kind of belief in an external force to keep their worst instincts in check
Even if all the Abrahamic religions do fade away, the likelihood is they'd be replaced by other religions. The evolutionary benefit from religious practice seems to be in the form of high birthrates and resilience in the face of massive external shocks, like the Black Death.
Good morning all. While I take your point, it's too high level for me. When my beloved fell ill, sickened and died, I hated (for the first time in my life) the fact that I was an atheist. I had, and have, no comfort. I wished I were religious; that I could believe in some kind of continuity. I think that's an incredibly primitive impulse.
Hillary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States
HCWBTFFPOTUS
------------------------
Frame that comment for posterity and the day after election day take a look at yourself in the mirror and then try not to laugh
I regret to advise you that you will be joining a grumbling list of my disappointed PB adversaries who attempted take a conflicting opinion to mine on US and UK general elections.
''One wonders how many people would choose Islam freely if the penalties for renouncing it were not so severe.''
One of the best ways to defeat islamism is to better protect those who break from or criticise islam.
I think we need to do more. In this country, we need to teach - and this needs to be taught to Muslim children, without exception - that you are free to practise religion but also free not to practise it and to abandon the religion you may have been brought up in by your parents, that the latter freedom is as important as the former and that it is wrong for pressure to be put on or violence threatened against anyone seeking to leave a religion. Effectively, we have to teach that penalties for apostasy in this country are wrong.
Without doing that, there is no really effective way of protecting those who break from Islam - as those brave souls who have done it will tell you.
JM That is how I feel.. I would love to have a religion..it would somehow give meaning to what we refer to as life...Unfortunately they all seem to be based on total mythology and down right lies....and no evidence whatsoever..anywhere..that life exists beyond death...
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
A fundamental root of Nazism was virulent anti-semitism. Sadly, there are still people with those kinds of views and probably will be for a very long time.
I'm not sure - the Nazis seemed fairly non-discriminatory in the "other" that they sought to massacre: they didn't really care if you were Jewish, Roma, homosexual or whatever.
Nazism had its roots in economic dislocation, a sense of national betrayal, and a lack of hope for the future. The creation of an Other as a focus for discontent is a part of the process, but not a fundamental root.
No, virulent anti-Semitism was absolutely core to Nazi ideology. You're right that it was far from the only group singled out. All 'deviant' lifestyles and sub-Aryan races were indeed subject to at best discrimination and at worst extermination but the Jews were held by the Nazi race-based ideology to be in a class of their own as, unlike blacks for example, Jews were held to be clever, corrupting and untrustworthy: capable of insidiously gaining control of countries while simultaneously undermining their cultural and moral strength. By contrast, blacks were not seen to pose that same threat, being mentally inferior to whites but suitable for menial work. As such, had the Nazis won the war, it's unlikely that there'd have been plans for mass extermination across Africa: attempts at re-enslavement would be much more likely. The Roma, however, may have ended up being targeted for extermination as a 'parasite' race.
I think we are arguing different things.
I'd agree it was core to their ideology (drawing on historical traditions in Germany and Eastern Europe of pogroms) but not a root.
Nazism - or something similar - would have existed without anti-semitism.
My Twitter timeline is full on angry Nats demanding IndyRef2 if we start bombing in Syria.
Until now.
@neiledwardlovat: Sturgeon switches policy on Syria and the crazy gang instantly change their mind.... I've read about this before.... https://t.co/eZBKrpSvum
Corbyn states that war should be the last resort...good idea..except he needs to realise that ISIS has already declared war ..on everybody.....Come on Labour ... get rid of your idiot leader..
You're just the person they'll listen to.
A voter?
no, you are right they really aren't interested in their points of view.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
A fundamental root of Nazism was virulent anti-semitism. Sadly, there are still people with those kinds of views and probably will be for a very long time.
I'm not sure - the Nazis seemed fairly non-discriminatory in the "other" that they sought to massacre: they didn't really care if you were Jewish, Roma, homosexual or whatever.
