The ISIS threat to Europe

[choffer]

Quote

 

Nicolas Henin: The man who was held captive by Isis for 10 months says how they can be defeated

 

A French journalist who was held hostage by Isis for 10 months has spoken out against air strikes in Syria, saying they represent “a trap” for Britain and other members of the international community.

Speaking in an interview with The Syria Campaign, Nicolas Henin put forward his strategy for combatting the militant group – a no-fly zone in opposition-held areas of Syria.

 

Mr Henin has previously spoken about how he was held for seven months in Syria itself, and how British national Mohammed Emwazi – known as Jihadi John – was among the jailors who subjected him to physical and psychological torture.

"Strikes on Isis are a trap,” he said.

“The winner of this war will not be the party that has the newest, the most expensive or the most sophisticated weaponry, but the party that manages to win over the people on its side.”

As an example of how the international community had responded well, he described the recent escalation of the refugee crisis – and corresponding offers from Europe of homes to fleeing Muslims – as “a blow to Isis”.

He said: “Hundreds of thousands of refugees, fleeing this Muslim land that is like a dream for Isis – that is supposed to be their Israel? And fleeing that land to go to the land of the 'unbelievers'?

“This is why they probably tried to manipulate the public during the Paris attacks,” he said. “To make us close our borders, and maybe even more importantly, close our minds.”

Coalition bombing was not hurting the militants, Mr Henin said in the interview before British MPs voted in favour of RAF strikes in Syria, but rather “pushing people into the hands of Isis”.

“What we have to do – and this is really key – is we have to engage the local people. As soon as the people have hope for a political solution, the Islamic State will just collapse.

“There will be a very easy way to make Isis lose ground at a high speed. The international community must decide all regions held by the Syrian opposition are no-fly zones.

“No-fly zones for everybody. Not the coalition, not the Russians, not the regime, nobody. Providing security for people [there] would be devastating for Isis. That’s what the international community should focus on.”

He added: "Why are we making so many mistakes? Why are people so misunderstanding [Isis’s] vision?

“We are just fuelling our enemies and fuelling the misery and disaster for the local people.”

Mr Henin is a freelance journalist who has worked in Iraq and Syria for most of his career. He was held by Isis in an underground cell alongside other hostages including the American journalist James Foley, who was later executed.

Mr Henin was freed following negotiations between the French government and his captors, and he has since written about the experience in a book entitled Jihad Academy, published in English last month.

 

[TrentVilla]

The female suspect in the California gun attack pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State (IS) group on Facebook, US media reported.

Tashfeen Malik made the post under an account with a different name, US officials are quoted as saying.

Fourteen people were killed and 21 wounded in Wednesday's attack.

Malik and her husband Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, died in shootout with police after the killings at San Bernardino.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35006404

[Wainy316]

Unaffiliated sympathisers then? I'm sure the Daesh top brass will welcome it all the same. Knobs.

[PaulC]

I fear the air strikes will just make things a lot worse.

[Awol]

10 hours ago, PaulC said:

I fear the air strikes will just make things a lot worse.

How?

[PompeyVillan]

I'm not sure it will make things worse but I'm not at all convinced that another few planes dropping a few more bombs is really going to help.

[Genie]

If its the start of a well thought out and planned strategy them I'm all for it. 

I suspect it's not though.

1) drop a load of bombs

2) check if there are any terrorists left 

3) scratch head

[MakemineVanilla]

34 minutes ago, Genie said:

If its the start of a well thought out and planned strategy them I'm all for it. 

I suspect it's not though.

1) drop a load of bombs

2) check if there are any terrorists left 

3) hang out with the President

Fixed!

[Wainy316]

The reality is, babies are going to burn to death.

[PaulC]

4 hours ago, Awol said:

How?

1. Many civilians will be killed
2. Without ground support it might not be that effective
3. Its what ISIS want. More fuel to their fire
4. It increases the threat of reprisals against us.

[Xela]

8 minutes ago, PaulC said:

1. Many civilians will be killed
2. Without ground support it might not be that effective
3. Its what ISIS want. More fuel to their fire
4. It increases the threat of reprisals against us.

What should we do? Genuine question. I was unsure about the air strikes but I also know doing absolutely nothing is not the right answer either.

IS (or whatever they are referred to now) have to be destroyed. No question about that.

[Rugeley Villa]

yep they need taking out regardless.

[OutByEaster?]

 

10 minutes ago, Xela said:

What should we do? Genuine question. I was unsure about the air strikes but I also know doing absolutely nothing is not the right answer either.

IS (or whatever they are referred to now) have to be destroyed. No question about that.

For me, the answer is lots of things - the first two are investment in very good policing and political action on Israel and those other states that aren't playing by rules.

Terrorism on Western soil doesn't get stopped by troops, it gets stopped by good policing.

We have to make ISIS less attractive to the disenfranchised. The most basic and simple moves in terms of balancing our attitude to situations in the middle east would help a great deal in keeping disillusioned and angry young men out of the clutches of crazed zealots. I think we'll eventually defeat ISIS not by destroying all those that oppose us, but by creating the circumstances in which it dissipates. A better middle east doesn't have ISIS. 

That said, amongst the other things that would help, some sort of military action shouldn't be ruled out - sadly the stuff I think would be helpful to the region and to providing a solution is almost the opposite of the stuff we're doing - putting troops on the ground to defend those that need help would do more in my opinion than bombing those areas that contain the highest concentrations of the nutters - but that would mean losing lives, and losing lives in defending people who for the most part don't matter to the people that are making decisions.

 

[PaulC]

I don't know mate but this will just radicalise more people. We could cut off the financial supply to them. Stop them selling oil. 

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, Xela said:

IS (or whatever they are referred to now) have to be destroyed. No question about that.

I have a question (or two) about that:

What has to be 'destroyed' - the people, the idea, the proto-state, what?

How do we measure when whatever it is that has to be destroyed is destroyed?

[Awol]

22 minutes ago, PaulC said:

1. Many civilians will be killed
2. Without ground support it might not be that effective
3. Its what ISIS want. More fuel to their fire
4. It increases the threat of reprisals against us.

1. Some undoubtedly will, sadly. Whether "many" will be killed by the RAF is highly unlikely and the reasons why were covered extensively a few pages ago, if you want to check back.

2. It would definitely be more effective if bombing was part of a coordinated campaign including ground troops, particularly western ground troops, but politically that is impossible, currently. That doesn't mean targeting IS' revenue streams such as mobile oil refineries, their combat elements and their leadership will have no effect. It will and will assist those who are fighting them on the ground, such as the Kurds.

3. I love this argument. We shouldn't target ISIS because it's what they want.  The same applies to clamping down on radical mosques in UK, because they'd definitely love that. Basically we shouldn't do anything to oppose them because that's just what they'd want. Much better we just let them crack on with their reign of terror unmolested, they would definitely hate that. 

4. Sorry mate but this is BS.  They are already trying to attack us at home and have succeeded in doing so on a beach in Tunisia - 30 Brit dead.  Do you think their efforts so far were a bit half hearted and what, they'll try harder now?!  Eventually an attack will get through and they will cite Syria as a reason. If we hadn't bombed them in Syria they would cite bombing them in Iraq as a reason.  Fact is we are a prime IS target regardless of Syria and that is a demonstrable fact. It won't stop Corbyn and his ilk declaring we are responsible (rather than those engaged in terrorism) but that's exactly what you'd expect from him and his fellow travelers.

[foreveryoung]

Law has always been not to negotiate with terrorists. All the tree huggers claiming we need to talk to them  poliically is bollocks, They want nothing but their own medieval state, an continue to kill in barbaric ways. I say continue bomb the F*** out of them.

The UK taking out the oil fields has right pissed them off I bet, an I do believe we will be their next target, But if we did nothing, they would still threaten us so we had to go in.

I do think after the bombing campaign, the next port of call will be to CIA style over throw Assad. As the West has never forgot that he allowed terrorists to flee into the country in the first place, as a safe haven.

[PaulC]

4. The enemy is not just in Syria though. Its all around the globe. I dont know whether the california shootings are definately connected but by doing this we may radicalise more people living in this country and who knows what can happen. Its makes us less safe in my view.

[Rugeley Villa]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

1. Some undoubtedly will, sadly. Whether "many" will be killed by the RAF is highly unlikely and the reasons why were covered extensively a few pages ago, if you want to check back.

2. It would definitely be more effective if bombing was part of a coordinated campaign including ground troops, particularly western ground troops, but politically that is impossible, currently. That doesn't mean targeting IS' revenue streams such as mobile oil refineries, their combat elements and their leadership will have no effect. It will and will assist those who are fighting them on the ground, such as the Kurds.

3. I love this argument. We shouldn't target ISIS because it's what they want.  The same applies to clamping down on radical mosques in UK, because they'd definitely love that. Basically we shouldn't do anything to oppose them because that's just what they'd want. Much better we just let them crack on with their reign of terror unmolested, they would definitely hate that. 

4. Sorry mate but this is BS.  They are already trying to attack us at home and have succeeded in doing so on a beach in Tunisia - 30 Brit dead.  Do you think their efforts so far were a bit half hearted and what, they'll try harder now?!  Eventually an attack will get through and they will cite Syria as a reason. If we hadn't bombed them in Syria they would cite bombing them in Iraq as a reason.  Fact is we are a prime IS target regardless of Syria and that is a demonstrable fact. It won't stop Corbyn and his ilk declaring we are responsible (rather than those engaged in terrorism) but that's exactly what you'd expect from him and his fellow travelers.

i think its fair to say the cowards dont need any excuse to carry out attacks. corbyn and his lot are clearings in the woods.

[PaulC]

Corbyn is very brave to stand up for his views. It would have been so easy for him to go with the majority. I have a lot more respect for him now.

 

Anyway i will leave this thread now because we all have our views and theres no rights and wrongs. Time will tell whether its the right thing to do.

Edited December 5, 2015 by PaulC