to think that President Hollonde is right to want to "wipe ISIS off the face of the earth"

[Ohbehave1]

I am not talking the rights or wrongs of bombing Syria. I am not saying that I have the answers. I just think that there is no place in a modern world for a barbaric group like ISIS and that Hollande has it right - there is no middle ground with them and the attacks on Paris are to all intents and purpose a declaration of war.

Well yanbu but, as you seem to acknowledge, that isn't really what the debate is about is it? I think the issue is more about how to eradicate an insidious and complex, international terrorist group without taking out millions of innocent people with them.

Unfortunately, it's not possible; certainly not by any means at the disposal of a single Country's political leader.

I understand why politicians say things like this at times like these, but it's ultimately meaningless.

But for some people they seem to think we should still be negotiating with them - although how there could be any common ground is beyond me.

well he wont will he? ISIS is like some kind of terminal cancer now, and even if he fucking obliterates the whole of Syria , the will pop up somewhere else

get to their funding I say

that's you Saudi bitches

I dont know what that has to do with anything. Anyone could say that but it means nothing. Its not possible. And is not justification for a carte blanche.

get to their funding I say

Seeing as we can't even get Starbucks to pay the tax it owes, how do you propose bullying the Saudi's over this?

You'll never stop their funding, in the same way that we could never stop US citizens from funding the IRA

Yes, there's Saudi and Qatari elements to ISIS funding. But the Iraqi state gave it a $2bn leg-up initially by allowing them to overrun vast cash deposits of the Iraqi national bank. Turkey, our NATO ally, funds them by buying their oil. Assad also purposely funds them by buying their oil (in the hope that they can help destroy moderate opposition groups and thus aid his strategy of providing the West with a choice of either him or ISIS). In total, there's reputed to be about 40 states funding ISIS.

Good luck.

No of course YANBU. But it's all about wiping out the extremist ideology that's behind IS (and those that came before them, and that will come after them), which is an almost impossible task isn't it.

How to get rid of them is the billion dollar question. Frankly I don't think airstrikes or physical invasion in Syria will work, it only end up growing the ranks of these thugs. ISIS is baiting us, practically begging the West to fight them in Syria and Iraq, we will be giving them exactly what they want if we go in. Not to mention that they don't all live together conveniently in barracks etc... They live mixed in with the general public, in homes and apartments full of innocent families. Mosul has a population of over a million people and approximately 15,000 ISIS terrorists (according to the Guardian). If we want to destroy the 15,000 terrorists we'd better be ready to wipe out the whole city of people. Obviously we won't do that but more bombing or an invasion will mean the certain death of many innocent Syrians and Iraqis. From that comes further hatred towards the west and so more terrorists are created...

We could try stopping the flow of money and weapons to ISIS but that would mean confronting "our friends" in Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc... who are funding ISIS. Or Turley who also actively aids ISIS and buys oil from them. The hypocrisy of this is galling.

Well I guess it goes both ways. If France have been bombing Isis and are saying they want to wipe them out - then surely Isis (whether they are twisted evil psychopaths or not) - will hit back and people won't be shocked if they do.

I may say I'm going to win the lottery but just the same as Hollonde's statement, it's not going to happen...

'If France have been bombing Isis and are saying they want to wipe them out - then surely Isis...will hit back and people won't be shocked if they do'

Do you think that's why they keep drawing the different countries in? In an attempt to legitimise what they're doing? Using it to draw more people in with new claims that in reality it's them who are the victims.

If it's not then I can't understand why they'd want to square up to Russia and China, why would they do that?

With Hollonde, he's just saying what he thinks the French people want him to say, which is his job. Diplomacy wouldn't be possible because for that to work you'd have to acknowledge them as a legit political group, which they're not.

They think that there is supposed to be some great last battle, with the world against them, and then Allah comes in on their side. Or something like that.
Or, perhaps, fighting is what they do relatively well, and actually governing is not.

Why is Isis worse than Assad?

He is absolutely right. It is a question of how to make sure it is permanent.

As I am not French, it's not my business. I feel bad for the innocents who will become collateral damage, in Syria and France, as a result.

I hope we don't join the French as aggressors or targets of isil.

It's all murky. Domestically, we've all seen the huge inflows of cash to blonde/blue eyed crowd ...the only reason I can think of is arms sales. It's us they'll want to send to fight though. True, we are traditionally good at fighting ... for our lives from these jerks even though we are Christian too!

Yeah, we should all just kill ISIS to death! What a genius plan! Why has no one thought of this before?

When he comes up with an actual plan to do this with minimal civilian casualties, I'll be all ears. Until then he's just blowing smoke to look good on TV.

Howtorebuild. We are already a target. And always have been. Their only aim is a Caliphate and as such they want the world to be under sharia law.

They have sympathisers in the UK and we are particularly good at allowing their firebrand preachers to spout their hatred and encouragement to bed rid of the infield at all costs.

I don't see any other possible option other than military when they won't talk or compromise.

Shaksuka "Why is Isis worse than Assad?"

Because Assad is not going to send suicide bombers to London like Isis will? Because he is a bad guy but he's our bad guy (and the suicide bomber thing)

The trouble is we are making martyrs of a group for whom martyrdom is a state of grace with untold rewards in the hereafter.
The more we kill the more will rush to take their places. The only answer is to find a way to cut the supply chain, if not of money then of the weapons that money will buy.
We should also focus on education and sanctions at home with the deportation of all extremists and visible support for our Muslim community who don't support terrorism at all but who are being demonised because of their religion. We never branded all Catholics as IRA members and this is no different.

Oh behave...we're the invaders though, using far more disproportionate force and the ones with just as much of a history of trying to establish a global empire.

Mimi who is beheading hostages and sending suicide bombers to cities and bombing holiday planes and concerts? Would that be us?
Oh behave you say as if speaking to a recalcitrant child.

Who is dropping cluster bombs, using white phosphorus and arming/funding militants both domestically and abroad?

What do you hope to achieve by "wiping ISIS off the face of the Earth"? You need a clear idea of what you actually want to create, not what you want to destroy. Without a clear idea of who you want to be in power you will just create yet another vacuum, where yet more factions will fight amongst themselves. Resulting in more death and destruction for the people.

But mimishimmi - that's proper war. We are allowed to bomb because we are a proper country with proper soldiers and people who can use drones and drop bombs from high altitudes in a much cleaner, less blood on your hands way far from our shores where our enemies are unable to do the same to us (thank goodness)