Nazism had its roots in economic dislocation, a sense of national betrayal, and a lack of hope for the future. The creation of an Other as a focus for discontent is a part of the process, but not a fundamental root.
Indeed, the Fascists in both Spain and Italy (until it became German puppet state near the end) had no anti-Semetic laws.
The crucial difference between Nazism and Fascism is the racial theory which is core to the former but which barely exists - if at all - in the latter. There's a lot of lazy conflation of the two, and they do share many common threads, but they are not interchangeable.
Delighted the UN is resolving to fight IS I hate war but we must act decisively.
In just two weeks they have succeeded in uniting the rest of the world against them. That's quite some achievement.
This time last year I was against air strikes but my mind has changed, it's a fine line between being gung ho and target bombing and I fear innocent casualties but now is not the time to sit on our hands.
In war the innocent always suffer, that does not mean one should not act.
One of our strengths and at the same time a weakness is our aversion to causing them.
My Twitter timeline is full on angry Nats demanding IndyRef2 if we start bombing in Syria.
Until now.
@neiledwardlovat: Sturgeon switches policy on Syria and the crazy gang instantly change their mind.... I've read about this before.... https://t.co/eZBKrpSvum
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
While I agree with your sentiment about the quite apparent differences between IS and Nazism, I think it's worth exanding on your point here.
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
I agree that the programme of De-Nazification, De-Prussification worked after a fashion after WW2, but the only Ethnic Cleansing was done by the Nazis on the Jews, Gypsies and other untermenchen.
Old and unreconstructed Nazis were brought back into the Allied Occupation Government by the U.S. with the start of the cold war in 1946, and remained there to join the new West German government when it was established later.
German populations were replaced by Polish and Czech in the lost territories but it was not ethnic cleansing in any sense. Most of the replaced population remained alive.
It varied by territory, in those parts of East Prussia that became Poland, the ethnic German populaiton was incentivised to move West - not entirely carrot, there was a bit of stick (understandably perhaps) from the ethnic Poles.
But in Kaliningrad Oblast, Lithuania, Ukraine, it was almost entirely stick - ethnic Germans were expelled. Kaliningrad Oblast has less than 1% ethnic Germans today.
Add the Sudetenland to that list. Almost all ethnic Germans were deported and there was a considerable settling of scores and many murders well after the official cessation of hostilities.
You need the UN as cover (or some sort of international consensus) because ISIS's fate is now tied with Syria's fate. Once the former falls, you have to deal with the swathe of land they controlled, tying up the civil war, Assad's exile and the minimum amount of nation fixing-up involved. These are pretty massive tasks. I don't think any combo of carpet bombing and optimistically overmotivated Kurdish peshmerge is going to do the trick.
Other than Russia and possibly Syria (if you count their barrel bombs) who do you think are carpet bombing?
Paris has stepped up security at key water supply sites to the capital following warnings by the prime minister that the country could not rule out “chemical or biological weapons” in the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks on the French capital.
The higher security comes amid reports of a worrying unexplained theft of chemical and biological protective suits at a top Paris hospital, write Henry Samuel and David Chazan.
I can't comprehend the logic of lefties who want to delegate our foreign policy to the UN Security Council. So if the US and UK want to take an action but a Russian dictator deigns it not in his interests that's wrong but if the Russians say ok we are good to go? That's not principled.
Why would the left want us to delegate our foreign policy to the control of the Russians? Oh wait ...
Whilst I would not go so far as to suggest that the UN has 'a priori' authority what is the point of joining it if we intend to ignore its rules and decisions when it suits us? It is rather reminiscent of Blair re-Iraq in 2003 - 'If we can get legal cover for attacking via a UN Resolution that will be very welcome. If not we will go ahead and commit the aggression anyway'.
