I thought only Gypsies had crystal balls David!

And it's just this sort of warmonger scaremongering that could start a nuclear war in the Middle East?

Let no imagined stone remain unturned least there is a perceived threat hiding under it!

And given Israel is the only Middle East power with a nuclear arsenal; the only Middle Eastern power currently capable of starting a nuclear war?

The only way to prevent a nuclear calamity there, is for Israel to recognize its peril and get a two state solution done and dusted; so as to ensure that Iran's (also) enemies remain Israel's (also) friends; and the hostile focus remains Iran's!

Simply put David, as long as Iran and Syria have Russian and to a lesser degree China in their corner, with security council veto power; all this worry bead stuff is just "whistling" in the wind; and nearly as useful!

An agreement had to be brokered and recognized, given the only other option was war?

And it'd nice for a clearly "expansionist" sabre rattling Israel to have others to do her fighting for her, wouldn't it?

A homespun homily for you. It's not sensible to cure the disease if you need to kill the patient doing so!
Rhrosty.

#Rhrosty

Islamic State merely a "perceived threat" as you claim?

"Warmonger scaring" - as you open your mouth whilst putting your foot in it?

Ah of course - trosty rhosty has the solution gazing into a crystal ball in his hands- get Israel to do the two-state deal and Islamic State will break down in tears at such action and renounce all further attempts to restore the Caliphate to its former days of glory.

Both Russia and China do not agree with you - having not exercised their vetos - thus enabling the Security Council to pass Security Council Resolution 2170:
"Expressing its gravest concern that territory in parts of Iraq and Syria is under the control of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Nusrah Front(ANF) and about the negative impact of their presence, violent extremist ideology and actions on stability in Iraq, Syria and the region, including the devastating humanitarian impact on the civilian populations which has led to the displacement of millions of people, and about their acts of violence that foment sectarian tensions,"

"Reaffirming that those who have committed or are otherwise responsible for violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights in Iraq and Syria, including persecution of individuals on the basis of their religion or belief, or on political grounds, must be held accountable,"

Holding these murderers accountable by authorizing military action is the next step the UN Security Council must take - because all measures up to now to try and stop them have proved ineffectual.

The likelihood of Russia and China joining in such a resolution seems far more likely given the unanimity among the five permanent UN members in sealing the Iran deal.

Whistling in the wind? I don't think so.

Beware of bits of glass in your skin and eyes when your crystal ball shatters in your face.

"Reaffirming that those who have committed or are otherwise responsible for violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights in Iraq and Syria, including persecution of individuals on the basis of their religion or belief, or on political grounds, must be held accountable"

Its unfortunate that you don't have a similar view when Israel does the same thing David.

#Armchair Critic

These are not my views. They are the views of all 15 members of the UN Security Council.

Do you think their unanimous view is well based?

I might remind you the last 4 years of conflict in Syria alone has seen over 230000 people killed and six million displaced - three million internally and three million externally.

Islamic State is a threat to world peace and security and a Security Council resolution authorizing military action to stop it dead in its tracks is urgently needed.

Have you ever posted a comment anywhere protesting these disgustingly violent conflicts? If so please refer me to them.

You made the comment.

My response relates to the issue that you seem to support actions taken by Israel (who deliberately target Palestinian women, children and infrastructure) and say nothing in defense of their treatment, but vehemently oppose when anyone else does it elsewhere.

Its hypocritical, if you want people to take you more seriously you need to hold an un-biased stance.

In response to your question: Do you think their unanimous view is well based?

I support liberty and freedom for all people so I most certainly oppose Islamic State and any kind of Islamic extremism.

That said...

If you are asking if I support military intervention against Islamic State because of their fanatical views and murderous actions the answer is 'Yes';
But if you are asking if I support military intervention against Islamic State in order to push forward some geopolitical agenda under the cover of fighting Islamic State then the answer is 'No'.

Israel has long held a position that breaking up its surrounding Arab neighbours states is in its best interests.
And US Neocons have worked to make this plan a reality, which in my opinion has everything to do with the events unfolding in the M/E.

In light of this, Israel and the US is very much just as guilty of being "responsible for violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights in Iraq and Syria", by proxy.

If I haven't previously voiced my disgust regarding actions taken by Islamic State its because I'm being cautious not to be inadvertently supporting a military intervention that has a separate geopolitical agenda.