ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
Perhaps people judge you by the standards you set yourself Icebreaker!
I would also say its refreshing to see the standard of debate offered by Warbler and Grassy rather than this typical make it up as you go along nonsense that some continue to serve up.
One thing is clear though, irrespective of where ISIS really has its roots they are recruiting from around the world because there are so many young disenfranchised Muslims, and many, many more in the region who's families died when the west stepped in. Western intervention in the middle east has clearly served to speed this up.
I do agree though, despite mistakes in the past, it's time to hit ISIS hard. And the west should be passing anti terrorism measures that also allow them to round up and hold clerics who are suspected of peddling their wares in western mosques. You could also argue that this may inflame the situation close to home, but can we seriously allow this level of recruitment to go on under our noses.
Surprisingly the role of homeland security hasnt been raised on this thread yet. The other thing that Warbler raises is how the Internet plays a part in this. I'm sure we have anti terror measures in place to monitor activity and it may be argued that being able to monitor this is the most effective anti terror strategy. But surely the best one of all is to close them down completely?
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
I'm led to understand that the security spooks would rather the online outlets used by terrorists not be closed down. Online chatter can be a goldmine of information it seems.
Also I think, in a perverse way, the horrors that ISIS perpetrate and are proud to flaunt should be displayed if only to expose the nature of their evil.
Estimates are that around a quarter of ISIS foreign fighters are British. Are young muslims in Britain really disenfranchised? I understood "disenfranchised" to mean being deprived of one's citizenship rights -- like the right to vote, the right to work, the right to own property, etc etc. Are British muslims so oppressed as that?
Also I think, in a perverse way, the horrors that ISIS perpetrate and are proud to flaunt should be displayed if only to expose the nature of their evil.
I don't quite follow.
Estimates are that around a quarter of ISIS foreign fighters are British. Are young muslims in Britain really disenfranchised? I understood "disenfranchised" to mean being deprived of one's citizenship rights -- like the right to vote, the right to work, the right to own property, etc etc. Are British muslims so oppressed as that?
Of course they are not . That's guardian hang wringing clap trap.
The 9/11 bombers came from pretty wealthy backgrounds didnt they?
The British Muslims are far more enfranchised in the uk than in any of the shithole Muslim toilets.
The 9/11 bombers came from pretty wealthy backgrounds didnt they?
The British Muslims are far more enfranchised in the uk than in any of the shithole Muslim toilets.
Last edited:
You ever been to Luton Clive?
I think the 9/11 bombers actually had mixed backgrounds. Some of those that came from Egypt came out of relative poverty. Atta was midle class though. Can't think that many of them came from Iraq or Libya though - or for that matter Cuba, but George W Bush put them on his axis of evil, whilst those countries who supplied them and funded them were given 'most favoured nation status'
I think the 9/11 bombers actually had mixed backgrounds. Some of those that came from Egypt came out of relative poverty. Atta was midle class though. Can't think that many of them came from Iraq or Libya though - or for that matter Cuba, but George W Bush put them on his axis of evil, whilst those countries who supplied them and funded them were given 'most favoured nation status'
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
A large percentage of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi, I think.
They were
this is nonsense. Whatever you think of Bush's words (which are repeated over and over) those states were clearly different issues. Also there is no evidence that other states financed 9/11 just as there isnt any direct evidence surrounding ISIS. States clearly cannot be held responsible for funding from individuals and its absurd to suggest that Saudi arabia for one would fund Bin laden given that his agenda was the overthrow and presumably death of those that were supposedly funding them
Last edited:
Now in the past I've been quick to accuse Clive of blindly parrotting anything that America says. It is with a mixture of shock and disappointment therefore that I learn today that his assessment that ISIS is no big threat is at odds with that of Chuck Hagel, US Defence Secretary:
"They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything that we have seen."
His assertion that they are "tremendously well funded" was the one I would have liked to see him expand on. AQ wwren't short of a few quid, but 'tremendously' is a strong word to use and looks like code for 'rich arab emirate to me'.
