ISIS...Islamic State Victims

Heard an analyst blaming 'the west' for the influx of Syrian refugees trying to get into Europe.

Apparently its not actually Assad's fault, it's the West's ...and the fact somewhere along the lines we may have armed opposition groups to topple him.

So that folks is what's caused the Refugee crisis. You couldn't make up what some people are prepared to come out with.

What's caused it is patently obvious, no firm resolution to a humanitarian catastrophe within Syria, if the West can be blamed for anything its for taking no action at all.

What a world I tell thee...
 
Last edited:
The staggering heroism of the guys on the train is something to treasure from this year. As with the tunisian hotel workers who fought back against the murderer on th beach , its great to know that when pushed the human spirit can fight back against the pure evil of islamic terrorism
 
Something wrong if they're not co-recipients of Time 'Man of the Year'.

Without sullying their heroic actions by introducing the grubby-subject of folding, but is there any betting on it?
 
After the latest burning alive video of 4 chained up souls, what can they do next to improve the gore fest and not bore people?

Snakes, Piranhas?

Im surprised no one has told them about "The Brazen Bull" from back in the day!
 
The first signs that the far left dominated labour party's admiration for islamist facists are going to get the better of them. Corbyn and Flabbot are now questioning the blowing to bits of filth

Question all you like ... the public is NOT on you side. in fact we would like to see the video of them turned into mince

I read a good article on drones and how they are operated a few months ago. They can literally zoom in and see their faces and what they are saying. The guy who launched them said it was very dispassionate and like a computer game.

i can see that but there must have been extra points for waiting for the little cnt to bend over and firing one right up his arse
 
Last edited:
The only disappointing thing about the Parliamentary announcement about the Syria drone attacks, was the lack of streamers and hooch.
 
Are the west finally waking up to the bloody obvious? To be honest, if they'd possessed the insights necessary to form the correct strategic judgement, they could have got to this emerging position years ago without anything like the loss of 250,000 lives plus 7.5M people displaced, but because they were looking in the wrong direction they allowed the Islamic State to grow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34298826

Longer term, you're going to need fuller global response, and as I was saying years ago, that means trying to bring in the likes of China and India. I note Japan has released themselves from their historic commitment not to take military action outside their own borders in the last few days too.
 
Bashar Al Assad gave a lengthy interview to RT News this week; anyone who watched and listened will surely change their opinion as to who our ally should be in defeating ISIS.
Assad gave an overpowering analysis as to the crisis from a historical and current perspective. In the West we are being fed propaganda as to who the bad guys are, when the truly bad guys are really Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and of course ISIS itself.
We are told that the refugees arriving in Europe are fleeing the Syrian "regime" although in last years elections the majority of refugees in Lebanese and Jordanian refugee camps voted for Assad. We are not told that. Would refugees fleeing in fear vote for a President who was trying to kill them? More Western disinformation and BS.
The truth is that Assad -- who always protected Christians and other minorities -- is being deliberately undermined by a whole cartel of Middle-Eastern states supplying ISIS and with the certain knowledge of the West.
I'm sick of it.
 
$500M later the US has successfully trained how many anti ISIS fighters?

Wait for it.....

drum roll

"four or five"

Oh come on which is it, we need to know, you can't talk with such imprecission like this. Have we got 4 or have we got 5 soldiers deploy?. But fear not, the training they've received has been "excellent" and there's another 120 on the way. Well shite thee pants ye ISIS terrorists, thou days are numbered

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/16/us-military-syrian-isis-fighters

More amusing is the confession that there isn't a snowball in hells chance that a safe haven could be established and policed. You don't need me to tell you which out of touch dinosaur is making the creation of one his central strategic policy response. Please leave the stage Mr Cameron, you're an embarrassment

There's clearly a softening in America at the moment towards an accommodation with Russia. This is something that should have been done years ago, (it honestly wasn't difficult to foresee that this was inevitable to some degree or other, but the west identified the wrong enemy and millions have been killed or displaced as result
 
Warbler said:
This is something that should have been done years ago, (it honestly wasn't difficult to foresee that this was inevitable to some degree or other, but the west identified the wrong enemy and millions have been killed or displaced as result
Click to expand...

With all due respect this is far fetched tripe, Warbler.

ISIS got to the point where they are now as a massive entity in the region because of what happened in early 2014 when they took large parts of Iraq, so doing a deal years earlier with Russia to defeat someone we didn't really know were there, is again....far fetched tripe on your behalf.

