ISIS...Islamic State Victims

[Warbler]

You've given a detailed historical perspective of previous western interventions in Iraq ............................. and a passionate evaluation of the negative consequences of same.
But, in a previous post you said: "Because get involved we have to".

Just to be clear, can I ask your present position on the matter; Is intervention ( in your opinion) admissible in the current circumstances ? And if so, to what degree

I think this could justify a full re-invasion to be honest. The threat is genuine (not a trumped up one this time) and ISIS will slaughter innocents, nor will they stop within the boundaries of their country (recognise for what it is) it is a country now. We've had foreign countries that have developed a terrorist nature, but this is the first country we've seen expressly formed on a terrorist basis, or caliphate if that's how they identify themselves

I'd do a deal with Syria to close down their western borders and defend those, and then get the Turks to construct a Gulf of Tonkin incident. Once Turkey could claim to have been attacked, and that's not to say they won't be yet, they can invoke the 'all for one, one for all' provision of the NATO treaty and call us all in, without needing to go through the UN or parliament etc

The Iraqi leadership at the moment looks very similar to that of the Spanish republic 1936-39. If things are left as they are, the Iraqi government will fall and ISIS will take over the entire country. Similarly, the Kurds aren't strong enough to protect themselves either, even if they might possess a greater fighting spirit. The ISIS tentacles are already spreading west to Lebanon it seems now as the Lebanese and Hezbollah are seemingly forming an uneasy alliance now. What if they spread east and start invading Iran where they could easily get a more positive reception from the masses? Hell, they could even get their hands on nuclear technologies


Yes I'm angry that we're in this position, but its the legacy of lying, and air headed strategic thinking allied with a foreign policy soaked in prejudice put together by a particularly retarded American president, but I can only keep saying "told you so" that many times. Yes if the world had followed President Warblers post 9/11 prescription we almost certainly wouldn't have this situation (might have another one elsewhere) but not this one

ISIS are evil fascists basically and we'll have to fight them at some point. Better to take them on now in Iraq, a country that is essentially desert and known to us from recent campaign activity, then allowing them to expand and take up root in other places. The danger is if Ises starting breaking out all over the region and merge into some giant super state. The despotic dictators that had a nominal Soviet facing vista were your natural allies in the fight against radical islam. One of the most stupid things we could have done (and sure enough we did it) was to start destabilisng and replacing them with a vacuum

 

[Warbler]

Warbler. The marsh Arabs were a tiny sect and hardly likely to take control of the whole country. It's about as realistic as the gypsies taking control of the uk

If it was such a coherent wonderful state then they wouldn't have "risen up" . It was repressive violent and frankly evil

The Marsh Arabs were more likely to take control than 500 radical Islamists answering an incendiary preacher after Friday's prayers in Benghazi Clive. Let's not forget that's what happened.

Five hundred people (that's all) stormed a barracks in an attempt to get their hands on automatic weapons for themselves. Only as the barracks threatened to fall to them was the order given to shoot at them. Lets be honest, if 500 IRA members stormed Woolwich barracks trying to get themselves into the arsenal and steal weapons would you regard it as legitimate or not to shoot them?

Well that idiot Cameron, and opportunist Sarkozy interpreted this as a peaceful demonstration (which it wasn't) peaceful demonstrations don't take place outside a barracks, and don't involve forcing the perimeter fences. From this they then extrapolated that Gadaffi (who was only answering to reports from afar) had "murdered his own people" (he actualyl did what they would have done under the same circumstances) and to be honest, what anyone would ultimately have been forced into doing

I'll give you a few more facts about this particularly part of the world. Of all the foreign fighters arrested in Iraq by allied forces, the single biggest number came from Libya. Of those, 80% gave their place of residence as Benghazi or east of Benghazi. These were radical Islamists, exactly as Gadaffi said, and exactly as they've proven since. Even American diplomats get shot dead in Benghazi now, and your stupid government supported them, replacing the one success story that the war on terror could point to, with a radical Islamists who now run whole swathes of Libya

How did they do it, well they did it on the back of western support. They did it because Cameron was locked in a 1980's time warp, because Sarkozy had cokced up over Tunisia and needed a result before facing the electorate 3 months later, and because Obama was haunted by Clintons failure in Rwanada

So yes, a small group can over throw a government provided they get the backing of a bigger nation

In terms of your description of Iraq under Saddam, I doubt anyone would say it was nice place to live. In those on the inside would have been nervous, but all those adjectives apply equally today. As I said, the body count is actaully higher

 

[Grasshopper]

There is no chance whatsover of hard-core Sunni-militant organisation like IS, getting a positive reception in Shia Iran, Warbler.

