Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

I dunno. It seems sensible to me. Offer to negotiate with daesh... of course they won't accept. Everybody knows they're not interested in that.
But by being willing to talk and not just bomb you gain points for the evil imperialist west and daesh loses a few

Meaning some people in the world who are on the fence between evil imperialist west and ISIS might be pushed to our side by an offer to negotiate, or that the history books might treat them more harshly if they refuse?

What exactly would we talk to them about?  "If you reduce teenage rape by half and homosexual stoning by half we'll give you some food aid?"

Even disregarding the immense immorality of such negotiations (whether with ISIS, or with Saudis, as Tamas points out), what various leftists ignore is that the West bowing down to Islamist pressure actually fucks up immensely the cause of any actual secularists and moderates in the Islam world. So yeah, to paraphrase Talleyrand, it wouldn't just be a misdeed, it would be a mistake.

Incidentally, is using the word "Daesh" some sort of virtue signaling? It seems to me that people who use that term (especially exclusively, while refusing to ever use "ISIS", "ISIL" or "the Islamic State") are uniformly pieces of shit.

I though Daesh was the insulting term. We were not supposed to use ISIS or ISIL as that was legitimising of their aspirations to statehood. Course as a foreign word, I think Daesh never truly took off.

[Martinus]

I dunno. It seems sensible to me. Offer to negotiate with daesh... of course they won't accept. Everybody knows they're not interested in that.
But by being willing to talk and not just bomb you gain points for the evil imperialist west and daesh loses a few

Meaning some people in the world who are on the fence between evil imperialist west and ISIS might be pushed to our side by an offer to negotiate, or that the history books might treat them more harshly if they refuse?

What exactly would we talk to them about?  "If you reduce teenage rape by half and homosexual stoning by half we'll give you some food aid?"

Even disregarding the immense immorality of such negotiations (whether with ISIS, or with Saudis, as Tamas points out), what various leftists ignore is that the West bowing down to Islamist pressure actually fucks up immensely the cause of any actual secularists and moderates in the Islam world. So yeah, to paraphrase Talleyrand, it wouldn't just be a misdeed, it would be a mistake.

Incidentally, is using the word "Daesh" some sort of virtue signaling? It seems to me that people who use that term (especially exclusively, while refusing to ever use "ISIS", "ISIL" or "the Islamic State") are uniformly pieces of shit.

I though Daesh was the insulting term. We were not supposed to use ISIS or ISIL as that was legitimising of their aspirations to statehood. Course as a foreign word, I think Daesh never truly took off.

But that's what they call themselves and they are clearly linked with Islam. It seems to me like a pathetic case of a "no true Scottsman" fallacy.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, Islamic terrorists really have it hard. They tell you at every opportunity that what they do is inspired by Qu'ran and done in the name of Allah - but the West just won't listen. 

"No, sorry, you are mistaken. You are not truly Muslim and faith plays no role in your actions. You do what you do because of our imperialism, socio-economic conditions and global warming. In fact, we created you. We are so sorry."

[garbon]

I dunno. It seems sensible to me. Offer to negotiate with daesh... of course they won't accept. Everybody knows they're not interested in that.
But by being willing to talk and not just bomb you gain points for the evil imperialist west and daesh loses a few

Meaning some people in the world who are on the fence between evil imperialist west and ISIS might be pushed to our side by an offer to negotiate, or that the history books might treat them more harshly if they refuse?

What exactly would we talk to them about?  "If you reduce teenage rape by half and homosexual stoning by half we'll give you some food aid?"

Even disregarding the immense immorality of such negotiations (whether with ISIS, or with Saudis, as Tamas points out), what various leftists ignore is that the West bowing down to Islamist pressure actually fucks up immensely the cause of any actual secularists and moderates in the Islam world. So yeah, to paraphrase Talleyrand, it wouldn't just be a misdeed, it would be a mistake.

Incidentally, is using the word "Daesh" some sort of virtue signaling? It seems to me that people who use that term (especially exclusively, while refusing to ever use "ISIS", "ISIL" or "the Islamic State") are uniformly pieces of shit.

I though Daesh was the insulting term. We were not supposed to use ISIS or ISIL as that was legitimising of their aspirations to statehood. Course as a foreign word, I think Daesh never truly took off.

But that's what they call themselves and they are clearly linked with Islam. It seems to me like a pathetic case of a "no true Scottsman" fallacy.

Well the conversation was had at the time when they were just expanding (well and now they are contracting) so calling them a state was and probably now is, a bit of a misnomer.

Additionally, they were pissed about being called Daesh. So yeah, it may have allowed some to weasel out of referring to them as Islamic but it also was a fuck you to ISIS.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/what-daesh-mean-isis-threatens-6841468

What does Daesh mean? ISIS 'threatens to cut out the tongues' of anyone using this word

Since the Paris terror attacks last November, the word 'Daesh' has been used with increasing frequency by world leaders and the media.

It seemed to appear from nowhere, replacing the more commonly used 'ISIS', 'ISIL' or 'IS', but there's a reason it's gaining popularity.

Daesh is an acronym for the Arabic phrase al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

Essentially, it's another word for ISIS - but apparently one that ISIS militants do not favour.

Why? Because it is similar to the Arabic words 'Daes', 'one who crushes something underfoot' and 'Dahes', translated as 'one who sows discord'.

