ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
I remember a sinister far left writer in guess which paper, suggesting that when the USA aided Haiti after the hurricane there, it was nothing more than imperialism. In hius small minded bitter world, that is all it could be
Never crossed his mind that they were simply" doing the right thing"
and this is where turkey has got it wrong. sometimes you have to act first and sort out the bits and pieces afterwards. Thats leadership. Pontificating over this possibility and that means that you never get out of bed.
They have seriously let down the kurds in their own country. Ok there are obvious issues but the pure evil of ISIS should trump that. Also any considerations about Assad should have been put to one side. Even he could see the wider picture
Turkey should have massed the troops and called in Obama to kick off a big time slaughter.
They would have had a huge bank of credit for doing so. Now they are seen as small minded cnts
Never crossed his mind that they were simply" doing the right thing"
and this is where turkey has got it wrong. sometimes you have to act first and sort out the bits and pieces afterwards. Thats leadership. Pontificating over this possibility and that means that you never get out of bed.
They have seriously let down the kurds in their own country. Ok there are obvious issues but the pure evil of ISIS should trump that. Also any considerations about Assad should have been put to one side. Even he could see the wider picture
Turkey should have massed the troops and called in Obama to kick off a big time slaughter.
They would have had a huge bank of credit for doing so. Now they are seen as small minded cnts
He's increased their role by 12,000 for 2020, complete with a "rebranding" (whatever that is) and new training (you don't need to be too imaginative to work that one out). Total strength will be 30,000 weapons trained individuals by the end of this decade, they're organised, have established command and control structures in place and capable of being deployed in the UK within hours
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Indeed they are just that !
They have lines of battle tanks idly watching the bloodshed a kilometre away in Kobane, whilst they shoot dead unarmed Kurdish protesters on the streets of Istanbul.
Hoping that their wish to join the E.U. is never realised.
They have lines of battle tanks idly watching the bloodshed a kilometre away in Kobane, whilst they shoot dead unarmed Kurdish protesters on the streets of Istanbul.
Hoping that their wish to join the E.U. is never realised.
Wasn't that Cameron's position of 12 months ago? He (like Turkey) then proceeded to try and support favoured paramilitaries to achieve it. As ever though, the more vicious and capable fighters were the militants. They beat the moderates and hey presto
I recall saying way back that IS had all the hallmarks of a black op gone wrong (mind you, I also said that Turkey would be used as a flag of convenience to invoke a NATO response outside of any UN obligation)
The wests response should be to work with Assad now if they want to defeat IS and don't want to invade themselves. They don't have any paltable choices left. If Assad falls the only thing thats stopping an advance on Israel is Hezbollah who have so far proven to be the only group on the ground who have checked IS when they alligned with Assad in western and north west Syria
It beggars belief what they're up to really. They don't want to work with Iran, they don't want to work with Syria, so there's your two biggest and most naturally aligned allies dismissed. They seemingly haven't got an leverage with Turkey, so NATO looks diminished. They don't want to reinvade themselves, and this week have pretty well admitted that their own aerobatics displays aren't going to turn the tide. That being so, these gulf states who've joined in are going to have no effect either. So the question really is just who do they think is going to throw IS back? They've made no attempt to reach out to the military capable countries of the world and say let's get on top of this. Indeed, the last 3-4 months of international relations has been soured
I'd say IS are sitting reasonably pretty at the moment, to consolidate and push again, which seems to be their MO. What we don't know of course is how many sleepers they've been able to immerse in somewhere like Baghdad capable of coming onto the streets from a Trojan horse
Warbler
This is about Turkey now, not Cameron (yet again) a year ago. This is an entirely different scenario and i think its more worthwhile commenting on Turkeys inaction with a vile situation within a few yards of its border than pontificating about events of a year ago which were far less clear
ISIS advance on Israel?
Bring it on! They wouldnt stand a fcking earthly and wouldnt dare. I would guarantee you now that is one attack that is most definitely on their agenda
This is about Turkey now, not Cameron (yet again) a year ago. This is an entirely different scenario and i think its more worthwhile commenting on Turkeys inaction with a vile situation within a few yards of its border than pontificating about events of a year ago which were far less clear
ISIS advance on Israel?
Bring it on! They wouldnt stand a fcking earthly and wouldnt dare. I would guarantee you now that is one attack that is most definitely on their agenda
So you're conceding that the same demands that Turkey is making, and which you're criticising them for, is the same as David Cameron's position?. Can I remind you that the UK won't bomb targets in Syria precisely because it would assist Assad stay in power. It needn't even be a case of what their position was 12 months ago either Clive, it's little different to that which is today as well.
