European views on ISIL

I am not proposing the utter removal of it as a deterrent, only that the UK should not be having its own- this is why I cited international alliances. NATO is a nuclear armed power. But you don't have your own nukes- most members do not. What you have is coverage of the Alliance as a whole as your nuclear deterrent.
I have no objections to the UK paying in its share to NATO for the maintenance of those- we would still save the 60billion to 150billion we will pay to have our own, which we don't need.
On our own they have no strategic or military value, its only as part of a nuclear armed alliance they do, and we do not need our own nukes to be in that alliance.

But what it does give us, and is the thing the political class will not really give up, is the seat at the Big Boys table. The value of Trident is not military it is political.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:just last month a Russian sub was prowling in Scottish waters- we had to ask France to send vessels as we didn't have any

 
No British naval vessels????
And from the French too!
Lord Nelson would not be amused...

Before that they buzzed the oil fields, the Uk navy response had to come from Portsmouth as there were no intercedpt vessels available in Scotland- took 3 days to get there!

Fair points RE: nukes, Petty. Out of curiosity, what would your thoughts be on the UK taking part in NATO's nuclear weapons sharing program were Trident to be allowed to expire?

I think we would have to sign up to it to remain a participating member- thats the price of course.
But removing our nuclear weapon means less nukes in service by nation states overall, even if we remain within the nuclear club of protection. Its a step in the right direction morally, and its definitely a step in the right direction financially.

If we have to take a turn in the storage of nuclear weapons as other members do that's part of the bargain and fare enough on those grounds. I don't like it, but I think its a price that for the moment is worth paying. Its a practical solution.

And, with Scotland having existing storage facilities it would make us a likely place to take a turn at some point, this would of course annoy the anti-nuclear folks but it would elevate some of the potential job losses in the nuclear side of things at Faslane and Coulport.
However I do object to US personnel being those who guard and maintain stored weapons. I believe those personnel should be made up of a cross contingency of member states personnel. At the very least members of the host states.

Well there are only a handful of NATO countries that participate in the nuclear sharing program with the US so I don't think it'd be required. I'm not super comfortable with the program myself because it feels like trying to exploit a loophole in the NPT (whether such a loophole actually exists or not isn't something I'm qualified to comment on, but regardless, it feels contrary to the spirit of the agreement). They are guarded by the US military but the idea is that if a war broke out then the host country would get to use them. I understand why you might want a more multinational force which is honestly not an idea of thought much about but depending on how it fit into the command structure I could maybe see working. But I think it'd get into even squishier legal ground regarding the NPT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

I think its a case of it should be, for me, all or none. I think all members should have to take their turn or none at all, which would undermine the point of the Alliance. So in practise it would be better to see everyone doing their bit and it would be fairer.

I think though because the UK would already have the facilities for storage of such materials it is logical we would continue to be used for storage, without actually having either the missiles to launch ourselves, or the cost of them.

I suppose I shouldn't feel any more pain for these two than any of the other victims of ISIS, but the journey from innocence into realization then death rather tugs at the heart strings.  And how could anyone who looks so happy make the decision to turn away from their current life?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-austrian-poster-girl-samra-kesinovic-used-as-sex-slave-before-being-murdered-for-trying-to-a6791736.html

I have had it with these numbskulls, I am sick of it filling my mind 24/7. I am sick of worrying about it. Only today I was trying to work out the appeal for young men but I narrowed it down to lack of sex. young Muslim men are not allowed sex or drink they have to pray twice a day and forgo the usual drunken ridiculousness of youth. being a prat when you are young is necessary, from princess to paupers they all get pissed and shag a lot, then they grow out of it, but young muslim men see the freedoms of the western youth and all the pent up frustrations and repressions the submission to God come out as first resentment then anger then hate. they see young western women rolling about with mini skirts on and they go mental, that's why the first thing they do in IS is get them some sex slaves. IS gives them power and sex, which is an ideology impossible to defeat.

There's no doubt that sex plays a significant role in why men do ANYTHING, Mrs Figg. But as attractive as it might seem, I don't think that guaranteeing that all young men get laid regularly would solve the Fundamentalist Religious Movement problem. You just need to look at all murders that are committed by guys who are jealous or have recently been dumped to see the problem with your plan.

I think another major factor is that in an increasingly confusing world, a lot of young people just don't know where they fit. Humans crave community, a place with rules that say if you behave in a certain way you'll be accepted.  That's what ISIS is selling more than anything else I think, and the more the Donald Trumps of the world make young people feel like they don't belong here, the easier it is for ISIS to recruit them.

Denial of sex causes problems in the priesthood, when people are forced unwillingly into a life of denial I think it causes neurosis. Its not normal for people to be forced into total submission.

Once you've killed a number of people, I think rape comes easy. Part of the same power play. In the past the two were always linked in wartime; somehow modern armies have done an amazing job de-linking the two.

A long and somewhat rambling analysis from Al-Jazeera, which I think points up some very important truths:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/western-attempts-moderate-islam-dangerous-160118081456021.html

What struck the most was the fact that most westerners and governments equate terrorism with puritanical Islam, while most of the terrorists themselves are deeply involved in sex, alcohol and drugs. Second, the attempts by westerners to define a "good muslim" as one who is integrated into western society creates a pressure to conform that is often what radicalizes young muslims. A better approach is to show openness and acceptance rather than implying they should fit a western mold: that will come in time if they feel accepted.

From my own experience with Muslims (which is rather extensive though limited to the very well educated) this is true. If accepted they are happy, and violence as protest is unimaginable.

it seems to be saying the more devout the Muslim the more easy it is to be fundamentalist in the Western mind. But on the other hand the ultra orthodox Jews and the uber conservative Christians are the ones who use violence to force others to tow their line. So why not Muslims? Its the fundamentalist Muslims who demand Sharia law in the UK. But IS just use their religion as a smoke screen so I don't think of them as Muslims. Plus if people live in a country with certain laws, you obey them, they don't have to fit in a Western mould but they sure have to fit in with Western laws. if they live in the West.

There may be a split between in-country radicalization and ex-pat. For in-country (Jews and Christians in the West, Muslims in Syria etc) I think fundamentalism is the driving factor. For ex-pats, it could be that the lack of acceptance is more important.

just to be a contrary mary, do Hindoo or Chinese Budhist people turn to violence if they don't feel accepted?

Yep. Look at India. Lots of cases of intersectoral terrorism, often in response to the government.

Chinese Buddhism produced the Shaolin warrior monks that gave us all the Kung Fu movies. And without getting into the whole snakepit of Tibetan politics, there's actually a good reason why China is not too fond of the Dali Lama.

humanity is screwed.

srsly though sometimes I wonder what goes on in peoples heads, the fundamentalists and IS. I look at a photo of some dusty dazed soul stumbling out of a bombed out building, theres nothing around but destruction, bits of bricks and stones, burnt out cars, dead bodies, their families gone, their country a literal hell hole, and I think what is the point, why do that to your own home? whats left to fight for but rubble and rats because that's all there is left. why do you want to live in hell? is your religion or your need for power so great that you would rather raze the cities to the ground than live in peace. what kind of mentality prefers hell over normal life. how can they justify murdering men women and children, I just don't get it.

They usually are not bombing places that are already hellholes. They bomb other places because they blame them for creating the hellholes.

Mrs Figg wrote: I think what is the point, why do that to your own home? whats left to fight for but rubble and rats because that's all there is left. why do you want to live in hell?

There's a really interesting documentary called "Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary". As an old lady she describes what it was like to work in Hitler's personal secretarial pool, and how, near the end of the war, Hitler's people would make sure that when he traveled it was always at night, on trains, with the curtains drawn so he'd never have to see the total destruction of his country. That's the monstrosity of modern weapons. The people who push the buttons rarely get to see the horror of what they've just done.

So how attractive does ISIS make al-Sadr (remember him? I feel like I'm 10 again) look to the Iraqi government, or to the West? Really interesting article here:

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/03/31/the_resurgence_of_muqtada_al_sadr.html

I'm watching a fascinating Frontline program on the birth of ISIS.

- Zarkawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq that become ISIL, was basically a thug who had a conversion in prison and converted others
- he tried to meet with Bin Laden, but Al Qaida looked down on him as unsophisticated.
- He went to a training camp on the Iraq/Iran border (it did exist!) and the CIA was tracking him the whole time.
- Intelligence services knew the camp was working on chemical and biological weapons, and wanted it taken out, but the White House wanted to wait until they went to war with Iraq.
- Cheney twisted Zarkawi into a connection to Saddam Hussein, which of course was a connection the intelligence service did not make at all.
- the connection to Zarkawi gave him prestige he had never had before.  And so it begins.

Now we are into Bremer, which is well covered.  But we have this amazing statement from Bremer that disbanding the army was the "single correct decision the US made."  OMG.

Jeez, Scooter Libby was pressuring CIA analysts to change their analysis that an insurgency was underway. Of course the CIA will put themselves in the best light, but if they are willing to go on the record and the administration will not, who will you believe?