We did it in Iraq, we did it in Afghanistan and now it would seem we are about to do it in Syria. Committing to combat without a clear idea of what constitutes victory and therefore without a strategy to achieve it is futile. We will spend very serious amounts of money we haven't got and, possibly, blood to no good effect.
I don't think it is possible to bomb an ideology out of existence.
Moirning Hurst, we appear to have experts on here who think so.
Comments
Probably breaks some golden 'betting rule' tbh !
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
"They'll like us when we win."
"I don't remember having to tell the Italians that it was only Mussolini we had a problem with! Why does the US have to take every Arab country out for an ice cream cone?! They'll like us when we win!"
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
One of the most important factors in the solution to the post-Nazi Germany Problem was the largest example of Ethnic Cleansing in history. The other big factor was massive financial investment in a willing population
I sense the West is not willing to go to such lengths and that there is no actual solution being put forward by the West, The West will not Ethnically Cleanse, will not create new states such as Kurdistan, will not provide huge pots of money and the populace do not appear entirely willing to accept any solution the West might offer.
The game is a bogey before it's begun, military action in Syria (and Iraq) is utterly pointless.
Mosul/Irbil/Kirkuk OTOH are.
But Raqqa will endure whilst Assad is fighting for his survival near the coast, and it just isn't near Kurdistan.
American politics is becoming increasingly intertwined with Hollywood and the entertainment industry where youth , freshness and slick presentation beats experience , gravitas and wisdom ....this first appeared with the Hollywood-esque Kennedy , then in 1992 when Clinton defeated the statesman-like Bush , did the same with the aging WW2 veteran Dole and then reappeared again in 2008 with the rise of the ''American Idol'' Barrack Obama who took the nomination from right under Hillary and then decisively defeated the aging Vietnam war hero John Mccain
A presidential candidate MUST be in the zeitgeist
I once read about inadequate young men, wearing tanktops in bed sits, alternating between youporn and message boards.
Why don't we just nuke Raqqa - might as well get some use from Trident before its replaced and nobody would ever doubt our willingness to use it again.
Alternatively we could let other countries meddle in Syria and concentrate on the Islamic bigotry in this country - there's plenty of it in Rotherham, Bradford, Birmingham, London etc etc etc.
Hard to believe you can actually read.
Personally, I remain highly sceptical about British military intervention. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?" is not a foreign policy.
We need clear aims, an understanding of what success looks like and a clear plan for the area after the military victory is won.
How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
I'm not sure they're much like the Nazis. What did the Nazis want? Amongst other things, they wanted a greater Germany that was the world's dominant power / empire, ruled by the Aryan race. The other aspects of Nazism were more means to the end, despicable as they were. Nazism was a political ideology.
What do IS want? Their own perverted version of Islam to rule either the extents of Muslim power in the past, or the world, with an added apocalyptic twist. It is a religious ideology.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
Destroy IS, and the aims IS want will still exist and appeal to many sick adherents. The ideology will keep on popping up whenever countries with significant Muslim populations have internal strife.
Basically: for many people, religion matters more than politics. Someone is more likely to change vote than change religious views, especially over many years.
I sense the West is not willing to go to such lengths and that there is no actual solution being put forward by the West, The West will not Ethnically Cleanse, will not create new states such as Kurdistan, will not provide huge pots of money and the populace do not appear entirely willing to accept any solution the West might offer.
The game is a bogey before it's begun, military action in Syria (and Iraq) is utterly pointless.
Worse than pointless, and where are the locals , nowhere to be seen. Another shambles these warmongering halfwits are going to get us into.
No doubt the spare bedrooms are stuffed full of refugees
Gentleman, not on the evidence of your posts
Sad Bastard, on the evidence of your posts. Detached house, hahaha, pathetic attempt at showing you have somehow succeeded in life. What's next, are you going to tell us abut the car you own that makes up for your inadequate penis?
Nazism didn't end because Germany was beaten, certainly the ideas that made it popular did not die. What killed both Nazism and the idea of a Greater Germany off were specific, political doctrines of De-Nazification, De-Prussification and the biggest Ethnic Cleansing in history.