Turkey won't get involved unless removing Assad is part of the deal. The UK won't get involved for fear of supporting him. Urmm..... two sides of the same coin me thinkz, but words like stones, throw, glasshouses etc do come to mind. In any event, what is so objectionable about Turkey's demands now? Haven't the UK been calling for the removal of Assad? Are they not being offered two birds with one stone here? Explain to me why the UK can't simply agree to Turkey's demands
Only the American's amongst the western allies can claim not to be acting hypocritically, and you do have to wonder how half hearted their contribution is given that they're only hitting about half a dozen raids a day and were more active 2 weeks ago. Not so long ago they were able to bomb Saddam's fridge they had so many targets they could find. Perhaps they've realised that dropping bombs costs money and doing so in the pursuit of a lost cause doesn't make economic sense?
And I wouldn't be too optimistic that Israel would find it as easy as you think either. The last incursion they made into Lebanon they had a real hard time up against Hezbollah and ended up retreating. Admittedly the terrain that IS would have to come across is much more conducive for Israel repelling them, and it's easier to defend than attack, but this could also depend how big their numbers have ultimately swollen to in a few years time
Turkey won't get involved unless removing Assad is part of the deal. The UK won't get involved for fear of supporting him. Urmm..... two sides of the same coin me thinkz, but words like stones, throw, glasshouses etc do come to mind. In any event, what is so objectionable about Turkey's demands now? Haven't the UK been calling for the removal of Assad? Are they not being offered two birds with one stone here? Explain to me why the UK can't simply agree to Turkey's demands
Only the American's amongst the western allies can claim not to be acting hypocritically, and you do have to wonder how half hearted their contribution is given that they're only hitting about half a dozen raids a day and were more active 2 weeks ago. Not so long ago they were able to bomb Saddam's fridge they had so many targets they could find. Perhaps they've realised that dropping bombs costs money and doing so in the pursuit of a lost cause doesn't make economic sense?
And I wouldn't be too optimistic that Israel would find it as easy as you think either. The last incursion they made into Lebanon they had a real hard time up against Hezbollah and ended up retreating. Admittedly the terrain that IS would have to come across is much more conducive for Israel repelling them, and it's easier to defend than attack, but this could also depend how big their numbers have ultimately swollen to in a few years time
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
For those tanks to be lined up just watching whilst people get massacred is an absolute disgrace..on a human scale.
Warbler, you are criticising us for trying to do something but not criticising Turkey for standing by and allowing massacre whilst fully tooled up on the site
forget Cameron..forget politics..do you think its ok for Turkey to just sit there with all that weaponry and do nothing?
in my opinion these aren't human beings..they are as as bad as Izal by doing nothing when they can to stop people being massacred
Warbler, you are criticising us for trying to do something but not criticising Turkey for standing by and allowing massacre whilst fully tooled up on the site
forget Cameron..forget politics..do you think its ok for Turkey to just sit there with all that weaponry and do nothing?
in my opinion these aren't human beings..they are as as bad as Izal by doing nothing when they can to stop people being massacred
Last edited:
This is it EC. Well put
As i said before, sometimes a state has to "do the right thing" Act first and squabble about detail later
Some people in life are big picture merchants and others are box tickers and pedants. I know which i prefer
As i said before, sometimes a state has to "do the right thing" Act first and squabble about detail later
Some people in life are big picture merchants and others are box tickers and pedants. I know which i prefer
Oh for christ sake. This obsession with Cameron gets worse
I think if people who were closely related were being attacked and slaughtered by an invading force 100 meters from the English border, he might just step in and do what is required rather than sitting on his hands and bringing up what ifs and whatabouts . And if i think he didn't (which is impossible to imagine), he would have a pretty angry electorate.
Turkey's standing in the world right now is about as low as it can get IMO
Last edited:
Remind me what exactly we're doing in SYRIA will you please? All I'm pointing out is that the UK is doing exactly the same in Syria as the Turks are - nothing. Can you not see that? Or have you broguht the Cameron propoganda that he's doing something?
I really don't see how the likes of yourself and Clive can come over all sanctimonious about this from the adopted position of British superiority. The only western country that can lay any claim to be upholding decency on this one and not pedalling a quasi political agenda are the United States.
What do I think Turkey should do? Personally if I were them I'd be looking at getting myself an abiding agreement that allows me territory before I crossed the border. On a huminatrean basis I probably would cross and pursue ISIS to a depth of about 2 miles, but unless I'm keeping the fruits of my liberation (and I can't think what use I'd have for the border town) I'd want UN peacekeepers in there. Allow me to have some Syira's oil wells though through treaty and I'd probably get involved - no different in motive to what's driven plenty of previous western interventions
In any event, what's so objectionable about Turkey's demands to remove Assad? This is what the UK and France have been calling for, for the last 12 months isn't it?
Bollocks frankly. I cant believe im reading this.
I suppose when France was liberated from the germans we should "have negotiated fruits of liberation" What crap
Get the international lawyers involved whilst the town falls and kids are beheaded
To say that we are in same position as Turkey is ludicrous.
no thanks. Awful
I suppose when France was liberated from the germans we should "have negotiated fruits of liberation" What crap
Get the international lawyers involved whilst the town falls and kids are beheaded
To say that we are in same position as Turkey is ludicrous.
no thanks. Awful
Last edited:
I'll take that as Yes then
So just so we can clarify this. Can you, or EC1, confirm that you are genuinely under the impression that the UK is proactively engaged in Syria in the defence of Kobane "trying to do something"?
If you accept that they aren't (and they aren't) then do you not accept that in the name of good old British decency and fair play, you should be applying the same criticism to your own government as you are the Turks? And can one of you answer what it is about the Turkish demands that you find so objectionable
We did you pillock! There were high level meetings throughout WW2 that divided up the post war settlement that finally culminated in Potsdam
Churchill you'll recall controversially dealt Greece for Yugoslavia in one of them (might have been Istanbul ironically). Yalta was another.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
just to make it clear..i have no time for Cameron..i also don't buy any politicial guff i'm told..i do have a brain even though that might be hard to believe
i said leave politics of the situation alone for a minute..those tanks don't even have to move forward..just fire..whats the problem with defending human beings here?
You said we shouldn't be there..any of us..leave them to it as they can sort it out ..well..they obviously can't as we can now see..even when they just have the simplest option in front of them
I'd love for us to have no involvement..and if those nearby had any humanity..then we wouldn't need to be involved full stop
what it looks like to me is that they have murderers on the loose and because they are murdering people that suit Turkey..then they happy to sit back and watch..they are scumbags in that case..just on a human level
i don't care about the politics..if England are **** at Football..Cricket..or if Cameron is the devil incarnate..this is just a straightforward case of people sitting there watching genocide take place and ignoring it..which make them worse than those carrying it out..they can't help what they do..murdering is their obsession/illness..sitting back and watching isn't
i said leave politics of the situation alone for a minute..those tanks don't even have to move forward..just fire..whats the problem with defending human beings here?
You said we shouldn't be there..any of us..leave them to it as they can sort it out ..well..they obviously can't as we can now see..even when they just have the simplest option in front of them
I'd love for us to have no involvement..and if those nearby had any humanity..then we wouldn't need to be involved full stop
what it looks like to me is that they have murderers on the loose and because they are murdering people that suit Turkey..then they happy to sit back and watch..they are scumbags in that case..just on a human level
i don't care about the politics..if England are **** at Football..Cricket..or if Cameron is the devil incarnate..this is just a straightforward case of people sitting there watching genocide take place and ignoring it..which make them worse than those carrying it out..they can't help what they do..murdering is their obsession/illness..sitting back and watching isn't
EC1
On a break
it makes no difference what we are doing anywhere..if your neighbour needed help...and you sat back and watched them get hurt..would you blame someone 200 miles away for doing nothing?
What I've said is that you either do nothing, or, you do the whole lot. What you don't do is this fuzzy liberal thing of flying a few GPS exercises round Iraq and then pat yourself on the back for a navigation job well done.
Personally, I'd be inclined to do the whole this time round. Ideally you also try and bring the bigger hitters in too like China and Russia
The time for action though was about 18 months, and even 12 months ago lone wolfs like myself were suggesting that we support Assad as the best bulwark we had against the inevitable unfolding of the situation we now have today.
My views were of course contrary to popular opinion as the UK was convinced he'd ordered a chemical weapons attack in Damascus under the noses of a UN inspection team (indeed idiot Hague stood alone in the world in concluding who was responsible within half an hour).
It's really simple, the despots are your natural allies. With the cold war alliances now obsolete (and they are David Cameron) you can still plug into the structures that the despots developed as their primary objective was to stay in power. Removing them was a really stupid move. You were better of supporting them and allowing them to develop a dependency on you.
Only a few days ago I did draw the paralell with the Warsaw uprising when the Soviets waited at the gates and the Poles fought (lost) but weakened, the Nazis, allowing the Red army to sweep the Polish capital much more quickly than they would have done.
The Turks probably do see the assisting the Kurds a little bit like the UK might view an intervention as coming to the assistance of the IRA. I have tried to sketch out in my own mind what an equivalent British position would be but we don't really have one, or it would be too hyypothetical
It might be a little bit like a Scottish uprising demanding independence (Scotland = Aleppo). It's a minority of the population but has a history of sovereignty. The Scottish uprising splits however and the peaceful democrats of the central belt are over run by hairy militant savages from the Highlands who start advancing into Northern Ireland (don't ask how - but bear with me). Somehow or other they surround Derry and are in a position to kill off non believers and dissenters.
It's a silly paralell admittedly, but it's the best i can conjure up in trying to understand what's going on from a Turkish perspective. I would actually agree with Clive however in this case that a British government would intervene. Perhaps the better example actually might be a terrorist enclave on the border with the Irish Republic as what we'd be doing is crossing into another country - yes that works better.
