ISIS...Islamic State Victims

clivex said:
Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War has been confirmed by the United Nations. The deadliest attacks were the Ghouta attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the Khan al-Asal attack in the suburbs of Aleppo in March 2013. Several other attacks have been alleged, reported and/or investigated.

A U.N. fact-finding mission and a UNHRC Commission of Inquiry have simultaneously investigated the attacks. The U.N. mission found likely use of the nerve agent Sarin in the case of Khan Al-Asal (19 March 2013), Saraqib (29 April 2013), Ghouta (21 August 2013), Jobar (24 August 2013) and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya (25 August 2013). The UNHRC commission later confirmed the use of Sarin in the Khan al-Asal, Saraqib and Ghouta attacks, but did not mention the Jobar and the Ashrafiyat Sahnaya attacks.
The UNHRC commission also found that the Sarin used in the Khan al-Asal attack bore "the same unique hallmarks" as the Sarin used in the Ghouta attack and indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to chemicals from the Syrian Army's stockpile.
Click to expand...

Please show me the aspect of this report which confirms that Assad was conclusively responsible for these attacks.





Now you're done wasting your time, we can move on.

Did Assad have chemical weapons available to him? Categorically, yes.....otherwise he would have nothing to give up.

Was he responsible for these attacks?

Who knows.

Ice's theory holds plenty of water, and if Assad was seriously worried about CM falling into the hands of the ISIS nutters, it's a good way of playing your only Joker i.e. get them shipped to buy to time and credibility with the West, and avoid being served an Anthrax Souffle two weeks down the line.

The suggestion that Putin's only motivation in helping Assad, is to retain him as a WMD client, is utter drivel. What would Assad pay him in? The country is totally-fu*cked economically whatever happens, and Putin prefers cold-hard-dollars to grains of sand.

Anyone thinking that whatever's left of Syria - even if Assad remains Capo - would be looking to prioritise buying CM ahead of - oh, I dunno - taking a sh*it in something other than a brown puddle, is almost certifiable.

Clive, I honestly cannot understand either the thought-process or motivation behind this kind of tripe. Like him or not, Putin has ridden them all to sleep when it comes to Syria, and his ballsy approach (complemented by an enlightening and entertaining outing today) is the kind of thing you used to applaud, when George W. Bush was romping about in flight-jackets.

It must be like Fight Club every night of the week in your noggin, pal.
 
Don't be so ridiculous. He's not keeping him on as "a client" . He's wanting a presence in the area. Something yes sorely lacked for a very long time.

Its ts funny how the Russian "air strikes" are sudden,y welcomed by those that thought that the U.S. air strikes would be useless isn't it? Will they put troops in the ground and invade isis terroritry. We shall see...



Coming back lack to the rubbish about Tunisia and how it's "failed" because of number of exiles to isis, how illogical is that?

how many isis recruits are there from Tunisia ? Last I read was 2400. Maybe it's 5000 now say.

Whats ts the population of Tunisia. 10m. So for many slow witted here, that is 99.5% of Tunisians are NOT members of isis

disappointing isn't it?

but even then, isn't it obvious that you are going to get far mor exiles froma state which is intending to become the polar opposite of your beliefs than not? I think it's fair to say that social liberals would be far more likely to desert Saudi arabia than Turkey wouldn't they?

This is is simply stuff but it's pretty stomach churning to find there are actually people out there who are not jihadists but would take great pleasure form their belief that a regions democracy is supposedly failing
 
Last edited:
It's also laughable to claim that if there were elections tomorrow isis would win in Syria. Is this serious? Because they hold certain areas doesn't exactly mean that they have support does it? Not all Sunnis are extremist nutters . Is Turkey the same as Saudi arabia? I don't think so

ifnthis is any where near accurate, it blows the theory of Syrian isis support out of the water

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-19/81-syrians-believe-us-blame-isis
 
clivex said:
It's also laughable to claim that if there were elections tomorrow isis would win in Syria. Is this serious? Because they hold certain areas doesn't exactly mean that they have support does it? Not all Sunnis are extremist nutters . Is Turkey the same as Saudi arabia? I don't think so

ifnthis is any where near accurate, it blows the theory of Syrian isis support out of the water

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-19/81-syrians-believe-us-blame-isis
Click to expand...

What are you going on about now?

Who has said that ISIL should be part of any government? Have you actually been following any of this?
 
clivex said:
Don't be so ridiculous. He's not keeping him on as "a client" . He's wanting a presence in the area.
Click to expand...

Any of this sound familiar?

"No hes not. Harry is right. This about keeping is chemical weapon client in place. Nothing more".

The first Rule of Fight Club, is that you must never talk about Fight Club.....
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that from this passage I wrote, Clive has inferred I was advocating that ISIL would either win an election or should be part of the government?


  • It's equally foolish to be talking in terms of having free and open democratic elections and then excluding someone who will undoubtedly still command a huge amount of support (and critically amongst fighting men) from the process. Quite apart from the contradiction in being free and open, it's a receipe for further conflict, as we've seen elsewhere. It would be a grave mistake to think that everyone in Syria is anti Assad.​




I would have hoped that with his excellent working knowledge of Geneva2 and the conditions that the American's tried to attach, (Free and Open etc) plus the word Assad at the end of the piece, it was obvious who I was referring to. Especially when the Syrian army is composed of Alawites (the fighting men I referenced). Assad will undoubtedly have his supporters (he has won elections) it would be sheer bloody stupidity to pretend otherwise. Also those surveyed away from his alleged supression in the holding camps of Lebanon and elsewhere are apparently showing pro government sympathies on a scale the west would rather us not know about
 
clivex said:
Will they put troops in the ground and invade isis terroritry. We shall see...
Click to expand...

Finally, the grain of a sensible observation/ question

The sad thing, is that the foundations for a truly international coalition of the capable and the willing has probably never been better, but we're on the gusp of throwing it away due to our inability to co-operate and burden share

The Russians have about 2000 in Syria at the moment. They just signed a protocol with Iraq yesterday for better intelligence sharing too

A huge amount of Syria is desert, which is easier to fight in and police than the mountains of Afghanistan. With neighbours such as Turkey, Iraq, and Iran potentially more amenable to defending their own borders and preventing reinforcements the potential is there to start rolling the caliphate back using a surround, cut off, and close in tactic. I think another major condition being met that didn't apply in Iraq is that you have a governmental structure, an army, and a motivated people on the ground in Syria who you could identify as allies. The danger therefore comes from heavy handed treatment of civilians as we saw the Shia militias doing in Tikrit. This could push the wavering Sunni's into ISIL hands and start reinforcing from within
 
Grasshopper said:
Any of this sound familiar?

"No hes not. Harry is right. This about keeping is chemical weapon client in place. Nothing more".

The first Rule of Fight Club, is that you must never talk about Fight Club.....
Click to expand...

a client state isn't one where there is necessarily trade ffs . It's an expression which I would have expected anyone to be be familiar with
 
Warbler said:
Finally, the grain of a sensible observation/ question

The sad thing, is that the foundations for a truly international coalition of the capable and the willing has probably never been better, but we're on the gusp of throwing it away due to our inability to co-operate and burden share

The Russians have about 2000 in Syria at the moment. They just signed a protocol with Iraq yesterday for better intelligence sharing too

A huge amount of Syria is desert, which is easier to fight in and police than the mountains of Afghanistan. With neighbours such as Turkey, Iraq, and Iran potentially more amenable to defending their own borders and preventing reinforcements the potential is there to start rolling the caliphate back using a surround, cut off, and close in tactic. I think another major condition being met that didn't apply in Iraq is that you have a governmental structure, an army, and a motivated people on the ground in Syria who you could identify as allies. The danger therefore comes from heavy handed treatment of civilians as we saw the Shia militias doing in Tikrit. This could push the wavering Sunni's into ISIL hands and start reinforcing from within
Click to expand...

russia has said they won't put troops on the ground.

I would agree that this could be an opportunity to take them out once and for all with a coalition. Nothing would make me happier than to see the lot of them slaughtered. I would behead everyone single of them one by one with a rusty chainsaw after they have been fuxked up the Gary glitter by Hague and made to eat a Cameron's pigs head

It should also perhaps be remebered by the west that Putin actually fundamentally despises Islamic militants regardless of any geopolitical considerations.

maybe there is a upside with cooperation but there is little trust across the various parties and that's perfectly understandable

Have corbyn and various guardian hand wringers condemned the Russian air strikes? As they did the Americans? Is thicko brand protesting

Just wondered
 
I wish I had the tape of those two kids blown to bits by the drone. I love drones. What a laugh they must be

im sure the last words were

"what's that up there?"

:lol:
 
harry said:
watching on TV this morning, it was mentioned that the Russian Intel Drones were flying over anti Assad rebel areas backed by USA, Saudi etc.......they are nowhere near Islamic State areas.
This has caused Saudi to threaten to back these rebels even more if attacked by Russia.
Not as clear as it seems Ice?
Click to expand...

