We cannot destroy Isis. We will have to learn to live with it.

[cryptocoiner]

David Cameron was right to point out, during a speech in Slovakia on Friday, the responsibility that families and communities have to detect and counter the radicalisation of young people by the so-called Islamic State (Isis).

But this is the same responsibility that they have to deter their younger members from joining anti-social gangs or falling into the clutches of cults that offer similar attractions of identity and belonging. The Government also has to do what it can to make it less likely that this will happen. The Prime Minister described Isis as “one of the biggest threats the world has ever faced”, which, although an exaggeration, reinforces the need for all sectors of society to counter its influence.

One problem with the Government’s response to date has been its over-emphasis on the security aspects of its policy, such as legislation to prevent the departure of potential Isis recruits, or the denial of their right to return. The basis for this legislation is an assumption that anyone who goes to join an extremist group active against Bashar al-Assad or the Iraqi government is by definition a domestic terrorist in waiting. This is obviously not the case. There is so far no public evidence that Isis has dispatched someone to commit a terrorist attack in a Western country, although it has encouraged supporters who cannot travel to Syria to do what they can at home. This may change in time, but for now the focus of direct Isis activity remains a regional one.

There is little to suggest that Talha Asmal, for example, would have returned to Dewsbury or elsewhere in the UK to kill his fellow citizens, had he not blown himself up in Iraq as part of the Isis campaign to retake Baiji. The same lack of intent is likely with the Dawood sisters from Bradford. Their decision to take their nine children off to Syria to join their brother is a tragedy for their families – and especially for their children – but it is unlikely that they did so with a plan to train as terrorists. They seem to have wanted to emigrate.

As far as the UK is concerned, addressing the motivational factors that cause these apparently normal and well-adjusted men and women to take a one-way ticket to the “caliphate” is more a social policy challenge than a security policy one.


more - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-cannot-destroy-isis-we-will-have-to-learn-to-live-with-it-10334244.html

[bryant.coleman]

Who said that we cannot destroy the ISIS? It is definitely possible to destroy the ISIS, but it takes some dedication. The Americans are not ready to commit their ground troops in Iraq, and that was the easiest way to destroy the pyschos. Well... there is a second option. The ISIS could be destroyed, if we could arm the Peshmerga properly, and supply them with the necessary support. But right now, Turkey is against that idea. A third option is to use the Iranian army against the ISIS, but obviously the NATO is against any such idea.

[RappelzReborn]

Who said that we cannot destroy the ISIS? It is definitely possible to destroy the ISIS, but it takes some dedication. The Americans are not ready to commit their ground troops in Iraq, and that was the easiest way to destroy the pyschos. Well... there is a second option. The ISIS could be destroyed, if we could arm the Peshmerga properly, and supply them with the necessary support. But right now, Turkey is against that idea. A third option is to use the Iranian army against the ISIS, but obviously the NATO is against any such idea.

Al Qaeda exists since since 1988 and I don't see no one destroyed it yet , do you ? , also just like USA is giving weapons to the Iraqian army , it does the same thing for ISIS and I saw a video where the USA planes leave weapons on the lands of ISIS then "woops our mistake" .
It's simple Lybia because there is Oil , Iraq because there is Oil , now Algeria & Arabia Saoudia are targeted because there is oil and gaz too.

[mayflor2]

David Cameron was right to point out, during a speech in Slovakia on Friday, the responsibility that families and communities have to detect and counter the radicalisation of young people by the so-called Islamic State (Isis).

But this is the same responsibility that they have to deter their younger members from joining anti-social gangs or falling into the clutches of cults that offer similar attractions of identity and belonging. The Government also has to do what it can to make it less likely that this will happen. The Prime Minister described Isis as “one of the biggest threats the world has ever faced”, which, although an exaggeration, reinforces the need for all sectors of society to counter its influence.

One problem with the Government’s response to date has been its over-emphasis on the security aspects of its policy, such as legislation to prevent the departure of potential Isis recruits, or the denial of their right to return. The basis for this legislation is an assumption that anyone who goes to join an extremist group active against Bashar al-Assad or the Iraqi government is by definition a domestic terrorist in waiting. This is obviously not the case. There is so far no public evidence that Isis has dispatched someone to commit a terrorist attack in a Western country, although it has encouraged supporters who cannot travel to Syria to do what they can at home. This may change in time, but for now the focus of direct Isis activity remains a regional one.

There is little to suggest that Talha Asmal, for example, would have returned to Dewsbury or elsewhere in the UK to kill his fellow citizens, had he not blown himself up in Iraq as part of the Isis campaign to retake Baiji. The same lack of intent is likely with the Dawood sisters from Bradford. Their decision to take their nine children off to Syria to join their brother is a tragedy for their families – and especially for their children – but it is unlikely that they did so with a plan to train as terrorists. They seem to have wanted to emigrate.