For some reason the Scots come ashore at Drogheda and work their way north pinning some militants in a border town
I think there are other elements to this
In the first case I do feel Edrogan is miscalculating the fact that he's becoming the best recruitment sargeant for the PKK they could hope for, and his callous inaction might potentially set off another round of domestic terrorism (a minor victory for IS in a perverse way). He really ought to be factoring this into his deliberations. We shouldn't perhaps overlook the fact that in the last 48 hours 20 Turkish Kurds have been killed protesting their own government. That compares to an estimated 400 in Kobane which is a battle that's been raging a lot longer. One suspects its only a matter of time now before the PKK set a bomb off somewhere. At that rate, bloodshed in Turkey could overtake that in Kobane which looks much more like a traditional urban snipers war
The other thing I'm wondering is whether America isn't in fact signalling that they're about to adopt to wholesale strategic change of direction? France have apparently accepted the Turkish demands and are arguing in favour of the no fly zone buffer. The American's are resisting it saying there are no plans to introduce it. Why?
The no fly zone promotes Turkish involvement and degrades Assad. The removal of Assad was, a declared objective of the alliance. Clearly the French still think it is, (as do the British by refusing to attack IS in Syria) yet might the American's be subtly altering their view?. Are they perhaps coming round to the idea that shoring up the despots is perhaps the best strategic repsonse?. They're known to have been pissed off with France and Britain for their inaccurate and alarmist predictions over Libya, and it's been America that has suffered most in that civil war. The Obama adminsitration and Hilary Clinton in particular had to endure a month long campaign after the muder of the diplomat in Benghazi, the spiritual home of the pro democratic National Transitionary Council (and also where the Islamists come from).
At face value there isn't anything about the Turkish demand on the surface that is unacceptable to the declared position of the west, yet the US has got cold feet on deposing the despot. Well can you blame them? Every time we've done this we've opened up a vacuum that's made things worse
Just a thought - since no one has yet answered the question I posed as to what it is they find objectionable about the Turkish demands. Let's just say the American's have possibly found something, even if they aren't prepared to put that something into the public domain
In the first case I do feel Edrogan is miscalculating the fact that he's becoming the best recruitment sargeant for the PKK they could hope for, and his callous inaction might potentially set off another round of domestic terrorism (a minor victory for IS in a perverse way). He really ought to be factoring this into his deliberations. We shouldn't perhaps overlook the fact that in the last 48 hours 20 Turkish Kurds have been killed protesting their own government. That compares to an estimated 400 in Kobane which is a battle that's been raging a lot longer. One suspects its only a matter of time now before the PKK set a bomb off somewhere. At that rate, bloodshed in Turkey could overtake that in Kobane which looks much more like a traditional urban snipers war
The other thing I'm wondering is whether America isn't in fact signalling that they're about to adopt to wholesale strategic change of direction? France have apparently accepted the Turkish demands and are arguing in favour of the no fly zone buffer. The American's are resisting it saying there are no plans to introduce it. Why?
The no fly zone promotes Turkish involvement and degrades Assad. The removal of Assad was, a declared objective of the alliance. Clearly the French still think it is, (as do the British by refusing to attack IS in Syria) yet might the American's be subtly altering their view?. Are they perhaps coming round to the idea that shoring up the despots is perhaps the best strategic repsonse?. They're known to have been pissed off with France and Britain for their inaccurate and alarmist predictions over Libya, and it's been America that has suffered most in that civil war. The Obama adminsitration and Hilary Clinton in particular had to endure a month long campaign after the muder of the diplomat in Benghazi, the spiritual home of the pro democratic National Transitionary Council (and also where the Islamists come from).
At face value there isn't anything about the Turkish demand on the surface that is unacceptable to the declared position of the west, yet the US has got cold feet on deposing the despot. Well can you blame them? Every time we've done this we've opened up a vacuum that's made things worse
Just a thought - since no one has yet answered the question I posed as to what it is they find objectionable about the Turkish demands. Let's just say the American's have possibly found something, even if they aren't prepared to put that something into the public domain
Last edited:
Its the fact that they are making demands when there is going to be a crisis on their doorstep
But i agree entirely with your first point. Absolutely stupid. If they had unconditionally taken action to protect the kurds in the syrian city there must surely have been a surge of goodwill and he would also have taken some of the steam out of the domestic issues.
As a country they would also have won a lot of goodwill worldwide. These things matter more than some people think
But i agree entirely with your first point. Absolutely stupid. If they had unconditionally taken action to protect the kurds in the syrian city there must surely have been a surge of goodwill and he would also have taken some of the steam out of the domestic issues.
As a country they would also have won a lot of goodwill worldwide. These things matter more than some people think
Last edited: