Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Womble]

I think all sides should exercise restraint and end the cycle of violence as soon as possible. Hollande should immediately withdraw the French forces from the Middle East, end oppressive measures against French Muslims (the so-called "state of emergency") and cease his incitement to violence such as calls to "respond without mercy". The only solution to this conflict is negotiating a peace agreement between France and ISIS which guarantees ISIS' right to an independent state while providing for France's security. As the wealthier and more powerful party to the conflict, France should offer ISIS some gestures of good will in order to build trust and to bring them to the negotiations table (they could start with releasing any ISIS prisoners they hold), and make the necessary concessions to achieve a peaceful resolution.

[garhkal]

I am happy calling it Islamic Extremism, cause that is what it is.

Then you are unlike most of our politicians. Heck it seems there are only 3 of the GOP nominees who HAVE come out and said that.

France is actually pretty anti-Muslim, I would hardly call France a "welcoming nation"

Just cause they 'outlawed' burkas does not IMO make them "anti-muslim"..

Do these attacks erode your faith in people?
Sadly, yes.

And since it seems at least one (possibly 2) of the 7 attackers, WERE refugees, it imo stands a great chance of undermining those who want everyone to "Let them in".

But until the world loses it's fear of offending Muslims, I don't think we're going to be able to put a stop to ISIS and its ilk, because the extremists/ISIS can take cover in the larger pool of Muslims in general.

Agreed. We need to remove the 'kid gloves' and stop pansty footing around 'offending them'.

I don't like this idea, and I don't know if it's something that the world as a whole has a stomach for, but something has to be done. We can't allow this kind of crap to continue unabated. And it's quite clear that we're not going to stop it wearing kid gloves.

Very true. The whole "win their heart and minds tactics in Iraq/Afgan have done very little to abate the issue..

[Anja]

Have you been living underneath a rock the last few months?

??????????????????????????? Don't live in a cave - we've got houses here, well, tents at least.

[Falcon Horus]

??????????????????????????? Don't live in a cave - we've got houses here, well, tents at least.

Are you deliberately being annoying now? Cause my question was of a more or less serious nature.

As in - did you not read or hear about the coalition bombing the heck out of IS? Or the Russians aiding Assad bombing anyone who opposes him (including the rebels fighting both Assad and IS)?

I mean, you must have been on a remote island somewhere if you haven't heard, read or seen any of this in the media. Let alone, the topics in this thread.

[Annoyed]

I think all sides should exercise restraint and end the cycle of violence as soon as possible. Hollande should immediately withdraw the French forces from the Middle East, end oppressive measures against French Muslims (the so-called "state of emergency") and cease his incitement to violence such as calls to "respond without mercy". The only solution to this conflict is negotiating a peace agreement between France and ISIS which guarantees ISIS' right to an independent state while providing for France's security. As the wealthier and more powerful party to the conflict, France should offer ISIS some gestures of good will in order to build trust and to bring them to the negotiations table (they could start with releasing any ISIS prisoners they hold), and make the necessary concessions to achieve a peaceful resolution.

Isn't ISIS's stated objective to either kill or convert anyone who isn't a member of their faith, destroy nations that don't abide by Muslim law, and so forth?

There is no negotiating with such people. The only way there will ever be peace is if a: they are destroyed or b: they achieve their stated objective. There is no middle ground here.

[Anja]

Are you deliberately being annoying now? Cause my question was of a more or less serious nature.

As in - did you not read or hear about the coalition bombing the heck out of IS? Or the Russians aiding Assad bombing anyone who opposes him (including the rebels fighting both Assad and IS)?

I mean, you must have been on a remote island somewhere if you haven't heard, read or seen any of this in the media. Let alone, the topics in this thread.

I haven't been and I have heard.
As I wrote before - sadly the evil ones can't be stopped. Only because I haven't given a list about who shot whom when and where doesn't mean I've been on a remote island - you know my whereabouts. I don't like to be judged that way due to some written lines about something very evil and bad which - and I repeat myself - can't be stopped.

[Gatefan1976]

Isn't ISIS's stated objective to either kill or convert anyone who isn't a member of their faith, destroy nations that don't abide by Muslim law, and so forth?

There is no negotiating with such people. The only way there will ever be peace is if a: they are destroyed or b: they achieve their stated objective. There is no middle ground here.

I think Womble was trying to make a different point with that, something a little closer to home for him.

[SoulReaver]

I think all sides should exercise restraint and end the cycle of violence as soon as possible. Hollande should immediately withdraw the French forces from the Middle East, end oppressive measures against French Muslims (the so-called "state of emergency") and cease his incitement to violence such as calls to "respond without mercy". The only solution to this conflict is negotiating a peace agreement between France and ISIS which guarantees ISIS' right to an independent state while providing for France's security. As the wealthier and more powerful party to the conflict, France should offer ISIS some gestures of good will in order to build trust and to bring them to the negotiations table (they could start with releasing any ISIS prisoners they hold), and make the necessary concessions to achieve a peaceful resolution.

Isn't ISIS's stated objective to either kill or convert anyone who isn't a member of their faith, destroy nations that don't abide by Muslim law, and so forth?

There is no negotiating with such people. The only way there will ever be peace is if a: they are destroyed or b: they achieve their stated objective. There is no middle ground here.

... seriously m8 :/

[Falcon Horus]

Isn't ISIS's stated objective to either kill or convert anyone who isn't a member of their faith, destroy nations that don't abide by Muslim law, and so forth?

Problem would be they pick and choose, and kill other Muslims.

The Sunni-Shia Divide

There is no negotiating with such people. The only way there will ever be peace is if a: they are destroyed or b: they achieve their stated objective. There is no middle ground here.

Destroy IS - cut off the head of the dragon and bring it to its knees.

Good plan - so far it's not working though.

[Womble]

Isn't ISIS's stated objective to either kill or convert anyone who isn't a member of their faith, destroy nations that don't abide by Muslim law, and so forth?

There is no negotiating with such people. The only way there will ever be peace is if a: they are destroyed or b: they achieve their stated objective. There is no middle ground here.

Oh, come on. You can negotiate with with Hamas, with the Muslim Brotherhood, with the Taliban, but not with ISIS? The differences aren't that great.

Besides, it's all about having a sufficiently creative negotiations strategy. Just ask the guys who negotiated the Iran deal. I'm sure Kerry and Obama could broker an agreement under which Christians and atheists in Europe could be allowed to be alive on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays.

[Annoyed]

I wouldn't trust the current sorry excuse for a president to negotiate the price on a used car.

The only way to negotiate with an enemy who has said he wants you dead is this: Back down, we get 100% of what we want, you get 0%, or you die. End of negotiation.

Hard part is that your enemy has to know that you mean business.

I wouldn't even trust the LSoS to ask them to stop killing people as part of such a negotiation.

[SGalisa]

As I wrote before - sadly the evil ones can't be stopped.

Isn't ISIS's stated objective to either kill or convert anyone who isn't a member of their faith, destroy nations that don't abide by Muslim law, and so forth?

There is no negotiating with such people. The only way there will ever be peace is if a: they are destroyed or b: they achieve their stated objective. There is no middle ground here.

Destroy IS - cut off the head of the dragon and bring it to its knees.

Good plan - so far it's not working though.

The reason why it is not working is because ISIS/the Islamic State (and some other affiliated mindsets) operate like a Hydra serpent (as in Greek and Roman mythology).
When one head is cut off, two more heads pop up and so the process repeats. Competition in the ranks vying for that ranking higher position, because they've all been promised an amazing reward at the end of their jihadist journey.


If Mohammed Emwazi, nicknamed by the international media community as *Jihadi John*, was truly killed by a military (drone?) strike, and if the attacks in Paris was for "Syria" or even vengeance against him, were these latest attacks vying for competition over who will rise to become the next in place of higher ranked person? Or just attacks in general, and just because they could do it, and got away with it, too..?