The equivalent in Syria would be De-Baathism, De-Islamification and substantial Ethnic Cleansing which would be smaller than East Prussia but much closer to that example than any other example in history.
USA / 2016 Presidential Election / Next President Joe Biden Back 17-Nov-15
15:47 800 2.71 800 19-Nov-15 19:40
And for those who bet on Benn the other day - Newstatesman flagging up Hilary Benn's fairly good week all things considered.
The police there are doing their jobs against terrorists, we decry people going from UK to fight in Syria and yet we have nutjobs like you who think sending our paid mercenaries over to kill the same people are heroes.
Weak , shallow people like you cause the troubles we see around the world.
What do IS want? Their own perverted version of Islam to rule either the extents of Muslim power in the past, or the world, with an added apocalyptic twist. It is a religious ideology.
Once Germany was defeated, the concept of a greater Germany was destroyed. Neo-Nazis still exist, but their threat is vastly diminished. They concentrate more on the Aryan and race-hate side of things than the concept of a German super-state, which was the real danger to the world.
Destroy IS, and the aims IS want will still exist and appeal to many sick adherents. The ideology will keep on popping up whenever countries with significant Muslim populations have internal strife.
Basically: for many people, religion matters more than politics. Someone is more likely to change vote than change religious views, especially over many years.
Long term all the Abrahamic religions will be seen alongside Greek/Egyptian/Norse mythology for the tales they are, but that's a VERY long way off. Since Islam is one of those, and it's currently growing I guess there will always be the malcontents.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/20/saudi-court-sentences-poet-to-death-for-renouncing-islam
Is it any wonder when this happens in this country:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/terrifying-video-shows-bradford-dad-attacked-by-pickaxe-thugs-for-converting-from-islam-to-christianity-1-7579804
If it wasn't for the police and troops where would the Paris tragedy have ended, I'm very grateful we have people prepared to defend the rest of us
It's nevertheless true that without terrorism monopolising the headlines, the tories would have had a bad week.
As I remember you were gung ho for invading Syria to remove Assad two years ago.
Do you still want to fight Assad as well as ISIS ? Is there any Syrian you don't want to fight ?
Indeed. I get the feeling many tories are losing patience with Osborne. His budget cut choices are proving to be rather unpopular, particularly police and army.
Old and unreconstructed Nazis were brought back into the Allied Occupation Government by the U.S. with the start of the cold war in 1946, and remained there to join the new West German government when it was established later.
German populations were replaced by Polish and Czech in the lost territories but it was not ethnic cleansing in any sense. Most of the replaced population remained alive.
There are two few examples to really look at, but the worst examples of human behaviour (Russia, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany etc) appear to have been in avowedly secular/non-religious societies suggesting that humans need some kind of belief in an external force to keep their worst instincts in check
One wonders how many people would choose Islam freely if the penalties for renouncing it were not so severe.
For ISIL, the need to establish a pure Caliphate is as important as the Nazi's vision of an Aryan-dominated Reich. To the extent that there's a difference, one focusses on purity of thought and deed and the other on purity of blood but those are essentially details as interpretation of the faith is held in the hands of the all-powerful and can change on a whim, as is the right of gods.
Nazism had its roots in economic dislocation, a sense of national betrayal, and a lack of hope for the future. The creation of an Other as a focus for discontent is a part of the process, but not a fundamental root.
One of the best ways to defeat islamism is to better protect those who break from or criticise islam.
Dealing with them in Syria is an act of pest control.
They'll still carry on existing in some shape or form, and doing what they do. It's about taking necessary steps to minimise the effects and scale.
If they agitate enough in Europe, Europe will inevitably respond with increasingly unsympathetic treatment towards perceived sympathisers within it's borders.
Nazism would have got nowhere without the power, discipline and ingenuity of the German nation running on all perfectly engineered cylinders.
Those superb troops who protected their leader until the last against overwhelming odds??
They weren't nazis.
The belief that 'we' are the true people, and everyone else are either inferior, or Untermensch, has been used by tyrants for generations. IS does not use this, at least openly: they'll accept recruits from any country. The 'we' is based on religion, not race.
(It'd be interesting to know if this is really what IS is like for recruits; whether recruits are treated equally whatever their race, as I believe they claim).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11867114/Death-in-Helmand-Is-Alex-Blackman-murderer-or-merely-mortal.html
If we did send troops to Syria how long would it be before similar cases happen.
Committing to combat without a clear idea of what constitutes victory and therefore without a strategy to achieve it is futile. We will spend very serious amounts of money we haven't got and, possibly, blood to no good effect.
I don't think it is possible to bomb an ideology out of existence.
But in Kaliningrad Oblast, Lithuania, Ukraine, it was almost entirely stick - ethnic Germans were expelled. Kaliningrad Oblast has less than 1% ethnic Germans today.
If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.
Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.
We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
That Majiid Nawaz article quoted yesterday has some ideas. So does Ayan Hirsi Ali. There are other Muslim writers who have come up with ideas. They have not been listened to as they should be. And there have been ideas posted on this forum during this year (at least).
3 initial thoughts:-
1. An ideological battle starts by recognising that you are in such a battle and that you have to fight a bad ideology by pointing out repeatedly and forcefully in as many fora and in as many different ways as possible why it is bad and how bad it is. This requires more than emoting and wailing. Pointing out the hypocrisies and self-delusions of the bad ideology is also needed.
2. You defeat bad ideas by promoting better ones.
3. You do not hold back in doing 1 and 2 because the bad ideas you are fighting are grounded in and/or have some tenuous connection with a religion.
The West has failed to do 1, has been pathetic in doing 2 and has done far too much of 3.
Change that and we have made a start. And there are other practical measures we can take.
A war is not carried on by fighting alone.
You don't know how to ''read between the lines '' ...if you were a homicide detective you couldn't identify your own feet by looking down
Trump and Carson are just noise , nothing more ; only Rubio and then Cruz are serious contenders ....Rubio will win N H and MAY even win Iowa ....Rubio or CRUZ will win Iowa
Rubio is going to catch afire and then burn all the way to the convention, building up a momentum that will steamroll over Hillary
Short of an ''act of God '' , Rubio will win ! .....naturally , It's possible that he gets caught in Flagrante Delicti , a la Gary Hart , or God forbid , gets assassinated by an Arab terrorist like Bobby Kennedy in 1968 .... or even becomes the victim of an aircraft disaster like Paul Wellstone ! But let's face it , he would have to be very , very unlucky indeed ...it's much more likely that he just becomes president of the United States
Rubio is like Reagan insomuch that his sunny optimism and affable nature makes him a ''lucky politician ''
"I don't remember having to tell the Italians that it was only Mussolini we had a problem with! Why does the US have to take every Arab country out for an ice cream cone?! They'll like us when we win!"
Good old Toby Z!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-islamic-states-propaganda-machine/2015/11/20/051e997a-8ce6-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html
Join the long queue at the back.
Without doing that, there is no really effective way of protecting those who break from Islam - as those brave souls who have done it will tell you.
Even if people don;t transfer to UKIP, I guess its possible there could simply be a huge no show for Corbyn.
I'd agree it was core to their ideology (drawing on historical traditions in Germany and Eastern Europe of pogroms) but not a root.
Nazism - or something similar - would have existed without anti-semitism.
no, you are right they really aren't interested in their points of view.
Indeed. The trade off for you being free to worship your god is you allow others to worship theirs, or none at all.
We do have individual voter registration now.
If there are irregularities, and the result is close, it may be in UKIP's interest to mount a legal challenge.
One of our strengths and at the same time a weakness is our aversion to causing them.
If we are honest Saudi is actually adding to the problem of radical Islam too.