HomeAbout MeBlogTestimonialsContact Me
Visions on Inequality
Inspired by the News
Inspirational People
Being Me
Breaking Down The Barriers (Places Providing Support)
Social Creatives
June, 2014
July, 2014
August, 2014
September, 2014
October, 2014
November, 2014
December, 2014
January, 2015
February, 2015
March, 2015
April, 2015
May, 2015
June, 2015
July, 2015
August, 2015
September, 2015
October, 2015
November, 2015
December, 2015
January, 2016
February, 2016
March, 2016
April, 2016
May, 2016
June, 2016
July, 2016
August, 2016
September, 2016
October, 2016
November, 2016
December, 2016
January, 2017
February, 2017
March, 2017
April, 2017
June, 2017
July, 2017
August, 2017
September, 2017
October, 2017
November, 2017
December, 2017
January, 2018
February, 2018
March, 2018
May, 2018
July, 2018
August, 2018
September, 2018
You Cannot Fight Fire With Fire (Or - Why The Obvious And Easy Option Is Not The Best One)
I was hoping not to write about anything connected with the attacks in Paris - mainly because - with all due respect to the victims and their relatives - I am sivck of hearing about it.

However, the same old alarming narrative seems to be coming into play again.  "The West" has been attacked by "Islamists" or even worse "Islamic Extremists" - so we should bomb them to smithereens???

Oh - and anyone who disagrees with this assessment of the situation might as well report to their nearest firing range to be shot for Treason???  They certainly do not support the "right side"!!!

I am sorry but I have a very vague memory of studying how the First World War started when I was in Secondary School.

Archduke Ferdinand got shot and someone shot at someone else in revenge for it - then other countries started piling in.

Of course you could argue that the Second World War started with people trying to appease A Hitler Esq.

So we are basically damned if we do bomb ISIS and damned if we don't.  (Depending on which World War you want to use as a template.)

The irony is that by bombing Iraq and Syria you could argue that you would be bombing the source of the ISIS network - but - you would not be bombing either of the countries where the Terrorists were living before the attacks.  (Last time I looked at a map of the world France and Belgium were nowhere near Iraq or Syria???  And bombing either of those countries might be against the rules of both the EU and NATO???)

I wouldn't go for a "Diplomatic Solution" with ISIS either because then you are concentrating on the wrong people.  By all means involve Iraq and Syria in peace talks - however, whilst various Governments are doing that they need to admit that the power vacuum in both Iraq and Syria are the after-effects of the Iraq wars.

The countries I would strongly urge the UK Government (as well as any other country who is willing to sign up to "Diplomatic Talks") to open a dialogue with are the countries where the terrorists are actually living and where they have travelled to Iraq and Syria from.  Yes - the disaffected, disengaged young people from the UK, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc.

I would love to see a proper dialogue between the Governments and the citizens of each country who has lost people to fight for ISIS.  With a true search for the reasons - and without the implicit aims of driving a wedge between the native inhabitants of those countries and the Muslim populations (are you listening Mr Cameron???).

I object to the words "Islamic Extremist" because it tars every Muslim who is in strict obedience to their faith in peaceful way with the same brush as the violent murderers who use "Islam" as a cover for their evil acts.

By bombing Iraq and Syria we are in danger of alienating the very people who can help us sort the problem out - the peaceful Muslim populations of the world.

<< Back Add New Comment
0 items total
Add New Comment
Please type the confirmation code you see on the image*
Reload image