Using the 'my enemies enemy is my friend' premis, Iran and the West are a natural partners in the fight against IS, and it would be a missed opportunity (for a number of reasons) not to secure their involvement in dealing with this threat.

 

[icebreaker]

There is no chance whatsover of hard-core Sunni-militant organisation like IS, getting a positive reception in Shia Iran, Warbler.

Yes, I too had a double-take reading that statement from Warbler.
Also, I would have issue with his scenario of a Turkish "partnership" in defeating ISIS. Turkey -- an overwhelmingly Sunni country -- and who along with the Saudi's and Qatar were instrumental in originally supporting and funding ISIS ?

 

[Warbler]

The Turks are fiercely secular and proud of it, they'd have no aspirations to live under ISIS and certainly don't want them empowered. They were ranged against Assad and even had a jet shot down, but it's a massive stretch now to suggest they're on the side of ISIS.

America funded and supplied the Mujahadin (spelling?) to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan out of which span the Taleban. The simialrity is clear. It conforms with the law of unintended consequence. You wouldn't suggest that the Americans support the Taleban now though.

Alliances can always be temporary and despite having spent the best part of 8 years at war and being sworn sunni / shia enemies, you might recall that on the eve of the first gulf war Iraq and Iran came to an accommodation that took every one by surprise even though they were supposed to be bitter enemies. It actually helped save Saddam actually as he was able to shelter military hardware in Iran. Syria of course sent troops to fight on the side of the western allies just to muddy things further. That would be Sunni Syria allying with the infidels of the USA, against Sunni Saddam, who had also managed to broker a peace deal with Shia Iran. I wouldn't like to completely use these kinds of loyalties as cast iron guarantees. Local tribal alliances tend to be stronger, and the unifying factor of hatered for the uS shouldn't be completely under-estimated

In any event, none of these sponsors would want to live under the Frankenstein monster they've helped create just because there's a dispute over which of Mohammeds wives they descend from. Turkey might extract (or try to) the price of EU membership, but they seem have rowed back from that ambition now with Greece (that well respected powerhouse of the EU) and Germany thwarting their aspirations.

There's also a significant Kurdish population in Turkey too, and its Kurds who could easily find themselves losing the next stage of the ISIS advance. What happens then?The displaced Kurds will try to move over the border into Turkey. The Turkish kurds themselves could easily start to fight for the breathren, or bring huge pressure on the Turkish government to engage

 

[Maruco]

Good to see you back Alun. Long, long overdue.

ISIS need to be smashed but as usual the US becomes the self appointed world policeman. I also take the view held by some that they are dangerous in their own right (less so under Obama than previously), and much of what we're seeing now is as a result of Bush and Blair and others before them.

Probably not workable but in terms of international military intervention there needs to be a better mechanism for military action to be sanctioned. And anything outside a specialist council decision should be unlawful just as the second strike on Iraq should have been.

 

[harry]

Good to see you back Alun. Long, long overdue.

ISIS need to be smashed but as usual the US becomes the self appointed world policeman. I also take the view held by some that they are dangerous in their own right (less so under Obama than previously), and much of what we're seeing now is as a result of Bush and Blair and others before them.

Probably not workable but in terms of international military intervention there needs to be a better mechanism for military action to be sanctioned. And anything outside a specialist council decision should be unlawful just as the second strike on Iraq should have been.

I'm glad that the USA are the self appointed "World Policemen". If they left it to us lot and the ditherers of Europe our heads would be on Spikes very soon...sometimes the debates just have to stop!

America and Israel (in my opinion) deserve the utmost respect for their actions.

Our "wonderful civilised democracies" can fall as quickly as a house of cards without the Iron Fist to defend them.

And there are many who are waiting to end our societies and culture, both home and overseas.