As for your comment about the West being responsible for millions of death, due to seeing the wrong enemy, I assume you talking about Iraq 2003 or Libya under Cameron???

But your sort of mixing it all up with you're Syria arguments? It's sounding like a cracked record now.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
With all due respect this is far fetched tripe, Warbler.
Click to expand...
Is it? I don't think so !

We already knew from the WikiLeaks cables that the U.S. was pro-actively working on destabilizing Syria as far back as 2007.

And, now, in the past week it has been revealed that the U.S. were actually funding ISIS and other jihadist groups.
( http://www.australiannationalreview.com/isis-leader-admits-funded/ )


American foreign policy has ever been to undermine the stability of those regions outside of its sphere of influence.
They are truly the originators of this whole sorry middle-east mess. Russia would do well to have nothing to do with such a duplicitous "partner".
 
Ice, I don't dispute foreign policy has been awful.
I was 100 percent against the Iraq War in 2003, I nearly marched against it but for ill health.
As for Libya, I suspected we shouldn't get involved at the time, but Warbler and the more pro-active cynics are being proven right day-by-day.

As for Syria, I was disgusted to see chemical weapons being dropped, and wanted military intervention, but I realise this was due to my own feelings as a layperson, rather than any great strategic judgement on my or anyone else's behalf.

I would still question Warblers assertion that there was an easy 'negotiable' option to avert what's happened in Syria, (apart from time-travelling back in history to possibly 2003 and changing world leaders decisions)

From what you're saying it seems like American foreign policy is there to destabilize American foreign policy which is quite bizarre isn't it?

I'd love to see Russia on board to stabilise the region, but I suspect this is the type of thing a fresh president might be more willing to push through, rather than someone with a year left, we'll see anyway.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
From what you're saying it seems like American foreign policy is there to destabilize American foreign policy which is quite bizarre isn't it?
Click to expand...
No Marble, I'm suggesting, just possibly, that American hidden but real practice is to destabilize any region that is not under its hegemony. American foreign policy , on the other hand, as outwardly and publicly advertised by the USA is a veneer and a sham that just does not mirror what they are really up to and about.
 
marble said:
I would still question Warblers assertion that there was an easy 'negotiable' option to avert what's happened in Syria, (apart from time-travelling back in history to possibly 2003 and changing world leaders decisions)
Click to expand...

I think if you're going to use inverted commas on the world negotiable, it probably invites the retort where have I ever suggested that the solution was a negotiated one (albeit I think I can see where you're going with it)

The west framed negotiations around the removal of Assad. This alienated Russia and therefore the field was left open. That was a mistake. They made an easy deal complicated by failing to priortise accurately.

The west should have brokered a deal with Russia and worked jointly. Sure that means accepting Assad and backing him, but so what. He's not remotely as bad as ISIL, and in any event, there would be scope to work on any other arrangements later. As I've also said, it's is going to be a lot easier to deal with Assad, post ISIL, then it is ISIL, post Assad. That was the case then, and should be blindingly obvious to anyone by now, that it's still the case today. That really wasn't a difficult jump to make (unless of course you're drowning in cold war dogma)

You could have had that arrangement at any juncture on this timeframe. All it required was for the US (the European countries are immaterial to this really) to agree with the Russian assessment that conservative Islam is the threat, and as the only fighting bulwark on the ground challenging its advance, we support Assad (for now). Indeed Marb, if you read the nuance coming out of Washington these days, this is the position they're moving to, albeit they're having to sugar coat the pill to say they've extracted a commitment to future reform in order to avoid admitting they've called it wrong. The problem now of course is that they're fighting a more difficult enemy than they would have been, so even though this conflict needs to be taken, I realise the number of refugees it's going to create will rise further in the medium term. Is that any less irresponsible though than condeming them to live under the Islamic State

I've consistently said you needed a coalition of the willing and the capable. That reduces the number of prospective partners significantly.

