Attacks in Paris

[cleavers]

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.

That was what I meant by "already have the structure there", not to mention Al Shabab in Somalia/Kenya.

 

[west didsblue]

That was what I meant by "already have the structure there", not to mention Al Shabab in Somalia/Kenya.

Al Shabab are affiliated to Al Qaeda, not that it makes a great deal of difference. They are all a bunch of murderous cunts.

 

[billy no mates]

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.

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.

Just to pick a hole in one of your points, The IRA/Sinn Fein et al wanted a United Ireland which would mean a Catholic majority over a Protestant minority who also very much do not want that.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

People think ISIS is just Iraq & Syria. We could put boots on the ground in Iraq but what about all the other places? Then what do we do about those in Luton, Paris, Brussels?

 

[west didsblue]

People think ISIS is just Iraq & Syria. We could put boots on the ground in Iraq but what about all the other places? Then what do we do about those in Luton, Paris, Brussels?

Nuke Luton. Got to go there this week, what a shithole.

 

[Blue Haze]

People think ISIS is just Iraq & Syria. We could put boots on the ground in Iraq but what about all the other places? Then what do we do about those in Luton, Paris, Brussels?

The difference is that ISIS can't survive the death of its leader or the defeat of the caliphate.

The caliphate's entire legitimacy is based on the prophecy that it will expand until it encompasses the ummah and then the globe. Its sole purpose is to marshal earth's armies to fight the final battle against Satan. Their leader, al Baghdadi, must be its leader because he claims to descend from Muhammad, and only a descendant of Muhammad can lead a caliphate.

The splinter groups might survive, but without legitimacy its recruiting numbers will fall drastically. We can make ISIS false prophets, in other words.

Those already Europe, you can't do anything about them. Except tarnish ISIS's prestige.

 

[cibaman]

Just to pick a hole in one of your points, The IRA/Sinn Fein et al wanted a United Ireland which would mean a Catholic majority over a Protestant minority who also very much do not want that.

A protestant minority that formed a majority in a significant area of Ireland, dominating a heavily armed, politicised police force and the UDR.

Any attempt to impose a united Ireland would have resulted in civil war on the scale of the Balkans. Most of the politicians understood that. The aim of unification was an ideal that could never have been achieved, but served as a rallying call to force the protestants to agree to power sharing.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting and pertinent essay from earlier this year on the issue of terrorist attacks, their impact and how states should respond.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-how-states-respond-yuval-noah-harari-sapiens

Key points:

• Terrorists are weak militarily but have the capacity to create fear out of all proportion to their strength.
• They rely on governments unused to political violence using their superior strength & responding disproportionately.
• That response may well create a situation that is favourable to the terrorists and can be exploited.
• Deaths from illness and accidents will generally far outweigh those from terror attacks but the latter present a political challenge to the state that the former rarely does.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

A protestant minority that formed a majority in a significant area of Ireland, dominating a heavily armed, politicised police force and the UDR.

Any attempt to impose a united Ireland would have resulted in civil war on the scale of the Balkans. Most of the politicians understood that. The aim of unification was an ideal that could never have been achieved, but served as a rallying call to force the protestants to agree to power sharing.

Well said, mate. Even though I think partition in 1921 was unfortunate, a united Ireland from anytime after the troubles began would have ended in an unimaginable bloodbath. The levels of doublethink that went on in Republican circles in that regard were truly astonishing. They knew the belligerence and intolerance of much of the Unionist population, that was much of the reason for the IRA's reemergence ffs, and yet they collectively seemed to imagine some sort of peaceable nirvana going forward, once the six counties were subsumed into the Republic. That Unionists would accept the change with a mere whimper. It's a way of thinking that borders on the insane and shows how the romantic notion of a united Ireland seemed to cloud all logic in many Republican supporters.

As you say, it would have resembled the Balkans which the Irish state did not have the resources or infrastructure to begin to cope with. I suspect the Yanks would have had to intervene militarily.

 

[Chris in London]

Well said, mate. Even though I think partition in 1921 was unfortunate, a united Ireland from anytime after the troubles began would have ended in an unimaginable bloodbath. The levels of doublethink that went on in Republican circles in that regard were truly astonishing. They knew the belligerence and intolerance of much of the Unionist population, that was much of the reason for the IRA's reemergence ffs, and yet they collectively seemed to imagine some sort of peaceable nirvana going forward, once the six counties were subsumed into the Republic. That Unionists would accept the change with a mere whimper. It's a way of thinking that borders on the insane and shows how the romantic notion of a united Ireland seemed to cloud all logic in many Republican supporters.

As you say, it would have resembled the Balkans which the Irish state did not have the resources or infrastructure to begin to cope with. I suspect the Yanks would have had to intervene militarily.

You might almost say these people were so delusional there could be never be any negotiations with them, GDM.