"IS" TERRORISTS HAVE TO BE STOPPED.

The brutal murder of a second American hostage by a gang of thugs somewhere in Syria or Iraq is an appalling event. It requires a response of some strength.

Some people say that the killing is an attempt to draw 'The West' into the conflict in the area in order to escalate the current fight into one between Islam and 'The West'. The same people follow this argument with a suggestion that 'The West' must, therefore, resist being too heavy handed in its response. Bollocks.

It may well be that the first part of the proposition is true, but the second is nonsense. While western nations may be somewhat fed up with problems in the middle east and thereabouts, they simply cannot ignore the actions of these vicious murderers. To their credit, most important Islamic figures have condemned the actions of the thugs and made it clear that what they have done has no religious basis; it is no more than terrorist behaviour. It is now time for 'The West' and the rest of the civilized world to follow up with serious action.

One has to wonder where the United Nations is in all of this but, in the absence of them being able to come to any sort of decision on decisive action, it is time for the US, the UK, France and anyone else who cares to join in, to go to war. It is clear that the governments of Syria and Iraq can do nothing effective and so it is up to the real powers in the world to act. There can be no doubt that the location of the terrorists is known and they can be destroyed.

Send in the troops, with real intent, and sort them out, once and for all.

CAMERON PREPARES FOR WAR !

As if the West hadn't made a sufficient mess of the Middle East already, it appears to be moving inevitably towards yet another involvement in a conflict which is nothing to do with them.

Already, warmongering noises have been emanating from Washington and Paris and now it's the turn of David Cameron to show the world what a strong leader he is. In what is clearly an attempt to prepare the nation for entry into a nebulous conflict which crosses the border between Syria and Iraq, he's issued a 'warning' to the effect that, unless action is taken, "Islamic State militants could grow strong enough to target people on the streets of Britain". He's gone on to say that a humanitarian response is not enough and a "firm security response" is needed.

The current troubles in that part of the world are, in significant part, a consequence of previous western interventions over the last 25 years or so and date back to the creation of countries by the drawing of lines in the sand nearly a century ago. Yes, there are religious fanatics in the world who are capable of inflicting damage on us, but these aren't just Muslims. There are plenty of mad Christians and conflict between Catholics and Protestants is never far away, as we know only too well. The fanatical Jews who govern Israel and inflict shocking hardship on their Palestinians brothers on an almost daily basis are every bit as much of a threat to world peace as are the 'militant' Muslim 'extremists' of northern Iraq and Syria. It seems that the addition of the words 'militant' and 'extremist' is all that is needed to stir up fear, and yet are not the ruling clique in Israel both of these ? Why then, are we not in mortal dread of them ?

Cameron refers to a security response when what he means is a military response though, being a politician, he find himself quite unable to call a spade a spade. The UK is heading, inexorably, towards involvement in yet another Middle-East conflict, more because it suits the needs of politicians and Generals than for of any other reason. How deeply involved we become has yet to be determined but we can be absolutely certain of the eventual outcome - still more pain and suffering, more death and less stability in that part of the world, and absolutely no resolution of the basic issues.

And, by the way, where is the United Nations while all of this is going on ?

BLAIR'S SELF-JUSTIFYING BULLSHIT.

Tony Blair believes that the invasion of Iraq, lead by George W Bush and himself, is not responsible for the mess that exists in that country today. Bullshit.

Blair, with his pseudo-Christian fanaticism, simply hates the fact that the great scheme to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and bring about western-style democracy in Iraq has failed. In fact, he now wants the western powers to invade Syria in order to have another go at creating mayhem in this part of the world. He denies absolutely that he is a warmonger but appears to be convinced that invasion is the only answer to the perceived problems of the middle east.

Blair is obviously attempting to find arguments in support of his disastrous actions and policies of yester-year, while refusing to consider that other options may have been available both then and now. Countries like Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on are not real; they were created by diplomats drawing lines on a map almost 100 years ago, without taking any account of the peoples of the region, their culture, religion or ethnicity. Pretending that these 'nations' can be forced into accepting westernised political systems and lifestyles is naïve in the extreme, as is the belief that toppling a dictator or two will achieve anything much at all. Blair clearly fails to understand this and consequently gives no thought to the obvious immediate solution to the problems that exist today. The truth is that the actions of the western world, led by the USA and UK over many decades, have done nothing but create increased upheaval in countries from Libya to Iran. Where is there peace and harmony in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Israel ?

The one solution is to redraw the boundaries of these countries. The United Nations should convene a special conference between the interested parties and determine where the national boundaries really should be, without worrying about where they are now. At a time when we are fast approaching a referendum to determine whether or not Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom, why should the Kurds not be allowed the same opportunity to create an independent state ? After all, the Jews have been permitted to define the boundaries of their own state even though this has also meant the subjugation and expulsion of many indigenous Muslims; why should the Kurds and others not be treated in the same way as the Jews ? Why should Sunnis and Shias be made to share nations if they really don't want to ? Why should western-style democracy be imposed on these essentially medieval peoples ?

Once such action has been taken only then will it be time to consider other issues. If one of the results was to be the formation of aggressive and extremist states action would have to be considered, but it would be in a very different environment from that which exists today.