 

[an capall]

The Turks are fiercely secular and proud of it, they'd have no aspirations to live under ISIS and certainly don't want them empowered. They were ranged against Assad and even had a jet shot down, but it's a massive stretch now to suggest they're on the side of ISIS.

Good to see you back Warbs although now I have to restart disagreeing with you again.

Turkey is no longer secular nor apparently fiercely proud of it. Erdogan and the AKP have spent 11 years, quietly, but clinically reordering the democratic institutions of state towards a rural/religious bias and his election as President last Sunday (52% Vs 39%) shows the citizenry are on board.

The cleavage is increasingly urban/rural, but the future may be Mugabe-esque.

 

[icebreaker]

Syria of course sent troops to fight on the side of the western allies just to muddy things further.

So did over thirty other nations ! The U.S.-led coalition included Sunni dominated countries like UAE, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others.

That would be Sunni Syria

Eh? Syria might be demographically 60% Sunni but the Assad ruling class is Shia (Alawite) surely?

it's a massive stretch now to suggest they're on the side of ISIS.

I dunno. They were certainly funding and supporting them as recently as two months ago. Many commentators believe they still are.

"Actually, the Turks offered far more than an easy border crossing: they provided the bulk of ISIS' funds, logistics, training and arms. Turkish residents near the Syrian border tell of Turkish ambulances going to Kurdish-ISIS battle zones and then evacuating ISIS casualties to Turkish hospitals. Indeed, a sensational photograph has surfaced showing ISIS commander Abu Muhammad in a hospital bed receiving treatment for battle wounds in Hatay State Hospital in April 2014.
One Turkish opposition politician estimates that Turkey has paid $800 million to ISIS for oil shipments. Another politician released information about active duty Turkish soldiers training ISIS members. Critics note that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has met three times with someone, Yasin al-Qadi, who has close ties to ISIS and has funded it".

 

[clivex]

Thats interesting ice

 

[marbler]

Personally I was very against the Iraq war in 2003, I was only 17 but certainly never agreed with it then (in the sense that if it was up to me..I would never have taken the punt Bush and Blair did and still wouldn't now).

I do almost feel in a way that as the years go-on, and we watch the Arab Spring, a worsening chaos all over the place, and the debates about whether or not chemical weapons warrant a military intervention, (which was what Obama was clearly debating last year before doing a deal with Putin over Syria), that perhaps Blair was correct to want to get some strategic power and authority in that region..for the regions own sake?!

If you buy Blairs argument that this latest ISIS onslaught in Iraq is because of lack of action in Syria, then I suppose that obviously counters the argument that ISIS now in Iraq are a pure product of the 2003 invasion.

A lot of people have gone (or think) the other way of course, and many who supported the Iraq war quite blindly, (the Iain Duncan Smith types,) now want answers.

Very interesting reading this thread, very informative.

 

[Warbler]

Turkey is no longer secular nor apparently fiercely proud of it. Erdogan and the AKP have spent 11 years, quietly, but clinically reordering the democratic institutions of state towards a rural/religious bias and his election as President last Sunday (52% Vs 39%) shows the citizenry are on board.

The cleavage is increasingly urban/rural, but the future may be Mugabe-esque.

I think you're extrapolating far too much

Erdogan is the latest in a long line of right and centre right Presdients as that's the ruling hegomny of what is a locked up conservative majority.

The bottom line though is that too many Turks enjoy football, western television, and the freedom to have a drink now and then. They're along way from embracing a radical islam that would stop all this

It's certainly true that after Greece and Germany prevented Turkish EU aspirations taking hold that they've turned more to the east, but then it's equally true to say that as an indentified MINT country they have aspirations to engage in trade and not get sucked into the middle eastern morrass (which lets be honest, they have no tradition of doing)

That they've been pursuing a rightist/ nationalist agenda in the last decade doesn't necessarily mark them out as being significantly different to a lot of western european countries

You could look at the same period in the UK 1979-90 as being representative of period of economic liberalism and social conservatism, but despite what many of us said in jest (well sort of) Thatcherism was still a world away from full blown nazism, in much the same way as Turkish conservatism isn't sharia

They'll be a civil war in Turkey before it embraces Islamic radicalism, but to a large extent that's going to be the case where ever it gets a toe hold. I doubt also that you seriously believe that Turkey is about to descend into Zimbabwe either, although I accept that its foolsih to say X can never happen

 

[clivex]

What socially conservative legislation was enacted during thatchers period? I can't really think of anything. Probably the opposite.

