Explosion in Paris

[Frankie S]

The West didn't create ISIS. Sometimes we give our leaders, and particularly the Americans, far too much credit. Conspiracy theorists invariably overestimate the power of the West and ascribe to it an omniscience and omnipotence that simply doesn't exist. Leadership in the liberal democracies is looking increasingly impotent and incompetent.

ISIS is not a political faction that seeks to redress the injustices of recent Western interventions. If ISIS has a historical perspective, then it is a long one, and stretches back to a time before the Crusades, but its lack of reverence for history and humanity is shown by its destruction of Islamic cultural sites at Palmyra and elsewhere. Its worldview is religious, totalitarian and apocalyptic.

Obama was being disingenuous, or just espousing wishful thing, when he said that ISIS/ISIL is 'not Islamic': it is. Very (as the excellent Atlantic article by Graeme Wood on the dedicated ISIS thread reveals). Of course it doesn't represent all of Islam, far from it, but it represents a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that is gaining, not losing, currency.

History is cyclical and the West is on a downturn. The hegemony of the West, and with it so-called 'Western values', is declining. The caliphate, proclaimed by ISIS, is predicated upon a strict interpretation of Islamic Law, with crucifixions, amputations, the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals all finding justification from literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith by fundamentalist Islamic scholars. Modernisers, who regard the sacred texts as outdated, are regarded as apostates by the fundamentalists and these moderate Muslims are as anathema to the ISIS fanatics as the infidel West, probably more so. Indeed, the subjugation and elimination of the apostates within Islam and the extension of the Caliphate has been the primary focus of ISIS, until now.

ISIS and its affiliates/associates (and it is gaining allegiance from disparate groups of Islamic terrorists, including but not limited to, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabaab in Somalia and East Africa, al-Nusra in Syria and the Lebanon, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the al-Queda groups in the Maghreb and Yemen) are characterised by their fidelity to the words of the prophet Muhammad and the sacred texts of Islam, and not by their alleged 'un-Islamic' nature. ISIS is probably the purest incarnation of monotheistic Wahhabism that we've seen, and the destruction of historical and cultural Islamic artefacts is an expression of its veneration for the works of God and its contempt for idolatry and the works of man.

It is clear that Cameron, Obama, Hollande et al. barely even understand the nature of the threat, let alone are capable of formulating a coherent plan to tackle it. The appetite in the West for intervention is minimal, amongst the political class as well as the general populace. Botched interventions in the past have contributed to the world-weary isolationism, and retreat into solipsistic self-flagellation, that is becoming endemic amongst the liberal democracies. There is little doubt that western intervention has the capacity to make things worse, but appeasement and isolationism won't make the threat, without doubt the most significant that Europe and the West have faced since WWII, go away. It is an asymmetric, unparalleled, expanding threat. We're damned if we do, and we're very likely damned if we don't.

[pandarilla]

The West didn't create ISIS. Sometimes we give our leaders, and particularly the Americans, far too much credit. Conspiracy theorists invariably overestimate the power of the West and ascribe to it an omniscience and omnipotence that simply doesn't exist. Leadership in the liberal democracies is looking increasingly impotent and incompetent.

ISIS is not a political faction that seeks to redress the injustices of recent Western interventions. If ISIS has a historical perspective, then it is a long one, and stretches back to a time before the Crusades, but its lack of reverence for history and humanity is shown by its destruction of Islamic cultural sites at Palmyra and elsewhere. Its worldview is religious, totalitarian and apocalyptic.

Obama was being disingenuous, or just espousing wishful thing, when he said that ISIS/ISIL is 'not Islamic': it is. Very (as the excellent Atlantic article by Graeme Wood on the dedicated ISIS thread reveals). Of course it doesn't represent all of Islam, far from it, but it represents a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that is gaining, not losing, currency.

History is cyclical and the West is on a downturn. The hegemony of the West, and with it so-called 'Western values', is declining. The caliphate, proclaimed by ISIS, is predicated upon a strict interpretation of Islamic Law, with crucifixions, amputations, the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals all finding justification from literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith by fundamentalist Islamic scholars. Modernisers, who regard the sacred texts as outdated, are regarded as apostates by the fundamentalists and these moderate Muslims are as anathema to the ISIS fanatics as the infidel West, probably more so. Indeed, the subjugation and elimination of the apostates within Islam and the extension of the Caliphate has been the primary focus of ISIS, until now.

ISIS and its affiliates/associates (and it is gaining allegiance from disparate groups of Islamic terrorists, including but not limited to, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabaab in Somalia and East Africa, al-Nusra in Syria and the Lebanon, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. and the al-Queda groups in the Maghreb and Yemen) are characterised by their fidelity to the words of the prophet Muhammad and the sacred texts of Islam, and not by their alleged 'un-Islamic' nature. ISIS is probably the purest incarnation of monotheistic Wahhabism that we've seen, and the destruction of historical and cultural Islamic artefacts is an expression of its veneration for the works of God and its contempt for idolatry and the works of man.