As far as the UK is concerned, addressing the motivational factors that cause these apparently normal and well-adjusted men and women to take a one-way ticket to the “caliphate” is more a social policy challenge than a security policy one.


more - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-cannot-destroy-isis-we-will-have-to-learn-to-live-with-it-10334244.html

Impossible to destroy ISIS?? Really?? No way.. it may well be difficult.. and lives may be lost.. but.. there's no way that we should live it... it only needs dedication.. and perseverance... and the acceptance of the consequences... they r evil.. and if we r nt doing anything to stop them.. then.. we r indirectly supporting them...

[bryant.coleman]

Al Qaeda exists since since 1988 and I don't see no one destroyed it yet , do you ? , also just like USA is giving weapons to the Iraqian army , it does the same thing for ISIS and I saw a video where the USA planes leave weapons on the lands of ISIS then "woops our mistake" .
It's simple Lybia because there is Oil , Iraq because there is Oil , now Algeria & Arabia Saoudia are targeted because there is oil and gaz too.

Al Qaeda has been more or less destroyed as of now, and the remnants in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan are trying to merge with the ISIS. The NATO military operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan dealt a heavy blow to the ISIS, eventually making it dormant. The same can happen with the ISIS. One large ground offensive, and the ISIS will be in shambles.

[Miracal]

ISIS can be destroyed the same way we killed terrorists before. Commitment dedication and a fucking good plan. ISIS is a bunch of faggot cunts chasing power and money. They seek control over everything killing people who aren't muslims and keeping the females alive for the sex slaving. They plan to conquer the god damn world? Have the fucking balls for that.

[Lethn]

That sounds like a bet to me.

[Snail2]

It's still possible to destroy ISIS. But as I see no one have the commitment, ruthlessness and the stomach to make the necessary actions.

[countryfree]

If the US decided to send ground troops, ISIS wouldn't last long. Its only victories so far have been against Irak and Syria whose soldiers are far from the best of the world. We're still waiting for ISIS to fight with a modern professional army, I don't think they would last long, but that takes commitment, and we may have to wait quite a while to see that. One thing which could lead to a change would be for ISIS to get closer to South West Syria, because Israel may get nervous about it, and they would be merciless as always.

[Okurkabinladin]

Cryptocoiner,

Cameron is just another SOB in power. Responsibility of family? Last time I checked, UK and Scandinavia were abducting children, who fell victim to parents spanking (I am not even kidding), which is the kind of disciplining, that keeps young, impressionable teens from company of gangsters.

Living with ISIS is like living with Third Reich, sure you can do it as white man, no problem. The thing is - you dont have to. Grow a fucking pair, get there and beat quran over the head of sunni Arabs till they all cool down. West wasnt concerned about all those dead Kurds and Arabs, when it went after Saddam cause non-existent WMDs. Why now? Because West needs ISIS, thats all there is to it.

Third Reich was from economic, human material and military standpoint far more dangerous enemy, yet West (and East) defeated it. Because they actually wanted to defeat it, not use it as boogeyman.

[Okurkabinladin]

If the US decided to send ground troops, ISIS wouldn't last long. Its only victories so far have been against Irak and Syria whose soldiers are far from the best of the world. We're still waiting for ISIS to fight with a modern professional army, I don't think they would last long, but that takes commitment, and we may have to wait quite a while to see that. One thing which could lead to a change would be for ISIS to get closer to South West Syria, because Israel may get nervous about it, and they would be merciless as always.

ISIS is not about standing army, its about uprooting the ideology that keeps sunni triangle in Iraq/Syria rising up again and again against any form of civilization or even toleration of other ethnic/religious groups. Kill off ISIS and another loonies will replace them in five years.

Kill all militant wahabbis (reactionary islamists) and distribute anticonception (so the demographic profile of the area starts to resemble developed world - like Turkey or Israel) and you have good start.

[pureelite]

Who said that we cannot destroy the ISIS? It is definitely possible to destroy the ISIS, but it takes some dedication. The Americans are not ready to commit their ground troops in Iraq, and that was the easiest way to destroy the pyschos. Well... there is a second option. The ISIS could be destroyed, if we could arm the Peshmerga properly, and supply them with the necessary support. But right now, Turkey is against that idea. A third option is to use the Iranian army against the ISIS, but obviously the NATO is against any such idea.

I think  that we can destroy ISIS only if countries' army forses begin fight against them. I think, primarily on forses of USA and Russia. And other countries are very important in this kind of war. We can't rely on NATO, since there is many opposite opinion between them, there are some countries that are against and some for it, and, of course, it could produce massive ratio. Could produce one more unwanted war.

[bryant.coleman]

Kill all militant wahabbis (reactionary islamists) and distribute anticonception (so the demographic profile of the area starts to resemble developed world - like Turkey or Israel) and you have good start.

Wahhabism is the official ideology of all the GCC states, including powerful countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, as well as Bahrain. These countries are supported by the United States, and therefore no one can touch them. I agree that they are creating a lot of trouble around the world, by exporting the Wahhabi ideology.