The Black Flag rises.

The idea of allowing those who want to travel to so called islamic state and live there to hand in their uk passports and go is in the news again, probably in the wake of the commemoration of the london massacre ten years ago.

Nothing is simple, there may well be complications to consider, but broadly speaking, this idea chimes in with freedom of choice of the individual, and may reduce the probability of terrorist type attacks in the uk.

The alternative of keeping people cooped up here who want to go seems a worse option.

If born in this country you hold British citizenship. By virtue of that alone you are 'bound' by the laws of this country one of which is loyalty to the Crown. Having taken the benefits (which are boundless when put against many others) it is disloyal to leave to fight this country's enemies abroad or to fight this countries laws and people here. For such, if caught, or discovered, you are culpable of treachery to the crown. Therefore don't expect any quarters or favours should you wish to return here or expose yourself to this country's laws and requirements.

It's simple enough.

Furthermore IF you feel that strongly there are always ways of disappearing to further your own agenda. But once having committed yourself it will be like joining the Mafia - you'll be there for life (as long as it lasts).

I wouldn't urge the disaffected to leave, as I believe most are a bit mental to want to go in the first place. But I certainly wouldn't spend time on stopping them - unless they were under age and suffering from adolescent lurgi.

German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer went into Isis territory for ten days, and has returned to give his report. A remarkably brave thing to do.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/inside-isis-the-first-western-journalist-ever-given-access-to-the-islamic-state-has-just-returned--and-this-is-what-he-discovered-9938438.html

Yes. One cannot decide if he is just mad or what? However it does show that we are dealing with ignorance and stupidity fronted by a criminal corrupt power block which, similar to the Nazis, are using the former to further their criminal activities. Their elimination, as with the Nazis, is the only answer to the problem. Talking won't do it - regardless of all the well-meaning pundits of that method - any more than would talking to Hitler and his clique or Tojo and his band of militarists. Or Pol pot or Saddam or many others. They only understand one thing - victory or defeat and death.
The rest is pointless. The problem won't be solved until the Arab nations get troops on the ground and sort it for themselves. That we suffer to some extent in the meantime is probable back-lash for our interference in Arab affairs and as such probably deserve it.

Brave rather than mad, apparently, but who can say?
Mr. Todenhofer gave an interesting interview with the BBC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRCPRKgAaTg

There's a fine line between bravery and madness. The Germans are very good at it - the Russians even better and the Japanese are just mad to start with. National traits which help explain some actions displayed that we might find illogical. Arguing with the rounded roundel of a rifle barrel gets one dead - it certainly doesn't solve anything. Talking to the deaf with your back turned to them has the same effect. It makes for good journalism.It doesn't solve anything.In fact some of it is counter-productive where the weak minded are concerned.

Good journalism is important, people take a lot of notice of the media. The pressure is on Europe now to "bring peace and stability to the middle east". Something serious and realistic needs to be negotiated. Tony Blair as middle east peace envoy didn't seem to sort it out.

The only way to bring peace and stability to the Middle East is through the barrel of a gun. Why us? Haven't we done enough damage already? It's up to the Arab nations to draw the lines and settle for the best of a bad bargain and go in and sort it out. They have the wherewithal - but don't know how to use it or even how to begin the process. But until they do - its a lost cause.

Russia has started their attack in Syria. Their military strategy seems to be to establish bases on the coast, and drive inland, destroying whatever gets in the way.

Is this moving towards a decisive end to the war in Syria? The Russians seem to have the mindset and the military to wipe out all opposition.

That would suit some and displease others. But if the Russian military want to kill off their own troops in such a process I doubt anyone else will try and stop them (other than those they are fighting). It would suit everyone to return to a situation post the Arab uprising in Syria. You have to bear in mind that Syria has been destroyed and will be further trashed by such a campaign. The aftermath, given Assad is left in power, will be ideal to keep him and his cohorts busy for the next twenty years just to get back to what was considered normal before the troubles (his troubles) began. The West doesn't care who rules in the Middle East always and providing it doesn't upset their agendas (i.e. oil). If the Russian truly want to free Assad and do the job for him I doubt anyone will try and upset the apple-cart. One needs to get real - smell the coffee and - move on.

Syria probably fits into a wider Russian strategy.

Of course it does. And whilst Russia takes on ISIL the rest are not too concerned regarding the Ukraine which will settle down into a divided nation as Putin figured. The man's no fool. He knows Obama is a walk-over which gives him the elbow room he wants to re-generate Russian influence across the globe - always and providing that he calculates well. (The trouble with that is that most dictators come believe their own propaganda and over-step the mark). We shall see.

Russia sees USA and the west in a weak and ineffective phase, and Islamic extremism as a threat. What more complicated ideas, histories and calculations are behind Russian moves into Crimea and now Syria are guesswork.

It's all guesswork. But he who guesses correctly takes the prize.

