To all of you still dumb enough to call yourself a Labour supporter...

[northernladuk]

Only if you have the intellect of a concussed bee.

He won't be happy having his name used as part of an insult. He's foreign so a bit touchy at the best of times.

[NotAllThere]

He won't be happy having his name used as part of an insult. He's foreign so a bit touchy at the best of times.

Fair point. I take it back. He hasn't the intellect of a concussed bee.

[bobspud]

Nope. That's exactly the environment in which underground movements START. Especially when people view their cause as being worth dying for, the threat of likely death is not an ultimate deterrent.

Even in larger conflicts you're not correct... WW1 did not end in peace and neither did WW2. Neither did quashing Iraq.

You are making the mistake of thinking that sorting Afghanistan or Iraq out was ever in their mind. It was a simple exercise of pulling in as many madmen into an area as possible and then getting various governments to buy enough ammunition to shoot at them. Then selling post war reconstruction consultants to try and help fix the mess... It was never about the greater good.

WW1/2 is not the same as ISI.S It was fought by recognised _Nation states_ over their view of world order.

Further more: It wasn't sitting down with the IRA that solved that problem. It was some other maniac flying two planes into a pair of buildings on US soil and showing the Americans what the word terrorism actually means.

The funding and support from our best friends in the US dried up over night. It also helped when the Americans started talking up a massive pissing match for hurting their people and stating that supporting terrorism and funding it would no longer be acceptable.

Funny, as up to the point that 9/11 stuck, it hadn't been a problem for the US plastic paddies so fund and help arm the IRA for the previous 3 decades.

[d000hg]

No. You don't. The Islamic state is intended to be a Caliphate. According to their own rules they must:

a) Always be engaging in armed conflict somewhere
b) Continually be enlarging their territory.

It is the second that gives legitimacy to their cause in the eyes of many Islamic fundamentalists. It is simple logic that if you beat the crap out of them and take their land, they will lose their legitimacy among the extremists, and lose their support.

Negotiating with the IRA was negotiating with people who were after a particular end, and in the end offering them a way of achieving it peacefully.

ISIS is not trying to win freedom for their people. They're not trying to establish a state based on their own values (no matter how abhorent to us). Their goal is war. That's what they want. There is nothing to negotiate. We have to give them defeat.

Their current views may be incompatible with compromise and negotiation. That doesn't mean their views can't/won't change and this is where progress might be made. If they wanted peace, they would I'm sure be able to find a way of re-interpreting their views that says war is not essential without in any way saying that past actions and views were in anyway incorrect..

WW1/2 is not the same as ISI.S It was fought by recognised _Nation states_ over their view of world order.

Um, I already said this. It's easier with a nation-state... you best their armed forces, occupy their nation if they're stubborn, and you've clearly 'won'. With a passionate terrorist group who genuinely believe in their cause and will die for it, everything you do to attack them can act as fuel to the fire.

Do you think we'd still have all these attacks if we weren't constantly stirring up the hornets' nest? It seems they want to war with those who intervene, not launch attacks on nations at random.

[DodgyAgent]

Do you think we'd still have all these attacks if we weren't constantly stirring up the hornets' nest? It seems they want to war with those who intervene, not launch attacks on nations at random.

So why are they killing Muslims and just about everyone else?

[LondonManc]

Their current views may be incompatible with compromise and negotiation. That doesn't mean their views can't/won't change and this is where progress might be made. If they wanted peace, they would I'm sure be able to find a way of re-interpreting their views that says war is not essential without in any way saying that past actions and views were in anyway incorrect..

[d000hg]

Leaflet campaigns are bad for the environment.

[bobspud]

Do you think we'd still have all these attacks if we weren't constantly stirring up the hornets' nest?

Yes

It's an ideological fight for them. They needed an excuse to hate something or someone. ISIS could start a fight in an empty room

[d000hg]

And it just so happened these things increased dramatically after western interventions, and the places who get targeted are totally at random?

[bobspud]

And it just so happened these things increased dramatically after western interventions, and the places who get targeted are totally at random?

Had the west invaded Siria then? I thought we had stayed out of that and just sent non violent aid for once...

Just as an aside I had a passing acquaintance that went on to sell some interesting stuff in Libya and Syria and all that crap was kicked off by middle eastern funding so for once this was not a western thing...