It would appear at least that Clive stands alone on this, but I will conceed that blindly absorbing what America says is equally dangerous on my part. One does detect however that they could be softening public opinion for a presence on the ground. Largely because of their own appallingly bad decisions in backing the wrong side, they've singularly removed most of the organised opposition that could check radical Islam, so they're left with the old maxim of "if you want something doing"
General Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said IS was "an organisation that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated".
when asked about how he said
"To your question, can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organisation which resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a non-existent border."
Well this presents a problem, as the only credible body of organised fighting men capable of defeating ISIS on the Syrian side is........ the Syrain army under Assad - you muppets!
The west has a choice, it's either going to have to do this itself, or its got to look long and hard at some of the really, really, bad strategic judgements its made in the past and try and salvage something from what they've got left. I can't think of any engagement that can be won from the air without a ground presence, and so someone has to provide it. I think it also needs stressing that eliminating the enemy is a strategic objective here, not just recapturing ground. The Peshmurga might be able to perform a role in Kurdish iraq (well they've got to because no one else will)
As regards the UK, little boy blue looks more and more ridiculious by the day. We know the French were chastened by their failure to get onside with the US over the war on terror and it's no coincidence that they were first out of the blocks last year when the UK said they weren't getting involved.
Now they've been supplying the Kurds with weapons for the last 10 days whilst dithering Dave sits back trying to provide a statesmens commentary that only the Daily Mail is listening to. His response to date is to say that he'll listen to requests. Eejit
Well no one is going to make to any requests for inferior British equipment when they're already working with the Americans and the French. By the time Cameron has consulted health and safety legislation, set up a feasibility study, engaged a steering committee to make recommendations and then taken a vote on it, this will be over.
I did laught however when he said his position remains unchanged and that he was going to use British "military prowess". WTF is that supposed to mean. Cameron nearly cause dme to crash my car when that strategic response was announced. Perhaps he's going to bomb ISIS with history books!!!
Why are you a constant pedant. Debate with you is absolutely impossible and pointless. That's right Icebreaker I meant that young Muslims in Britain are deprived the vote, the right to work, and to own property.
Moron.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
How dare you.
Try and behave like an adult, would you, and refrain from childish name-calling. Act your age, and try to conduct yourself with a little maturity.
If you cannot express your views with clarity; and if you regularly make statements that are arrant falsehoods, then you should not be surprised when you are called. A reasonable response would be to debate and refute your challenger rather than descend to a self-embarrassing conduct more appropriate to a adolescent.
Grow up.
So at long last, it's taken the beheading of a US journalist at the hands of a British Jihadist (sod the 100,000's who've died in between during the last decade and a half) for a couple of Tories to raise the possibility that perhaps we've been backing the wrong side
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28892755
One of the few conservative success stories we have had has been Phillip Hammond (in fact he's the only one) but even he it seems doesn't have the reach that Samantha Cameron does in her positon as UN childrens ambassador with special assoication for Syria, or whatever title it was she was given
So we have a former foreign secretary and a former chiefs of staff now suggesting that perhaps some sort of accommodation with Assad might be the smart play (something that was apparent to me right at the start, as it was with both Saddam and Gadaffi too)
Dithering Dave continues to wobble though, but luckily he's so irrelevant it doesn't really matter. We all know that if the American's annoucned tomorrow that they were talking with Assad, that little boy blue would do the same within hours. In fairness, the Syrians could just as easily turn round and say, 'look we've got a war to fight and win here' we don't need you, we've got the French and the Americans onside, why don't you go back to trying to police your own borders and be a good little boy
I'm perplexed by Hammonds reported response:
Philip Hammond said to do so (work with Syria) would not be "practical, sensible or helpful".
Warbler said
"yes it is, yes it is, and yes it is". He also went onto remind Mr Hammond that during the cold war the US and its allies regularly worked with unpleasent regimes that they regarded as being ideaologically opposed to communism and reminded him of places like Chile, Argentina, and South Africa, all of whom routinely murdered their own populations but who received massive amounts of western patronage, even involving the over throw of democratically elected leaders in the case of the first named. I think Chile was the first country in South America to hold free democratic elections, but the CIA didn't like the result
I'm also perplexed by this statement
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, the foreign secretary said to co-operate with the Syrian regime would "poison" what the UK was trying to achieve.
I actually haven't got a clue just what it is the UK thinks its trying to achieve in Syria. Why doesn't the government come clean and put Samantha Cameron up to answer questions about her middle east policy?
This amused me too
Mr Hammond said "significant powers" were available to deal with people planning to travel to Syria or Iraq to fight including withdrawing passports, monitoring them while overseas and arresting them on their return.
Oh no, the UK is going to withdraw their passports. That'll grind the spread of global jihad to a halt. And if that doesn't work, we're going to hit them with a bit of thermo nuclear monitoring. Christ before we know where we are, some civil servant will be writing a report, and from this might flow a startegy. That'll have them quaking in their shoes, the British are going to set a partnership steering group to devise a strategy
The other thing that amused me was the passport. Due to cut backs by the government people can't get them anyway. So Cameron's response was to hand them out like confetti such was the back log. And how many terrorists does he really think travel on their own passport? I mean how backward is he? They stopped doing that decades ago. Perhaps he feels he's been duped when in the section marked 'occupation' no one fills in 'International Jihadist'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28892755
One of the few conservative success stories we have had has been Phillip Hammond (in fact he's the only one) but even he it seems doesn't have the reach that Samantha Cameron does in her positon as UN childrens ambassador with special assoication for Syria, or whatever title it was she was given
So we have a former foreign secretary and a former chiefs of staff now suggesting that perhaps some sort of accommodation with Assad might be the smart play (something that was apparent to me right at the start, as it was with both Saddam and Gadaffi too)
Dithering Dave continues to wobble though, but luckily he's so irrelevant it doesn't really matter. We all know that if the American's annoucned tomorrow that they were talking with Assad, that little boy blue would do the same within hours. In fairness, the Syrians could just as easily turn round and say, 'look we've got a war to fight and win here' we don't need you, we've got the French and the Americans onside, why don't you go back to trying to police your own borders and be a good little boy
I'm perplexed by Hammonds reported response:
Philip Hammond said to do so (work with Syria) would not be "practical, sensible or helpful".
Warbler said
"yes it is, yes it is, and yes it is". He also went onto remind Mr Hammond that during the cold war the US and its allies regularly worked with unpleasent regimes that they regarded as being ideaologically opposed to communism and reminded him of places like Chile, Argentina, and South Africa, all of whom routinely murdered their own populations but who received massive amounts of western patronage, even involving the over throw of democratically elected leaders in the case of the first named. I think Chile was the first country in South America to hold free democratic elections, but the CIA didn't like the result
I'm also perplexed by this statement
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, the foreign secretary said to co-operate with the Syrian regime would "poison" what the UK was trying to achieve.
I actually haven't got a clue just what it is the UK thinks its trying to achieve in Syria. Why doesn't the government come clean and put Samantha Cameron up to answer questions about her middle east policy?
This amused me too
Mr Hammond said "significant powers" were available to deal with people planning to travel to Syria or Iraq to fight including withdrawing passports, monitoring them while overseas and arresting them on their return.
Oh no, the UK is going to withdraw their passports. That'll grind the spread of global jihad to a halt. And if that doesn't work, we're going to hit them with a bit of thermo nuclear monitoring. Christ before we know where we are, some civil servant will be writing a report, and from this might flow a startegy. That'll have them quaking in their shoes, the British are going to set a partnership steering group to devise a strategy
The other thing that amused me was the passport. Due to cut backs by the government people can't get them anyway. So Cameron's response was to hand them out like confetti such was the back log. And how many terrorists does he really think travel on their own passport? I mean how backward is he? They stopped doing that decades ago. Perhaps he feels he's been duped when in the section marked 'occupation' no one fills in 'International Jihadist'
too simplistic
For a start it clearly hasnt taken the execution to make the weat aware of ISIS
Secondly it isnt just one side or another. ISIS are far from the only opposition to Assad (and im sure i picked up on a piece the other day that indicated that they are quickly losing ground to other rebels).
From my own point of view, I think its significant that i havent found myself listening to a single word Cameron has to say on this. Its all knee jerk sound bites. Blair, Thatcher, Brown... for all their faults you know there would be some substance to their words and belief. And you would listen.
Cameron's patronising manner doesnt help either. Hes a lightweight (and its not an anti Eton thing... Douglas Hurd was an etonian and someone you couldnt fail to respect)
The french didnt fck around in Mali and did a first class job (much to the annoyance of some i expect)
For a start it clearly hasnt taken the execution to make the weat aware of ISIS
Secondly it isnt just one side or another. ISIS are far from the only opposition to Assad (and im sure i picked up on a piece the other day that indicated that they are quickly losing ground to other rebels).
From my own point of view, I think its significant that i havent found myself listening to a single word Cameron has to say on this. Its all knee jerk sound bites. Blair, Thatcher, Brown... for all their faults you know there would be some substance to their words and belief. And you would listen.
Cameron's patronising manner doesnt help either. Hes a lightweight (and its not an anti Eton thing... Douglas Hurd was an etonian and someone you couldnt fail to respect)
The french didnt fck around in Mali and did a first class job (much to the annoyance of some i expect)
Last edited:
Maurco
I suggest you get a dictionary before dishing it out.
Disenfranchise
1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship
2. to deprive (a place) of the right to send representatives to an elected body
3. to deprive (a business concern, etc) of some privilege or right
4. to deprive (a person, place, etc) of any franchise or right
I suggest you get a dictionary before dishing it out.
Disenfranchise
1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship
2. to deprive (a place) of the right to send representatives to an elected body
3. to deprive (a business concern, etc) of some privilege or right
4. to deprive (a person, place, etc) of any franchise or right
Last edited:
I don't think you can have read the article Clive
What I'm saying is that it's taken the execution of a journalist to prompt Richard Dannatt and Malcolm Rifkind to call for exploratory discussions with Assad. If not, then why have they waited until 48 hours afterwards? Too much of a coincidence I'd suggest?
They could have called it for this time last year if they possessed the strategic judgement to correctly appraise the situation. They didn't though. Quite the opposite as it happens. The Cameron's (and I include the unelected wife in that description) egged on by gay Hague were trying to lead us into a stupid attempt to depose Assad. What's changed? all the evidence was there that this would be the result if they tried backing a 'moderate' group whom they couldn't really identify anyway, and who would almost inevitably lose the civil war that deposing Assad would cause
I actually think the middle east is quite a bit more simpler than people make it out to be, given that most regimes fall into one of three categories, and there's only two power blocs capable of filling vacuums. Once you bring it back to basics it's amazing how easy it is to pick the right side
The British position is of course embarrassing and stupid, and if anyone is making it up as they go along, its the UK government. 48 hours after a journo gets executed (and journos have been murdered in war zones before) we've got a former Head of the Army and former Foreign Secretary calling for a 180 degree realignment of our allies in the region. That's actually incredible. But what I find really incredible, is that for all their supposed expertise, this was foreseeable 12 months ago when the Camerons tried to take us into some kind of conflict on the back of really flakey evidence that Assad was using chemical weapons in Damascus. Why didn't Dannatt and Rifkind speak up then?
The really amusing thing is that for all the UK government's assertions that they won't deal with Assad, we all know they will the moment the Americans decide to.
The sleeper in all this remains Turkey. Their position is the stangest of the lot. I can't believe they want a refugee crisis on their borders, but as a NATO country they still have the leverage to bring the west in if they can persuaded to manufacture an incident. Something still looks sinister to me, and I go back to Chuck Hagel again
"They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything that we have seen."
One suspects that having spent 10 years without the authority and incomes that they were used, Saddamists have been radicalised and former Republican guard personnel are now in the Iraqi IS units. The regular army soon ran away. I suspect (though clear have no idea) that they might have been supplemented by the international Jihadists from places like Chechanya who are normally regarded as being amongst the most vicious and capable. This group has developed a level of expertise and funding however in a remarkably short period of time that points to significant outside assistance
You've really got to make out a list of people who have the capability to tackle them, and then decide how palatable they are to you, and what the implications would be. It is a bit like Hobsons choice but the UK response to date has been nothing short of embarrassing.
Eton's cadet corps should rip Cameron's braid off him!!! He's actually got a complete non-position which is embarrassing and humiliating. At least Blair and Brown took the fight to the enemy (even if they identified the wrong enemy!). Cameron's just becoming a reporter (and not even a very good one at that)
On Sunday he told us that there was a very real threat to us, and that he'd protect us by talking about his imaginary military prowess. Today he says he's going to confront it with the removal of passports. Oh he's completely clueless
Bachelors Hall
Conditional
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 763
A quick lesson in physics and geography...
