ISIS...Islamic State Victims

What conditions would you set for invading to protect the folk of Gretna? You suspect of course that these are people who the moment you turn your back will creep along and sh1t in your airing cupboard for a laugh
 
Last edited:
I would want grasshoppers chasers and hurdlers book. It costs a fortune and so long as he doesnt pick his nose when reading it, it will do for me
 
Warbler said:
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).
Click to expand...
No Warbler, your views were not contrary to popular opinion.
Your views were perfectly in line with popular opinion actually, (not that it really matters anyway).
Most of the public were against military action in Syria last year.
BTW...The intelligence about chemical weapons came directly from the NSA if I remember rightly.
Perhaps if we'd got rid of Assad, we'd now have a ready and willing country in Turkey happy to take on ISIS?

I don't think anyone will be proven comprehensively right on this issue, at least until the end of the world, but you are getting rather righteous about this.
 
Last edited:
You misunderstand me Marble

My view was one of support for Assad, as I had severe reservations about the composition of the opposition groups and how any likely power vacuum that would inevitably be opened up, would be filled. Sadly I was proven correct, but it's hardly a great foresight, exactly the same thing had happened in Libya 6 months earlier, and Egypt 3 months before them. I should note incidentally that some senior military commentators who tend to view this through the prism of defeating IS, have now leant their voice to this opinion. I think there might be a few on the Tory backbenchers who've conluded the same now as well

I also held the view that he didn't order the chemical attack and given the history of the American's for misleading people when trying to manufacture a justification for war, wouldn't automatically believe the NSA (still don't). The most I could be persuaded was that a rogue colonel had gone local with a decision, but I suspect it's more likely one of a few things

1: A black op - the speed with which William Hague concluded military action was necessary (within an hour) looked highly suspicious

2: A rebel group playing with sarin themselves and getting the recepie wrong. In other words an accident. Don't forget that home made weapons were being widely manufactured at this time. Damascus wasn't a front line in the fight (still isn't) and with UN weapons inspectors in the city I can't foresee of any possible reason why Assad would authorise this

As the nature of the opposition to Assad has changed (gone from being "pro-democracy freedom fighters" of the "free Syrian army" - to - "islaminst rebels" - to use the BBC's right wing politically correct lexicon) the frequency with which this chemical attack has been pinned on Assad has also quietly gone away. Unlike Saddam's attack at Halabja which was consistently mentioned at regular intervals and I think ultimately used to try him on, the Damascus suburb attack seems to have been humanely suffocated

In a perverse way of course, Assad was forced to destory his chemical arsenal in return for non intervention to remove him.
 
marble said:
Perhaps if we'd got rid of Assad, we'd now have a ready and willing country in Turkey happy to take on ISIS?
Click to expand...

No

If you'd got rid of Assad according to the doctrine of William Hague, then what you'd have now is an even bigger power vacuum, and almost certainly you would be getting the blame for causing it. I think my own suspicion would be that Turkey would be turning round (with a degree of justification) and saying you caused, this you sort it out, let Americans and British get killed trying to put it back together. The UK did the right thing by not getting involved 12 months ago, but let's not overlook the fact that this was an accident on their part rather than any great strategic foresight. What they got wrong, was failing to support Assad with direct assistance to help him crush the uprising, because they completely failed to diagnose its nature
 
Don't agree with last line . Syria did not have and does not have a fiercely Islamist tradition and that was not the original driver behind the uprising and still isnt
 
That's just the point though, you've got international 'flying jihadists' now, who when a vacuum opens up will travel from far and wide to join in. It's no great secret that the fiercest fighters in Syria at the moment are the Chechens (I should think Putins delighted to have them off his back).

The country that had the most arrests amongst foreign fighters in Iraq was actually Libya, and of those 80% came from Benghazi and to the east of it. Gadaffi warned the UK and France quite accurately, just who these people were that they were lining up to support. The US had these figures, its the CIA who quoted them. There should have been a huge question mark over just who would fill that vacuum

None of the Soviet leaning despots had a really strong tradition of Islamism Clive (as I think you're pointing out), which actually made them the least militant when this whole thing started off (well the latest round of it). Saddam had persuaded his domestic religious radicals against the idea (ok he'd rounded them and killed them - but in essence that's what we're going to end up doing).

The dictatorial despots really were your natural ally in all this. I think it tends to be the corrupt shiekdoms that have a stronger tradition of radicalisation
 
The apologists for jihadist "blow back" violence now have to explain why Japan is a target

But good to see some retreating by the scum.
 
If the cap fits wear it. We've often heard that Islamic violence is a result of "western intervention" and we are targets because of that. It's a familiar line with many on the left.

and it's bollocks as anyone who understood what these people are about knows full well.
 
ISIS have (if possible) made themselves look more stupid than before with this: they make a demand which they think will never be met, then it could, prisoner was obviously topped ages ago so the usual shite video appears. The pilot is a gonner too so wait for that one to show. No one will ever take their demands seriously, it was their one chance to prove kidnapping works. They blew it. Jordan needs to hang the slag immediately the pilot video appears
 
Observer today has a report from Kobane, where ISIS appear to have been driven-out (though only as far as a few km down the road).

If the West offered Bashir Al-Assad a degree of clemency.....or even just a way out that wouldn't see his ass thrown into a cell at the Hague....IS could be smashed to pieces within a year. It's the refusal to even engage with Assad - despite all of the pragmatic benefits - which has facilitated almost all of IS advances. We really need to decide which of the pair it's more important to fight, because we'll never make any real progress, whilst we continue to take-on both (even if the fight against Assad is largely passive at the moment).
 
There were reports last week that the us has engaged with Assad. I think this is on the cards now but the Syrian opposition was far from just isis
 
I realise that there were legitimate, non-violent, movements in the opposition. They would obviously form part of any transition dialogue.

Though I have to say, the 'democratisation' of the Middle East seems only to change the nature of who oppresses who - religion and/or tribalism is still far too embedded for a true democracy to ever work in many of these States, imo.
 
clivex said:
If the cap fits wear it. We've often heard that Islamic violence is a result of "western intervention" and we are targets because of that. It's a familiar line with many on the left.

and it's bollocks as anyone who understood what these people are about knows full well.
Click to expand...

but you haven't named any "apologists"...I personally i haven't seen anyone support these beheadings..who are you talking about Clive? names?
 
Well it can't be the 'gallant' Guardian his usual target (they've taken more of a risk and caused greater offence than any). Perhaps it's the cowards in the right wing media like Sky and the Daily Mail who don't mind picking on those who can't hit back, until they come up against someone who can hit back. Then they go all chicken when they're called out themselves?
 
Warbler knows as well as I do that many on the left will always stick the blame on Islamic attacks on the west. In fact in a round about way warbler tried to blame Iraq for the charllie attacks although unlike some columnists and some on that wing, he despises Islamists for what they are.

Frankly ec this is hardly a secret and been discussed before here. Sadly the death of the Japanese again just bears out the truth that they will kill any one different to themselves and not just those who "intervene".
 
Clive, you continually infer the 'left' as apologists for ISIS, hence there must be loads of examples - surely you could let us know a few of them?
 
well i personally have not read or seen one person on TV that thinks the beheadings are justified or has excused them in any way

i have no doubt they will kill anyone..thats what murderers do..whatever excuse they give is irrelevant..religion..race..just weak excuses to murder

its time that no time whatsover was given to any of their murders...we all know that any hostage they have ..they will kill..all world media should no longer give any time to them ..unless its good news as in them failing to move forward..or like today..being pushed back

the media needs to stop reporting the same story time after time..its what they want..just stop feeding their need for publicity..hostages they hold are as good as dead..end of story..thats the reality..we don't need it showing week in week out..we know how it pans out
 
Last edited:
Back
Top