I saw this headline on the BBC today.
Islamic State conflict: 10,000 militants killed in nine months – US
Islamic State is a TERRORIST organisation. It seeks to impose its radical Islamist agenda by killing and maiming anyone that disagrees with it. It has burnt people alive. It decapitates. It machines guns. It terrorises to achieve its end. So WHY does the morally bankrupt BBC not call it for what it is? I am sick of these euphemisms being deployed by the BBC to avoid using the T word lest this imply a degree of judgement on these savages.
I’d like the so-called and self styled ‘BBC’ to refer to ‘Islamic State’ without any islamowash qualifier.
Meanwhile, the BBC has ruled that a BBC programme has breached impartiality rules – by going too soft on the Israeli defence minister, much to the annoyance of complainers including ardent anti-Israel, pro-Palestine campaigner Ken Loach.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/03/bbc-interview-israeli-defence-minister-breached-impartiality-rules
Is Barabara Plett crying tears of joy at this BBC ruling?
No wonder we aren’t allowed to read the Balen report.
It rather seems the BBC has again managed to do what it does best, and upset everyone. But not in any way that equates to their fondly spun notion of ‘balance’.
Clearly Ken, Sarah & crew are still upset.
But it also highlighted what gets Fraser out of bed, and quicksmart, vs. what he kicks out Linda Evangelista to dismiss after a few months.
Which gets to the law of unintended consequences again.
If adhering to the Editorial Guidelines is really as vital as these protesters and Fraser claim, BBC Watch is going to have a field day. They have enough Chapters and Verses of cold, hard FACT to stock a library.
Or… maybe it’s still going to be one of those odd skewed jobs the BBC seems so able to tolerate?
Sadly, the sixteen-year-old products of our state schools, the ones who now assemble our national newspapers from all those press releases, have also adopted the beebyanka’s weasel-word: “militant”.
You really do need to keep up.
According to Newspeak the word ‘terrorist’ can only be used when associated with ‘white’ ‘patriot’ ‘Christian’ ‘right wing’ ‘climate change denier’ ‘Israel’ ‘Jew’ ‘Islamophope’ and ‘non payers of the licence fee’
Here to help.
You missed out “Tea Party”, you wildly incompetent terrorist.
They’re muslim killers. It’s possible that the bbc employs too many muslims and feels unable to tell the truth about muslims and islam through either fear or embarrassment. Of course it could also mean that they all believe their pro-muslim propaganda.
I am aware that Media Studies degree courses, certainly in London, are teaching pro Muslim propaganda. My friend’s daughter finished her degree completely brainwashed against Israel and got a job with the BBC.
Another case where a teacher was teaching CHILDREN that the Jews are behaving like Nazi’s in Israel See http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/action-to-ban-teachers-incitement.html shows that the propaganda is used on younger minds .
See also ( if you missed it before )how the BBC has supported a terrorist promote his ideas of anarchy to a younger audience http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/legitmacy-to-incitement-by-extremist.html
it never amazes me what goes on in the sick, polluted sewer minds of the liars,distorters and self hating leftists in the media,yes they wont use the word terrorist at the bbc in case they offend the jihadists, they are just nice cozy miltants,but it does not end there does it,have you noticed how the bbc and radio 5 live presenters are using this word migrant just lately to describe these illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers who under orders from isis are trying to get into europe in there 100s of thousands in these rickety boats no doubt to commit acts of terror on the streets of europe and the uk,i could understand if these so called migrants was christians fleeing isis genocide against them in iraq and syria,but they are not are they, to a man and a women there are all muslins,see isis warned us they want to get to the gates of rome and raise there black flag over the vatican.that is what the migrant muslim invasion of europe is all about and the political and media establishment are hiding the truth from the public and they damm well know that.
Have you noticed it’s nearly all young men in the boats.
100 % correct, and yes they dam well know it. They and those that control the European Union are hereditary successors of the Nazi Fascist element that after WW2 developed the continuation of the pre-war Nazi aims to have a centrally controlled Europe. So the tentacles of evil run throughout the media paving the way for the new Unites States of Europe. Good night Vienna.
I guess ‘franchising anti-Semitism’ might be a term for it. Our faux liberal elite are far too sophisticated and ‘inclusive’ to enlist the neantherdals of the BNP to express their physical hatried of the Jews, so they import Muslims to victimise Jews in a ‘non-racist’ way.
In the spirit of this thread it would explain why the BBC have decided not to cover this story, not even in their local news.
Muslim Dad Who Launched Racist Tirade Against Catholic School Staff Jailed
Can anybody imagine if the perpetrator was any other religion that we wouldn’t have heard about it?
thats why i left the shithole
Sadly the article starts with ‘according to the Daily Mail’ which means in all probability it never happened.
What happens as reported by the Daily Mail via the BBC filter can be variable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-33002000
In all probability today’s front page will remain tucked away (at least they didn’t erase it, as can also happen).
However, if there is a juicy Ukip story the DM can manage, it will be amazing the attention accorded.
Off now to see what ‘has happened’ according to that top integrity combo that is the BBC and Newsnight, maybe with some BIJ investigative work thrown in.
Sadly the article starts with ‘according to the Daily Mail’ which means in all probability it never happened.
What is it about your hatred of the Daily Mail that attracts you to the BBC, Mr Clap?
derek hatton was a militant, labour had a militant tendency maybe isis are just a new wing of labour
The BBC probably doesnt call ISIS terrorists because they arent terrorists. Unfortunately those of the hysterical right like to think of everyone they dont like as terrorists. Ultimately the word has become so overused it is now officially meaningless along with ‘the war on terror’ all good stuff for the witch finder general ,but for anyone with the slightest sophistication very unhelpful and possibly extremely dangerous.
New MOCO.
I preferred the one who tried to be sensible and rational, even if he did generally fail.
overused like the word racist, do us all a favor and take a reporting job in syria
Obviously I won yet again if thats the only thing you can come up with.
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.“
When some terrorist with , a rucksack blows up the Clapped Out Busman while he is driving the bus , I guess he will tell the BBC he deserved to be attacked because , he is Hideously White & English .
coming to a bus near you (again) soon, but never mind it will only be a “militant” and you will be too dead to be terrorised
‘Obviously’.
Please can we have a better quality troll. Even for the MOCO team, this is poor quality.
” Ultimately the word has become so overused it is now officially meaningless along with ‘the war on terror’ all good stuff for the witch finder general ”
A bit like the word racist then ( or maybe anti-Semite)
Meanwhile in the real world Isis continue to achieve their ends by terrorising people
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3090886/ISIS-execute-man-BAZOOKA-shocking-new-video.html
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/09/isis-using-honeytraps-to-find-gay-men-and-execute-them/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-hundreds-women-children-executed-5756659
http://heavy.com/news/2015/02/isis-coptic-christian-beheadings-youtube-video-vine/
Not being a sophisticate like you (thank god) I don’t see how naming them for what they are, terrorists, can make things worse .
I think there’s another word we can use for these types that better describes them and those of similar mindset we find drawn to this religion: PSYCHOPATHS!
Well, that’s religion for ya’!
Bin to marroco. Seen Statler and Waldorf have bin busy. Man on is right. ISIS are a well organised army.
Jews were seen as terrorists by the British and now we are the best of pals,so much so that the BBC have just been found guilty of pro Iraeli bias by allowing some Israeli to get away with untruths on the Today program
‘Jews were seen as terrorists by
the britishsome misguided british socialists’.Fixed it for you. No charge.
Hitler had a well oiled military machine, a well organised army. And he was a terrorist murderer of the worst order. Or was he a militant?
MOCO is wrong as are you.
I suggest you visit Moralcompasses-R-us.com and see if you could avail yourself of one.
Wrong again .Even the British press regarded them as terrorists moreso after the Irgun gang tortured and hanged the ‘two Sergeants’
I think when you speak of Hilter you merely emphasise my point that the T word is really meaningless. Otherwise we could start talking about Dresden.
I would suggest that there is an aspect of scale to the term. A terrorist cell is small. An invading army is large. Whatever the act ,scale brings legitimacy both in action and in word. Justice remains the interest of the stronger and ,in this case, the larger.
At the end of the day you stand up for what you believe to be right.
In WW2, I happen to believe Germany was wrong and we were right.
Whatever strategies we used to put things right were done through a sincerely held belief that right sould prevail over wrong.
Right?
“Bin to marroco” what as a Jihad bride?
Nope i had to pick up someone and drop them off.
A bit of a career change but they might not see it like that.
cool can we just carpet bomb the entire place then please
Sharon on the Ferry
Bin here ?
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
I (reluctantly) agree. It’s a matter of definitions. Terrorism comes from various sources and not just religious militancy. We have to ask ourselves why the two guys responsible for the Columbine massacre were not labelled as terrorists. We can’t have one rule for one and not the other.
Because they were not trying to achieve a particular end through terror- not trying to terrorise a population into submission or a government into a change of policy
“Because they were not trying to achieve a particular end through terror…”
Yes they were: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm
I’m sorry neither of your links shows any thing other than their crimes had no other motive than hatred of their class mates – they had no objective other than to kill and no manifesto for change
They were trying kill ,the fear of the victims was a ‘bonus’ for them not the end in its self
Dresden?
Strategic target.
Next!
ISIS target defenceless enemies for horrific deaths to spread terror and are so proud of what they do and keen to advertise it that they video it.
Egyptian Copts working in Libya, Iraqi Shiite prisoners, British volunteer with a Muslim charity – all met the same fate. It is terrorism on an epic scale.
The BBC probably doesnt call ISIS terrorists because they arent terrorists.
They don’t use terror as a tactic, then? I think you need to spend some time over there, Mr Clap, once they’ve let you out of Broadmoor.
Sadly same old angryman. Got over losing the election yet!
I didn’t stand for election. And an election is not won or lost, it is held. Some of us respect our parliamentary democracy, which is improvable, but we are at where we are at.
And what’s this ‘old’ business! Get your adjectives right! My grandma is ‘old’.
Whats this new business?
Please don’t agree with garbage Edward. Dictionaries have not been un-invented. We just have an infected expansion of pseudo-sciences in British University departments, confusing and numbing the brains of our populous and spitting out battalions of ill-informed bullshitting careerist journalistas.
Ox. English Dictionary (1959).
” Terrorist. One who favours or uses terror inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government and communities.”
“Militant. Engaged in warfare, Combative.”
So ISIS are, by definition, both militant and terrorist.
In their omission of the word ‘terrorist’, one could infer that beheadings, dropping homosexuals from tall building and stoning them, and burning humans alive, do not register to the BBC as ‘terror inspiring’. One can only ask, in what demoralised mental state they are in?
As for the ‘columbine massacre’ perpetrators, they were not ‘ governing or coercing government and communities’. I suggest the term “mass murderers” would be appropriate in that sad case.
Communication can be clear and accurate if we accept common definitions and reject the vacuous platitudes of those intellectuals who make a career out of obfuscation and confusing the general public.
The problem I have with the word “terrorist” is that the term is subjective and applies to ‘the act of terrorism’ itself. Killing innocent people to further a political or religious cause is terrorism no doubt. But if you look deeper into the Columbine story, I think you’ll find something more disturbing and more akin to terrorism.
I’ll try one more time. Please don’t have problems with words. The word has a definition. The word either is or is not applicable to a given situation.
For instance, you assert that: “Killing innocent people to further a political or religious cause is terrorism no doubt. This is just incorrect. British soldiers killed ‘innocent’ people to further the political cause of defeating Nazi Germany. They may have preferred not to have killed ‘innocent’ people,but war’s a nasty business (best to be avoided). The act of killing is not the issue. Neither is the act of using terror inspiring methods, for instance where people are defending themselves against a warring aggressor. It is the act of using ‘ terror inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government and communities.’
It really isn’t that difficult if you use words accurately and stop attempting to redefine them.
I will rephrase that then: “INTENTIONALLY killing innocent people to further a political, religious, OR ANY cause is terrorism no doubt”.
So, getting back to Columbine?
I have not looked into the Columbine case in sufficient detail to establish whether the perpetrators were either governing, or coercing their government and community. I suggest that they were not ‘governing’ and I suspect they were not ‘coercing’ their ‘government and community’, but if you say they were, then ‘terrorist’ would apply, because what the perpetrators did was most certainly ‘terror inspiring’ (as is a good horror movie [which isn’t a ‘terrorist’].)
I’m sticking with dictionaries for word definitions, while you can reduce words to meaninglessnesses by giving them vaguer, less clear ‘definitions’. Good luck with understanding the world in which we live with that methodology Edward. I fear it will fail you.
Here is the link to the OED:
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/199609?redirectedFrom=terrorist#eid
Just as with the word “theory” there are multiple definitions.
You will notice that the first definition is, indeed, a political term. But you will find a second definition which states: “A person who professes, or tries to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm; an alarmist, a scaremonger. Now rare.”
‘Multiple definitions’. That is how infected our academia has become.
FuckwitsIntellectual Impostures’ have been running amok with our language for many years since the death of Eric Blair, doing more damage than good. You should read or re-read ‘1984’. ‘The Ministry of Truth’ I think was his warning of enslavement through obfuscation and the erasure of prior history. Hey-ho, I’m happy with clear definitions. Essential when understanding sage words written by wise men who respected the language and cherished those with the ability to convey distinct meaning by accurate use of it. Do you wish to understand writings of old? Marx perhaps (Recommended, just to know what he wrote – he was a fool. A nasty one at that.)? Or Orwell maybe (recommended. Top of the Top Drawer)? Then buy a 1950’s OED and you may have a chance of understanding what they might have been trying to communicate.Except that the definitions dont come from academia they come from people ,often with vested interests. If the term terrorism was very narrow then the response to it would accordingly be very targetted. If however the notion of terrorism is widened the the scope to address it also widens. Thus a terrorist act might start of with a guy that posts a bomb to government office. Then it extends to the people that got the box ,the clock,the explosive etc,the guy that drove the car,his family and relatives,people he has know,newspapers he has read . By the end of it clockmakers,fertiliser makers box makers,journalists and ultimately anyone with an opinion is a terrorist. Ultimately the term is so diffuse it can encompass everything and therefore ŵarrents a ubiquitous response.
One day you will live in a world where your Prime minister will stand up and say ‘ once upon at time if you obeyed the law we wil would leave you alone. But no more. One day you will live in a world where what once was private will be a matter of security owned by an organisation over which you have no knowledge and no control.
One day you will have a Government where government Ministers have judicial authority over courts. That day will be the day that tyranny arrives.
You assume that there is only one definition though. There are lots of dictionaries, which are you using and why?
You’ll also have to accept that the definition you’ve given can and will apply to every government in the world.
Here’s another link to pictures of the Columbine bombs that never exploded: http://www.columbine-online.com/attack/columbine-attack-bombs.htm
They were terrorists. I don’t have any other word to describe them.
Disturbed? Psychopaths? Murderers? Inhuman? Sociopaths? Spiteful? Hateful?
The dictionary’s packed with words to describe sick f&*kers like them.
No, you need to swat up on the very thing you are ignorantly commenting on!
??? Clarification ???
Well, you just listed “Disturbed? Psychopaths? Murderers? Inhuman? Sociopaths? Spiteful? Hateful?”
But you – like the BBC – are complicit in AVOIDING THE “T” WORD!!!
Angrymanupnorth you take the BISCUIT prize of the week!
CLAP CLAP CLAP
Avoiding the ‘T’ word? Which bit of:
“I have not looked into the Columbine case in sufficient detail to establish whether the perpetrators were either governing, or coercing their government and community. I suggest that they were not ‘governing’ and I suspect they were not ‘coercing’ their ‘government and community’, but if you say they were, then ‘terrorist’ would apply…..”
did you not understand? Perhaps you are correct? Perhaps the BBC were biased and avoided the word ‘terrorist’ in their reports on Columbine? They are certainly actively avoiding associating the word ‘terrorist’ with the terrorist militants ISIS.
Fortunately you’re not a dangerous terrorist. I will sleep well tonight.
“I will sleep well tonight.”
Don’t let the bed bugs bite, or you might need to swot them.
Non-ignorantly, of course.
It’s the wrong thread. No wonder I’m confused!
Confused Mr Ed ?
Try voting here
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
From Daniel Pipes September 7, 2004..Note the date!!
http://tinyurl.com/ncr4bls
“I know it when I see it” was the famous response by a U.S. Supreme Court justice to the vexed problem of defining pornography. Terrorism may be no less difficult to define, but the wanton killing of schoolchildren, of mourners at a funeral, or workers at their desks in skyscrapers surely fits the know-it-when-I-see-it definition.
The press, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3. Journalists have delved deep into their thesauruses, finding at least twenty euphemisms for terrorists:
•Assailants – National Public Radio.
•Attackers – the Economist.
•Bombers – the Guardian.
•Captors – the Associated Press.
•Commandos – Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as “membres du commando” and “commando.”
•Criminals – the Times (London).
•Extremists – United Press International.
•Fighters – the Washington Post.
•Group – the Australian.
•Guerrillas – in a New York Post editorial.
•Gunmen – Reuters.
•Hostage-takers – the Los Angeles Times.
•Insurgents – in a New York Times headline.
•Kidnappers – the Observer (London).
•Militants – the Chicago Tribune.
•Perpetrators – the New York Times.
•Radicals – the BBC.
•Rebels – in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.
•Separatists – the Christian Science Monitor.
i believe Boaz Ganor has a simple definition of terrorism that should be adopted. Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed at civilians or civilian targets aimed to achieve political goals.
If the BBC would adopt it they wouldn’t have to do this semantic dance with single and double quotes and M/T words. See Don’t single/double quote me
So ethnic cleansing is terrorism then. The definition doesnt work for drone strikes either. The US gets around it by declaring that anyone in the blast area is associated with insurgency,that includes women and children.
I suggest the word terrorism is a made up idea that very well armed societies use against very ill armed people wanting to change aspects of that society. It is currently used in the same way as the term witch in the middle ages. That is it is a catch all term. ISIS is a very well organised militia and in my opinion cannot be regarded in the same way as say Bader in the 70’s.
This is not to minimise their acts of brutality but then if we go down that road then the west rules the roost on that one.
This is probably why news agencies are reluctant to use the word.
Manonclaphamomnibus
March 15, 2015 at 1:09 pm
“I contribute here because I am highly critical of BBC news…..”
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
So contribute then!
manonclaphamomnibus = more than one ‘bus’ driver with a few Toons aboard.
Manonclaphamomnibus
I believe the definition refers to actions not results. IMHO the operative factor would be actual violence. Thus the ethnic cleansing of almost all Egyptian Jews when they were given 48 hours to leave the country would not be by Ganor’s definition terrorism. One could also argue the intended result in this case was practical and military (removal of a group considered however wrongly to be a threat) not political. However, Ganor would say, just because an act isn’t terrorism doesn’t mean it’s not a crime and/or an act of war.
I believe you are correct. The definition doesn’t work for drone strikes. Nor should it unless the purpose of the drone was a political result by terrorising civilians. Drone strikes may or may not be war crimes. The test is whether the potential damage to non combatants was disproportionate to the military necessity.
The laws of war were drawn up before air combat existed and I believe that is a huge gap that should be addressed. That said, Ganor distinguishes acts of war from acts of terrorism. A drone strike is prima facie an act of war not terrorism.
