IS , bored .!!!

[A19_Graham]

Originally Posted by suzublu

Doesn't he do car insurance

"Oooooohhhhhhh Yeeeehhhhheeeeeessssss"

Simples

[wraymond]

Some attitudes to leaders of any period other than the present are not necessarily representative of a considered process. Attempts to bolster self-satisfied fashionable mores only impress those from whom they are drawn.

I suspect if Churchill were in government today his influence would be similar to and as effective as it was in his prime. He had the judgement to change his viewpoint in the light of changing times and evidence (crossing the floor from the Liberals for instance) and wasn't easily or fashionably led.

This country would possibly be enjoying a very different relationship with our European partners today with a historian of that calibre and a man of that strength of spirit. There's not a member in the house today that could hold a candle to him. How many of our current politicians deserve the international respect he did?

Democracy takes many forms. It is two wolves and a lamb, voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the result. That's Churchill.

[rosephus]

Originally Posted by Dorset Bob

If Churchill was still about I reckon he could sort IS out.

Being born in Victorian times, he would have a up to date view on civilisation over this medieval lot.....

Rousing speeches and chugging cigars wont get you very far with radical islamic fundamentalists.

Especially when Victorian Imperialists like Churchill helped create the radicalism we see today. Eg his rampant support for Zionism and attitude towards Indian self determination. Let alone the catastrophe that is modern day Sudan, where Churchill saw action himself.

In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Churchill certainly believed in racial hierarchies and eugenics, says John Charmley, author of Churchill: The End of Glory. In Churchill's view, white protestant Christians were at the top, above white Catholics, while Indians were higher than Africans, he adds. "Churchill saw himself and Britain as being the winners in a social Darwinian hierarchy."

"The mitigation would be that he wasn't particularly unique in having these views," says Richard Toye, author of Churchill's Empire, "even though there were many others who didn't hold them."

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by joethefro

No im not im attacking him based on what we know about his actions and words when he was alive.

Nothing wrong with that. As a pacifist I am not in the tradition of praising war mongers.

The cult of Churchill I find embarrassing. Its like he single handedly won the 2nd World War, something he himself would find abhorrent but is actually aligned with the low brow tub thumping imperialist chest beating attitude that used to be so prevalent in this country and that some people can't accept is outdated and old fashioned.

A fascinating and diverse discussion

You can of course say what you like about Winston Churchill, although clearly you are in a minority with your opinion about the great man on this forum, something which I do not support at all.

Given that you claim his views are old fashioned and out of date, let's put them to one side and come up to date to current events. This is an opportunity Jo for you to tell me how the Green Party is going to deal with the I .S threat? No copy and paste please, your own ideas is what matters.

I am still to decide, who is going to get my vote

[rosephus]

Originally Posted by Gate Keeper

A fascinating and diverse discussion

You can of course say what you like about Winston Churchill, although clearly you are in a minority with your opinion about the great man on this forum, something which I do not support at all.

Given that you claim his views are old fashioned and out of date, let's put them to one side and come up to date to current events. This is an opportunity Jo for you to tell me how the Green Party is going to deal with the I .S threat? No copy and paste please, your own ideas is what matters.

I am still to decide, who is going to get my vote

What has the Green Party to do with it? What has the Green Party to do with me? Sounds like another narrow minded generalisation to me.

Read back through the thread and you will find a post where I outline how it might be possible to stop ISIS- containment and starve them of money. If you read up on the consequences of them declaring the 1st Caliphate in over 1000 years you will see that in order for them to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of muslims they must constantly expand their territory- this is a key point- stop them expanding territory and you massively effect their ability to recruit and make money.

If we go in and launch a ground attack it would play right into their hands. It would add huge weight to their legitimacy, bring in many more new recruits and lead to huge loss of life on all sides.

Thankfully no one who has the power to do so is seriously contemplating such a ridiculous move.

The current plan is the best one. Strategic air attacks to contain them and weaken the command structures. What should be added to this is a blanket ban in the media because at the moment all that does is instill fear in people in the west and helps ISIS.

This isn't the age of Churchill anymore. Its the internet age. ISIS are social media experts and they use it to their advantage to recruit and propagandise. Churchill would be clueless about how to deal with that problem.

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by joethefro

What has the Green Party to do with it? What has the Green Party to do with me? Sounds like another narrow minded generalisation to me.

Read back through the thread and you will find a post where I outline how it might be possible to stop ISIS- containment and starve them of money. If you read up on the consequences of them declaring the 1st Caliphate in over 1000 years you will see that in order for them to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of muslims they must constantly expand their territory- this is a key point- stop them expanding territory and you massively effect their ability to recruit and make money.

If we go in and launch a ground attack it would play right into their hands. It would add huge weight to their legitimacy, bring in many more new recruits and lead to huge loss of life on all sides.

Thankfully no one who has the power to do so is seriously contemplating such a ridiculous move.