[garbon]

Incidentally, Islamic terrorists really have it hard. They tell you at every opportunity that what they do is inspired by Qu'ran and done in the name of Allah - but the West just won't listen. 

"No, sorry, you are mistaken. You are not truly Muslim and faith plays no role in your actions. You do what you do because of our imperialism, socio-economic conditions and global warming. In fact, we created you. We are so sorry."

Yes, I think most people (/most politicians) in the West would say that. Oh wait, they wouldn't.

[celedhring]

Our Bible-Thumping Interior Minister makes a point of always calling them "Daesh", and he's not one to mince his words regarding Islam. So not sure where the claim of it being a word for kind and sensitive persons comes from.

[Josquius]

The reason I, and I assume many others, use Daesh is that IS legitimises them as The Islamic State. When seeing Muslims as the enemy is exactly the sort of thing that plays right into their hands. We should make clear that contrary to daesh propeganda Islam isn't the enemy, it's those terrorist douches.
Also daesh annoys people who deserve to be annoyed.

I dunno. It seems sensible to me. Offer to negotiate with daesh... of course they won't accept. Everybody knows they're not interested in that.
But by being willing to talk and not just bomb you gain points for the evil imperialist west and daesh loses a few

Meaning some people in the world who are on the fence between evil imperialist west and ISIS might be pushed to our side by an offer to negotiate, or that the history books might treat them more harshly if they refuse?

What exactly would we talk to them about?  "If you reduce teenage rape by half and homosexual stoning by half we'll give you some food aid?"

Both.

And yes. Obviously there's not much scope for negotiations. But how that would play out: "we asked them to stop raping everything. They said no."
....Kind of obvious who is in the right there.

[garbon]

Our Bible-Thumping Interior Minister makes a point of always calling them "Daesh", and he's not one to mince his words regarding Islam. So not sure where the claim of it being a word for kind and sensitive persons comes from.

Probably from the same crew that was all up in arms about how 'radical islam' was a phrase that needed to be used.

[garbon]

And yes. Obviously there's not much scope for negotiations. But how that would play out: "we asked them to stop raping everything. They said no."
....Kind of obvious who is in the right there.

Who would be convinced by that - who is not already turned off by the fact that so much raping is being carried out?

[Tamas]

We have around 56 countries which call themselves People's Republic or other very democratic declaration while being autocratic hellholes, yet we don't put the "so called" tag in front of them.

[garbon]

We have around 56 countries which call themselves People's Republic or other very democratic declaration while being autocratic hellholes, yet we don't put the "so called" tag in front of them.

Do we put the "so called" tag in front of any nation's name?

[Martinus]

Our Bible-Thumping Interior Minister makes a point of always calling them "Daesh", and he's not one to mince his words regarding Islam. So not sure where the claim of it being a word for kind and sensitive persons comes from.

Actually, Bible-thumpers, especially the Catholic ones, seem to be very keen not to paint Islam as the enemy, for some reason (I guess stupid religions hang together).

[Josquius]

Who would be convinced by that - who is not already turned off by the fact that so much raping is being carried out?

Moderate Muslims and the loony left.
Helps to throw off daeshs rhetoric of an evil west unwilling to talk and just wanting to kill.
The only way to defeat these groups long term is to show them that we aren't interested in a  holy war, that we actually want muslims to be healthy and happy. We aren't the bad guy here.

We have around 56 countries which call themselves People's Republic or other very democratic declaration while being autocratic hellholes, yet we don't put the "so called" tag in front of them.

Different situation. Western socialists are hardly likely to fall for north Korean propeganda and run off to join them in attacking the west.
Also the peoples republic of x. Specifically x. Islamic State is claiming to be a global caliphate - this makes ISIS more palatable than IS.

[celedhring]

Our Bible-Thumping Interior Minister makes a point of always calling them "Daesh", and he's not one to mince his words regarding Islam. So not sure where the claim of it being a word for kind and sensitive persons comes from.

Actually, Bible-thumpers, especially the Catholic ones, seem to be very keen not to paint Islam as the enemy, for some reason (I guess stupid religions hang together).

He's pretty keen on painting Islam as "suspect" at the very least. He's an adherent of the "refugees as fifth-columnists" narrative for example. I think you just read way too much into the supposedly spurious motivations behind using one word or the other.

[Martinus]

Moderate Muslims and the loony left.

I don't know (or care) for the loony left but I do actually follow a number of moderate Muslim reformists (like Maajid Nawaz or others associated with the Quilliam think tank, or Asra Nomani) and secularists from Muslim countries (like Faisal Saeed Al Mutar) and at least they do not want anything of the sort - quite the contrary, they keep saying that the Western liberals' lukewarm response and weakness in condemning atrocities of Islamism are helping to legitimize and strengthen Islamism in Muslim countries, while hindering reformists.

The left has this idea about moderate Muslims that if we protest atrocities done in the name of Islam by the likes of ISIL (or allow, say, exercise of free speech such as cartoons of Mohammed), we will somehow push the moderates into the arms of extremism. If this is true, then these people are not moderates, but should be treated as dangerous madmen, who are unable to function in a normal society. More likely, however, this picture of moderates is wrong and, ultimately, racist, as it paints a group of people as dangerous madmen.