Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

So you think that Corbyn will give the Falklands to Argentina based upon his opposition to military action in 1982 and that he has said in the past that there could be some kind of 'joint administration'? Given that one of the example he gave for joint administration is Gibraltar he is far more likely to mean something along the lines of the Cordoba agreement with its giant Spanish power grabs such as:

Flights between Spain and Gibraltar
More phone lines into Gibraltar
Lifting of limits on dialling Gibraltar from Spain and mobile roaming in Spain for Gibraltar mobile phones
Dispute over pension payments to Spaniards who once worked in Gibraltar resolved
Spain promised to reduce its border controls and ease movement across the frontier

None of the above are joint administration there is NO joint administration deal over Gibraltar. Joint administration is jas it says, as in the whole region is administered 'jointly'.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

As for your 'sources' I especially like how the first 2 aren't even about Corbyn. Well played. You have also failed to provide any realistic reason as to WHY he would give the Falklands to Argentina.

This is what is known as multiple sourcing and background sourcing. Corbyn isnt the only one saying this.
Also the second article is about Corbyn. You just need to think it through. Why are the Argies happy with Corbyn's election? The answer is in the article.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

I can think perfectly clearly thank you very much, I like to base my thinking on something a little more concrete than you apparently do though.

Which is why you have produced no evidence whatsoever, and are still spouting even when evidence was given that refutes everything you are saying on this topic.

I'm a military man, but a labour supporter...Until corbyn was voted in, now I feel labour doesn't represent me anymore, but neither do the conservatives, so what about people like me, currently neither of the big parties seem to care about us.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 feeder wrote:
What would your reaction be if your loved ones were killed by Daesh forces?

Now why do you expect any different reaction by others when our forces do the same?

We cannot bomb an idea out of existence. By engaging Daesh on their terms, with violence, we are contributing massively to their success.

The only we to effectively "kill" Daesh is to stop creating desperate people for them to recruit from. We stop creating desperate people by not dropping bombs on their homes.

People don't join ISIL because they're desperate, they join ISIL because they're sick feths who want to remake the Middle East in their own image. That is the idea of ISIL: that they can create a theocratic dictatorship that spans from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, built on the corpses of the Shia and everyone else who doesn't buy into the ISIL dream. And you can bomb that idea out of existence, because eventually people will stop believing these jackasses when they promise that no, really, this time it will work and not just lead to their slow and messy deaths.

Bombing didn't seem to stop the Afghan mujahadeen. It hasn't stopped the Kurds. It didn't wipe out the ideals of the VIet Cong or NVA despite having more ordnance dropped on them than on both Germany & Japan in WW2 combined. Something like IS cannot simply be bombed out of existence. I can't think of a single ideologically driven fighting group that has been stopped and destroyed by bombing.The way such groups are most effectively actually defeated by outside powers (aside from internal collapse or another local group eventually defeating them) is to round up the population into concentration camps to deny the groups a populace to hide in and draw support from, and then simply obliterate everything outside said concentration camps and continually sweep areas with infantry patrols (or, alternatively, to simply massacre the entire population in detail). Either way, it's a very long, very bloody, very oppressive task that no modern government is going to want to undertake or be seen as having any part in.

 Orlanth wrote:

None of the above are joint administration there is NO joint administration deal over Gibraltar.

Yet it was used as an example by Corbyn in the BBC interview that apparently created this pitiful storm in a teacup. Why do you think that was?

 Orlanth wrote:

This is what is known as multiple sourcing and background sourcing.

Even when your sources are at best weak and/ or irrelevant? Personally I would call your statement unsupportable based upon the available evidence and Occam's razor of course.

 Orlanth wrote:

Which is why you have produced [i]no evidence whatsoever[i]

I don't have to, you are the one making the crazy assertion so the onus is on you to prove it. You haven't even come close so far.

I also can't stand this man. He has openly supported murder of innocents in northern Ireland and yet has the balls to pretend he is some kind of pacifist. A horrid horrid squalid little man who stands proudly opposed to everything that is Britain.

Like pluralist democracy?

 Knockagh wrote:
I also can't stand this man. He has openly supported murder of innocents in northern Ireland and yet has the balls to pretend he is some kind of pacifist. A horrid horrid squalid little man who stands proudly opposed to everything that is Britain.

I'm British to the core (whatever the hell that means) and Corbyn is the closest person in mainstream politics to representing my views.

 Knockagh wrote:
I also can't stand this man. He has openly supported murder of innocents in northern Ireland and yet has the balls to pretend he is some kind of pacifist. A horrid horrid squalid little man who stands proudly opposed to everything that is Britain.

Source? I know just about squat about British politics, so I'm curious to read what your talking about.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

This is what is known as multiple sourcing and background sourcing.

Even when your sources are at best weak and/ or irrelevant? Personally I would call your statement unsupportable based upon the available evidence and Occam's razor of course.

Silent Puffin, you are just trolling now.

You have provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back up your claims. Yet you still dismiss press reports as weak or irrelevant. What is relevant to you?

Aren't even quotes from Corbyn not enough as to his policy.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Which is why you have produced [i]no evidence whatsoever[i]

I don't have to, you are the one making the crazy assertion so the onus is on you to prove it. You haven't even come close so far.

1. The assertion is not crazy, its backed up with multiple sourced evidence. We even had the Mirror and Daily Mail echoing the same story, which is telling enough.
2. You made the flat challenge that the evidence is false, been called out on it and are still spouting the same nonsense.
3. Why do you insist on the belief that an opinion contrary to your own is a form of mental illness? Also why do you persist with this tone when you have nothing to back up dismissing the argument as so, but face plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Truly, you are deluded. The evidence is plain to see, given from sourced from the left and right and also the foreign press and even the actions of foreign governments. You just don't want to see it. It is the hallmark of the brainwashed fanatic to be so deaf to reason, I hope the majority of the left have more mental integrity than you are showing.

 djones520 wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
I also can't stand this man. He has openly supported murder of innocents in northern Ireland and yet has the balls to pretend he is some kind of pacifist. A horrid horrid squalid little man who stands proudly opposed to everything that is Britain.

Source? I know just about squat about British politics, so I'm curious to read what your talking about.

This appears to be part of it. While this bit does not rise to the level of Corbyn "openly supporting the murder of innocents," it's not hard to read between the lines if something like this happens:

In a telephone interview during the recent leadership campaign, Mr Corbyn was repeatedly asked by a BBC interviewer whether he condemned the murders by the IRA.

He five times refused to answer the question directly, saying: “I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides” before the line went dead.

If someone thinks that question is a gotcha and not a softball question, they're either extremely paranoid about letting soundbytes out into the public, or they're an IRA supporter. If someone thinks that question is a gotcha and cannot bring themselves to say anything more on topic than "I condemn what was done by their enemies as well as the other sides, his sympathies are as clear as if he'd "I (heart) IRA" tattooed on his forehead.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 feeder wrote:
What would your reaction be if your loved ones were killed by Daesh forces?

Now why do you expect any different reaction by others when our forces do the same?

We cannot bomb an idea out of existence. By engaging Daesh on their terms, with violence, we are contributing massively to their success.

The only we to effectively "kill" Daesh is to stop creating desperate people for them to recruit from. We stop creating desperate people by not dropping bombs on their homes.

People don't join ISIL because they're desperate, they join ISIL because they're sick feths who want to remake the Middle East in their own image. That is the idea of ISIL: that they can create a theocratic dictatorship that spans from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, built on the corpses of the Shia and everyone else who doesn't buy into the ISIL dream. And you can bomb that idea out of existence, because eventually people will stop believing these jackasses when they promise that no, really, this time it will work and not just lead to their slow and messy deaths.

Agreed. Someone a little higher up on this page actually believed that ISIS would stop attacking us if we "left them alone", in effect. How naive can you get!? If we all just packed up and came home and left ISIS to it except for invites to the negotiating table, they'd only use the space we'd given them to bolster their resources and further plan our downfall. Believing they would stop attacking the West and go home for tea and biscuits is hilariously naive. They want us dead or converted, but preferably dead. A crazed serial killer doesn't stop what they're doing, ever, until they themselves are stopped by an outside agency. ISIS is exactly the same.

