Attacks in Paris

George Hannah said:
I'm sorry but if you don't understand why it is important to respect other folk's sincere beliefs about what they consider important I don't know how a conversation can be had. Similarly if you uncritically parrot slogans, make meaningless generalisations and show no understanding of the development and impact of our secular society of which you are a part. Seriously, these are troubled times, have a rest friend.
Click to expand...
I respect the right to a belief, but I have less and less respect for the actual beliefs themselves.

"Religious morals" appear to give people "get out of jail free cards" to be fucking horrible cunts in this world.
 
Chris in London said:
I suspect he is referring to my posts, EB, in which I expressed the view that in 1973 the chance of a settlement with the IRA must have seemed as remote as a negotiated peace with radical Islam seems today. The posts do not say, as you would expect, 'let's get round a table with ISIS right now'. They do say that in the (very) long term, unlikely as it may currently seem, negotiation is more likely to lead to a lasting settlement than anything else because neither side can prevail in asymmetric warfare. Once you have ruled out the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must provide the answer. Basic logic, but that doesn't seem to be the strongest suit of some posters.
Click to expand...
But the question is, what can we negotiate? As you're aware, in any negotiation there are two or more parties, all of whom may have different and competing objectives. A negotiation involves those parties coming to an acceptable compromise while having the authority to reach that position.

Using Northern Ireland as an example:
1) The IRA had a not unreasonable final objective, which was a united Ireland. They weren't going to achieve that in the short term but it wasn't totally unattainable in the long term. Their fall-back positin was at least to be able to take come part in government and have equal civil rights.
2) Both sides had a well-organised hierarchy with people who could set terms and agree outcomes.
3) They had the political machinery to take part in the subsequent power-sharing arrangements.
4) We were able to negotiate an outcome that didn't meet the republicans' full demands and certainly sank to high heaven as far as the Loyalist community were concerned but was deemed by both parties to have moved far enough towards, or not too far from, what they wanted to achieve.
5) There were those on both sides who didn't accept the outcome and were marginalised but the central powers of each movement had enough authority to be able to enforce the outcome and make it work, as well as isolating the extremists.

There's undoubtedly still a lot of sectarian feeling though, which might take generations to subside, if it ever indeed does. You could apply the same set of parameters to most of the negotiations that have taken place over the years between governments and liberation movements.

But applying those five conditions to ISIS dosen't give the same answers:
1) Their stated objective is a caliphate over countries which don't want that.
2) They appear to be a loose grouping, without a central leader, and where there are "affiliates" that are part of the network in name only. You could come to an agrement in Iraq or Syria but not in Yemen or Somalia. This is mirrored in the set-up of Islam generally, where there is no single authority and control is often down at individual mosque level.
3) It will be all or nothing for ISIS, who are religious extremists and who reject the concept of politics or democracy as 'unislamic'.
4) What could we offer them and they offer us? At best, it would be "If you stay where you are and don't bother us, then we'll leave you alone".
5) Any group that didn't accept a negotiated would carry on fighting, probably even more violently than before.

Of course, you're right to say we should rule nothing out, however improbable, but this isn't a Conan Doyle short story. A few on here have said that, as a relatively young religion, Islam is going through its own Dark or Medieval age and it will take an equivalent Renaissance to change hearts and minds.
 
CT4pSgWXAAEQkxr.jpg


Just seen this on twitter.
 
coleridge said:
Both the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries are fascist gangsters. They have agreed over time whatever suited their own political and financial agendas. I always find the exercise in comparing evil quite distasteful. For me, some governments act in a similar fashion, such as Russia, Israel, Saudi and India. Sometimes you have to hold your moral nose.

Anyway, turning to ISIS, sadly, I know the mentality all too well. There is no negotiating with them. Ever. They would only take it as a sign of weakness. The only answer is to wipe them out. I fail to see how this achievable without boots on the ground. In the end, I expect Iraq to be divided between Kurdish [and so CIA] and Iranian control. I then expect Syria to be Russian by the coast [i.e., their naval base] and around Damascus [Assad being exiled in Moscow] and French/US/UK controlled elsewhere. Give it a couple of years. All will become clear.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with your assessment there, my friend, both present and future. The US is going to have to overcome its historical hang up about Iran if there's going to be any long term solution imo. In many ways it is a well ordered, well educated, stable Islamic society. Just what much of that region should aspire to.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The US is going to have to overcome its historical hang up about Iran if there's going to be any long term solution imo. In many ways it is a well ordered, well educated, stable Islamic society. Just what much of that region should aspire to.
Click to expand...
Not just the US FDM, they are going to have to tell some countries in the region that that is what is required, a tough ask that will be.

Even if we ever rid the region of IS, they'll just move into Africa and start again, they already have the structure there to do it in a number of countries.

All of it is a long way away.
 
cleavers said:
Not just the US FDM, they are going to have to tell some countries in the region that that is what is required, a tough ask that will be.

Even if we ever rid the region of IS, they'll just move into Africa and start again, they already have the structure there to do it in a number of countries.

All of it is a long way away.
Click to expand...
IS are already in Africa. They have an offshoot in Libya and Boko Haram in Nigeria have pledged allegiance to IS. If you look at the activities of Boko Haram, they are probably killing more civilians than IS in Syria/Iraq but they don't get the same publicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top