ISIS Scum mock the death of the innocent man james foley

No. Its actually not patronising but more criticising of what our governments have done. Im a firm believer that had we not meddled in middle eastern affairs the current issues there now would be nowhere near as bad. Yes they may practice Sharia Law and have their own way of life but thats up to them to live by that. It is not up to us to go police the world. A lot of the current problems have stemmed from Western government actions.

Again, with Israel - Palestine, why do you think Britain is so interested in the affair? I think you'll find that the UK actually promised them both the same land. We're part of the problem, not the solution. The solution would be minding our own bloody business and getting our own house in order.

You're essentially saying that some people are free to oppress others. The West, while not perfect, has a system of laws and liberal values which stem from the enlightenment of the modern era. Much of the middle east has not gone through any similar transition yet. Hence, it is not arrogant or conceited to admit, as a Westerner, that the West's values are superior to the East's. They are superior because they have had more time to evolve, not because there is any special property (ethnic or otherwise) about Western people. The people of the middle east and other non-enlightened societies deserve the freedom and enlightenment and prosperity that Western liberal capitalism would and does give them. When you say it is "up to them" to live by "that", do you not realise that what you are really saying is simply that it is up to their oppressors to oppress them?

Britain (and the West in general) is interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict because it represents the conflict between the West and Islamism. Israel is basically the only country in the middle east which subscribes to Western values. Far from being part of the problem, the West is the only solution currently to the madness in the middle east. The middle east needs to become much more like the West. It can happen, but no thanks to pessimists like you.

They will find their own way without foreign intervention much like we did. We do not need to mollycoddle them. All that will happen is they'll become dependent on help from the west when in reality they should be fighting their own battles. They're not our battles to fight.

And no, I am not a pessimist. I am a realist. There is a difference. As for oppression, you're happy for innocents to die trying to force liberalised western values on the middle east. Please enlighten me to who the actual oppressors are? You seem to be in a glass house. I suggest you stop throwing stones.

Was Britain "mollycoddling" Europeans when it liberated them from German tyranny in 1944? Remember, it wasn't "us" as such that initiated the Western enlightenment. We, in the West today, inherit it. It was given to us; we didn't invent it. Seeing as we have it and they (in the middle east) don't, why not share it with them too? As a human being, when I see oppressed human beings, then the fight against their oppressor becomes my fight too. Even if that oppressor is the tyranny that that person elected.

When did I say I was happy for innocents to die? I am never happy for innocents to die. That's why in any war I advocate the minimisation, and if possible, elimination, of all civilian casualties. Though in any war, some innocents will die. That doesn't mean that no war is worth fighting.

If what you deem to be "realism" is correct, then it is a very bleak, pessimistic view of life.

Speaking of the daily mail, they have done little more than encourage the myth of IS terror (the media are trying to make ISIS look like some great enemy great job guys must be very demoralising for troops going into combat).

I'm against any war unless its a defensive action. Our actions in the middle east are intervention as opposed to defence and thus I do not support them. Preaching peace whilst going around the world droning areas is hypocrisy in its finest form.

No it is not, unless you believe that the area would be peaceful were it not for the drones. In order to believe that, you would have to be so ignorant as to make your opinion worthless. You would also have to believe in peace at the expense of freedom, an idea which I find revolting.

good luck with that mate! this isn't call of duty were you'll 'respawn' once you get your anus kicked by ISIS terrorists!

I find the fact you're happy for civilians to die in your support for the pursuit of freedom revolting. Utterly disgusting in fact.

But I'm not, and have already stated as such. Stop being disingenuous.

Well you clearly don't mind. You're happy for intervention in the middle east to take place and as a result these civilians die. As a humanitarian I find that repulsive.

Do you oppose all wars on this basis?

Yes. I believe our military should be primarily self defence. If ISIS attacked the UK then we'd have grounds for example in the act of defending our nation and its people to defend ourselves. I do not believe in military intervention at all. It just exacerbates the problem.

It is easy for you to say that as somebody who has the privilege of living in peace in a free, prosperous country. To me, it is more depraved to stand on idly while barbarians subjugate innocent people. Somebody who is able but not willing to prevent evil, is not good.

If I were in one of those countries the last thing I'd want is the US/UK and other ally forces bombing the area where I lived. I'd be more than happy to fight my own battles within than have external forces intervene doing what they believe is right because of their moral arrogance and superiority complex.

It isn't a "superiority" complex to believe that liberal democracy is better than IS barbarity or MB tyranny. Neither is it arrogant to claim that the Western enlightenment is good for everybody, not just Westerners. Not the be-all and end-all, not the ideology to end all suffering, but the best of the worst.

I can tell you that if I were living in Iraq right now, I would be cheering for the US to bomb IS back to the stone age, where they belong.

It is easy for you to say that as somebody who has the privilege of living in peace in a free, prosperous country. To me, it is more depraved to stand on idly while barbarians subjugate innocent people. Somebody who is able but not willing to prevent evil, is not good.

You'd be cheering the fact that external forces were bombing an area nearby where you and your family live? Yes, of course you would. As for your notion it is not a superiority complex, it is. If there was a Jihadist state left alone to operate under Sharia Law and people who wanted that way of life could live there and those that didn't could leave as ACTUALLY happened when the Christians left Raqqa, then there'd be a lot less problems.

Why don't you understand many Muslims want to live in a Jihadist state? You and other liberals seem blatantly unaware that some people actually want to live in a society where such barbaric actions are cast upon them. They loathe Western freedoms and hate things like drinking, drugs, etc. They want that way of life. If they want it, let them have it.

This is the only way this will end - by establishing a Jihadist state otherwise the West will continue on fighting against something that will always be there. If its not Al Qaeda, its Islamic State. If its not Islamic State, it'll be the next group preaching and advocating Jihad. There will be no peace in the middle east until they get a Jihadist state that is recognised.

You realize to solve this problem you would need a state that stretched across the entirety of Western Asia? Groups like IS and al Qaeda don't want a state, they want an entire region of the world. Giving them that is not an option and would cause more death and bloodshed than fighting them now.