ISIS is a terrorist organisation but that doesn’t mean every thing done by ISIS is terrorism nor that they stop being terrorists while doing non terrorist acts (a terrorist sitting on the toilet remains a terrorist while a soldier remains a soldier).
Ganor’s definition is perfect for describing ISIS. When uniformed ISIS combatants kill an Iraqi soldier during combat they are soldiers. When they kill Iraqi soldiers held captive they are war criminals (a difficult call I admit because they are arguably non state actors) but when they behead civilians because they are not Muslim or the wrong Muslims and distribute the video they are terrorists.
Like all legal definitions there are gray areas. If international bodies and courts were to adopt the Gaynor definition such questions would be answered on a case by-case-basis.
Ok so why is beheading any different from say Dresden? In the case of Dresden the intention was to cause death and destruction to civilians for purposes of propaganda. Beheadings are being used for two different purposes. The televised ones are used politically for western consumption. In other cases to tactically remove opossing groups through fear. There are certainly appealing logistical and military advantages in having your enemies running away. I would suggest ISIS arent a terrorist organisation although as you say context and actions may lead some to other conclusions.
I think if we are talking in these terms it is important to recognise that the US and others have been using terrorist techiques to subvert potential combatants since their creation and use of death squads in latin america in the 60’s and more latterly in the middle east. Whether you want to ,or indeed can,attach a particular moniker to this kind of behaviour is largely,I would argue, proportional to your ability to control the media and a large army. The merit lies ,not in its intrinsic meaning but rather its ideological representation.
No Bus Twat , I have just been to East Germany , Saxony , where my ancestors came from . Dresden ,was bombed to assist your commie red mates of the USSR to advance from the East. All agreed between between Churchill , Stalin , Truman / Roosevelt , beforehand .Incidentally I visited the Stasi Museum in Leipzig too , where you could be spied on by your own family & relations. Very disturbing , but busman would support that, to keep his commie mates in power , & his nice party dacha.The Saxon`s were very nice people & even gave us free beer , at a jazz festival . They hold no grudges for the bombing , as far as I could see , otherwise they would not have spoken in English to us .
Manonclaphamomnibus you are making claims for ISIS they don’t make for themselves. The political aim of the beheadings is to produce a video demonstrating the invincibility of Islam and their justification is taken from Koran and Hadith. They make the standard Islamic defence to charges of terrorism that their acts are in a just cause. While there may be some military spin-off they don’t explain their actions in those terms.
Dresden was claimed to be a major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort. ISIS has and gives no such military explanation for beheading. Nor is their aim military advantage.
There is a huge lacuna in the regulations regarding war from the air compared with war at sea and on land. I suspect that the failure to prosecute any Germans or Japanese for war crimes committed in aerial bombardment came from that lack of law. Possibly, although I doubt it because there is no actual evidence in documents or even memoirs, the prosecutors were also concerned about being held to account for Dresden, Tokyo, etc.
You constantly confuse psychological warfare with terrorism. I repeat just because an act may not be terrorism doesn’t mean it’s not a crime ar an act of war.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. My general assertion is that the claim of terrorism is an act made by an opposing force in relation to acts of violence. When deconstructed the term has no merit only insofar it has ideological significance. thus a powerful country can disseminiante the idea that a less powerful country has engaged in a type of violence called terrorism which is defined in moral terms. Remember,Mandela was once a terrorist and then he wasnt. The transition occured not because of his personal actions but because he gained ligitimacy amongst the powerful.
The actual act is irrelevant ,it is who has the greater power in describing the nature of the act.
This is exactly why Ganor’s definition is so important. So long as terrorism can be dismissed as mere negative labelling it can never be effectively fought.
I dispute entirely the claim that terrorism is a label only used by powerful countries against the less powerful. When Iraq calls ISIS terrorists who is the stronger party. Throughout the Middle East, which is my area of relative expertise, it is a charge routinely made against one’s opponents.
