[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You're getting caught up in hysteria.

They aren't exactly being 'left to expand unchecked', they're in direct conflict with Iran, several countries are hitting them with air strikes and it's not long until those said countries begin a full blown invasion. IS are pretty much getting ****ed from every angle and it's only going to get worse for them. Nobody is burying their heads in the sand but you've certainly taken the IS propoganda to heart. They WANT you to think they're a major threat because they aren't and they need people to fear them because they don't have the resources to be a serious threat to our way of life.

We're more of a threat to ourselves if we give into fear and hysteria.

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

You have significant experience with both WW2 Germany and ISIS? I'm at a loss as to what that could even possibly mean. You either need to elaborate (a lot...) or accept that statements like that are not going to be taken seriously.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

Oh another expert, we are lucky on this little forum to have so many.
Dave just paid 3 billion to ensure they don't get past turkey, that might be just the refugees but with any luck it'll include ISIS.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I'm not getting caught up with hysteria, I have significant experience in this area.

You didn't answer my question either. What country will they need to invade before you consider them a serious threat. Do you have a threshold of what you consider acceptable, or will you just say ... hey ho ... not our problem until they are on your door step.

I'm just going to disregard the first sentence, you're literally just saying that in an effort to validate your opinion without offering any context and saying you 'have significant experience in the area' can't be taken seriously when you seemed to forget that we live in a democracy and that disagreeing with the government was tantamount to being a 'traitor'

I'm not worrying about what ifs that will never happen. IS's power base will not expand beyond what it is now. There's at least five countries that are currently attacking them and IS have no allies or resources to help them out.

Nobody is burying their head in the sand, unlike you we aren't losing our heads over an (im)possibility.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm just going to disregard the first sentence, you're literally just saying that in an effort to validate your opinion without offering any context and saying you 'have significant experience in the area' can't be taken seriously when you seemed to forget that we live in a democracy and that disagreeing with the government was tantamount to being a 'traitor'

I'm not worrying about what ifs that will never happen. IS's power base will not expand beyond what it is now. There's at least five countries that are currently attacking them and IS have no allies or resources to help them out.

Nobody is burying their head in the sand, unlike you we aren't losing our heads over an (im)possibility.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

I see you actually haven't read my post at all. Have you actually read any posts in this thread? It would make sense if you haven't given your 'traitor' accusations and such.

There's five countries, two of which are super powers, currently bombing Syria and it's only a matter of time before there's soldiers on the ground. Do you honestly believe that IS, with it's few thousand soldiers and outdated gear, could stand a chance against at least five different countries' armed forces? I thought you said you were an expert...

Your question is pointless, IS will not expand any further than they already have and you are only obsessing over it because you falsely believe it's some sort of trump card when it's pointless. Like how you forgot that the UK is a democracy (and displayed some very IS traits in doing so), you've forgotten that I was never against action when it came to IS, I just believed we were getting involved too early when our presence wouldn't achieve anything.

If you want to have a discussion, you really need to read people's posts.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I see you actually haven't read my post at all. Have you actually read any posts in this thread? It would make sense if you haven't given your 'traitor' accusations and such.

There's five countries, two of which are super powers, currently bombing Syria and it's only a matter of time before there's soldiers on the ground. Do you honestly believe that IS, with it's few thousand soldiers and outdated gear, could stand a chance against at least five different countries' armed forces? I thought you said you were an expert...

Your question is pointless, IS will not expand any further than they already have and you are only obsessing over it because you falsely believe it's some sort of trump card when it's pointless. Like how you forgot that the UK is a democracy (and displayed some very IS traits in doing so), you've forgotten that I was never against action when it came to IS, I just believed we were getting involved too early when our presence wouldn't achieve anything.

If you want to have a discussion, you really need to read people's posts.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question, even though I made it easy to. On, that basis, I'm not going to continue the debate with you. And just for the record, when the government goes to war, any action to undermine that, is considered to be the act of a traitor, in ANY democracy, so I stand by my words 100%. People on here think they can win debates by intimidation. It's not for me ... not the first time I had this from you either Dezzy ... This is not the place for me.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I knew you wouldn't answer the question, even though I made it easy to. On, that basis, I'm not going to continue the debate with you. And just for the record, when the government goes to war, any action to undermine that, is considered to be the act of a traitor, in ANY democracy, so I stand by my words 100%. People on here think they can win debates by intimidation. It's not for me ... not the first time I had this from you either Dezzy ... This is not the place for me.

Let me ask you this...do you believe that whilst we are at it we should overthrow Assad? We know the West want to do this, so should this problem also be solved.

There is no intimidation going on here apart from your words. You can't bandy words like 'traitors' around without trying to intimidate your opposition. WTF???

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I knew you wouldn't answer the question, even though I made it easy to. On, that basis, I'm not going to continue the debate with you. And just for the record, when the government goes to war, any action to undermine that, is considered to be the act of a traitor, in ANY democracy, so I stand by my words 100%. People on here think they can win debates by intimidation. It's not for me ... not the first time I had this from you either Dezzy ... This is not the place for me.

So you're taking the ball and going home, I'm not surprised. I see you still haven't actually read anything I've written either. I've answered your question twice now, the answer is that your question is pointless because IS can't expand beyond what they are now. You'd know that if you actually read my posts.

I don't think you understand what Democracy is....So much for being an expert on these things..

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

So you're taking the ball and going home, I'm not surprised. I see you still haven't actually read anything I've written either. I've answered your question twice now, the answer is that your question is pointless because IS can't expand beyond what they are now. You'd know that if you actually read my posts.

I don't think you understand what Democracy is....So much for being an expert on these things..

I read your posts, the ones full of intimidation. I put forward arguments, asked questions and you refused twice to respond to the specific question, what is your threshold for taking action. You didn't answer - twice. Instead, you said they won't expand. No, they won't expand now thanks to the bombing that is being done. If we had allowed them free reign as you seem to think they deserve, then they would expand indefinitely. That is their aim and intention, so to suggest otherwise is plain wrong.

I don't need to justify or disclose my knowledge and experience to anyone, least of all someone not prepared to engage in debate without trying to intimidate.

People can say all they like that there is no intimidation on this forum, it doesn't matter one jot, because I do, and if I feel I am being intimidated on this forum I have a right to say it.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Elf On Strike

I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.

There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.

Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold

Ahh so your entire argument is based on the (false) premise that everyone must fall into one of two categories.

Either you are a:

- War-crier who wants planes dropping bombs and has a secret boner for grandstanding displays of military capability,

Or;

- A pacifist by nature who simply hasn't accepted the situation yet but will eventually hit a threshold and "wake up" and realise that bombs are key.


Which is simply wrong. You are mistaken. I see very few pacifists here. I am against these retarded airstrikes because I know - just like good old Mr Blair - that the exponential rise of ISIS and other ISIS style is extremism and recruiting power is a direct result of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq. I accept and understand that ISIS want, and are quite clearly baiting, bombing action in Syria because it supplies them with a fresh stock of angry, broken, hopeless people who are primed for radicalisation and far more valuable to them than an oilfield.

I'm not a pacifist. I just know that you cut out a tumor with a scalpel after careful planning. You don't attempt to smash it to pieces with fists and boots and then wonder why you've done more damage than you've cured.