As this spreads out, and unless it's checked it will, the capable is increasingly going to be defined by military manpower. That reduces the influence of Europe, who in any case are likely to find themselves at full stretch defending their own streets in the decades to come. That leaves the US, Russia, and looking into the future, China and India as the best equipped nations to defend the world
 
icebreaker said:
No Marble, I'm suggesting, just possibly, that American hidden but real practice is to destabilize any region that is not under its hegemony. American foreign policy , on the other hand, as outwardly and publicly advertised by the USA is a veneer and a sham that just does not mirror what they are really up to and about.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense ice.

is the eu under the us "hegemony" ? I don't think so. China? Australia? Japan? Africa? It can't be bothered

of course this was the case in South America for far too long but now? I think they just leave the leftist givernments to fck it up for themeselves, which they are doing spectacularly
 
The idea of India "defending the world " instead of nato has to have been the funniest thing I have seen on this forum.

much as the country if charming in so many ways, organisation and military strength are not words that spring to mind...

china? Won't do anything unless there is a bottom line. Couldn't even help its neighbour and supposed ally Pakistan when the floods occurred.

russia? An economy smaller than Italy's but more importantly, a rapidly declining population and dire economic prospects.

All this is nothing more than leftist fantising that "the west" is finished. Due to go the way of the Roman empire and other such bollocks
 
Last edited:
marble said:
ISIS got to the point where they are now as a massive entity in the region because of what happened in early 2014 when they took large parts of Iraq, so doing a deal years earlier with Russia to defeat someone we didn't really know were there, is again....far fetched tripe on your behalf.
Click to expand...

If we didn't know they were there, you're going to have to explain why the British designated them a terrorist group in 2001 and the United States followed in 2004 (I should clarify, they were a faction within AQ)

They were active as a fighting unit circa 2005 - 2007, then suffered some reverses and withdrew.

They were flushed however by a reorganisation that saw disenfranchised Republican Guard, and other continuity Saddam elements join them. Al Baghdadi made these people his new commanders and it is their presence in ISIS that caused the Iraqi to hand over their weapons and run in the first major advance. They were however running parts of Iraq prior to your date and something of an uneasy deal had seemingly been entered into with the Iraqi government to permit this, but it wasn't being reported in the western media.

You might equally like to dwell on the fact that the biggest supplier of foreign fighters to ISIL is Tunisia. And also ISIL's stronghold in Libya is Sirte (Gadaffis home town) where former loyalists to him have taken up arms. There is a tendancy for the displaced military that loses their influence and status to join the terror networks. People should consider this before advocating wholesale regime change in the future, for it's becoming apparent that the attempts to train and establish new fighting units from scratch has failed. In Iraq they ran away. In Libya they raped the locals of Cambridgeshire, and we learn last week that the American's have succeeded in training just "four or five" volunteers in Syria - that I'm afraid is laughable. I just wish we knew, is it four, or is ti five? How can we plan

The critical point you're missing though Marb, requires you to take two steps back and stop thinking in terms of AQI, IS, ISIS, or ISIL. The name doesn't actually matter that much, and that's why your point about about them not existing is rendered irrelevant bordering on naive.

You need to look at what they represent. When you've done that, you'll realise that they've always existed, but the reason they hadn't been able to get the traction they have today, is because a combination of secret police forces and the military in the countries where they now thrive had got on top of them. Now when you remove this controlling influence, and plunge the country into chaos and massive destabalisation in the process, can you really be surprised that they come to the top? Was that really so hard to foresee? Especially as you could easily see their presence emerging in the civil wars that preceeded the overthrows. The two pillars in a lot of these societies are the military or the mosque. What do you think will happen if you remove the military?

I think you could argue that the tribe is a third entity incidentally, and that certainly played a massive part in undermining Gadaffi's attempts to devolve power in Libya as it created discontent as democracy just reinforced corrupt tribal nepotism. Having said that, the original uprising there came on a Friday after an inflamatory inman in Benghazi implored his followers to storm the local barracks and seize the weapons to begin a revolt. Ultimately the garrison was forced into firing on them, and within half an hour Mekong Hague was incredibly denouncing Gadaffi to the world as someone who murders his own population who he, and he alone it seemed, had already decided were pro-democracy campaigners - well they certainly proved they were haven't they!
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
This is nonsense ice.

is the eu under the us "hegemony" ? I don't think so. China? Australia? Japan? Africa? It can't be bothered

of course this was the case in South America for far too long but now? I think they just leave the leftist givernments to fck it up for themeselves, which they are doing spectacularly
Click to expand...
Of course America has no inclination to cause instability in Europe -- because we are toeing the American line in matters of commerce, governance and foreign policy.