The act is the only thing that is relevant.
Given your area is the middle east please stick around. There is much to learn and so few around to teach.
Regarding labelling I am not convinced. Killing is killing whether by knife gun or drone whatever term you chose to give to it.
I find myself almost agreeing with you on a few points. Isis is an army and uses terror to achieve strategic ends. That should be crystal clear to all but seems to have escaped our media’s notice.
The problem for Isis is that terror is limited in it’s possibilities as the shock effects weaken with each event. Which means that Isis will eventually either stop or escalate until the situation becomes one of existential survival for the victims and possible future victims. All out war is then the only option and Isis are just not equipped for such .
If the West is serious it needs to confront Isis now and with overwhelming force ignoring any protests from anyone. No nation building no hearts and minds just war and destruction. A so called medieval approach to a so called medieval outfit. That means soldiers. Which is what they are for .
When this is over we need to cut Europe off from the ME entirely and station well paid and well armed legions on our frontiers for the foreseeable future.
What then happens in the ME is no longer our concern but any attempt to move against Europe will bring devastation and war. Isis wants to take Rome. This is the age old dream of the Muslim world. First Contantinople and the Rome. 1453 saw the fall of the first. The fall of Rome will end our civilisation and must not happen.
I think it is important to recognise the history and the West,particularly Britains role. Blair and Bush created ISIS. It wasnt a war on terror,Iraq didnt tolerate Al Qaeda. It was a war for Oil . Check out the amount of American contracts awarded after the conflict. The fact that the UK an US actions have led to massive instability and a return to 16 Century European mentality wrapped up in Nutcase religion means precisely that we, I say we but we barely have an army now, and the US should definitely not intervene. Recognition of this fact has led oil producers to frack rather than plunder the brown man for profit. Which is why they plan to dig up the South downs rather than shoot Arabs in future.
I think you have forgotten the OPEC role in hiking up oil in the 1970s. The biggest transfer of wealth in history. What have the oil nations done with the money? Sweet FA.
And you can include us in that .
I opposed Iraq intervention as I oppose all meddling in the ME but that does not mean accepting the status quo.
Seperationism is the only logical way. Quarantine the ME for a few centuries and see what they can do to make their lands work. The form guide looks bad and I cannot see any reason for improvement.
Hello Humpty Dumpty here. Yes, that Humpty Dumpty.
The leading authority on the use of the English language.
The Humpty Dumpty who is world famous for stating :-
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
I, Humpty Dumpty, am not only the supreme arbiter on the use of English, but the only person authorised, by myself, to issue permissions, on who may use the English language.
I hereby authorise Charon on the ferry and Manonclaphamomnibus to infiltrate, subvert, infest and otherwise infect BBBC. This authorisation has an ambit only limited by 28 dimensional spacetime.
BBBC is doubledoubledoubleplusungood and must be plunged into the Balsamic memory hole.
From which shines the eternal, golden, truth of Allah, where all are destined to live in perpetual peace and harmony.
Where all white girls must be gang raped until their younger sisters are available.
Islam is the nastiest organisation in history and no apologies are required for violently opposing it, or its non-muslim apologists.
I do not care whether they are militants or terrorists. Providing either term is preceded by “dead”.
They’re disenfranchised, misunderstood young people who feel excluded from society due to a lack of employment opportunities and are therefore reluctantly driven to vioence because of british and US colonialism and imperialism.
Or something.
Who gave you the firewater again!
Fox refers to them as ‘ISIS savages’. That is why I watch it.
Well then You have found your level.Congratulations!
You wouldn’t know.
No doubt you sit upstairs on your London bus, looking down on the thick plebs beneath you like ants in the streets.
Upstairs London bus man might not know that the vast majority of the UK’s bus fleet is single decker and no one sits above the rest and is able to think themselves better than the rest. Time for London busses to have their top decks cut off methinks.
What is it about your contempt for Fox News that attracts you to the BBC, Mr Clap?