In the news

Sticking to our principles might mean that more people die and I find that a hard pill to swallow.

If you're already proposing killing people, which people dying becomes a bitter pill to swallow? It feels as if you're buying into the us and them narrative which is basically coming out of organisations like ISIS and the nazi-ish asshats like EDL, BNP, Tory Party etc. Because even if there really is an us (The West) and them (ISIS etc) then there's also all the other people in the world such as the Syrians and the Yadzidi and the Kurds who all of the above want to treat as not our problem and not welcome. Then there's the peripheral, and perhaps not so peripheral, regions such as North Africa, Indonesia, the Caucasus, the Arabic nations, even places like the disputed Kashmir. They're all impacted by our actions and decisions. Frankly this involves the whole world. There's too many identities for an us and them that functions in any recognisable sense.

But the real bottom line is that people are going to continue to die in this conflict in huge numbers. I honestly believe that more people would die if we started a wholesale slaughter of anyone in, and by necessity connected to ISIS. Alas I can't make any promises, it's just a theory. When we consider how we tackle this conflict, as we absolutely must, we have to resolve ourselves to the fact that people will die. What then becomes important is deciding the reasons why people will die and who we will try to keep alive and how.

Another good point but you've just said more eloquently what I was perhaps trying to say - that sticking to our (globally speaking) principals will probably mean more death and that's the cost.

It was naive of me to focus on the path of least destruction when that means essentially being evil in these circumstances.

Erm, I was arguing the opposite, that sticking to our principles means less death. At least that's my view on things. It probably means more death for anyone that we might identify as being part of some kind of "us" though. However, the trade off in this situation is that less people will be inclined to become part of "them" and thus we have to kill them.

We will have to kill people though, even if it's only in self-defence. It's an absolute given.

There is just far too much to say about this utterly confused situation than anyone has time for. Why the hell does France now claim to be at war? These people have no state, they're not recognised by anyone in the international community, and all France is doing is elevate their state. How exactly do they want to wage war when it would all take place on Syrian and Iraqi territory, or indeed in France? Why are they stepping into the bear trap set for them? Is it because of the iconic status of Paris? They're giving the guerillas more than they could have hoped for.

I have to say that this whole guerilla situation reminds me a lot of animal culls. They never work over a large range (you can do it on small islands, and even there some often slip through the net) and the culled species only come back in greater numbers, e.g. grey squirrels. It's like trying to cut off the heads of the hydra.

It's like trying to cut off the heads of the hydra.

Everyone needs to rep this because more than anything else it describes the type of conflict that we're in.

Confusion! If there was no outside involvement, then wouldn't ISIS just carry on massacring in Syria and Iraq, thus more death, albeit not in Europe?

I'm not getting into an us and them thing here, my original post started by basically acknowledging that the people involved are from everywhere and that we should focus on prevention and makig the world more inclusive.

Yeah, sorry, confusion.

Our principles demand intervention as a humanitarian issue. They also demands that we a) afford the rule of law to those we're in conflict with and b) exert control over anyone trying to leave our country to get involved in a conflict we're intervening in.

So yeah, we can abandon our principles of the rule of law and execute ISIS members willy nilly ensuring that we're entrenched in a war for at least six generations with cyclical retributive strikes on both sides and much more death. Or we could abandon our principles of intervention and turn our back on the Middle East while it burns to the ground for more death and no promise that the extreme won't get more extreme and cast their eyes to further shores. Actually even before that they might decide there are some old scores to settle. Bear in mind some of these scores actually go back to the seventh century and definitely involve Europe. A lot.

Ken Livingstone has got it right--a UN mandate is needed.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ken-livingstone-western-foreign-policy-coming-back-to-haunt-us-in-paris-attacks-a3115236.html

Seldom Killer - You should consider writing for the Spectator where your mish-mash of cliche, waffle and historical blindness would go down a treat.
What are these mythical 'principles'? The ones that continue to deny the war crimes of Israel? The ones that support Saudi Arabia? Or any of the other despotic regimes that are, currently, as Syria once was, our friends? The principles that stopped the West intervening as the genocide in Rwanda was happening even though Clinton and other Western leaders were well aware of it? That led to the spokespeople of Western governments being banned from using the word genocide because that would oblige them to act?
Or to go further back, what were the West's principles in Central America when they funded and armed terrorists who used methods every bit as gruesome as those used by ISIS? While the West protested about Czech dissidents being jailed the West was busy ensuring that the murderers, rapists and torturers in America's backyard could continue their slaughter.
And before that there was Suharto murdering hundreds of thousands. And so on and so on.
All of these Western backed terrorists and dictators had 'redefined' the enemy to include unarmed peasants, priests, journalists, trade unionists, students and the family members of the same. They all murdered and raped children.
The notion that ISIS has invented a new standard of barbarity is so laughable, and such a self-serving Western lie, that it hardly merits a response.
The principles you blithely talk about are a propaganda notion, for public use only. The West has, and continues to, support and prop-up any useful murderer until such time as they are no longer useful. Useful to Western power, that is, not to you and me.
Only in the West could such a perverted version of reality be given any time at all.

Keep this up boys and girls! I reckon we'll have this issue resolved by closing time.

That's a beautifully crafted straw man, all the more praise worthy because you contructed it while riding that mighty fine looking high horse.

I'm aware of the multitude of failings of the combined governments of the West on foreign policies. I'm amazed you missed some of the other more prominent fuck ups off the list. Perhaps you'll forgive the personal attack there given you own choice of argument in the same vein.

To clarify, because what seemed obvious now seems necessary, I didn't claim any collective governments had acted with principle, I argued that it was the only way we should proceed in this conflict. I argued it on a point that I believed to do so would result in the least loss of life.
I didn't claim some new barbarity from ISIS. I argued the point that who we're engaged in conflict with and how they view us (the us they have chosen to define) is dictating the narrative of this conflict.
I'm not painting a perverted picture of reality, I'm putting forth an opinion of how we should be acting. Oh, and I lied, your straw man is fucking terrible.

And for the record, if The Spectator did offer me to write a column for them, I'd take it in a shot. Only for the unfettered access to the punchable Rod Liddle though. I have my flaws, you don't have to make up twattish nonsense about me to run me down.

tomorrow's news today.

vaping thread >>>

It's bad that I'm not sure if that's real or not.

to be fair, if your folks are going to name you 'Jihadi John', your career prospects are going to be pretty limited.

Creepy smile he's got there.

that's a web design start-up company aicmfp.

I hope so - I want to get my hands on that 24-Page Iron Lady Tribute supplement.

Who wouldn't? I'd probably pick up a few copies as the pages wouldn't stay not stuck together for long.

You joke, but she had a broader allure than most people give her credit for:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX2_Ammb6Zs

Also, saying we should just kill everyone who has joined IS is totally fucking ridiculous.
Yep. Massive backtrack on that one. I feel like a cunt for even thinking it. Bit embarrassing.

I don't think you should be embarassed for thinking anything. You can think anything you want, you are only defined by what you do. Faced with a war, or with a similarly impossible situation, you have to consider every possible course of action.

There will be people, like the idiotic woman in the beauty salon, who have knee jerk racist, inflammatory, violent and stupid reactions to the attacks. This is natural. We should try not to judge people for these reactions, just as we should try not to judge young, angry people who have considered joining ISIS.

Anyone who fancies going and joining ISIS is very welcome to go, in my opinion, it might even save us money in the long run to charter a plane and fly them into Syria/Iraq and let them get on with it.
However, they would have to agree to be fingerprinted and DNA sampled and give their passports in as they left, and understand that they have given up, for ever, their right to return.

Further to my earlier point ...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks

An article written from a very interesting perspective.

http://stateofmind13.com/2015/11/14/from-beirut-this-is-paris-in-a-world-that-doesnt-care-about-arab-lives/

A very good read:

http://atimes.com/2015/11/paris-terror-attacks-who-profits-escobar/

people on my FB newsfeed complaining that people are complaining about the tricolour flag filter thing - when pointed out that the issue people have is the mediation and corporatisation of attacks and cynical subversion of how we should feel, the reponse seems to be 'yeah well I've been to Paris, I ain't never been to the facking Lebanon'