The current plan is the best one. Strategic air attacks to contain them and weaken the command structures. What should be added to this is a blanket ban in the media because at the moment all that does is instill fear in people in the west and helps ISIS.

This isn't the age of Churchill anymore. Its the internet age. ISIS are social media experts and they use it to their advantage to recruit and propagandise. Churchill would be clueless about how to deal with that problem.

I am going to ignore your comments about being narrow minded and running Winston Churchill down. You have made up your mind about him and I am not going to take the bite.

You did tell me on 8 May last year to vote for the Green Party, hence my question about the party and its position on I.S but if you have nothing to do with them, please ignore the question.

Vote Green Party, if your value the future of this planet and everyone on it its the only logical choice to make.

A compelling case for doing so:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-elections-why
Last edited by joethefro; 8th May 2014 at 14:34..

I did read your comments earlier where you propose starving I.S of its funds. That point makes sense.

Air attacks also makes sense.

Ground attacks are already happening and this also makes sense, taking I.S controlled towns back for the Iraqis

On a par with this, Al-Shabaab has been driven out of Mogadishu by the African defence forces. That fight is ongoing.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by joethefro

What has the Green Party to do with it? What has the Green Party to do with me? Sounds like another narrow minded generalisation to me.

Read back through the thread and you will find a post where I outline how it might be possible to stop ISIS- containment and starve them of money. If you read up on the consequences of them declaring the 1st Caliphate in over 1000 years you will see that in order for them to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of muslims they must constantly expand their territory- this is a key point- stop them expanding territory and you massively effect their ability to recruit and make money.

If we go in and launch a ground attack it would play right into their hands. It would add huge weight to their legitimacy, bring in many more new recruits and lead to huge loss of life on all sides.

Thankfully no one who has the power to do so is seriously contemplating such a ridiculous move.

The current plan is the best one. Strategic air attacks to contain them and weaken the command structures. What should be added to this is a blanket ban in the media because at the moment all that does is instill fear in people in the west and helps ISIS.

This isn't the age of Churchill anymore. Its the internet age. ISIS are social media experts and they use it to their advantage to recruit and propagandise. Churchill would be clueless about how to deal with that problem.

At the start of this thread, you strongly dismissed the idea that the Muslim leaders should be seen to be distancing themselves from IS. You perhaps rightly pointed out how welcoming you had found them to be. But then in a later post you went to great lengths to show that the IS are Islamic and have simply reverted to a more traditional form of the religion.
If I am reading this correctly, is it not therefore fair an reasonable that we, in a predominantly Christian country should question there stance, and perhaps seek assurance that the religion of the IS is NOT the religion the British Muslim community.
I also note in an earlier post you claimed to be a pacifist! And yet here you are supporting air strikes?
I also read the post where you suggested starving the IS of funds, but then you went on to say it wasn't going to happen, thereby dismissing your own suggestion.
Do you wonder that I am now a little confused?

[rosephus]

At the start of this thread, you strongly dismissed the idea that the Muslim leaders should be seen to be distancing themselves from IS. You perhaps rightly pointed out how welcoming you had found them to be. But then in a later post you went to great lengths to show that the IS are Islamic and have simply reverted to a more traditional form of the religion.

these 2 points are in no way contradictory. what i have experienced in my 1st person dealing was a warm and welcoming religion. IS are Islamic but they are not the same as 99% of Muslims either worldwide or in the UK.

Just as Catholics shouldnt have to apologise for Christian Fundamentalists like The Westboro Baptist Chucrh neither should normal peace loving Muslims have to apologise for IS.


If I am reading this correctly, is it not therefore fair an reasonable that we, in a predominantly Christian country should question there stance, and perhaps seek assurance that the religion of the IS is NOT the religion the British Muslim community.


previous answer above answers this. I would also say that would you believe such an assurance even if it was given? The conduct of the vast majority of British Muslims speaks for itself. They really aren't interested in fighting a jihadist religious war. They just want to get on with their lives in peace. I would also say that I dont agree with the idea that we are a predominantly Christian country. Most people wouldn't identify with that idea of themselves and Church going attendance have been on the slide for decades.

I also note in an earlier post you claimed to be a pacifist! And yet here you are supporting air strikes?


you have mistaken what i have said. i am a pacificist and i dont believe in war and i dont support the killing in the name of war. but i understand that in this case air strikes are the best worst option given the circumstances. there is a fundamental difference between supporting something and saying something is the only worst option available.

I also read the post where you suggested starving the IS of funds, but then you went on to say it wasn't going to happen, thereby dismissing your own suggestion.


nothing contradictory here. just because i think starving IS of funds is a good option doesnt mean its going to happen. it is a good option but the reality is that its hard to facilitate given IS's wealthy backers and the West's complicit support for those backers in terms of buying oil and selling arms

Do you wonder that I am now a little confused?

yes i do but thats more a question of what you have taken from what i have said and how i have phrased it. apologies if that has left you confused

O