Not even trying to attack isis it would seem. What a surprise.

I suppose there here will a token effort to please his mug supporters such as le pen, corbyn, farage and other inadequates who fawn over "hard men" but wouldn't be at all surprised if that's all it ever is
 
It will be disappointing, certainly, if the mission doesn't eventually progress to attacking ISIS positions.
But I'm prepared to wait a few days for that to happen; at the moment I can see the military logic in first clearing and securing the area around the region still held by the Government forces. It makes sense to do so -- consolidate and strengthen your base area, 'n all that. Then when secure and ready, break out and bring the war to the enemy.
We should give the Russkies a bit of time, maybe?
 
It's perfectly obvious none of us have the foggiest what's going on, and some of the recent contributions here are clearly demented.

And neither the cream of the western secret services, media nor political leaders are any wiser.

I am reminded very much of the early days of the so-called Troubles in Ireland, when no British politicians or reporters had a feel for what was happening. All manner of nuances were lost on them, they didn't know who to believe and who to ignore. False assumptions were made about who was backing who, who was opposing who and their reasons for so doing. It took a long time for them to develop their understanding of the situation to the point where they could make a positive contribution rather than inflame the situation. Most of them got there, eventually, but it took time.

We all know that we never want to fall into the hands of ISIS but even at this stage that's about the only thing we know.
 
Last edited:
It's also worth noting that they attacked positions in what is generally classified to be government held territory too. The situation on the ground is likely much more fluid than simplified BBC coloured maps

At this stage it does look like they're following the play book of establishing a platform. It's not dissimilar to what the American's did in Libya for the first three days before handing over to the French and British. You might recall that UN1973 was essentially about creating a no fly zone and defending a buffer to prevent Gadaffi's armour reaching Benghazi. They didn't attack the obvious threat, but spent 3 nights firing cruise missiles at command and control centres instead. This created the platform for NATO to turn the whole thing into an attack mission, and proceed to target the one side only. The pretence of defending a no fly zone quickly evaporated, but that's another issue.

Russian military doctrine has always been based on overwhelming numbers and is normally quite cautious. It stands to reason that they'd look to clear out pockets and perimeter threats first. I do have some sympathy however for the observation that if all they're going to do is 'strategically bomb' the impact will be limited, and little different to the Americans taking out the odd Toyota pick up truck here and there. I think one of the big differences though is that the Syrians do have a credible, if damaged, forces on the ground. I'm not totally convinced this is going work without greater numbers, but we'll see. A big part of it's success will depend on how the Islamic State can replenish it's losses. This means the border countries have a role to play

I'm also less than convinced about the composition of these 'rebels'. That they're being backed by the likes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar worries me. If they stop short of being full blown ISIL, they're likely tribal Sunnis militants with a pretty firm line in orthodox Islam themselves. None of the Gulf States have a particularly good track record on backing democratic opposition groups do they?. Christ, you only need look at their own governmental structures to see that. They don't even endorse that form of government in their own country. I think it would be a mistake to get seduced into thinking the amorphous "rebels" are some kind of broad brush good guys. They're probably nearer to the Muslim Brotherhood on the spectrum.

There's clearly a lot of moving parts involved in the rebel movement though and identifying who is who has been problem that the west has wrestled with for five years now. The simple fact is, no credible, coherent, or enduring moderate opposition has emerged. Hell, the west have been desparately scratching around to try and find one to sponsor, it's not like they haven't tried. Even our own politicians have taken to calling them "rebels" now, rather than the "Free Syrian Army" which they used to

I think therefore there has to be a question as to just what contribution the rebels can make? I'd prefer to see them withdraw from the battlefield and seeking to win the peace, which is where their best prospects lie. Rather tellingly the west has been extremely cautious about just what military hardware they've been prepared to supply, and that should tell us quite a lot about the confidence our inteligence agencies have in them, and their loyalty. If they were ever faced with ISIL in the absence of the Syrian government, (the wests perversely prefered position) ISIL would make pretty light work of them.

I think Putin is seeing this as a two or three step process, which is strategically much more sensible than the west's stupid position of creating simultaneous chaos. I actually expect Putin will trade Assad in the fullness of time, but that's for another day
 
Corbyn, le pens and farages hero is totally trustworthy so although they claim to have attacked 20 isis positions and seemingly everyone else is saying the opposite, then we must of course believe the great short arsed paedo leader

the left are up in Arms about these air strikes on isis of course. Just as they were when the Americas dared to rescue those 40000 Christians. The guardian comment is free page is full of condemnation
 
That's fair enough warbler but whether it still stands true or not now, I do believe that Syrian Sunnis are a very different culture to that of the Wahhabi states. I might be wrong but closer to Turkey than Saudi.
 
Oh I think trust is in pretty short supply all round Clive, and increasingly I think leaders ego is coming into the calculations too (which is always dangerous as it clouds judgement)

I thought Hilary Benn made a half useful observation yesterday (even if it was stating the blindingly obvious) but this is a civil war with about seven different sides fighting it depending on how you count them.

Broadly speaking though you have Assad and anti Assad, but not unlike Spain in 1937, the antis are fighting each other just as much as they are their supposed common enemy. There are of course other paralells with Spain in that we have foreign governments providing top aircover for their preferred proxy, and in ISIL (slightly perversely of all the combatants) we also have something akin to the international brigades

So far as I can see though, there's only really two credible winners of this, and the pursuit of a moderate opposition through the gun looks futile at this stage. Indeed, the US was forced into admitting last month that they'd only succeeded in training "4 or 5" through their covert CIA interventions.

CIA sponsored black ops also have a history of conforming horribly to the law of unitended consequences. It was their failure at the Bay of Pigs (got to be a line there about Cameron somewhere) which pushed Castro into the arms of the Soviets and the missile crisis that followed. Their undermining of the democratic process in Iran in the 1950's begat the Shah, which in turn propagated the Islamic revolution. Similarly in Chile they overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende and installed Pinochet. We all know what happened with the Mujhahideen and how that helped spawn the Taleban and AQ. You play with fire when you start doing these sorts of things

I'm also slightly perplexed today by the White House warning the Russians that their bombing campaign will only act to recruit more jihadists. I'm not necessarily disputing the observation, it's not as if it's a new insight to any us, but I am inclined to ask why Russian bombs recruit Jihadists and American ones don't? I'm reminde dof that hysterical George Bush quote when justifying the surge in Iraq. "there might not have been that many terrorists before, but there sure as hell is now"

I do fear though, that if all the Russians are going to do is replicate American tactics, it won't necessarily be a game changer. The only hope we perhaps have is that the Russians will be providing air cover in support of an army that has shown a willingness to fight, whereas America has largely been wasting expensive munitions in support of the Iraqi army.
 
Too long


Very talking horses. Any excuse to bring up Americas past mistakes. Any excuse to bring up Britain in ireland

israel can't be far behind
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Too long
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who routinely post links to 1500 word pieces that's a laugh

Too long - do me a favour

I'll try something on your posts then

Too simple, can't be bothered replying (like your pathetic Tunisia excuse) it caused me a smile, but then what's the point I figured
 
Last edited:
The tunisia piece that you couldnt and wouldnt answer? I think if you are going to make comments like that you should front up first

but we know full well why you dont
 
If you're going to post such short sighted stuff, that's so bereft of insight and try and con people into thinking it's a meaningful contribution - well I'll let someone else engage you on that level. It's such a patently flawed analysis to the real world it really isn't worth going over. You might as well say there's more fish in the sea, or stars in the universe, so we've got nothing to worry about then. I honestly just laughed at it, and passed over it. Clearly you genuinely seem to think you've discovered some great insight though that demolishing any contrary perspective. It's sad. I'd stick to knee jerk reactionary stuff like imploring America to shoot down Russian troop carriers if I were you Clive

As regards fronting up, perhaps you'd be so good as to answer the question I asked earlier when you made some wild accusation that someone (person unidentified by you) was advocating that ISIL be allowed into government? I still haven't read anywhere, where anyone suggested this, nor have I ever seen such a comment made in the arena outside of TH. Is this another figment of your imagination?
 
Last edited:
You arrogantly made the observation that Tunisia has "failed" . It was based on the most stupid criteria which was easily blown apart. You know nothing and repeatedly make statements of "fact" which are based on your ideal world view.

worst example being your claims that the Syrian uprising was some sort of figment of the imagination of all the world's media observers.

but it's not a statement about tunisia. . It's a wish.Frankly nothing threatens those that strange people that fawn over dictators, either hard left or right, than the success of a democracy

I have no recollection of stating that at all but one thing is for certain.. There has to be real doubts about whether Putin and Assad have any desire at all to take isil on.
 