I don't recall the eighties as being exactly puritan

As it happens I did a search and found this article. Can agree to a large degree. Social concervatism doesn't fit with economic liberalism. Makes sense. Basically it's a case if get on with it whoever you are and we will leave you alone. Also there is no room at all for a sectarian (ken livingstone , ukip) agenda when there is a belief in the individual and society based on merit rather than vested interests (should always be remembered she was strong in breaking professional closed shops a s well as unions)

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-m...t-thatcher-an-accidental-libertarian-heroine/

As an aside, I'm not an unequivocal fan of hers at all but on my third bio of what is the most fascinating premiership. The charles Moore bio that has been raved about by every reviewer imaginable. Believe me, it is quite superb

 

[clivex]

It's the biggest slur of all that free market agendas are "nazi" . Whether you agree with them or not. It's about as far away from nazism as you can get.

National socialism? Wasn't it?

That's the talk of second rate "comedians" and third formers warbler. Better than that mate

 

[Warbler]

I think I said .... "Thatcherism was still a world away from full blown nazism, in much the same way as Turkish conservatism isn't sharia"

Yes it's a joke that Thatch was often depicted as neo nazi by alternative comedians for comic effect, and Spitting Image did run a sketch where she took advice from an elderly neighbour called Hehr Jeremy, who was obviously a hypothetical Hitler that survived the war. I do remember one over the garden fence conversation they had where she was complaining about the union(s) and Hehr Jeremy advised her to "Invade them. But not in the winter"

I'm not going to be so dishonest as to say I've never called Thatch a nazi, (of course I have) but equally if I were ever challenged on it seriously I'd always withdraw it, as of all the things she might have been, and she supported and propped up some frankly horrible regimes overseas, not least of all in South Africa, she was still a long way from organising death camps. I tended to use the description therefore when I knew it was falling on sympathetic ears.

I'll try and get back to some of the other points in due course, but the more I'm looking at this, the more I'm seeing all the classic hallmarks of a 'black op' that's gone out of control. It would also explain these puzzling comments that have variously been attributed to Blair, Hague and Hillary, that ISIS were the product of our failure to intervene against Assad. I've never understood the logic in that. I don't believe the military evidence from this and other conflicts that they could draw upon backs up this scenario..... unless .....?

 

[clivex]

I wonder how many more "Palestinian protests" by Islamists and the far left will include the isis flag which was used to taunt Kurds in Sheffield last weekend. Excuses were made for that but as the Kurds said they deliberately and carefully chose their area of the city

Do it again and I hope they get their heads kicked in.

 

[Bachelors Hall]

I suppose we can now agree that US involvement has sod all to do with humanitarian concerns...

I wonder how many more "Palestinian protests" by Islamists and the far left will include the isis flag which was used to taunt Kurds in Sheffield last weekend. Excuses were made for that but as the Kurds said they deliberately and carefully chose their area of the city

Do it again and I hope they get their heads kicked in.

So the actions of a very small minority of idiots should be used to denigrate the entirety of a broad and diverse section of the political spectrum?

It may interest you that the far left has been supporting the Kurds for decades

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/29458/Solidarity+with+Kurdish+prisoners

Incidentally, the Kurds suffer most at the hands of the Right Wing Turkish government. Does this mean that everybody right of centre supports oppression? Of course not.

Furthermore, none of the "lefties" on this thread have condoned IS actions.

 

[Grasshopper]

The problem with the 'moderate' Muslim constituency in the UK, is that whilst they will state that the actions of ISIS/Al Queda/take-your-pick are abhorrent, it is almost always qualified with a "but if the West didn't have X/Y/Z policy.....".

This is their ultimate failing, and the reason why domestic tensions between non-Muslims and Muslims are heading towards breaking-point in the UK.