Regardless of their size in numbers, if groups act or react in this manner which is similar to the mythical Hydra serpent, when one ranking jihadist gets killed off, another one will pop up somewhere along the membership chain. It also doesn't matter how many miles separate one IS mindset head from another, it only takes one to start the whole process working again, and that includes even if ONE is left --- the group still might not wither out of complete sight. Someone else down the road might pick up the role (of those removed before them) and start swinging the whole process back into prime time operations again.. and again.. and again.


Also, apparently, in the Democratic debates last night, Hillary Rodham-Clinton supported President Obama's comment about the I.S. being contained.. that *the I.S. has not strengthened* (yet -- between the lines and only as it is being reported by the International Media).
Whether President Obama was referring to Mohammed Emwazi potential death, by telling the world that "ISIS has been contained" (and sounding positively certain about that) and hours later, Paris got attacked by members of the very same group and mindset, people on other news blogs have asked -- doesn't this show that every time we are told that the Islamic State (and their mindset affiliates) are contained or not a threat, another threat pops up perhaps days or hours later? Media reports what they are told to report or refrain from reporting.

Point is that it doesn't seem to matter if the "containment" issue was intended to translate that they were not growing any larger, but the problem is they are still going all out at some future moment to attack and destroy; or divide and conquer and destroy in the interim.

Several comments were saying this is beginning to sound "like the boy who cried wolf" except in the opposite extreme -- that the wolf has been pacified. Maybe that is just naivety on the Administration's part; or worse extreme that it is some sort of ambush (comment for attack any time now..?!). Really?

Every time I've heard our USA gov't publicly announce this "containment" image (mostly of the I.S., but could apply to any jihadist group) and it's gotten broken out again, I've lost count. At least half a dozen times so far, maybe more than that. It's annoying more than wearying. It's only wearying in how many hoops the rest of us have to jump thru just to adjust to the wolves in sheep's clothing being on the loose, until the next attack strikes.

[Falcon Horus]

If Mohammed Emwazi, nicknamed by the international media community as *Jihadi John*...

Unlike what you seem to believe, this Jihadi John was not a high ranking officer. He was an executioner who has been seen murderering/beheading a lot of people, including the american and british journalists.

[SGalisa]

Unlike what you seem to believe, this Jihadi John was not a high ranking officer. He was an executioner who has been seen murderering/beheading a lot of people, including the american and british journalists.

Firstly, *thank you!* for fixing my typo (JJ's nickname).

Next - - -
It doesn't matter what rank position he held. He was notorious for putting himself into the spotlight of himself killing people. So the murderous jihadists went on a killing spree, maybe to just achieve their jihad role(s), or maybe to be in the spotlight of news similar to JJ, but chose a different method of killing their prized victims.

Sometimes, the lower ranks do outrageous things just to prove themselves worthy enough to rise higher in their group's hierarchy level. I've seen it happen in local neighborhood gangs -- who go above and beyond in efforts to possibly win the coveted, prize role next to their next higher ranking status member leading up to their supreme leader, or just do it for some other "I want to be noticed" prize..

[Annoyed]

News reports tend to suggest that Syria is connected to the terrorists who bombed France.
And his advisers are telling him we can't be sure that we would catch any trying to sneak into the US.
And what does our sorry excuse for a president do?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...increases-gop/

“Paris changes everything,” Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “There are a lot of holes -- gaping holes.”

The Texas Republican cited several problems including the administration not having a comprehensive list of the estimated 5,000 or more foreign fighters around the world.

“We don’t have the databases,” he said.

McCaul made his comments after White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told “Fox News Sunday” that President Obama still plans to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country within the next year and expressed confidence in the U.S. screening process.

“We had very robust vetting procedures for those refugees,” Rhodes said.

However, McCaul sharply disputed that assessment.

“I disagree,” he said. “I’ve been briefed by the FBI and Homeland Security. They tell me that this cannot be done.”

I hope to hell France and other nations pursue this vigorously, 'cause I don't think the U.S. will be of much use till we get this yutz out of the White House.