Aren't we in danger of missing the point here? The very fact that Iraqi jet pilots have defected to ISIS is worrying in itself. Maybe they do only have some old obsolete aircraft at their disposal, but if they are ramping up their activities to the next level, how long will it be before they get hold of some modern jets with the ability to fly them?

Sorry, I won't be accused of scaremongering, that is just bluster. Think ahead to what a future threat might be, not just the current one. We have already agreed here that any military campaign needs strategy and tactics, it also needs reconnaissance, intelligence, and forward planning. From what I can see, most professional military observers are advocating going in hard and taking ISIS out now, before they become too powerful.

Sadly I have to agree, even though it looks like that boots on the ground will be necessary, despite political wishes to the contrary. That could likely mean even at the very least some UK special forces, which might not all come home. This is a fight about another countries problems, but unfortunately it also effects everyone else as well. The world is not a happy place to live in at the moment.

Next escalation

Ninety-six percent of a chimpanzee's genome is the same as a human's. It's the other 4 percent, and the vast differences, that has intrigued researchers. For instance, why do humans have a high risk of cancer, even though chimps rarely develop the disease? In a new study, scientists have looked at brain samples of each species. They found that differences in certain DNA modifications, called methylation, may contribute to phenotypic changes. The results also hint that DNA methylation plays an important role for some disease-related phenotypes in humans, including cancer and autism.

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

The issue over whether Chimps/Bonobos, Orang-Utans etc are our closed relatives is open for debate anyway. The statements often bounded about as too how close we are genetically is a moot point, we are only around 6% different from earth worms and only about 8% different from flowering plants, yet we are 4% different from the Great Apes, so percentage of genetic different is not and should not be a deciding factor in any decision with massive implications for society.

Again, no.

We have about 98% commonality with chimps, about 44% with a fruit fly, 26% with yeast and only about 18% with plants.

I would suggest that the US courts buy a new Dictionary if they even waste time hearing this case. There is no such word in English as "personhood". The word person is primarilly a noun used to descibe a HUMAN BEING (Homo Sapien) which is a distinct species seperate from any of the Apes.

Too late. The New York State Appeals Court has already heard the case.

The phrase I used was 'legal personhood'.

The legal definition of 'person':

Person Legal Definition:
An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.

Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.

Note that not all members of Homo sapiens *ARE* legal persons. Also note that some entities that are NOT members of Homo sapiens (indeed are not even living beings) *ARE* legal persons.

I asked a question earlier, and I will repeat it. What qualities would a non-Homo sapiens life form have to possess in order to qualify as a legal person? This question has relevance to this project.

This project is all about the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Lets say we find some, and they show up. Would *THEY* be legal persons?

Some here are willing to consider the concept, using my example of a Chimpanzee. They ARE a grey area. They possess many, perhaps most, of the qualities WE do. But are they People (that is to say, at least potentially a 'legal person')?

As I said, some are open to the idea. Others are adamant that 'people' is a "Homo sapiens only club".

Oh, and by the way, Homo sapiens *IS* a species of Great Ape. We did not stop being a Great Ape when we discovered how to make fire, invented agriculture and the wheel, and became... "civilized".

Jim, I think the point is as I posted before here earlier post All options remain open to the UK, but we will take carefully considered moves, as indeed you would expect us to do.

However there are times when the only way to win a battle is with overwhelming and decisive action, and this is one of them. The US is childishly allowing history to block moves that would see the assistance of Iran in thie process, and many in the west will not deal with the Assad regime for similar reasons.

Many in the West do not want to deal with Assad for good reasons. He is the source of the problem, he has, in a move of sheer cynical calculation allowed ISIS and other Islamic extremists to gain power so now the West would be forced to intervene and support him. We should not reward such behavior by helping him, we should reward that behavior with a well aimed Hellfire missile in his face.

Aside from moral concerns, there also practical concerns of supporting Assad. For one, he has lost most if not all of his legitimacy among his people. Helping him will only make the average people in the area, and Muslims in general, hate us in turn. All they will see is the West supporting another brutal dictator who gassed his own people, but because hes against the Muslim extremists we are overlooking that little fact. For the long term stability of the region, Assad has to go.

The only way to defeat ISL will be a full scale military assault from multiple fronts. The forces pitted against ISL at this time are poorly motivated, poorly trained, poorly equipped and lack the kind of integrated operational strategy required in such fluid environments against a non-conventional force. Faced with assaults from all side ISL will crumble because they have no experience of such scale and simply lack the resources to prosecute such a campaign.

Learn your history. ISIS is at its core still a terrorist organization. Faced with such an overwhelming military assault, what do you think will happen? They stand and try to hold their ground? Or go underground and start a terror campaign. And when they do go underground, what good will that large military be? Not a whole lot, traditional militaries are generally really really bad at fighting guerrilla's. It will be Iraq and Afghanistan all over again. Daily car bombs going off, IED's hitting convoys, ambushes, etc until after a few years we are sick of it and we pull out. And a few months later, the terrorists crawl out of the woodwork, they destroy the local security forces and the whole thing starts over again.

Overwhelming military force is not a solution because it doesn't work against this kind of opponent. Whatever force we use should only be a stop gap measure to prevent ISIS from growing and support the local forces containing or driving ISIS back, but the real, long term solution will have to be something other than military force.

First off, a military action is entirely different from a military campaign.

No, you were not lied to, you just didn't pay any attention when the politicians were talking. They clearly stated that airstrikes alone would not stop ISIS and they never suggested that it was just a matter of dropping some bombs. The bombing campaign is designed to do two things.

First of all its supposed to prevent ISIS from gaining more territory. This of course, needs to be coordinated with ground forces such as the Iraqi army or Kurdish fighters. The coalition takes out hard targets and the ground forces move in to properly secure the area.

Second of all, the bombing is supposed to hit valuable targets, such as oil refineries, supply dumps, training camps and administrative centers. That way their command structure gets hit, their ability to pump up and sell oil gets taken out thus reducing their income and obviously the enemy is a bit easier to take out if they are low on ammo and don't drive around in tanks, IFV's and APC's.

IF you had read the papers you would have known that bombing is just step one. There is still a step two and three.

Where the Middle East is concerned, there are only two options: -

1: Pull out & let them slaughter each other.

2: A full co-ordinated military campaign utilising all three arms, land, air & sea(where applicable).

Thank god youre not a policy maker. There are, of course, more than the two 'all or nothing' options you just summed up. If international relations really was just a matter of staying out or going in guns blazing in some all out war the human race would have gone extinct centuries ago.

So what is the third option? Well, support the moderate forces in the region with training and equipment and have them do the ground war, while if necessary you drop a few well placed bombs whenever necessary. You know, basically the thing we are currently doing. And afterwards, set up some kind of marshal plan for the region.