It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It wouldn't solve everything... But it sure would solve a few things. At least there's no more the justification of doing God's will when you commit a heinous crime. There would still be crime, wars and what have you, but the end of obscurantism is no small advantage. At least some cartoonists would not have been murdered for drawing a prophet dead for centuries.
And it's not only wars. Opposition to scientific research and discovery, the spreading of superstition and ignorance, the oppression of women, etc.
And what did the people in Paris have to do with this? What was their role in this great scheme of things? And it's not like the previous attack against CH had anything to do with resources and survival. Unless the cartoonists were a bunch of imperialists, but somehow that is a difficult thesis to defend.
Your so F**ked up if you believe that. IS are not interested in money or power, as to survival.
To all in IS "Stop killing innocent people & accept everyone has a right to life no matter how they live their lives, fit into community & hay WTF maybe we'll get along & stop bombing you".
The politicians are focused on the wrong thing, solving Syria will not stop IS, just wait & see.
What was Libya about? Do you think they really cared that Gaddafi was a bad man? Blair shook his hands for pete's sake. It was done to secure access to Libya's oil. Their oil is of a certain sulfur content level (can't remember where I read this in 2011) that can be used by the refineries in France/Britain. America doesn't need this type of oil but can get it elsewhere. That's why they led the charge to get him out. It had nothing to do with him being a bad guy (he was there for longer than I've been alive).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/01/libya-oil
Discussion of the European refinery conundrum can be seen here (they have trouble with Arab 'heavy' oil):
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9193
Some other information from nbc news:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44229170/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/restoring-libyan-oil-output-could-take-years/#.VkpsY9KrSWg
"As Libyan oil comes back on line, it likely will have the most impact on the London benchmark price of Brent crude, because most of Libya's oil is sold to European consumers."
"Europe was most affected by Libyan oil export disruptions. About 28 percent of Libya's oil went to Italy, 10 percent to Germany, 11 percent to China and France and 3 percent to the United States."
"Saudi Arabia also brought some it its spare capacity online, according to Saudi sources. The kingdom promised to fill any supply gap caused by the unrest in Libya although it produces heavier crude with higher sulfur content than Libya."
So the war on the Western side is being waged for resources and geopolitical control. That is 50% of the war. ISIL did not give a toss about the US/UK/France in 2011. They were concerned with taking out Assad & the Govt in Iraq because they are Sunni vs. those leaders (part of Shia sects). Their interest was in creating a muslim caliphate out of artificially created countries (by Western powers) that did not exist prior to their involvement as separate countries.
All that's happening now is that the borders are going back to how they were prior to being artificially demarcated.
I dunno. You shoot a terrorist dead and you've sort of solved your problem. At least in the short term. We had to kill a lot of Germans to get rid of the Nazis, but it worked in the end.
I agree that longer term you need a policy that goes beyond killing all the bad guys, but we're in a conflict with a group that has to be fought with violence. But the violence is just one of an array of approaches we need to take.
Now that they have had some successes and it's not a government we are fighting, but rather members of a radicalized population, who's resources we want and need, will they ever succumb? Can they ever be truly defeated?
If they can just hide among the general population and resurface tomorrow, there is no way to win the war on their shores imho. The most we can hope for is to stop them infiltrating our shores.
There's a box you have been put inside of by those controllers of economics & society that WANT you there. Your JOB is to think OUTSIDE of it.
Still, killing a scumbag here & there serves a purpose.
I don't know. Many people thought Communism could never be defeated and that it could only be contained. Reagan saw it differently and went for all out victory.
I'm not saying the 'enemy' is the same, or that you can just repeat the same approach, but may be we underestimate the power of direct military confrontation?
Yes, they can morph and change and shift, but how long are young frustrated Muslim boys going to carry on thinking getting fried by US munitions in a desert hell hole is the best thing they could be doing with their lives? May be I'm naive and there literally is a bottomless pit of Islamo nutters out there, but history does suggest that even nutters usually end up running out of steam (and supporters).
Kids from Bradford and Burnley were flocking to ISiS when there were Yazidi slave girls and free pizza on offer, but how longg will they be able to stand it now they're going to basically be facing full on war?
I don't think this is going to end any time soon, but I do think direct confrontation in Iraq/Syria and ceaseless harassment of Islamo nutters in the west is now the way forward. They will continue to make major attacks but it's going to become harder and harder for them to exist in the little cracks.
The issue I see with a relentless air campaign however is as follows:
After the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, and the relentless bombing campaign and occupation, lives were lost, families were torn apart and lawlessness & hopelessness ensued. For a population that had absolutely nothing to do with 911. The result is ISIL.
If we do the same thing now in both Iraq & Syria, but this time kill even more innocents and break up even more lives (because believe me, these folks will infiltrate and hide among the moderates) then how many more ISIL's are we going to create, not to mention sympathizers (Muslim and other religious denominations) outside of that particular location.