In my view, the 'Islamic world' has utterly-failed to confront the problem of Sunni militantism. There doesn't even seem to be a desire to do so. And in the absence of any visible or tangible attempt at "house-keeping" by Islamic States, the West has very little option but to attempt to address it itself. The world is now too connected for a 'Do Nothing' option to ever be viable. Yet, when the West make attempts at addressing the situation, the Islamic World defaults to it's now established pattern of "Yes, but....."......which is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide their own apparent disinterest in being part of the solution - let alone leading on it, as they should be doing.

It's time that Islamic States stood-up to be counted. They can't have it both ways. If they refuse to accept terrorism for what it is, and continue to hide behind the notion that Western policy is to blame, it won't be long before there is an almighty religious war between Islamic/non- islamic countries. I give it a couple more major atrocities, before it all kicks-off for real.

 

[clivex]

Totally agree.

 

[clivex]

I suppose we can now agree that US involvement has sod all to do with humanitarian concerns...



So the actions of a very small minority of idiots should be used to denigrate the entirety of a broad and diverse section of the political spectrum?

It may interest you that the far left has been supporting the Kurds for decades

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/29458/Solidarity+with+Kurdish+prisoners

Incidentally, the Kurds suffer most at the hands of the Right Wing Turkish government. Does this mean that everybody right of centre supports oppression? Of course not.

Furthermore, none of the "lefties" on this thread have condoned IS actions.

drivel

 

[Bachelors Hall]

drivel

Even though you made this concise and compelling rebuttal, would you care to elaborate for those slower than you?

Or, as per usual, will you choose to use ad hominem/argue against an out of context misinterpretation you actually created yourself/call people names/refuse to respond to rebuttals made against your argument/threaten others/hide under your security blanket of ignorance and avoid the comments altogether/move onto yelling about your next half baked sweeping statement before repeating ad infinitum?

 

[an capall]

The problem with the 'moderate' citizens constituency in Northern Ireland is that whilst they will state that the actions of UVF/IRA/take-your-pick are abhorrent, it is almost always qualified with a "but if the prods/taigs didn't have X/Y/Z policy.....".

There in a sentence is what I listened to growing up.

 

[clivex]

Even though you made this concise and compelling rebuttal, would you care to elaborate for those slower than you?

Or, as per usual, will you choose to use ad hominem/argue against an out of context misinterpretation you actually created yourself/call people names/refuse to respond to rebuttals made against your argument/threaten others/hide under your security blanket of ignorance and avoid the comments altogether/move onto yelling about your next half baked sweeping statement before repeating ad infinitum?

I recounted one incident. Which if replicated will cause violence

the only stupid sweeping statement is your claim that we all agree with your student left views on america

No interest in your posts

 

[Bachelors Hall]

You've utterly misrepresented my question even though it's on the same page.

Should the actions of a very small minority of idiots be used to denigrate the entirety of a broad and diverse section of the political spectrum?

Where on earth did I claim we (why are you speaking on behalf of "we"?) agree with my student left views on America? I have only ever claimed cynicism, never aligning myself to neither side of the spectrum. Indeed, you're the only one who brings "left wing/right wing" into debates...(For what it's worth, I think the whole left/right paradigm is bollocks. Some would say I'm "right wing" on some issues, "left wing" on others. I think it's easier to call myself a cynic who views hippes, swoppies, politically correct western feminists, zionists and the far right with an equal measure of caution and disbelief).

You have no interest in my posts because in my short time here, I've regularly called you out on your bullshit. You ignored a good 90% of my direct questions to you on the other thread and I watch you regularly employ the mudslinging and ducking tactics against any poor masochist who still has the patience to disagree with you.

I'm aghast at how you could possibly be so full of shit yet simultaneously, take yourself so seriously. This would be quite amusing if it wasn't so sad that there's a seriously deranged and deluded human being behind the clivex persona.

Charles Bukowski is right...

 

[clivex]

Having said all that grass, wasnt the glaring lack of support for hamas throughout the Arab world striking? The Jew haters have their bedrock of support in a section of old Europe in would appear

It is very complicated of course but I would take the overall point that Muslims do not appear to be as angry as you may expect about atrocities carried out very clearly in the name of the religion they profess to follow. Frankly they are only on the streets when it's Israel or America.

The majority of the civilised world that doesn't fawn over Islam sees pretty clearly what that is all about