It is clear that Cameron, Obama, Hollande et al. barely even understand the nature of the threat, let alone are capable of formulating a coherent plan to tackle it. The appetite in the West for intervention is minimal, amongst the political class as well as the general populace. Botched interventions in the past have contributed to the world-weary isolationism, and retreat into solipsistic self-flagellation, that is becoming endemic amongst the liberal democracies. There is little doubt that western intervention has the capacity to make things worse, but appeasement and isolationism won't make the threat, without doubt the most significant that Europe and the West have faced since WWII, go away. It is an asymmetric, unparalleled, expanding threat. We're damned if we do, and we're very likely damned if we don't.

In the shoes of Obama, what would you do?

[Sergeant Wilson]

The West didn't create ISIS. Sometimes we give our leaders, and particularly the Americans, far too much credit. Conspiracy theorists invariably overestimate the power of the West and ascribe to it an omniscience and omnipotence that simply doesn't exist. Leadership in the liberal democracies is looking increasingly impotent and incompetent.

ISIS is not a political faction that seeks to redress the injustices of recent Western interventions. If ISIS has a historical perspective, then it is a long one, and stretches back to a time before the Crusades, but its lack of reverence for history and humanity is shown by its destruction of Islamic cultural sites at Palmyra and elsewhere. Its worldview is religious, totalitarian and apocalyptic.

Obama was being disingenuous, or just espousing wishful thing, when he said that ISIS/ISIL is 'not Islamic': it is. Very (as the excellent Atlantic article by Graeme Wood on the dedicated ISIS thread reveals). Of course it doesn't represent all of Islam, far from it, but it represents a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that is gaining, not losing, currency.

History is cyclical and the West is on a downturn. The hegemony of the West, and with it so-called 'Western values', is declining. The caliphate, proclaimed by ISIS, is predicated upon a strict interpretation of Islamic Law, with crucifixions, amputations, the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals all finding justification from literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith by fundamentalist Islamic scholars. Modernisers, who regard the sacred texts as outdated, are regarded as apostates by the fundamentalists and these moderate Muslims are as anathema to the ISIS fanatics as the infidel West, probably more so. Indeed, the subjugation and elimination of the apostates within Islam and the extension of the Caliphate has been the primary focus of ISIS, until now.

ISIS and its affiliates/associates (and it is gaining allegiance from disparate groups of Islamic terrorists, including but not limited to, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabaab in Somalia and East Africa, al-Nusra in Syria and the Lebanon, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. and the al-Queda groups in the Maghreb and Yemen) are characterised by their fidelity to the words of the prophet Muhammad and the sacred texts of Islam, and not by their alleged 'un-Islamic' nature. ISIS is probably the purest incarnation of monotheistic Wahhabism that we've seen, and the destruction of historical and cultural Islamic artefacts is an expression of its veneration for the works of God and its contempt for idolatry and the works of man.

It is clear that Cameron, Obama, Hollande et al. barely even understand the nature of the threat, let alone are capable of formulating a coherent plan to tackle it. The appetite in the West for intervention is minimal, amongst the political class as well as the general populace. Botched interventions in the past have contributed to the world-weary isolationism, and retreat into solipsistic self-flagellation, that is becoming endemic amongst the liberal democracies. There is little doubt that western intervention has the capacity to make things worse, but appeasement and isolationism won't make the threat, without doubt the most significant that Europe and the West have faced since WWII, go away. It is an asymmetric, unparalleled, expanding threat. We're damned if we do, and we're very likely damned if we don't.

Took the words right out my mouth!

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

In the shoes of Obama, what would you do?

Michelle.

[BFTD]

Don't forget the Danish PM.

Woof.

[Sergeant Wilson]

In the shoes of Obama, what would you do?

Ask him.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Don't forget the Danish PM.

Woof.

[Glenconner]

In the shoes of Obama, what would you do?

Give every help i could to Putin.

[Shotgun]

Cast your mind back; there were quite a lot of less-vocal people who were quite happy that the government had said it, so it must be true.

There was a lot of opposition, but I'm pretty sure that, had there been a referendum on the matter, there would still have been a slim majority in favour of invading Iraq again.

Certainly on this side of the Atlantic, there were plenty of half-wits desperate to believe it. Even as the Bush Administration's claims got ever more ridiculous. "We couldn't find them because he hid them before we got there," morphed into "Well, we found stuff that suggest he could have made WMDs" and finally, "He was a very bad man." Years on, there are still people claiming we found them but the liberal media are refusing to report it.

Add those to the cretins who think we invaded Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11 and the war, which Bush had planned even before he was elected, was a shoe-in.

[Illuminati]

Give every help i could to Putin.

Putin only cares about ISIS as they are a threat to his buddy assad.

[NotThePars]

The West didn't create ISIS. Sometimes we give our leaders, and particularly the Americans, far too much credit. Conspiracy theorists invariably overestimate the power of the West and ascribe to it an omniscience and omnipotence that simply doesn't exist. Leadership in the liberal democracies is looking increasingly impotent and incompetent.