It's like dropping a rock in a pond. The water just disperses everywhere.
Bottom line - military action has been used for over 20 years (the first Iraq War) and has only sowed the seeds of more discontent among that population. Where they are dropping the bombs is not where the perpetrators for recent European terrorist attacks actually came from. It's bizarre.... almost like they have been fed a diversion and are taking the bait.
All true. I have ties to Paris so am feeling particularly pissed off right now and understand the French desire to just lash out. It mirrors what the U.S. did after 9/11 in some ways and I was pretty opposed to how the US responded, as Iraq clearly had nothing to do with 9/11. So please put my comments in the perspective of someone who is just really annoyed right now.
However this time there is a real legitimate target in ISIS and I can see value in targeting them militarily.
Had the US not invaded Iraq though, we'd clearly not be in this mess right now.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal as was the bombing and invasion of Afganistan.
Bush was a total idiot and Tony Blair his lap dog.
Yup. Without doubt, Bush and Blair have made the world immeasurably less safe for everyone. They've unleashed hell. What's worse is that every single thing Bush ever did in response to 9/11 was EXACTLY what Bin Laden et al would have wanted him to do. Invading Iraq was a total gift to Al Qaida.
I can't wrap my head around why the reporters and chicken shit press let that idiot get away with that one. Bastard lied us into an illegal invasion, has caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and thousands of American casualties...and the press let him get away with that comment.
And what these f***ing idiots in power that cry to momma (the so-called experts) & ask how to fix it is all what they want & expect from us.
In martial arts I've learned that what you do in response to an attack should NEVER be what's expected.
Evidently the 'response playbook' is in "Die Hard" mode.
X_X
I was in the forces & went to war against IRAQ believing it was the right thing to do at the time, not being aware off all the lies bush & blair were pedaling. However as time passed, I realised we could win the war but never the peace, so I resigned my commision, still get the odd knightmare, but came out better than some.
I wanted justice for all the innocent people killed on both sides, I still do, I often think to myself there needed cooler heads after the 9/11 attacks.
In hindsight the best epitaph for all the dead, would be to seek if not maybe to find a solution by any means other than conflict.
If as @bondjames says, for the western powers it's all about the oil, then they need to work on alternatives at a faster rate, it's got to be cheeper than the military campaign, start to distance themselves from dehumanising regimes such as Saudi Arabia, stop selling weapons to the region, stop removing leadership, however abhorrent without any plans to fill the vaccum created, as for the Islamic world, if they truely believe in peaceful co-existance they need to get a louder & stonger voice for this belief, publically shun IS & all their disciples.
This is what I believe needs to happen, will it, very unlikely, I still think young lives will be cut short for a long time to come.
No but the west didn't attack Charlie, IS did who I've already said on here don't care about the oil.....
I'll explain.
If you look at what your both saying, your coming at it from opposite directions.
@bondjames is saying it's all about economic resourses, it may have been the initial motivation, may still be for some, but thats the western powers point of view, our side if you like.
@patb is saying that on the other side IS are motivated by a book that's telling them to attack the infidals (The West) as they see them as a threat to their religion.
It's the sad fact of all conflict that it escalates & escalates until neither side remembers who started it or why they started it, the middle eastern problem has been raging for a thousand years or more, I don't think IS have a clue what they want & sometimes I think our leaders are equally clueless.
"It's better to remain silent & be thought a fool, than speak, and remove all doubt"
This could have been written for our politicans
Both of you are right in part as all sides always believe they are if you see what I mean, this is at the heart of the problem, neither side are willing to compromise or cease the conflict.
This attack though is on account of bombing, maiming & destroying lives over decades. When war is declared, casualties are to be expected. What is war? Something you just watch in a sanitized fashion on a tv screen? ISIL said it is about prior bad deeds on its statement yesterday.
There is a tendency in these cases to simplistically make it all about religion & particularly the Muslim religion. It's far more than that& not acknowledging that is ridiculous. I can assure you that if I was an Iraqi, & you bombed me, killed my family, and potentially maimed me, I would possibly be so enraged that I'd want you & your people dead on sight, no matter if I was religious or not. Would you blame me for not caring if you were directly responsible for it or not? Rage knows no distinction. Or do you believe that the bombing campaigns from up high are so accurate that they are only destroying munitions dumps as you are being told? Don't be naive.
@SpectreNumberTwo, thanks for your service & for putting your life at risk for your countrymen's freedom. You expected your governments to get it right & not to mislead you or misguide you.
It's not Iraqis or Syrians doing this.
Why do people living in western inner cities give the slightest shit about the fluctuating oil price and the Middle East?
I'm sorry but only having a 36 inch flat screen and sky sports basic package does not count as poverty. And there are plenty of people of all backgrounds living in the same conditions in these inner cities but it's only the Muslims who feel the need to act like this?