I haven’t compared ISIS to the Nazis, I was making the point that policies of appeasement (and leaving ISIS free to expand certainly is appeasement) against an enemy only allows it to gain strength. We tried appeasement in the 1930s, it just allowed Hitler to grow more formidable until he crossed a final ‘red line’.

It isn’t even about provocation alone; to Daesh leadership, provocation
to attack the West isn’t needed, but to disgruntled home-grown
Islamists, Western foreign policy has been a massive contributing
factor. Those who seek to commit massacres have the whole responsibility
for their choices, but they were given those choices in the first place
by chest-beating nincompoops in cosy air-conditioned offices trying to
distract from their own domestic failures.

That’s reads as cowardly acquiescence to terrorism for fear of retaliation. We should first ask what is the right thing to do, then ask how we protect ourselves from the consequences. Otherwise we’re in the business of appeasement again.

And the empty comparisons with World War 2 continues, if only to distract from those of Iraq…and Libya.

So what if they are intent on ‘mad supervillain plan #177′? So what? There’s a big difference between your favoured comparison the Nazis and Daesh: can they or can they not actually do it? The most generous estimate the CIA(who have every reason to exaggerate and still don’t come close to Daesh’ own claimed strength) give is 31,000. Even if we took the enemy claims seriously, a quarter of a million fighters without any substantial air, armour or artillery support can’t ‘sweep’ the Middle East, let alone take territory on Europe’s most eastern borders. Turkey would certainly be taking them more seriously if that was the case, instead the evidence shows they might even be trading with Daesh.

It isn’t even about provocation alone; to Daesh leadership, provocation to attack the West isn’t needed, but to disgruntled home-grown Islamists, Western foreign policy has been a massive contributing factor. Those who seek to commit massacres have the whole responsibility for their choices, but they were given those choices in the first place by chest-beating nincompoops in cosy air-conditioned offices trying to distract from their own domestic failures.

“Could acting in this way actually increase the risk to our security by making an attack on Britain more likely?”

Imagine what the world would look like today if we’d used that criterion in 1939.

Cameron is washing his hands of any causal responsibility, any linkage,
between event A (our bombing in Syria) and event B (terrorist incident
in UK).

ISIS is intent on establishing a Caliphate which will sweep across the Middle East and Europe – and eventually the entire globe. Yes, it’s preposterous, but let’s not pretend we need to provoke them before they will attack us. How do you explain the aid workers, journalists, etc. it has murdered? Do you think those horrors were a response to provocation?

amzn.to/1N6FJ7d

Yes it would be great to see an end to the CIA.

It has to be cut off at source.