ISIS is not a political faction that seeks to redress the injustices of recent Western interventions. If ISIS has a historical perspective, then it is a long one, and stretches back to a time before the Crusades, but its lack of reverence for history and humanity is shown by its destruction of Islamic cultural sites at Palmyra and elsewhere. Its worldview is religious, totalitarian and apocalyptic.

Obama was being disingenuous, or just espousing wishful thing, when he said that ISIS/ISIL is 'not Islamic': it is. Very (as the excellent Atlantic article by Graeme Wood on the dedicated ISIS thread reveals). Of course it doesn't represent all of Islam, far from it, but it represents a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that is gaining, not losing, currency.

History is cyclical and the West is on a downturn. The hegemony of the West, and with it so-called 'Western values', is declining. The caliphate, proclaimed by ISIS, is predicated upon a strict interpretation of Islamic Law, with crucifixions, amputations, the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals all finding justification from literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith by fundamentalist Islamic scholars. Modernisers, who regard the sacred texts as outdated, are regarded as apostates by the fundamentalists and these moderate Muslims are as anathema to the ISIS fanatics as the infidel West, probably more so. Indeed, the subjugation and elimination of the apostates within Islam and the extension of the Caliphate has been the primary focus of ISIS, until now.

ISIS and its affiliates/associates (and it is gaining allegiance from disparate groups of Islamic terrorists, including but not limited to, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabaab in Somalia and East Africa, al-Nusra in Syria and the Lebanon, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the al-Queda groups in the Maghreb and Yemen) are characterised by their fidelity to the words of the prophet Muhammad and the sacred texts of Islam, and not by their alleged 'un-Islamic' nature. ISIS is probably the purest incarnation of monotheistic Wahhabism that we've seen, and the destruction of historical and cultural Islamic artefacts is an expression of its veneration for the works of God and its contempt for idolatry and the works of man.

It is clear that Cameron, Obama, Hollande et al. barely even understand the nature of the threat, let alone are capable of formulating a coherent plan to tackle it. The appetite in the West for intervention is minimal, amongst the political class as well as the general populace. Botched interventions in the past have contributed to the world-weary isolationism, and retreat into solipsistic self-flagellation, that is becoming endemic amongst the liberal democracies. There is little doubt that western intervention has the capacity to make things worse, but appeasement and isolationism won't make the threat, without doubt the most significant that Europe and the West have faced since WWII, go away. It is an asymmetric, unparalleled, expanding threat. We're damned if we do, and we're very likely damned if we don't.

For anyone that can't be bothered reading the Atlantic link, this is a decent summation of it.

[P45]

A lot of stuff lifted straight from Facebook on here.

[I'm Brian]

A lot of stuff lifted straight from Facebook on here.

Share if you think this is a disgrace

[RadgerTheBadger]

Anyone see the bangs at the memories on the news just there?

I laughed my c**t off at the boy going on his arse on the candles trying to run away

[RadgerTheBadger]

Share if you think this is a disgrace

If you don't comment Amen this old lady will die

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Share if you think this is a disgrace

You'll be amazed at what gets lifted next! What happens next is amazing

[peasy23]

Do the canteen staff have to take all 28 days in the one go during Ramadan ?

No, they all have to go nightshift. Canteen is mobbed while it's dark outside.

[Glenconner]

Putin only cares about ISIS as they are a threat to his buddy assad.

Keep Assad and hunt Isis.

[Urban Gorilla]

Keep Assad and hunt Isis.

The west should back Assad in the fight against IS. I know he's an absolute b*****d but the lesser of 2 evils. Countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya can't be run democratically. They need ruled with a firm hand sadly. Leaving Saddam, Gadaffi and Assad in charge would've been a far better option than what we have now. We wouldn't have millions of migrants trying to get into Europe either.

[Zetterlund]

If there is to be a military solution in Syria then it has to be in coordination with the government, as well as Russia and Iran etc. Government and military officials in both Iraq and Syria have been saying for the past year that the US coalition against ISIS isn't serious, and however much you want to believe the Russians have been hitting ISIS or not, what they have done in just a few weeks is shore up the Syrian army which can only be a good thing for the stability of the country in the near term.

If the US were to swallow its pride and accept the offer to share intelligence and work with Russia for what is allegedly a common goal, then maybe we'd see some real progress. If this involved troops on the ground, legitimately at Assad's request, then so be it.

I'd prefer to see it resolved without a military escalation though. I refuse to believe that the combined intelligence services don't know which states are supporting IS in the provision of weapons and finance, including the purchase of all the oil we're told is a major source of income. Crippling financial sanctions and political isolation levelled against these nations, as well as appropriate criminal proceedings against individuals would be the correct thing to do, but it seems the bigger picture of geopolitical alliances takes precedence over any desire to eradicate terrorism.