Probably not. They welcome death and I would imagine celebrated the execution of their sister martyr.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

I see my error, it wasn't meant as a joke.

The ups and downs of Palace have left me older than my years

Indeed, but there is a difference between engaging enemy on a military basis. By all means target their leaders, their troops, their financiers and take them out if necessary (or detain). But simply responding to the shouts of an angry crowd by hanging some people because some other, vaguely related people, killed one of your people, that you sent to kill their people, because the US wanted you too isn't really productive policy.

I quite agree, that realistically, you need to destroy such an enemy, utterly. I think your right, hitting strong holds, no stone unturned, makes sense. Its a war they wanted. But that doesn't really translate into 'lets just hang some people to keep the public happy'.

Indeed, I'd suggest that the whole 'no stone unturned' should just happen. No one claiming responsibility, no political posturing, that stronghold just be left as a fortress of corpses. Their leaders and agents, should just be found dead and so on. No claims of responsibility, just denials and silence.

But we shouldn't forget that we have a responsibility in all of this, as the UK, IS exists because of our decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Plus the language used by the Jordanian state talks of vengeance, martyrdom, blood for blood, swift reprisals and god. Sounds a bit like the enemy already.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Other thing to say is that ISIS are an incredibly disparate organisation, so bombing them out of existence just isn't an option. They have managed to mobilise supporters in parts of the Western world, as well as in Northern and Western Iraq and Eastern Syria. Despite calling themselves a 'state' they are nothing of the kind; they are an ideological collective desiring global adherence to their interpretation of Islam. To be an ideological rather than a national group means that they will always be transnational, gaining support wherever other radical elements of Islam reside.

If you view them in purely religious terms though, it's easy to justify belligerent measures, because you can 'other' them as some sort of brainwashed sub-human nutters. Actually, like any group, they are influenced by the wider political and economic landscape they find themselves in, one where we, as Jamie said, have bombed them to sh*t, then armed them to fight Assad, then bombed them some more. The areas they are thriving in are in such extreme poverty and destitution that a group of intellectual radicals can seem very appealing, especially if their rhetoric is absolutely anti-Western.

What we really should be doing is building bridges in the surrounding areas to prevent the spread, arming local groups combatting IS (like the Rojava area of Syria I linked in the other thread) and combatting the anti-Islamic rhetoric in the West which is turning many disillusioned young Muslim blokes to sympathise with them. But of course we're not doing that, we're instead looking short term and assume bombing the sh*t out of an area we've bombed the sh*t out of several times in the last few decades will solve the problem.

[Link]

Edited by serial thriller (04 Feb 2015 1.44pm)

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

I said to the Mrs when the pilot was captured that would have just shot myself. The reality is once captured you are going to die a horrible death

it's also why allies don't want to send in ground troops - bad PR

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (04 Feb 2015 2.21pm)

Do fighter pilots carry a gun?

Optimistic as ever