Drone strikes

Bomb the Middle East, that will solve it

Well, that is a bit drastic, especially as they are busy doing that to each other and even to themselves constantly.
But no, I think it is not revenge, it is trying to get to the source of the problem.

Let's have some negotiation and a nice chat instead shall we?

What other ideas do people have?

And Gerry Adams's hypocritical remark must have made his victims' families sickened:
www.newsletter.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-news/condemnation-of-paris-attacks-by-sinn-fein-branded-sickening-1-7069281

So now you suggest a nice chat with IS rosequartz, I don't think do

You should know Anniebach. You should know.

You are always picking fights - deliberately - with people. It's horrible.

So jingle, if you dislike a poster - they pick fights but the rest discuss and disagree , oh well

mcem that's why I [sic'd] it!

I know I can't turn [sic] into a verb....

Annie what are your views on IS, their philosophy and how they can be neutralised (in the kindest sense) and indeed if they ought to be disuaded from their views?

You got the first bit right ab.

So now you suggest a nice chat with IS rosequartz
I think not, but some people may want to

I know, I know, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Anya Good questions in your post, and very succinct.

(And far more sensible than my posts)

Anya, perhaps best you ask someone you don't consider to make stupid remarks ?

Thanks Jingle, I respect honesty

Anniebach

Forgive me but I am finding some posts difficult to follow recently.

Your post of 12.45

'So now you suggest a nice chat with IS rose quartz, I don't think do" I presume you mean ' don't think so ' am I correct?

This article was written almost a year ago, but reflects, better than I could articulate, my own views. It is a fact that violence begets more violence, that the arms trade (which the UK is at the heart of) is central to such violence and that there has been no governmental investment in any kind of non-violent response. There are no easy answers, I do know that, but that doesn't mean that we should give up seeking for them.

And in the meantime? While we do the seeking?

POGS, sorry , yes I meant so not do, I often hit the key next to the one I think I have aimed at

There is no-one that I can see who is suggesting a nice chat with IS. Who can doubt their intransigence and appalling philosophy of destruction?

Clearly we have no choice but to seek out the ringleaders via intelligence services and bring them to justice or destroy them if there is no other choice. That is the only way they can be stopped from brainwashing young vulnerable people into joining their ranks.

But even that route is not a clear cut option because the creation of martyrs can inflame the situation. We really are between a rock and a hard place, because we are dealing with people whose sanity has been compromised by fundamentalist indoctrination that has destroyed any sort of civilized thinking.

There are those on here who feel that wiping out people with an acceptance of the collateral damage of lost innocent lives is the price we have to pay to destroy IS; whereas others feel that accepting this brings us one step nearer to losing the very values that we are trying to defend.

We are in a bind - a Catch 22 with no clear answer - and I hope that our leaders will be guided by reason and a recognition of those values that must be preserved. I do not envy them this task.

Anniebach

Thank you for your reply.

I was not being sarcastic and I don't believe you thought that , I only mention it as my post could look as though it had no other value than to clarify a typing error.

My problem is this. I have seriously taken in which posters feel this and that and it is apparent to us all who have declared their full backing for Jeremy Corbyn and also his favoured political groups including Stop The War. Both are of the opinion that 'dialogue' 'political persuasion' are key to ending war/death and destruction.

Whilst I think we probably both accept that rosequartz made the comment re 'a chat' with a tongue in cheek manner but how does it not equate with the fact that presumably your choice of dealing with IS both as a pacifist and a firm believer in Jeremy Corbyn's mantra of no fighting, no war it must be to take the path of least resistance so to speak and 'talk' with our enemies.

The people we should be talking to are the moderate muslims - they are the ones who can wield the influence needed.

I agree with that Luckygirl - they need to stand up and make their voices heard loud and clear.
There are many of them and I have read eminently sensible articles by some.

There are not many people who would actually prefer war to peace - most people hope for, long for and many pray for peace. But wishing, hoping and praying is not going to achieve that.

POGS, I do not expect IS to sit and discuss calmly how all this can be settled. I do think we are unwilling to take responsibility for our part in strengthening IS . But any criticism of the west on this forum and one is accused of supporting terrorism by the majority .

I am against war but accept when all else fails then there is no other option .

Being a pacifist does not mean being out of touch with reality

Anniebach

Thank you.

I think also problems arise when those who feel they too are being realistic are at times being classed as war happy.

I think the one thing I hope that can be agreed on is nobody wants the death of an innocent person and fighting is nothing anybody in their right mind would want. It doesn't unfortunately turn out that way.

POGS, because emotions are running high I do think some want us to bomb Syria in revenge and I really do not believe this will prevent more terrorist attacks, I think it will cause more. This is a world matter not just for the west to think we can eradicate terrorism

After the Paris attacks we had America claiming their intelligence knew things, France and the UK the same, why not work together before not after a slaughter has taken place

I also question Cameron's eagerness to get a vote through to bomb Syria - I am not being political - I believe he wants to be in on it not on the sidelines , just as Blair just had to dance to america's tune because of the so called special relationship

Lots of articles on here about drones, grannyactivist, agreeing with you.

www.reprieve.org.uk/topic/drones/

Why is it considered that drones are okay, but ordinary bombs are not? It should not be acceptable to use drones without UN approval.
At least if a bomber comes over you know it's there and can try to avoid being hit. To me, a drone is unfair, as the person 'flying' it sits in HQ in the US and guides it. That's not real warfare; it's 1984 warfare.

We still have not been told that Emwasi is dead, just almost certainly. We also do not know how many others were killed with him. Drones do not see real people. They are too far away when fired. The people on the ground do not even see the plane that fires the rocket. That's what is so horrible about using drones.

Oh, as if it's "revenge"! Some people do seem to have the "protect your own" gene missing.

And of course it's the all important 'fair' if a captured and bound man has his head hacked off, and on camera. And the film shown to the world.