They've fallen so far that only force will ever put them down like the dogs they are, it's just that that said force will have to be applied in a VERY careful way. Corbyn still thinks they can be reasoned with, which is why he's the wrong man to lead this fight. If he were PM ISIS would have a field day! They'd take full advantage of the fact that he dithers and dallies when the application of force is required.

The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you? It must work THIS time, because they're just such big bad baddies?

Our forces are over there, killing women and children. Their forces are over here, killling women and children.

But we are White Hats and they are Black Hats? How fething mindlessly tribal are you?

 feeder wrote:
The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you?

It worked on the Nazis. And before you argue, yes, Nazism and Islamism are the same thing:

The Nazis believed in uniting all "true" Germans under a single nation, the Greater German Reich, while purifying this nation with absolute submission to the state and the persecution of those "unworthy" to be a part of that nation: Jews, the disabled and the like.

The Islamists believe in uniting all "true" Muslims under a single nation, the caliphate, while purifying this nation with absolute submission to God and the persecution of those "unworthy" to be part of that nation: "idolators", "apostates" and the like.

Nazi Germany ended with Hitler despairing at Nazism's failure and ordering Nazi Germany to destroy itself because by failing to fulfill that ideological objective of uniting the "true" Germans it had forfeited its right to exist, before committing suicide himself. I do not believe that ISIL's ideology is any more resilient than the Nazis' was.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you?

It worked on the Nazis. And before you argue, yes, Nazism and Islamism are the same thing:

Simple bombing didn't work, it required the deaths of millions of soldiers from many nations, over several years, the destruction of most of Europe, driving the population to the brink of starvation and slaying huge numbers of the adult population, long term occupation, and *massive* post-war population transfers/ethnic cleansing (depending on one's point of view) of the German population from places many had lived for hundreds of years out of anywhere anyone else could possibly stake a claim to, in order to resolve that. Lets also not forget that the occupiers in this case also were relatively similar in terms of cultural & religious background.

I'm not sure an equivalent effort is something any nation on earth is willing to invest in or take responsibility for. The lid has finally been taken off the pressure cooker that was the old Ottoman Empire, and the region is finally resorting itself, and it's likely that the reason that it's as bad as it is, is because of the multiple repeated interventions that only made things worse.

 feeder wrote:
The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you? It must work THIS time, because they're just such big bad baddies?

Our forces are over there, killing women and children. Their forces are over here, killling women and children.

But we are White Hats and they are Black Hats? How fething mindlessly tribal are you?

You cannot kill an idea. However, you can kill every single one active supporter of said idea and any physical manifestation of it (with enough time and dedication).

 feeder wrote:
The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you? It must work THIS time, because they're just such big bad baddies?

Our forces are over there, killing women and children. Their forces are over here, killling women and children.

But we are White Hats and they are Black Hats? How fething mindlessly tribal are you?

Of course it matters to me! So what's your plan on how we should stop ISIS? Going after their financial supporters and sorting Turkey out regarding their suspicious activity with ISIS aside, what would you have us do, hmm? So let's play your scenario out shall we? We pull all our forces out of the Middle East and come home. What then? ISIS will continue attacking us at home, bombing our cities and murdering our citizens whenever they get the chance. What then? Do we just sit back with our todger in our hands while we wait and hope that our 'diplomatic' efforts bare fruit? How many deaths of OUR citizens will it take before people like you and Corbyn finally get it through your skulls that ISIS won't stop killing people wholesale, ever, until they're stopped physically?

I'm not ignorant to your side of the argument. The trouble is you're ignorant to my side of the argument. Violence begets violence, true, but ISIS are immune to all forms of diplomacy. They're psychopathic and sociopathic to the point of madness. They're cutting people's heads off in the streets and having little kids kick them around for fun, for gods sake! They HAVE to be stopped and the only language they understand is force, unfortunately. Corbyn is utterly blind to this fact. He honestly believes they can be reasoned with! Are you as naive as him?

 Orlanth wrote:

2. You made the flat challenge that the evidence is false, been called out on it and are still spouting the same nonsense.

I really can't be arsed responding to you but I will challenge this.

I never said that the evidence was false, I said it was either very weak or inappropriate; certainly no where near strong enough to even suggest that Corbyn would be handing the Falkalnds over the Argentina.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like pluralist democracy?

Yes indeed you are right. Corbyns support for despotic dictatorships show his contempt for pluralist democracy.

 LethalShade wrote:

You cannot kill an idea. However, you can kill every single one active supporter of said idea and any physical manifestation of it (with enough time and dedication).

No, you can't.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you?

It worked on the Nazis. And before you argue, yes, Nazism and Islamism are the same thing:

The Nazis believed in uniting all "true" Germans under a single nation, the Greater German Reich, while purifying this nation with absolute submission to the state and the persecution of those "unworthy" to be a part of that nation: Jews, the disabled and the like.

The Islamists believe in uniting all "true" Muslims under a single nation, the caliphate, while purifying this nation with absolute submission to God and the persecution of those "unworthy" to be part of that nation: "idolators", "apostates" and the like.

Nazi Germany ended with Hitler despairing at Nazism's failure and ordering Nazi Germany to destroy itself because by failing to fulfill that ideological objective of uniting the "true" Germans it had forfeited its right to exist, before committing suicide himself. I do not believe that ISIL's ideology is any more resilient than the Nazis' was.

Fine post, well said. I was having trouble coming up with the right words while trying to reason with him, then you came along and put it better than I could have.

 feeder wrote:
The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you? It must work THIS time, because they're just such big bad baddies?

Our forces are over there, killing women and children. Their forces are over here, killling women and children.

But we are White Hats and they are Black Hats? How fething mindlessly tribal are you?

We don't aim to kill women and children, we hit their supplies and strongholds. Civilians die because they are used as human shields, some willing some not. Some civilians have died as a result of mistakes made on our part. But we don't target innocents for destruction.

ISIS are barbaric killers. They deliberately target civilians for rape, enslavement, torturing and execution, specifically to terrorise populations. They revel in it by putting it on the Internet to show how horrific they are. Any member of ISIS captured by western forces will have a much nicer time than anyone captured by ISIS.

Yes, we are the White hats, because we don't target civilians and when things like the hospital bombing happened it was admitted to be a mistake. ISIS would actually like to bomb a hospital or go around and shoot all the unarmed people in their beds, they like soft targets where they can massacre people easily. Do we go into villages and sort the men from the wonen and they behead or shoot them all in the head? No, so I don't think you can get on this 'how fething tribal are you' high horse.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

You cannot kill an idea. However, you can kill every single one active supporter of said idea and any physical manifestation of it (with enough time and dedication).

No, you can't.

Of course, a more realistic approach would be to first prevent them from getting money.

So I was just taking a look at the day's news when I saw an article about Comrade Corbyn. He's only gone and quoted a communist dictator at the Labour Party Christmas do, hasn't he. The man who Corbyn referred to as "a tough ruler" was none other than a pleasant chap called Enver Hoxha, the communist leader of Albania from 1944 until his death in 1985. Enver was responsible for the torture, murder and imprisonment of 100,000 Albanians. This unfortunate source of inspiration comes just weeks after Corbyn's inner circle MP, John McDonell, quoted Charman Mao in the Commons.

Before any of you Corbyn supporters start flinging vitriol at me, claiming I'm making it up type "Jeremy Corbyn uses his Labour Christmas Party speech to quote an Albanian dictator responsible for death and imprisonment of 100,000 people" into Google and click on the Daily Mail Online article to read about it yourself. I don't know, his actions are questionable at best! He's been known to be an apologist for the IRA as well. And to think that people actually vote for this chump *shakes head*. Dear oh dear...

No doubt some folk will try claiming he's been set up by a hostile press. And his voters try claiming him to be an honest man of integrity....

Link for all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3351720/Corbyn-s-Christmas-party-speech-lacks-festive-cheer-Labour-leader-stuns-guests-festive-bash-quoting-Albanian-dictator-Enver-Hoxha.html

Jeremy Corbyn quoted the words of a Communist dictator of Albania at Labour's Christmas party last night.
The hard-left Labour leader dismayed attendees at the staff party when he quoted the words of Enver Hoxha, blamed for the deaths, torture and imprisonment of 100,000 Albanians.
The outrage comes just weeks after John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, quoted from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book in the Commons chamber.

Hoxha was chairman of the Democratic Front of Albania and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces from 1944 until his death in 1985.
In his speech to staff, Mr Corbyn said Hoxha had been a 'tough ruler'.
He went on to use the dictator's phrase that 'this year will be tougher than last year'.

I don't like Corbyn or what he stands for but quoting Hoxha for humorous intent is hardly endorsing the murder of tens of thousands of your own citizens. Ill advised at best. But one thing Corbyn doesnt have is a staff of spin doctors sculpting his every word.

The only outrage here is created by the Daily Mail.

The problem with being ill advised is that he's the leader and the buck stops with him. If he's niave enough to take advice and stil go through with it it just shows him as compliant wih it or incompetent.

The only way that Corbyn is a thorn in the side of Britain is that he does not represent a serious opposition to the encombe t party.

Don't get me wrong I voted conservative but any governing partyh needs a strong opposition to scrutinise their activity. I can't hep feeling that the recent welfare reform debarcle came about more from internal opposition than from the Labour Party. Corbyn is weak seemingly too dependent on a cabal of committee members who are no less barmy than he seems to be (and feth me have seen his brother? Jeremy got the common sense it seems! )

So long as they don't get out of hand or complacent the Conservatives will walk the next election. Dave looks like a stable pair of hands in comparison.

 Knockagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like pluralist democracy?

Yes indeed you are right. Corbyns support for despotic dictatorships show his contempt for pluralist democracy.

I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about you.

The characteristic of a pluralist democracy is that it allows all voices to be heard. You don't want that. You don't want Corbyn's voice, which represents a significant number of people, to be heard.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like pluralist democracy?

Yes indeed you are right. Corbyns support for despotic dictatorships show his contempt for pluralist democracy.

I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about you.

The characteristic of a pluralist democracy is that it allows all voices to be heard. You don't want that. You don't want Corbyn's voice, which represents a significant number of people, to be heard.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't think I said I didn't want his voice to be heard, I was just expressing my dislike of his politics and the hypocrisy of his so called pacifism which allows violence from dictators or terrorist groups but not from democratic states. He can speak away that's one of the cornerstones of any democratic society to allow free speech. Civilised society must though as a consequence suffer those who would try to bring down the very system that gives them the freedom to voice their unpalatable beliefs.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
He opposes bombing in Syria without offering alternatives beyond talking out a political solution (with ISIS, people only interested in murdering, enslaving and raping until they carve up enough of the Middle East to set up a new state). He made a valid point about what the end game plan was for bombing, but saying there's some political settlement we can reach with ISIS is a joke.

So he should, bombing Syria is an expensive, counter-productive measure. It literally only benefits ISIS and BAE Systems.

He made a big deal about trying to tackle the real issues first: ISIS is getting a lot of money from somewhere, probably via Turkey for oil. Cut off ISIS funding and it'll die out pretty quickly without having to blow up any civilians.

I have to admit I find him to be a much better leader than Cameron ever will be, even if it's just because he seems to be one of the 'little people' he's meant to be representing. The entire Tory party seem so out of touch with reality it'd be funny if it weren't so fething tragic.

Corbyn's views on the IRA are a bit more nuanced than outright support - he merely highlights that the IRA's violence stemmed from suppression of the rights of the Catholic minority in the North for a long period and misgovernment. He also highlights that there were two sides to the conflict, which is often ignored in the British press. It is, again, a bit of a red herring though.
(Note: I do not support the IRA or terrorist violence, but I do feel that the narrative with regard to them is a bit one sided)

As to supporting dictatorships - how is Cameron getting along with Saudi Arabia these days? Been condemning their public beheadings and floggings, has he? That's good then.

 Muhr wrote:
We pull all our forces out of the Middle East and come home.

Quite frankly, we have about twelve planes involved at the moment. It's not like many people would notice the actual physical effect.

What then? ISIS will continue attacking us at home, bombing our cities and murdering our citizens whenever they get the chance.

Probably. For a short period of time. The reason we get attacked over places like say, Iceland, is because we have an extensive history of meddling (or indeed bombing) places in the Middle-East. It would require a time period of ten to fifteen years in which we ignored the region during which the risk of terrorism would remain high, and then would slowly decrease after that.

How many deaths of OUR citizens will it take before people like you and Corbyn finally get it through your skulls that ISIS won't stop killing people wholesale, ever, until they're stopped physically?

This is something of a fallacy. ISIS wants us to attack them because allows them to spin a narrative of 'East vs West', 'Crusader vs faithful', 'Christian vs Muslim'. That's one of the reasons they attack us in the first place and hope that we drop missiles on them, it's a very solid old school propaganda technique to allow you to bind forces and peoples more local to yourself in order to fight the big baddy outsider.

If we ignored them (and I mean all of them, the Iraqi and Kurdish lot as well), there would be a lot of blood shed, but the borders would stabilise on their own. And as that time period progresses, without that 'outsider attacking us/puppeteering the opposition' narrative, they would find recruitment and domestic discontent to be much larger factors and checks on their own expansion. ISIS is not eternal, this is the Middle East, where regimes can collapse overnight. The odds are strongly inclined towards it not making it to twenty years, let alone fifty.

They're psychopathic and sociopathic to the point of madness. They're cutting people's heads off in the streets and having little kids kick them around for fun, for gods sake! They HAVE to be stopped and the only language they understand is force, unfortunately. Corbyn is utterly blind to this fact. He honestly believes they can be reasoned with! Are you as naive as him?

You appear to have fallen for ISIS propaganda. You are scared (as is the purpose of terrorism), and this is twisting your responses into one of 'fight or flight'. They've turned into this irrational, psychotic monster that stands outside of the normal state of things for you, and so you advocate kicking their heads in without stopping to consider the why's, the hows, or any long term strategical effect.

Unfortunately, you are not alone in this. Although in Government's case, their knee-jerk reaction is to let Cameron stamp his 'International Statesman' card this year.

Alexholker raised earlier that 'force' worked on the Nazi's. This is incorrect. 'Force' alone ended WW1, but did little to resolve the social and economic issues raised in the interwar period. What truly eliminated the Nazi's was a combination of prolonged occupation, large amounts of wealth infused into the economy immediately afterwards, an effective cultural genocide undertaken towards the concept of Nazism, and a large enemy (the Soviets) to rally against.

I am not necessarily against force in the Middle-East, but it needs a long term strategic goal, which is currently lacking. The aerial campaign will not do anything to defeat ISIS. It will hurt their finances, it will kill the occasional few fighters, and it will make large scale operations more awkward. That is all. In exchange for the above, it costs us the guilt of whatever civilians are caught in the crossfire as collateral (and there will be), and the not inconsiderable cost of the munitions. On the domestic fronts, it allows our politicians to look as if they are taking action/pose for the cameras and gives us some flight time training experience in exchange for a heightened risk of terror strikes.

It will not resolve anything though.

There are three ways to eradicate ISIS and it's kin.

1. Genocide. Kill everything that moves in the Middle-East,
2. Cultural genocide. Move in, occupy the region for a good fifty years. Indoctrinate the youth in Western values, micromanage their economies, and do a postwar Japan/Germany.
3. Ignore/isolate the place as best as possible. Do everything short of building a fence around ISIS. We here in Britain haven't seen a revolution in an extremely long time. We've outlasted Hitler, Napoleon, and many other threats. ISIS? They'll be buried by the vagaries of time and history in the end. What follows might be better or worse. If its better, reconsider, if its worse, maintain the policy.

One and two are no longer regarded as acceptable (death/colonialism rarely are these days), but due to the short term nature of our political leaders, they feel they must do something to show the masses. So instead we get a knee-jerk reaction that maintains the staus quo.