Last edited:
Quite where these 5000 Islamists came from had always puzzled me. Tunisia hadn't really got a reputation for international militancy until they emerged as the biggest per head of capita foreign contributors to the Islamic State (confounding a lot of people's expectations). I'd assumed that something similar had happened to that in Iraq where former regimists who no longer held influence and status had switched sides. This would of course mean game-keeper turning poacher (quite a conversion) but that it had seemingly taken place over a period of 10 years in Iraq seemed plausible as people re-evaluated their loyalties and completed the journey of conversion. The Tunisian example didn't really sit right with that timeframe though, so I was always a bit uncomfortable with the conclusion I was leaning towards. I must admit, I hadn't realised that the Tunisians had emptied their prisons of convicted Jihadists and affiliated sympathisers! Now that does explain a few things!

"In the post-Ben Ali period the Islamists in Ennahda, Tunisia's version of the Muslim Brotherhood, had genuine anxieties about being thrown back into the prisons from which thousands of their activists emerged during the Arab Spring."

I think it's also just plain wrong to describe Ennahda as Tunisia's version of the muslim Brotherhood too. Let us not forget that the Muslim Bortherhood were overseeing a sectarian purge and ethnic cleansing of Egypt. Coptic Christains were being executed by them! This is a logn way removed from Ennahda and whereas I realise the BBC are dumbing down (again) it's really misleading to suggest that we're being asked to evaluate two identical entitie and then ask why the Tunisians can do something that the Egyptians can't

I also had to smile at this quote

"But while the jihadist challenge has been both deadly and spectacular, those using violence have enjoyed little popular support."

Look the simple fact is just about every war that's ever been fought, has been fought by minorities of the population. The BBC's just stating the blindingly obvious. But that's just the point. It only takes a minority to become quite a formidable opponent. It's hiding behind maths and ignoring pragmatism to say only n% support of the population are engaged in violence, or supportive of it. If that n% is well resourced, trained, and motivated, they can become a real handful. It's the gross number that is more important. The last survey I saw about regional sympathies to ISIL placed Saudia Arabia at the head of the table (10%). The fact that violence enjoys little popular support is quite normal, it's just that the norm can't always do that much about it.

Sadly for all the optimism of the article, it almost betrays its own insecurities within the first paragaph

"How has the country managed its transition to democracy where so many others have failed. Iraq and Syria are trapped in intractable civil wars. Egypt is run by its army. Libya has all but disintegrated."

It pretty well says it all. One out of five is a poor return, and it's not as if that one is an unqualified success either. The BBC's inviting us to judge success as not descending into civil war or having the army intervene on popular Islam. It's setting the bar pretty low isn't it?. Tunisia might have seen an increase in Islamic terror, but that's a qualified success, if that's all it's done! Come on, it's pretty poor definition of success isn't it. It's why my initial reaction to the article was to dismiss it as a bit of clumsy propoganda piece. It even made this optimistc assessment;

"Tunisia has remained in the vanguard of democratic development in the Middle East."

err...... In the first case I don't think Tunisia is in the vanguard of the middle east hothouse. I don't even think it sits round the table. And last time I checked it wasn't even in the middle east, yet alone a regional powerbroker calling the shots

As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, well let's be honest, it's often an expression of forlorn hope. You might recall that Barrack Obama won it not so long ago, predominantly for who he wasn't rather than who he is. They awarded it to the European Union about three years ago as well (they're probably still making their acceptance speeches). The International Atomic Energy Agency, and the League Against Cruel Chemical Weapon Sports (or whatever they're called) have also won it. It's really an expression of sympathy and sentiment. Has child labour in India ended after their campaigner won it? Have the Taleban permitted girls to attend schools now after that young girl who got shot won it? I doubt you could argue that Betty Williams and Marie Corrigan brought about the Good Friday Agreement either. Sure it's nice, and it's warming, but there's little evidence that protagonists respond to it

What i think is perhaps more worrying medium term in the BBC article is this

"For most voters the most pressing issues are the poor provision of basic government services, the uncertain security situation and, most crucially of all, the lack of jobs".

It's no great secret that Tunisia relies on its tourist industry, for all our sentimental support, fine words, and token Nobel gestures etc how many of us have booked a holiday next year to Tunisia? Crumbling economies usually begat recriminations and societal breakdowns. If their tourists industry collapses because of terror then the true resilience of the Tunisian revolution will be tested. I'm not going to call that one either way, but how many of us would say we'd be shocked to see things starting to splinter?

Incidentally Clive, if you want a reply to your PM's, you'll need to clear your in box
 
Last edited:
Back
Top