I'm not, however to dismiss the invasion of Iraq entirely from the formation of IS and its growth from Al-Qaeda in Iraq is entirely absurd. It grew in power as a result of the 2003 war and the resulting Sunni insurgency, which had shared goals with the idea of forming a Sunni state, crossing the Iraq Syrian border.

The Syrian civil war, saw insurgency factions in Iraq, switch into supporting regional groups in Syria and saw IS supplanting groups like Al-Qaeda as the principle 'brand'.

You simply can't separate the invasion of Iraq or the Syrian civil war from the rise of IS. Its partially the responsibility of the West, but its also the responsibility of those funding it and funnelling arms to them, the people in the group, politics in the region and the failure of Middle east states to 'rectify' their own dominating dynasties.

IS as we know it, require the Iraqi Sunni insurgency to become a major player as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Its gone from being a small, fairly localised, faction to being the worlds largest terrorist threat to the West, supplanting the previous Al-Qaeda and UK foreign policy has played a hand in creating that environment.

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

Probably right, something of an approach borrowed from the SOE play book might be more advantageous than trying to form another 'coalition of the willing' to knock over Syria and Libya (which has a large IS presence now).

Militarily its complicated by the fact that even destroying IS in Syria, wouldn't mean an end to the problem, because they're in Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya etc

But an 'SOE approach' aimed at its members, supporters and those who facilitate or do business with it, probably would be more effective than just bombing them from the air. I don't really care if they're motivated by money or ideology - or involved in killing people, or raising money.

Problem is, bombing people from the air, rarely does much more than create 'solidarity' among those being targeted.

Problem is, once you go down a military front, you have to win, and conclusively (and you'll probably need to make political changes too, because there are reasons why people are being radicalised, that are more complex than just 'hate preachers').

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

Yeah they're killing themselves too FFS so they should be decreasing in numbers.

However this is arguably the most dangerous group of extremists right now and we know where they are conducting most their operations including recruitment from.

Brussels was the result of the other cnut being taken out and forcing a hasty attack but sadly the arrest was only a reaction after his escape from Paris. The chain needs to be broken a lot earlier but no one has any ideas how.

Again not pro-active enough but if according the the BBC "online supporters of Islamic State group (IS) have praised the blasts and appear to believe that IS was responsible for them" you can't go down hard enough on these sort of people.

Edited by johnfirewall (22 Mar 2016 11.39am)

Not sure how we're responsible for them fighting themselves.

I also think sending troops into to Syria is a red herring anyway...these people are HERE under our noses...the 'battle' needs to fought on ALL fronts. The best thing would be to pull out of Syria and concentrate on our own / europes borders

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

The probably operate fairly independently from Syria as well. I don't think IS is operating internationally out of Syria, but likely its used as a 'hub' for communications to groups set up in Europe. Similar to Al-Qaeda - its more a part of the network, than the source of all things IS.

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