But I ask you to consider other instances over the past 30 years where U.S. covert and often overt interference is well documented. Countries which they have deliberately sought to destabilize. Afghanistan where they supplied the Taliban with weaponry and millions of dollars to overthrow the Kabul government. Also Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Egypt, etc etc etc. How about the middle-east; Syria? We know about it thanks to the WikiLeaks cables. Certainly Syria, according to the rule of American self-interest, had to be destabilised; fckin' oil and because the Saudi's Kuwait and UAE didn't like Assad.
More recently we have seen the attempt (successful) to destabilize Ukraine -- to the extent where CIA agent-provocateurs were organising riots in the capital.

IMHO, America is the greatest cause of upset and discord in the world today. Extreme as that sounds. :)
 
clivex said:
The idea of India "defending the world " instead of nato has to have been the funniest thing I have seen on this forum.

much as the country if charming in so many ways, organisation and military strength are not words that spring to mind...
Click to expand...

Yet another funniest thing you've ever seen again hey?

In terms of NATO I think you probably need to get real and call it what is - America. The other countries struggle to do anything without America. Can you find me a successful NATO intervention that wasn't backed up by America?

In terms of India, I assume you'll accept that her army is large? At 1.3M active servicemen it's already bigger than the armies of Europe combined. She has about 2 million reservists as well

She has about 800 front line attack aircraft in her airforce, with something like 300 on order. That's about 3 times the size of the RAF

She has two aircraft carriers (the biggest is bigger than anything Europe has) she has a thrid due to enter service in the next years or so, and another five officially categorsied as in the planning stage. When these are built, she'll have the second biggest navy in the world and the ability to project military power over the globe with greater effectiveness than the UK, France and Germany combined

Sadly your economic argument against Russia won't cut a great deal of ice on a battlefield. What do you propose doing. Firing salvos of the Treasury's green book at them? Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather have my money on the guys using guns and bullets
 
icebreaker said:
Of course America has no inclination to cause instability in Europe -- because we are toeing the American line in matters of commerce, governance and foreign policy.

But I ask you to consider other instances over the past 30 years where U.S. covert and often overt interference is well documented. Countries which they have deliberately sought to destabilize. Afghanistan where they supplied the Taliban with weaponry and millions of dollars to overthrow the Kabul government. Also Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Egypt, etc etc etc. How about the middle-east; Syria? We know about it thanks to the WikiLeaks cables. Certainly Syria, according to the rule of American self-interest, had to be destabilised; fckin' oil and because the Saudi's Kuwait and UAE didn't like Assad.
More recently we have seen the attempt (successful) to destabilize Ukraine -- to the extent where CIA agent-provocateurs were organising riots in the capital.

IMHO, America is the greatest cause of upset and discord in the world today. Extreme as that sounds. :)
Click to expand...

No we are not toeing their line. You really think that the European States are incapable of thinking for themselves?

Military?Did they all follow into Iraq? I don't think so....

commerce? You must be joking surely? What's the alternative ?
 
Last edited:
India will not and cannot tackle the Middle East . No chance . It can't even sort out its own borders
 
clivex said:
India will not and cannot tackle the Middle East . No chance . It can't even sort out its own borders
Click to expand...

As opposed to the textbook demonstration currently being laid on for the world to view with unbridled envy by the NATO countries of Europe you mean?

And I'm not sure that America is doing too sound a job when the front runner for the GOP nomination is making the building of a wall on the Mexcian border his first policy objective and it's clearly resonating

Your world view reminds me of a quote attributed to Tony Blair about Gordon Brown;

"The problem with Gordon is he thinks there's an economics solution to everything"

I think you'd also benefit if you could throw off some of your old way of thinking and look to the future and work out who will be best equipped to meet this challenge in a changing landscape. I wouldn't under estimate the value of manpower if I were you, and even if that means finding a bottom line to bring China in, then that pursuit needs to start

Look ... it isn't difficult to see which countries are placing orders for what militarily, and which countries are expanding thus. You can then start to overlay that on existing static dynamics like population, and you quickly come to realise that the balance of world military power will change in the next 20-30 years which is the sort of temporal horizon that is likely to play out here. Islamicfascism won't go away when the caliphate is defeated

In a decades time we should be starting to see the first produce from the Islamic States baby making factories. This is tantamount to harvesting people. They're putting women into breeding programmes basically to produce jihadis who are taught that this is their transitory existance before they go to paradise, but the only way they can complete that journey is to die a martyr fighting the infidels. It's pure evil, and how anyone can prioritise Assad or Gadaffi over this is beyond my comprehension.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top