The media seem to be making guesses in all directions aout Russian intentions. Is this the first time Russia has fought a war in a warm climate?

They were in Afghanistan, which can be warm.

Indeed. And as with everyone else who has tried to tame that continent into their own ways they failed miserably after an estimated 20,000 dead. Only mad dogs and Englishmen go into the mid-day sun. Because we are pretty good at what we do - certainly more-so than all the rest - and even we didn't succeed after trying it twice.
There appears to be a Russian bid to stamp its influence on this region. It's a long term policy with the main factors of oil and bulwarking the fundamental Islamic influences away from its own territories whilst coveting those Islamic nations with the most influence (Shiites) to keep the 'order'.
It matters not, to the Russians, the 'guise' under which those governments operate always and providing that they keep control and any dissension down.  I can't say that I blame them given the huge numbers of Moslems that they already have within their own borders. A bit like eradicating the potential detonators away from the ammunition dump.

Afghanistan and Syria both have varied climates, ranging from snowy mountains to parched lowland. Russian military probably see Syria as more manageable in terms of terrain.

The Russians are denying a mediterranean coastline to I.S.. If 'moderate' forces had managed to defeat Assad, I.S would have tried to displace them.

It's fairly predictable with increase in bombing, more refugees will flee into Europe, European countries will have to cope with that.

The conservative conference looks back in anguish at failure to control immigration and with some despair at the foreigness now of many parts of Britain. With the war hotting up in Syria, genuine refugees (predicted at several million) must be a special case.

Russia is having a go with it's cruise missiles, fired from the Caspian sea into Syria, an unexpected move, but makes military, political and strategic sense. Turkey complains Russia isn't targeting Isal, but, didn't Turkey attack the Kurds instead of Isal?

All very complicated with people and nations milling round trying to adjust to circumstances. Generally speaking, the Russian attack appears to be developing rather like a chess strategy.

Threat of chemical type attacks by Isal hangs in the backgound.

I have no sympathy with all whose political presence could have made an appreciable difference in what began as a civil war and degenerated into a civil war by proxy for power at any cost. The West saw a chance at regime change (laudable but naive). But didn't provide the wherewithal for the opposition forces to conclude a sharp decisive victory over the dictator. The vacuum thus created allowed the fundamentalist/fascist forces to gather and become a threat. The reaction was pathetic to say the least even when chemical weapons and outlawed weapons came in to play.
What has happened now is a coming together of all the Shiite nations in the area who prefer the dictator to the Sunni rebels (being funded by Turkey and Saudi etc) and with the assistance of the dictators ally Russia are going to attempt to sort it all out. And left alone that is exactly what will happen  - eventually. Iran has to maintain a balance of power against the Gulf States and Israel for its own survival and thus will hold up any regime that plays for the Shiite side. ISIL are not the problem. They will be eradicated one way or another. By one side or the other. What matters is that the balance of power in the area is maintained on an equal basis. That has always been the best deterrent in that area as long as I can remember. Hopefully it will get back there as quickly as possible.

Islamic State are a problem, and not only in that region. By their self-advertised, continuous stream of atrocity, the extreme of Islamic belief has been demonstrated to the wider world in an very unsettling way. Even if and when they have perhaps been eradicated from territory in Syria/Iraq, Islamic State has other venues.

All terrorists have 'other' venues. That's the nature of the beast. Terrorism has been fostered, grown, been eradicated then re-grown in every country in the world at one time or another. At present there are about 80 countries across the globe where one form of terrorism or another takes place every day. From Islamic fundamentalist to Tibetan communists and every guise in-between. The danger isn't ISIS. They can be neutered at any time it suits the bigger powers. (If there is a danger from these types of groups it's them getting their hands on MWD's.) The danger comes from proxy wars fought by the major powers and an escalation that becomes impossible to stop.
Someone has to 'back-down' from this Syrian adventure. My advice would be for the West to back off and let the Russians do the job. They have less scruples than us. Time to use the brain and dump the brawn. No good can come of what is happening at the moment if we keep mathering about human rights and meddling in what was and still is a civil war.

This advice to back off and let the Russians do the job does seem the best choice. See how they get on.

For europe, coping with the millions of muslim refugees and associated migrants is the immediate and potentially problematic reality. We can expect the Russian advance to increase the numbers.

Then it will be the fault of those assisting and upholding the Assad regime won't it! Not ours - as it is seen at the present time. Let the Russians get on with it. I have no problem with that. And for those who say we should support the opposition forces be they Jihad or Kurd or whatever - what then if they win - another Libya? Another Egypt? Another Iraq? Another balls-up? I don't think so. Let the Arabs sort out the Arabs. And let's stop trying to be world policemen (or is at the moment the Police reserve). As for refugees - UN only. As for economic migrants - send them to Germany or send them back. Time to start caring ONLY for our own. Get that right first - then perhaps we can assist some other unfortunates. Which won't happen if we keep on spending all our money on other 'world' problems. Sorry - but there it is.