Not yours warbler..
Turkey I can't weigh up. I expect we are seeing a creeping Islamist agenda there and that's why they are with Qatar the only Arab backers of hamas (acknowledging that iran is nt Arabic and seemingly distanced a bit too). If they are throwing some weight behind isis then its a pretty strange relationship with NATO as you say
Turkey I can't weigh up. I expect we are seeing a creeping Islamist agenda there and that's why they are with Qatar the only Arab backers of hamas (acknowledging that iran is nt Arabic and seemingly distanced a bit too). If they are throwing some weight behind isis then its a pretty strange relationship with NATO as you say
Something doesn't add up there Clive for sure, but if you made a list of players capable of stabilising the region, the Turks could. What price would they extract?
It's this NATO thing that I can't square off, and you do wonder if there isn't another completely different story behind this
It's this NATO thing that I can't square off, and you do wonder if there isn't another completely different story behind this
Last edited:
The other thing of course is that Turkey has economic aspirations too, and there's no way that their current government (personnel or structures) would survive populist islam. They've got too much to lose, and there's a whole swathe of the country that doesn't really have much of an appetite for it
It looks suspiciously like a black op (with NATO's hidden hand) that's gone wrong, and then when the fighters that were in retreat in Syria, spilled into Iraq, Abu al Baghdadi was able to fuse elements together, quite probably involving disenfranschised Saddam era militarists who were prepared to embrace islam. It could be a faustian pact in that regard, in so much as the promise of a return to former positions and wealth was the motivation that Iraq's most feared and field capable military personnel reacted positively to. Equally, as they've been humiliated in the post Saddam era their own views might have become more hardened and receptive to extremist ideologies
Viola
If you run a time line of failed western diplomatic efforts against the emergence and uber emergence of ISIL through it's various incarnations, then there is a crude correlation.
I could be wrong, but my impression is that there was something more akin to a nationalist movement based on Aleppo which sparked all this off in the first place. They've been in retreat to the north, but as the various opposition cross pollinated ISIS gained in strength, particularly in the east. As Assad advanced, more people turned to them for protection, but eventually they seized their own chance to invade western Iraq around February (something that went largely unreported) but coincided with the failure of the peace summit around the new year.
It could be this that proved to be the final regeneration of the movement which by now had taken on a completely different character to that which was being supported. It was only this summer though as they launched their offensive that the true nature of what had been created emerged.
It might explain Hillary Clinton's comments, but yes, it is wild speculation
It looks suspiciously like a black op (with NATO's hidden hand) that's gone wrong, and then when the fighters that were in retreat in Syria, spilled into Iraq, Abu al Baghdadi was able to fuse elements together, quite probably involving disenfranschised Saddam era militarists who were prepared to embrace islam. It could be a faustian pact in that regard, in so much as the promise of a return to former positions and wealth was the motivation that Iraq's most feared and field capable military personnel reacted positively to. Equally, as they've been humiliated in the post Saddam era their own views might have become more hardened and receptive to extremist ideologies
Viola
If you run a time line of failed western diplomatic efforts against the emergence and uber emergence of ISIL through it's various incarnations, then there is a crude correlation.
I could be wrong, but my impression is that there was something more akin to a nationalist movement based on Aleppo which sparked all this off in the first place. They've been in retreat to the north, but as the various opposition cross pollinated ISIS gained in strength, particularly in the east. As Assad advanced, more people turned to them for protection, but eventually they seized their own chance to invade western Iraq around February (something that went largely unreported) but coincided with the failure of the peace summit around the new year.
It could be this that proved to be the final regeneration of the movement which by now had taken on a completely different character to that which was being supported. It was only this summer though as they launched their offensive that the true nature of what had been created emerged.
It might explain Hillary Clinton's comments, but yes, it is wild speculation
That wasn't the point being made though was it Clive as any reasonable person reading knows. Unfortunately the response yet again came from the same muppet who can't help himself. Disenfranchised is used as a much more generic terms than its precise meaning. But for the pedant that responded lets change the word to disaffected shall we. Or do I need to rush for my dictionary before I post that too. Then perhaps he'll attempt a Talkinghorses first and respond to the actual point being made.
Icebreaker. How dare I? I call you a moron because you are singly unable to debate a point, instead, for the umpteenth time, sinking to your usual tactics. As you find it so upsetting you'll see I've checked the dictionary and toned it down to muppet which, as at your insistence we are to go by the accuracy of the dictionary rather than intent, is more apt.
What I fail to understand is why you, and only you, constantly responds this way on this forum. What am I to assume from your constant attacks? I can say though that in my entire life I've never had the tedious displeasure of putting up with someone like you.
Given you are unable to respond to the point quite obviously being made, I'm sure i can look forward to your next response telling me my spelling and grammar are somehow responsible for the rise of ISIS. Then presumably you'll continue your childish game and just repeat what you've already said every time I contribute, as you did on the other thread until I gave up trying to any form of debate.
Last edited:
As far as the Turkish Government is concerned I'm not convinced they could have any influence at all over the ISIS situation either positive or negative. They may try to position themselves that way with NATO though.
I'm also not sure about a creeping agenda. Turkey tries to play both sides of the fence and will tread the tightrope to avoid alienating themselves either way. It'd be interesting to see which way they'd go if they were genuinely pushed though.
Economically they have too much to lose with west of Turkey much more western in its outlook than the rest of the region, and an economy in that area that relies heavily on European tourism.
I'm also not sure about a creeping agenda. Turkey tries to play both sides of the fence and will tread the tightrope to avoid alienating themselves either way. It'd be interesting to see which way they'd go if they were genuinely pushed though.
Economically they have too much to lose with west of Turkey much more western in its outlook than the rest of the region, and an economy in that area that relies heavily on European tourism.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Go and do one.
I've tried to make that as plain as possible so that you won't need recourse to a dictionary to understand it. (Although I am annoyed with myself for descending to your puerile level of insult).
I've tried to make that as plain as possible so that you won't need recourse to a dictionary to understand it. (Although I am annoyed with myself for descending to your puerile level of insult).
The problem with the so called disenfranchisement argument is that they are doing what they are doing because we aren't giving them jobs, fast cars and we are making them live in Luton
It's bollocks frankly.
And if disenfranchisement is such an issue (which it isn't frankly) why are they dedicated to disenfranchising others? I think if was a supposed victim then I wouldn't wish it on others would I?
On the other hand how can you disenfranchised a beheaded kid?
It's bollocks frankly.
And if disenfranchisement is such an issue (which it isn't frankly) why are they dedicated to disenfranchising others? I think if was a supposed victim then I wouldn't wish it on others would I?
On the other hand how can you disenfranchised a beheaded kid?
Last edited:
That misses the point Clive. The point being that young unemployed western Muslims are vulnerable to the extreme teachings of radical clerics. If you don't believe it to be true explain why so many young Muslims born in western countries are fighting with ISIS? Maybe I'm missing something? Do you have another explanation?
You're being far to much of social worker I'm afraid Clive that only sees the best in folk. There's no shortage of people who take the exact opposite view that they can accept their own level of poverty that much more easily if everyone else is reduced to the same level. Jealousy in any other name.
Now under certain conditions I can accept that there is both a strong rationale to this world view, and indeed I can sympathise with it in the name of justice, but this wouldn't be one
People driven by political ideologies can very often be dealt with in so much as politics lends itself to compromise and deal making much more easily than dogmatic religion. That's why we made a mistake targetting the despots. Sadly the Bush administration, were locked in a cold war time frame (something that David Cameron doesn't look able to release himself from either) and its causing him to go after the wrong targets based on an obsolete world view. The soviet facing despots were your natural ally in all this, now that they've been removed or degraded there isn't a great deal of substance left to work with
I do find myself increasingly resigning my thoughts to Grasshoppers 'dismal' scenario though, where I think it suggested that some kind of armageddon was heading our way in the future, and that this was unavoidable. Religion might frame it, but really its a war on lifestyles
If we accept Grasshoppers hypothesis, and I'm certainly not confident enough to tell him its rubbish and won't happen, then it starts to pose the question in my mind about when we take this war, and how we prosecute it