ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Not at all Clive, you've invoked Tunisia before when going over this old ground about democracy taking root in the Arab spring, and no doubt would do so again so I thought it might be helpful to nip it in the bud before you tell us what a great role model they are
Similarly, the argument you drew regarding South Africa was exactly the same one that the Conservative party used (they can't be trusted becuase they'll all tribal, and we're doing the blacks a favour by continuing not to observe sanctions). I asked you a question since you were making an identical argument in a different context (didn't accuse you of anything) and you didn't answer it. I subsequently drew my own conclusions. Not that I have an issue with that, there were plenty of conservative party supporters who supported aparthied on those grounds (some of them have apologised since) although Bernard Ingham did say "I some times even wonder if he is a conservative" when Cameron did so
Since you never specified where, I chose to ignore your "pulling up". But if it's reference to Tunisia, then no I'm not putting words in Clive's mouth. He's invoked Tunisia on quite a few occasions previously when we go over this ground about democracy not working in these countries as Tunisia is the one country he keeps falling back on as an example of where it can work (I'm sure Clive will confirm this?). Sadly it seems, I'm clearly following the detail of what he posts to an unhealthy degree if I can recall it
M
marbler
Guest
You make interesting points, Warbler.
Having read your posts, I do think your position seems to be extremely liberal, devils-advocate, do-nothing anywhere and lacking in any moral conviction.
You make fantastic observations.......... but what in policy terms these observations actually equate to apart from devil advocacy I'm not sure.
The idea Assad is any better than ISIS is dubious is not?
'The lesser of the two evils' you say Warbler?
The last I heard the bloke has the blood of 500,000 Syrians on his hands FFS.
The sooner ISIS in Iraq get fucked over the better, then it's hopefully time to give that murderous cockroach some payback.
Having read your posts, I do think your position seems to be extremely liberal, devils-advocate, do-nothing anywhere and lacking in any moral conviction.
You make fantastic observations.......... but what in policy terms these observations actually equate to apart from devil advocacy I'm not sure.
The idea Assad is any better than ISIS is dubious is not?
'The lesser of the two evils' you say Warbler?
The last I heard the bloke has the blood of 500,000 Syrians on his hands FFS.
The sooner ISIS in Iraq get fucked over the better, then it's hopefully time to give that murderous cockroach some payback.
Last edited:
No you didnt
it was crap and you know it
And as for Tunisia, I will bring it up when I want to but Naturally everyone hope that Tunisia is a success dont they?
Dont they?
i think this is a good point. The constant lesser of two evils is very pessimistic. Maybe radical Islam is too ingrained in some states for a proper democracy to function and maybe it's too tribal it I'm sure the same has been said of other states in the pastthe past
Not one that you could understand, at any rate.
Futile exercise., too addled
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Marble, the point being made is that you cannot defeat IS and defeat Assad at the same time. You have to choose
Assad is fighting for his political (and literal) life in Syria - it is this fact which is responsible for the huge numbers of deaths in Syria. Remove the latter threat, and perhaps he walks away quietly, and a degree of 'normalcy' can return to Syria. You can broker no such deal with IS, because all they care about is killoing for it's own sake.
Until something is done to make Syria governable (either by negotiating Assad out, or bolstering him in office), IS can continue to exploit the current vacuum.
Assad is fighting for his political (and literal) life in Syria - it is this fact which is responsible for the huge numbers of deaths in Syria. Remove the latter threat, and perhaps he walks away quietly, and a degree of 'normalcy' can return to Syria. You can broker no such deal with IS, because all they care about is killoing for it's own sake.
Until something is done to make Syria governable (either by negotiating Assad out, or bolstering him in office), IS can continue to exploit the current vacuum.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
There was no 'radical Islam' in Syria until the uprising of the Arab Spring.......which in hindsight, would have been more accurately labelled the 'Militant Islam Spring'.
you could with a nuke
This is another poor argument I'm afraid Clive
Look, all societies have their extreme elements. A small minority are prepared to organise and prosecute violence in support of their views. This happened before 9/11 and it also happened within the west itself as christian attacks christian. If your argument is premised on the fact that these people existed before any temporal reference date you choose to invoke, then you can pretty well roll that right across recorded time.
The critical issue therefore is one existence, but rather one of scale.
What we have today is many more people engaged, and a much more potent, global, threat than we otherwsie would have done.
As i said, Saddam was your best policeman. Sure he killed opposition, but lets be under no illusion, that's what the west has been doing with Jihadists. In his case he extended the killing field to an insurrection, which isn't exactly without precedent in history either. If you're involved in a violent uprising, you always run a risk. You might argue that George H Bush egged on the marsh arabs with his "no one will shed a tear" statement, but what was the likely outcome of this?
If you gave me the choice between Saddam stamping out Islamic fundamentalism and his own human rights abuses, I'd rather have in there as the first line of defence rather than trying to do it ourselves. ISIS are much greater threat to us than Saddam Hussein, and it's difficult to argue that our intervention has done anything other than bolster the Iraqi contribution to ISIS
We've moved from a situation that was numerically manageable, to one that has failed our first line of defence (the newly equipped and trained Iraqi military). Ultimately I think we will get on top of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but North Africa is the one that worries me more
Last edited:
M
marbler
Guest
Yeah...... I don't have the type of in-depth knowledge of the whole situation that you guys have but I'll try and argue my limited point.
I tell you this, Assad is a stain on humanity. People like him need to go at some point.
That is the reason the west is probably now arming the moderate opposition which a few here seem to oppose?
The only reason he's still there was because of the persistence of one Vladimir Putin and Sergai Lavrov to stop a Western military campaign. We very well might have even more anarchy now if we did oust him, but it would be anarchy without the Bashir Al Assad regime and that would be good in my book.
I tell you this, Assad is a stain on humanity. People like him need to go at some point.
That is the reason the west is probably now arming the moderate opposition which a few here seem to oppose?
The only reason he's still there was because of the persistence of one Vladimir Putin and Sergai Lavrov to stop a Western military campaign. We very well might have even more anarchy now if we did oust him, but it would be anarchy without the Bashir Al Assad regime and that would be good in my book.
Last edited:
Spot on
Look this is an imperfect world, and we aren't going to get any cosy academic solutions of purity here.
By their very nature, people driven by political ideologies tend to follow a more rational template. Their MO is very often survival. As such they're more open to compromsie. Indeed, Gadaffi proved this as the one single success story of the war onm terror (until Sarkozy and Cameron reneged the European position). I don't doubt that Assad will be much easier to deal with than ISIS, and if you have to make a choice then its a no brainer
No it isn't.
you said it's about "scale" . It was on a big scale with the training camps right across afganistan before 9/11.
You cannot possibly equate saddams killing of "opposition" with the attacks on the jihadists. He killed them because of who they were not because of what they intended to do FFs
thats a shocking opinion. Saddam gassed whole communities regardless. Drones against targeted aq operatives are nothing like the same thing.
you said it's about "scale" . It was on a big scale with the training camps right across afganistan before 9/11.
You cannot possibly equate saddams killing of "opposition" with the attacks on the jihadists. He killed them because of who they were not because of what they intended to do FFs
thats a shocking opinion. Saddam gassed whole communities regardless. Drones against targeted aq operatives are nothing like the same thing.
Last edited:
M
marbler
Guest
Good, then we can **** Assad over. I'd go out and march for that.
Last edited:
Sadly Clive, it might be pessimistic, I've kind of called it dismal before, but it's pretty well my read on where we are. Until Islam has something of a reformation I'm far from convinced that any of them should be encouraged down a democratic route. The scope for an elected theological dictatorship to emerge is far too great.
I think it stems from the fact that none of these countries have any great tradition. Iran and Libya would have been the nearest to having something that passes (or passed in the latter's case) as democracy. The two biggest pillars of society are either organised religion or the military. When a vacuum opens up either moves to fill the gap and the people turn to one or the other. A liberal democracy isn't their first call, and even where middle class liberal democratic movements do gain traction, the evidence suggests they're quickly swept aside by larger more radically theological parties
Where is the Seamus Milne link?
That wouldn't constitute the left - the rest of us could link 100+ articles showing the left think nothing of the sort to which you allege. Hence, wouldn't you say there is no such thought on the left, just 1/2 isolated crazies?
That wouldn't constitute the left - the rest of us could link 100+ articles showing the left think nothing of the sort to which you allege. Hence, wouldn't you say there is no such thought on the left, just 1/2 isolated crazies?
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
You most certainly did not link Brand. You linked Nick Cohen's interpretation of something Brand said, and then put your own interpretation on it.
Like Hamm, I too remain baffled as to why you keep banging on about 'the Left'. It's like having Sarah Palin as a member of the forum.
Are you a bit slow or something? Did I not spell out how brand protested against attacks on isis? How many times does it take?
http://stopwar.org.uk/events/october-4-demonstration-stop-the-bombing-of-iraq-don-t-bomb-syria
this was directly in response to the bombing to prevent the isis slaughter of Christians. Draw your own conclusions
http://stopwar.org.uk/events/october-4-demonstration-stop-the-bombing-of-iraq-don-t-bomb-syria
this was directly in response to the bombing to prevent the isis slaughter of Christians. Draw your own conclusions
Last edited: