ISIS...Islamic State Victims

[icebreaker]

The forces of 'Rome' is frequently used by prophets and is normally felt to be a reference to the church and christianity rather than Italy

It surely is an indication of how exercised (terrified?) Italy is of the situation in Libya that it wants to lead a ground-force intervention in the country. And to do so even though it has no more than 5,000 deployable troops available, and with a military budget cut by 40% in the last year.

In a way maybe we should be thankful that other countries or NATO did not heed Italy's call to join in. Such a military effort fronted by Italy would have been disastrous, imo, considering Italy's historic role as the colonial power in old Libya, and the representation that would portray as the "army or Rome" amongst the global Muslim population.

Incidentally, Warbler, could I ask: knowing your criticism of previous western adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc, are you now saying that you would support intervention in countries where ISIS is active? Not being confrontational, you understand; just wondering.

 

[icebreaker]

4: The caliph is predicated on the occupation, control, and growth of territory. If we can restrict and start to shrink this, ISIS starts to wither with it. It's their kryptonite

Originally I had thought the same; that the caliphate would either implode from within from economic decline, civil unrest, or factional in-fighting. After all, how can an territorial entity survive solely on jihad without a supporting manufacturing/agri-economy and have as its enemy the entire world's collection of "normal" countries allied against it?

Then I looked to history, and to the previous caliphates. The last recognised one -- the Ottoman did reasonably well for itself. The only one I looked at in detail and picked at random was the Baghdad caliphate which lasted for 500 years and was only overthrown by the invasion of an even more savage outfit -- the Mongols.
So I am forced to question my earlier assumptions about the viability of any new caliphate in light of history.

 

[Warbler]

Incidentally, Warbler, could I ask: knowing your criticism of previous western adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc, are you now saying that you would support intervention in countries where ISIS is active? Not being confrontational, you understand; just wondering.

I've certainly found myself increasingly oscilating with the idea.

I'm angry that our frankly cretinous leaders have dropped us in this situation. I think the Italian call is just a further indication (most certainly symbloic at the very least) as to just how divorced and bereft of understanding our political leaders are from the emerging threat.

Against that though we need to weigh up the fact that ISIS would seemingly fall apart if their caliph is retaken. If we can prevail (although you could argue that of course) in the more problematic terrain of Afghanistan, then the open plains of Aleppo should be much easier. Both militarily and logistically speaking, it's not as challenging

I'm probably going back to my original idea though.

There is more than just a bit of me thinking that their global planners are trying to draw Europe's under-armed and under-manned armies away from their fortress with the view to setting fires raging the moment their backs are turned. We simply haven't got mobilised and weapons capable civilian populations to make good the shortfall (the US does, and also has a smuch smaller domestic threat). I was struck by two comments Evan Davies made on Newsnight this week which went unchallenged (and which indicated to me that we're having the truth kept from us). In discussion with the Egyptian Ambassador and studio expert, it was agreed that the UK's capability has been hollowed out sufficiently since 2011 to mean that we couldn't launch a Libyan campaign again anyway. That's frankly nothing short of shocking! And again, you can only point the finger at one person, and one person alone for this state of affairs. It was also suggested that we were so heavily committed in Syria now that we simply don't have the capacity. That either means we're doing a lot more than we're being told, or, (as seems more likely) it's further corroboration that we simply haven't got the kit anymore

It's becoming more and more apparent that Europe is little more than a commentator in this. If the Italians can only supply 5000 troops, the French need to mobilise 80,000 to find just two gunmen, and the British haven't got a spare plane, then we're horribly, horribly, vulnerable. Under these conditions, we simply have to stay at home and begin a rebuilding exercise and start thinking the unthinkable in terms of what structures we need to put in place

In this regard I'm against British involvement because I think we're simply not up to the job, unless falling back on WMD

We need therefore to try and bring together a global partnership of the willing and the capable, and that means sidelining Europe. Simultaneous advances of American, Chinese, Russian and possibly Indian forces would destroy ISIS, otherwise I think there's a natural accommodation that will leave the Caliph in place.

Grasshopper has spoken about the Atlantic article leaving open the possibility of ISIS imploding. Equally the article speculates that AQ and ISIS can broker an accommodation too. It has little doubt that as a Jihadi calling this would be a very powerful enemy. There are good and bad scenarios at play, but the time window seems to be that they're interpreting the prophet to say that Shia's should be attacked first

I was also struck by the emergence of an internal threat to Al-Baghdadi when he failed to declare a caliphate initially. This we were told was pacified when he assured the dissident faction that it had been sanctioned by Allah privately (or whatever mechanism they use) but hadn't been press released as such. Could the same thing have happened in North Africa? Might we see a second caliphate declared in a matter of months, or weeks?

I guess I'm falling back on my original position having flirted with the idea of joining an international action. Anything that relies on a European force will fail. We're better off adopting a defensive position. We need someone else to take this fight for us, and that means building bridges internationally, not burning them as we are doing presently

 

[icebreaker]

We need someone else to take this fight for us, and that means building bridges internationally, not burning them as we are doing presently

Yes, it would seem that the West is engaged in more infighting over less important issues like Ukraine than even the many different islamic factions are fighting each other in Syria.
ISIS must be laughing their bearded faces off at how disorganised we are and at how we are deliberately alienating our natural allies (Russia) in the fight against global jihadism.

 

[Warbler]

I think we can be relied on

We've already removed our first line of defence and opened the door for ISIS. What is really unforgiveable to me is some of the sub plots behind it

1: George W Bush interepreting the 1996 incident as an attempt to kill his wife (this actually has vague echoes of Helen of Troy it's that personalised and ancient)
2: Nicolas Sarkozy showing the flip side of democracy and intervening in Libya for no better reason other than to boost his own electoral chances (aided by a stupid little Eton boy who wanted to play soldiers too)

I should acknowkedge perhaps that the French and the Germans are in the vanguard of trying to bring some sanity to the Ukranian situation. In Europe it really is Cameron who is the most significant player who is trying to stoke up a conflict there, which of course isn't helped by Pentagon staffers who've been weaned on Cold War politics. I'd prefer to see America and NATO having another go at bringing pressure to bear on Turkey again, as I've completely misjudged them. Surely they must realise that their secular state is going to be very much in ISIS's range finder. They initially took the decision that they were happy for ISIS to kill the PKK, does that still hold? America have been able to use their economic clout to force countries into reluctant decisions before, surely they might try doing so when one actually matters and could start to make a difference

 

[Warbler]

There is a fair bit of truth in this. There is a lot of speculation that that burning of the Jordanian pilot has rebounded on recruitment being seen as just too repulsive. Also seen as being a group that is rudderless. There is a tendency to see these things as one way traffic. It should be remembered that after 7/7 and 9/11 and bali, it was assumed that thousands would flock to the cause of aq. They didnt


I think they may well have peaked. Article from a military expert in the times today confirms that view

And just to underline Clive's point, ISIS gain more ground, and burn more people yesterday

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31502863

 

[EC1]

Al-Baghdadi had been besieged for months by Islamic State fighters before its fall on Thursday.

but how many people.."held them off for months"...was it the 45 they killed?..because it doesn't look a large town

are you not over egging this a bit Warb?...thats not a major victory is it?..took months to win a tiddly town

 

[clivex]

Yes. EC

Frankly i am bit bored with hearing endlessly on this thread about how we "need Russia" and all the doomsday stuff about how isis is going to take over vast swathes of europe. Its pie in the sky stuff stuffed with lots of "told you so" about the supposedly sad demise of various dictators, who happily gassed their own people or blew up western airliners

and the more its typed in over long pieces the more others seem to think its credible

We are where we are. we do NOT need the leader of a country with a smaller economy than italy's especially when we all aware of the quid pro quo

the hysterical assumptions that isis will be mobilising thousands in europe is completely off the wall. we has all this after 9/11 and it didnt happen. it will not now either

 

[Warbler]

I figured you might have read that Atlantic article eventually and been forced to go and have a long a sit down in a dark room, to reflect on the fact that not a single contribution you've made in over a decade is vindicated by it, and that this was why we hadn't heard from you. Your arguments have been left totally shredded, and I mean absolutely thread bare. A few of us seem to have had cause to reflect and revise, but quite where you'd begin heaven only knows.

Only you could possibly think that all you have to do is load up mortar canons with copies of a KPMG country appraisal document and islamic fundamentalism will collapse. Wars are fought by armies and weapons, not consultants and spreadsheets. In fact I'm reminded of a comment Tony Blair made of Gordon Brown's suitability about becoming Prime Minister. "The problem with Gordon is that he thinks there's an economics answer to everything". You can't seriously think that Treasury forecasts are our best weapon can you? and that all we need to do is brag about our wealth and showcase our economic model, and that this will placate the barbarian hoardes? If it's any consolation to you Clive, the American's are seemingly adopting your economic weapon argument and starting a 'jobs for jihadists' offensive by the sound of it, so I'm sure you'll be celebrating that? Can you not see however that the radicals would interpret this as slavery to the west and submission in much the same way as they're allowed to enslaven women from conquered faiths?

I can accept its getting tedious, I can equally accept since none of us are in a position to do anything, that the whole thing is incredibly futile, ultimately though I can equally see why you don't particularly enjoy raking over it given how spectacularly wrong you've been. I am growing ever more worried though when such a proven 'negative predictor' as yourself is reassuring us that we have nothing to fear. That ISIS is able to gain ground at all at this stage in their demise should be a cause enough for concern. They should be in full headlong retreat by now

 

[icebreaker]

but how many people.."held them off for months"...was it the 45 they killed?..because it doesn't look a large town

"However, Ain al-Asad air base, where about 320 US Marines are training members of the Iraqi army's 7th Division, is only 8km (5 miles) away".

This fairly decent garrison (and undoubtedly with call-up air support) wasn't able to prevent it !

E.C., respectfully, you remind me of the citizens of ancient Rome persuading themselves of their safety inside their impregnable walls whilst the Visigoths were a couple of miles from the city gates. Head-in-the-sand ostrich stuff.

 

[EC1]

if they are training did they even try to stop it..maybe teh plan is to let them keep going for a bit eh?....its not head in the sand really is it... taking months to take a town..then killing 45 who held them off..doesn't exactly describe some superior force..lets see how many months it will take for them to kill the marines..or will they veer away from them?

you are easily impressed and scared i feel if this is doing it to you

one thing i do know..whilst they are capturing large slabs of barren open land..the more they are making themselves a target for a nuclear strike..sorry accident... at some point in the future..would take a very short time to remove all of them.

i'll wager that discussion has been had ..or will be had in the future

 

[icebreaker]

taking months to take a town..

The other side of the coin is, of course, that it took months to repel them ................ unsuccessfully as it turns out.
(And this with a strategically important airbase just up the road five miles away).

Still, the Pentagon reassures me that the war against ISIS is proceeding nicely, so I dunno.

 

[EC1]

its a bit of a funny coin then

if its 45 against the 30,000 or is it now 200,000...we are told they have..then i'd say the 45 have done rather well to repel them

just imagine if the town had 200..they'd have kept em off for another few months..all 10 million of em

 

[icebreaker]

Although, the U.S. State Department does seem to have arrived at a different conclusion as voiced by its spokesperson yesterday evening (which I am surprised seems to have escaped global reaction) .............

""We cannot win the War on Terror, nor can we win the war on ISIS".

(unless and except by job-placement offers for jihadi's)

 

[icebreaker]

if its 45 against the 30,000 or is it now 200,000...we are told they have..then i'd say the 45 have done rather well to repel them

Sorry mate, but be a bit realistic. This is only one town in the huge region of Iraq where ISIS are engaging on many, many fronts. You don't think that the entire ISIS force was combined at al-Baghdadi surely, do you?

 

[EC1]

i did realise there weren't their full army there Ice..whatever that is like..200..2000..2000000

lets see how they go on against the Marines+ anyway..they won't duck that fight surely will they?..with them being so all powerful i would expect them to take a few marines if they want world dominance

 

[clivex]

I figured you might have read that Atlantic article eventually and been forced to go and have a long a sit down in a dark room, to reflect on the fact that not a single contribution you've made in over a decade is vindicated by it, and that this was why we hadn't heard from you. Your arguments have been left totally shredded, and I mean absolutely thread bare. A few of us seem to have had cause to reflect and revise, but quite where you'd begin heaven only knows.

Only you could possibly think that all you have to do is load up mortar canons with copies of a KPMG country appraisal document and islamic fundamentalism will collapse. Wars are fought by armies and weapons, not consultants and spreadsheets. In fact I'm reminded of a comment Tony Blair made of Gordon Brown's suitability about becoming Prime Minister. "The problem with Gordon is that he thinks there's an economics answer to everything". You can't seriously think that Treasury forecasts are our best weapon can you? and that all we need to do is brag about our wealth and showcase our economic model, and that this will placate the barbarian hoardes? If it's any consolation to you Clive, the American's are seemingly adopting your economic weapon argument and starting a 'jobs for jihadists' offensive by the sound of it, so I'm sure you'll be celebrating that? Can you not see however that the radicals would interpret this as slavery to the west and submission in much the same way as they're allowed to enslaven women from conquered faiths?

I can accept its getting tedious, I can equally accept since none of us are in a position to do anything, that the whole thing is incredibly futile, ultimately though I can equally see why you don't particularly enjoy raking over it given how spectacularly wrong you've been. I am growing ever more worried though when such a proven 'negative predictor' as yourself is reassuring us that we have nothing to fear. That ISIS is able to gain ground at all at this stage in their demise should be a cause enough for concern. They should be in full headlong retreat by now

A dismal insulting and stupid post from a nut who has fantasies about russian tanks on the streets of london and biological race killing weapons

the first two paras are just about the biggest load of crap ive seen on here. A load of waffle with significantly not one element of substance to it or even an attempt to answer any point made

 

[clivex]

and yet again for the umpteenth time, words in mouth. You and grey and specialists in this snide time wasting.

no once have i said "there is nothing to fear" WILL YOU STOP MAKING UP QUOTES. HOW MANY MORE FCKING TIMES

 

[Grasshopper]

To be fair, clive, Warbler didn't quote you - he paraphrased you; no doubt in reference to this quote:

".....we has (sic) all this after 9/11 and it didnt happen. it will not now either".

I'm not doing this to dig you up about it, but to be honest, it did read a bit laissez-faire, and I was surprised that you were adopting such a relaxed position on the matter.

I mean?.....it does read like you think there's no threat to Europe, when there clearly is, now that IS have control over some Libyan ports. That's why the Italians are keen to get involved - so that they don't end-up absorbing boatloads of 'refugees' only to find they've admitted a phalanx of ISIS nutters into their country.

 

[Warbler]

A dismal insulting and stupid post from a nut who has fantasies about russian tanks on the streets of london and biological race killing weapons

the first two paras are just about the biggest load of crap ive seen on here. A load of waffle with significantly not one element of substance to it or even an attempt to answer any point made

I haven't got the heart to point out to you that ISIS have already mobilised the numbers in Europe that you suggest they wouldn't be able to, but will revisit your other points

Never, have I ever suggested that Russian tanks take to the streets of London, or any Russian personnel for that matter. That's the product of your imagination. For the umpteenth time, words in my mouth. You are a specialist in this snide time wasting. What I've said, and continue to say, is that Russia is going to be needed to lend their muscle (I'm sorry if you think Italy is a more powerful ally, you're just wrong there) in the middle east, and that the British military (certainly its army - which includes its tank divisions) will be needed in the UK. That shouldn't be too hard for you to grasp as an idea. I can see a case whereby the Fleet Air Arm (if we ever get the planes in time) could be deployed to the middle east. I think most people are clear that I've been talking about Russian involvement (alongside the US, China, and India) in the context of the middle east? It's only you that is struggling to grasp this point, but hey, that's all part of the rich tapestry

Biological weapons are not a matter of fantasy Clive. They exist, and the specific weapon I've told you about also exists (it was developed in 1970's South Africa). If we're facing a mass attack at some time in the future then I don't think it's beyond the realms of probability that any government is going to come under pressure to use them, do you? Let me give you an example. Actually since you recently signed off a post with "Churchill was right" can I ask you whether or not Churchill had anthrax weapons (germ warfare weapon) ready to be deployed against an invasion from nazi Germany?. Yes or No?. So I don't believe that's fantasy for one second, it's a grim and dystopic conclusion that I've come to, that such weapons do exist and under certain circumstances could be deployed decisively. It's little different to EC and his contrived nuclear accident. The effect is to kill as many as quickly as possible in response to a desperate threat. I for one don't feel inclined to give EC an argument about the discussion of their use, as I'm sure it has been sketched out as he suggests. Furthermore, I do believe there are scenarios where their use can be justified. Churchill thought so, and Harry Truman did too

Neither of us incidentally have stooped so low as to advocate chopping the victims up and feeding them to pigs yet. We are more concerned with winning any conflict and not living out some saddistic medieval fantasy that broadly crosses Ivan the Terrible with Vlad the Impaler

Over to you

 

[Warbler]

To be fair, clive, Warbler didn't quote you - he paraphrased you; no doubt in reference to this quote:

".....we has (sic) all this after 9/11 and it didnt happen. it will not now either".

Correct

Albeit I can see the irony of your intervention/ contribution :lol:

 

[EC1]

an I ask you whether or not Churchill had anthrax weapons (germ warfare weapon) ready to be deployed against an invasion from nazi Germany?

i saw something about this..did they store them in slate mines somewhere..in Wales?

its definitely a fact we had them..even if location is wrong

 

[clivex]

jesus christ

its a sense of perspective . is that difficult to understand

posters should quote directly or not post at all. got it?

i never used to phrase "nothing to fear". You could not claim that there is nothing to fear about crossing the road or getting on a plane. Understood?

of course there is a threat and a lot to worry about but barmy overreaction (bringing in north korea?????. wtf?) is just that. Barmy

and there is far more chance of being killed crossing the road than by isis

must admit i am way too busy with work for this. if i wanted to be a teacher in a class full of divs and windowlickers i would have chosen that fcking career

 

[Grasshopper]

:lol:

That's more like it.

 

[Grasshopper]

Correct

Albeit I can see the irony of your intervention/ contribution :lol:

The red mists never sit with me for too long. It's self-evidently stupid to stew over Internet argby-bargy, and it's this PMA which elevates me above the mewling herd.

:blink: