ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
The way I feel about all this now .........................
I am truly sick and tired of the "Assad-must-go" mantra being constantly mouthed by America and the UK.
This Gaddafi/Saddam/Mubarrak/etc -must-go narrative has led to consequences that have been nothing short of catastrophic for the entire region and the world. And still the West pushes for the violent overthrow of Bashar Assad.
We have a position where America actively supports "moderates" in fighting a sovereign elected government. There is no such thing as a "moderate" jihadist. A "moderate" suicide bomber? It's an oxymoron. And there is no such thing as the Free Syrian Army -- it's a phantom, and a figment of propaganda in the mind of the C.I.A.
What kind of a world have we got where the U.S. and the U.K. support (with weaponry, equipment, intelligence and guidance) one of the most mediaeval, corrupt, dictatorial and cruel regimes (Saudi Arabia) in clusterbombing one of the poorest countries (Yemen). And where the West tries to destroy the protector of Christians, Alawites, Shia's, and Druze in Syria.
How did we get to this pass? The "good guys" of my youth (the West) have become the bad guys, and the Russians have turned out to be the ones behaving within the strictures of international law, and the ones prepared to fight the forces of evil (ISIS).
The world has gone crazy.
I am truly sick and tired of the "Assad-must-go" mantra being constantly mouthed by America and the UK.
This Gaddafi/Saddam/Mubarrak/etc -must-go narrative has led to consequences that have been nothing short of catastrophic for the entire region and the world. And still the West pushes for the violent overthrow of Bashar Assad.
We have a position where America actively supports "moderates" in fighting a sovereign elected government. There is no such thing as a "moderate" jihadist. A "moderate" suicide bomber? It's an oxymoron. And there is no such thing as the Free Syrian Army -- it's a phantom, and a figment of propaganda in the mind of the C.I.A.
What kind of a world have we got where the U.S. and the U.K. support (with weaponry, equipment, intelligence and guidance) one of the most mediaeval, corrupt, dictatorial and cruel regimes (Saudi Arabia) in clusterbombing one of the poorest countries (Yemen). And where the West tries to destroy the protector of Christians, Alawites, Shia's, and Druze in Syria.
How did we get to this pass? The "good guys" of my youth (the West) have become the bad guys, and the Russians have turned out to be the ones behaving within the strictures of international law, and the ones prepared to fight the forces of evil (ISIS).
The world has gone crazy.
Last edited:
Well on that sort of logic you'd have concluded that Britain had no problems in Northern Ireland and we could simply dismiss everything that happened there in the 1970's/ 80's etc because the IRA only had about 300-400 active members at any given time in a population of about 1.7M, about 0.02%. You would have to conclude that our policy from the 1920's onward was a roaring success then? The percentage of the population is neither here nor there if that population isn't engaged in opposing them. It's why I said you might as well compare them to the number of fish in the sea, stars in the universe, or grains of sand on the beach.
If you want to dilute the Tunisian figure further you could use the world's population as your benchmark, but it doesn't actually alter the threat level. The threat level remains constant at 5000 armed men regardless of your baseline. It's that simple. The threat doesn't all of sudden become less potent the bigger base that you use to assess their percentage off. The threat level comes from the gross number, not the percentage of the population. It's a bit of a red herring to talk in terms of percentages, although it can add to our understanding of the depth of a problem.
In this case however, the supreme irony is that they were seemingly under lock and key, until you released them. Indeed, if you think that releasing militant Islamists is a measure of success Clive, why don't you close down Bellmarsh and we could all live happily ever after? Would you advocate that? I doubt it somehow
It does make you wonder if some kind of deal had been cut with Ennahda, as a surprisingly high number seem to have gone overseas rather than take up domestic opposition, but we don't know that
History is full of examples of minority populations bringing their will to bear over majority populations, even when in places like Africa they did meet resistance. It would be dangerous to glibly dismiss this.
On my logic you might say that I would conclude America is more under threat from the gross number of their own citizens running around with privately owned firearms? Maybe, but then I would point out that more Americans are killed by fellow Americans each year in shootings (about 10,000) than they ever are by terrorists.
If you want to dilute the Tunisian figure further you could use the world's population as your benchmark, but it doesn't actually alter the threat level. The threat level remains constant at 5000 armed men regardless of your baseline. It's that simple. The threat doesn't all of sudden become less potent the bigger base that you use to assess their percentage off. The threat level comes from the gross number, not the percentage of the population. It's a bit of a red herring to talk in terms of percentages, although it can add to our understanding of the depth of a problem.
In this case however, the supreme irony is that they were seemingly under lock and key, until you released them. Indeed, if you think that releasing militant Islamists is a measure of success Clive, why don't you close down Bellmarsh and we could all live happily ever after? Would you advocate that? I doubt it somehow
It does make you wonder if some kind of deal had been cut with Ennahda, as a surprisingly high number seem to have gone overseas rather than take up domestic opposition, but we don't know that
History is full of examples of minority populations bringing their will to bear over majority populations, even when in places like Africa they did meet resistance. It would be dangerous to glibly dismiss this.
On my logic you might say that I would conclude America is more under threat from the gross number of their own citizens running around with privately owned firearms? Maybe, but then I would point out that more Americans are killed by fellow Americans each year in shootings (about 10,000) than they ever are by terrorists.
Last edited:
Last month of course the CIA conceeded to Congress that they'd only succeeded in training "four or five" moderates from their $500m programme. This month they closed it down and put the figure at 120 now (they must have got a spurt on!). More alarmingly (as wasting American money isn't necessarily that fatal) is that they've admitted they'd identified two groups within the umbrella of the so-called Free Syrian Army whom they'd supplied training and equipment to. One of them subsequently defected and went over to Al-Nusra. The other one was defeated on the battlefield and handed their weapons over to ISIL in return for safe passage. All the American's could do was assure us that they hadn't supplied anti aircraft weapons!
This kind of brings us to the role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar as no one knows who they've been supplying with what.
It's difficult to argue that either of these states are acting in the interests of promoting freedom and liberal democratic reform. If they wanted to pin their colours to this mast, then they could clearly demonstrate their commitment in some very obvious and visible ways. But they don't do, do they? Their clear motive is to stir up sunni's living within these countries into armed insurgency. In other words, they're brining nothing more useful to the table that inflaming age old tribal conflicts, yet they get a pass out because they're aligned to America's energy policy and the UK's arms export trade.
The Turks are behaving slightly differently, and I think in time they might come to realign against ISIL, but for now most of their activity has been concentrated against Kurds, who of course, the US are supplying! - madness really!
So back to Putin. I tend to think that his signing of that protocl of co-operation with Iraq 24 hours before he began his air campaign wasn't without significance. You can see a Shia nexus forming across the north of the region that is looking to fall under Russian protection, which involves Iran and Syria (possibly even coming to involve a Kurdish homeland in time too). Putin might be a product of the Soviet era, but so far as I can see his influences and operational MO are very much more in the tradition of old fashioned Russian nationalism and Tsarism. Russian nationalism has a very deep tradition, and shouldn't be under estimated. It's really imperialist in nature and isn't motivated by the promotion of a political philosophy. His is looking more like a policy of reconquista
The future that's potentially shaping up is for a bloc of Shia countries supported by Russia who are already more advanced in their embrace of some democratic structures, aligned against the sunni gulf states who are the more regressive, but supported by the US, with very little attention given to their embarrassing contradictions (anyone remember Bahrain?). Is this going to be helpful to the region? Almost certainly not. Longer term trying to reconcile this tension is going to become a key
The US could make a better contribution if they started to work their own allies a bit. I'm not convinced that the Shia states of the north are naturally inclined towards Russia, but for so long as America's sunni allies are sponsoring civil wars within those countries, whose arms are they being forced into? As Ice says, the activity of Qatar and Saudi is highly questionable under international law. Russia has observed this more rigidly than the US has. They're at least responding to a call for assistance from a ratified UN member state
The so called Free Syrian Army is a rag bag bunch of splinters engaged equally in fighting inter and intra factional local tribal wars as much as they are the Assad regime. It is similar Spain in the 1930's. America would be better off trying to stand them down as a fighting force and seeking instead to win the peace (provided that the groundswell of support they think exists, really does).
The Russians have of course accussed the American's of "pretending to bomb ISIL", I think there might be a grain of truth in this. Periodically bombing a bit of back structure isn't of great strategic significance when the losses can be replenished within a matter of days. In order to make this meaningful you need able ground forces in position to exploit the opportunity that the bombing creates. The Russian activity to date is seemingly more focused on bombing to win back territory. Lets not forget that territory is the life source of the caliphate, so lets see what the picture looks like in 6 months.
Personally I expect to see some hiccups along the way, and it's very much fingers crossed and hope for the best time. It has all the ingredients of an accident waiting to happen. I dread to see what the reaction is going to be when a Russian jet is brought down by an American manufactured, Qatari supplied, anti aircraft wepaon.
The Americans announced yesterday of course that they've taken to airdrops now in support of the YPG. As if to underline the whole chaos of the policy in Syria, Amnesty released a report the same day condemning the YPG for war crimes committed against civilians in the wake of retreating ISIL units. It has shades of the Iranian Shia milita who were so instrumental in liberating Tikrit in the summer. The Iraqi army couldn't do the job you'll remember, but the militia units that could, then went on an orgy of reprisals.
Russia, in co-ordation with the Syrian army should start to regain territory (we hope) and push back ISIL eventually. The danger has to come if these actions start to act as a recruiting base for the militants. The west has certainly warned Russia about this (seemingly with no sense of irony) but it is a legitimate concern, as I suspect will become the behaviour of an Islamic State in retreat. For now I tend to think what the west is tacitly acknowledging however is some of the failures of their own attempts to win hearts and minds.
Russia probably starts from a higher base though. They don't carry the baggage that the US does, and they have at least been invited into a country rather than imposing themselves on it. I'd accept however that their way of waging war will be less sophisticated and expensive, and is going to cause more collateral damage, and with this a clear danger exists. What's the alternative though? Just let the Islamic State continue to expand. Allow the next generation of Jihadi babies to reach fighting age in about 10 years with their Islamic State in tact?, not to mention anything they've exported longer term that is left 'sleeping' around the world
I don't see that there's any accommodation with ISIL, which makes war inevitable. The only questions to be resolved really is it's scale and temporal horizon
Last edited:
Is that "none out of five" Clive? If it is then I'd say it's very much the point!
Imposing a system that's proved incapable of being transplanted, and one that results in civil wars, displacements of population, and swapping authoritarian regimes for the Islamic State, is borderline certifiable if you're doing this in the knowledge of the outcome. Why on earth would you choose to do this just to achieve some illusionary notional concept of democracy (which you haven't achieved anyway). Can you think of any walk of life, or any field, anywhere, where 0 from 5 is considered successful?
Last edited:
What an absurd answer
absolute drivel. Democracy leads to isis? Sorry? I think the aforementioned example is proof that such a straight line equation is laughable
northern ireland? I think that the civil rights protests which led to the violence were as much a part of the disgraceful gerrymandering which led to democracy being undermimed
you think northern ireland would have been better off under what then? A dictator?
absolute drivel. Democracy leads to isis? Sorry? I think the aforementioned example is proof that such a straight line equation is laughable
northern ireland? I think that the civil rights protests which led to the violence were as much a part of the disgraceful gerrymandering which led to democracy being undermimed
you think northern ireland would have been better off under what then? A dictator?
Pakistan has had islamists participating in elections for years. I would guess that its a higher proportion than in tunisia . Also aware that its generally considered to be stuck below 20%
Civil war? I dont think so
Need I say more. No
Civil war? I dont think so
Need I say more. No
Even by your own standards, that's a remarkably glib assessment of what's been happening in Waziristan since 2004.
So far there's been about 60,000 dead resulting from the Waziristan war, and about 3.5M displaced. I don't know where you draw the line between a civil war and a bit of local difficulty, but for a brief period in 2008 the militants from the Swat Valley, and North and South Waziristan poured out of their autonomous tribal areas (which were entered by the Pakistani government in 2004) and came within about 70 miles of Islamabad. For about 2 weeks it seemed possible that the capital might fall even.
The Pakistani military have been active political players for decades Clive, which I believe was another indicator (applied to Egypt) that the BBC used to represent failure. I'm sure if you care to read up on the Waziristan War you'll discover that the military's potentially ill-advised accommodation of the tribal Talibs and Pashtuns was a contributing factor, having said that, there can be no doubt that the militaries subsequent reorganisation and Operation Zalzala were critical to throwing back their advance, as indeed have been US drone strikes.
The war continues today, albeit the militants have been forced back into their tribal areas and reduced largely to hit and run raids, the last spectacular one being the school children slaughter
Democracy is not under threat in pakistan
sadly for you, it will probably not be under threat in tunisia either
you seem obsessed with the idea that a "small number " of militants will take over a state. And that it requires a glorious west hating leader to lead them to safety
Not happening in Pakistan is it? And frankly if it hasn't come close to fruition over the past few decades, it is not going to now is it?
so no. Pakistan, tunisia and others frankly do not need a dictator and nor does anyone else
sadly for you, it will probably not be under threat in tunisia either
you seem obsessed with the idea that a "small number " of militants will take over a state. And that it requires a glorious west hating leader to lead them to safety
Not happening in Pakistan is it? And frankly if it hasn't come close to fruition over the past few decades, it is not going to now is it?
so no. Pakistan, tunisia and others frankly do not need a dictator and nor does anyone else
Last edited:
You're just bouncing around like a kangaroo with a blindfold.
I get your gerrymandering argument, that makes sense. Nothing else does.
I think you're completely missing the point anyway that I was using to draw a parallel with Northern Ireland. Either that or you're wilfully misrepresenting it.
The point I was making is really straight forward, and it concerns the limitations of converting the number of engaged violent militants into a percentage, and then glibly dismissing them as immaterial. Even sympathisers (Sinn Fein votes being the proxy indicator you might use) stop short of being violently engaged. The IRA is good example because it was numerically a very small group. You'd need to be blind not to think the difficulties in Northern Ireland were anything other than a major political issue
If you wanted to make a more prescient argument, you might try pointing out that a controlled prisoner release was part of a peace process. I'm not sure that it necessarily applies to Tunisia though, albeit I'm deeply suspicious as to why so many of their violent Islamists seem to have gone abroad to continue their jihad?
Something's happened - before the overthrow of Ben Ali, Tunisia wasn't a major player in the supply chain of international jihadists. After it they are. It's a simple cause and effect analysis. You can conclude that the two events are connected, but the precise detail is a bit sketchy. Former regimists changing sides was always my explanation, but for decades these would have been the very same people supressing jihadists. They'd have been taking a massive personal risk joining the terrorist groups so soon. It seems much more likely that the popularist arab springers of Tunisia have released it's militants from prison and they've subsequently appeared in the power voids of Libya and Syria
Democracy in Pakistan is continually under threat, and has been for decades. That threat comes from a whole cocktail of interests ranging from corrupt politicans and assassinations, to terror groups, notably those in the autonomous tribal regions. The whole history of Pakistani politics has been a swinging pendulum between civilian and military governments
The primary glue that holds Pakistan together is it's military, and increasingly in the last decade, the ISI. It's certainly a sub-optimal arrangement, (no one would pretend otherwise) but I wouldn't under-estimate the beneficial effects that having this strong backstop has played in countries like Pakistan and Egypt in arresting Islamist momentum
Last edited:
Too much waffle
you stated that tunisia has "failed" because 0.4% of the population are isis
wrong
Just out of interest, did you know that there was a civil war in Pakistan, and has been since 2004?
Last edited:
Tanlic
Senior Jockey
Isis to up attacks in the UK....I have an idea...burn down all the mosques and deport every muslim in the interest of national security....unless they own horses already.....sounds fair to me
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Tanlic
Senior Jockey
That way any muslim entering the uk will be easy to spot in their white dresses and long beards...spotting the men could be more difficult
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Tanlic
Senior Jockey
I am curently in mai sakon nakhon by the pool4....10 points if u can find it on a map
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Considering the BBC were crawling all over this every day 2 weeks ago, it's gone very quiet (suspiciously so). They did report that Putin had met Assad last week, but they forgot to tell you what they agreed. For that I've had to turn to Israeli news network i24. It appears that Putin and Assad agreed that Russia should bomb targets in support of the Free Syrian Arny where the FSA were fighting ISIL. :lol: Naughty BBC, doesn't fit the narrative does it, so they repsond by not telling you about it, only that this sinister meeting took place in Moscow and we needed to be suspicious of the pair because they were talking to each other (like the Lavrov doesn't talk to Kerry every other day you mean)
Also during the last 2-3 weeks the Syrain Army appears to have retaken about 50 miles of territory from an al Nusra affiliate as a result of Russian air support. It's not a startling advance admittedly, but at least it's progress (had to get that one from al Jazeera, but they'd hardly be a pro Assad broadcaster, so we might suspect that things are perhaps better than reported)
Also during the last 2-3 weeks the Syrain Army appears to have retaken about 50 miles of territory from an al Nusra affiliate as a result of Russian air support. It's not a startling advance admittedly, but at least it's progress (had to get that one from al Jazeera, but they'd hardly be a pro Assad broadcaster, so we might suspect that things are perhaps better than reported)
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Not only the BBC, but print media too which has chosen to hide the fact that ISIL are on the retreat due to Russian intervention. We are not being told that Russian jets are running 60/70 sorties a day against ISIL camps, infrastructure and command posts. We can't have the Russians as achieving more in one month than the Yanks could in two years, can we. But when American special forces get one kill -- yes one, that al-Almani German rap-dj guy -- it's frontpage news.
All the western media are at it -- Sky News, BBC, CNN etc.
I've given up on watching them for my newsfeed -- RT or Al Jazeera and twitter for the real news about what is happening on the ground in Syria.
Another thing that the western media is covering up -- and it's as plain as that -- is the significant kickback in Europe against the current refugee influx. We are not being shown the nightly street protests in Germany; of the deep divisions in the Merkel's own political party; of the warnings from German and Swedish law-enforcement and intelligence orgs about the possible consequences for Europe. Neither are we being told of the frequent trouble and criminality caused by the refugees themselves (attacks on police, gangrapes, intimidation etc) in these countries.
Have to go to other sources for all that stuff.
All the western media are at it -- Sky News, BBC, CNN etc.
I've given up on watching them for my newsfeed -- RT or Al Jazeera and twitter for the real news about what is happening on the ground in Syria.
Another thing that the western media is covering up -- and it's as plain as that -- is the significant kickback in Europe against the current refugee influx. We are not being shown the nightly street protests in Germany; of the deep divisions in the Merkel's own political party; of the warnings from German and Swedish law-enforcement and intelligence orgs about the possible consequences for Europe. Neither are we being told of the frequent trouble and criminality caused by the refugees themselves (attacks on police, gangrapes, intimidation etc) in these countries.
Have to go to other sources for all that stuff.
M
marbler
Guest
http://news.sky.com/story/1581067/russia-will-not-insist-assad-remains-in-Syria
Interesting developments.
Were there a vote what does everyone think the outcome would be? (genuine question)...
Be interested to read what Warbler could propose in terms of possible elections involving Assad, ..who the opposition would be and how future change might play out?
Interesting developments.
Were there a vote what does everyone think the outcome would be? (genuine question)...
Be interested to read what Warbler could propose in terms of possible elections involving Assad, ..who the opposition would be and how future change might play out?
Last edited:
I've always said Moscow would trade Assad when he became expendable, but the spokesperson is quite correct, it isn't a change of position. Russia has always insisted that Assad should be allowed to be a candidate in any election. I would go further and say that it's absolutely necessary that he is. If he's defeated because America chooses the list of candidates then you sow the seeds for future problems. It's basically Iraq and Afghanistan all over again where the US installs a vetted and approved puppet who will inevitably becoem a target for discontent due to their lack of legitimacy. If Assad is then beaten fair and square however you have a better chance going forward.
The Geneva II talks floundered for a lot of reasons, principally because of the fragmentation of the oppostion groups, but you can't have sponsors (America cheered on by the usual suspects) issuing communiques expressing their support for "open and free democratic elections" and then putting a structure in place that amounts to them saying oh, and by the way, we're deciding which candidates you're allowed to consider. Which bit of open and free do you think that conforms with?
It would also be a massive mistake to think everyone in Syria hates Assad. He polled 55% in the last election, and the UN have been privately polling refugees in the border camps and finding similar figures (which is being largely unreported in the western media). You might argue that the Alawite population is about 200,000 down on where it was at the start of the conflict now, and of course it's tended to be Assad supporters who are fleeing as they're the ones being displaced, but even so, he still reprresents a sizeable chunk of the population who you will need to have onside in the future
It sounds as if Moscow is also looking at some kind of partition arrangement too. Syria let us not forget is something of an accidental country drawn up by British and French mathematicians. It's borders aren't a natural geographic fit that reflects regional identity.
Ultimately I don't think Assad is the big issue here. His role and significance is being vastly inflated by western politicians, who are getting caught looking in the wrong diretcion. Our foreign policy shouldn't revolve around Assad, it should instead be focused on ISIL. They aspire to present an existential threat to us, Assad never has done, nor would he.
As I've also said, it'll be a hell of a lot easier to sort out Assad post ISIL, then it will ISIL post Assad. In terms of our priorities, this should be a real no brainer
The Geneva II talks floundered for a lot of reasons, principally because of the fragmentation of the oppostion groups, but you can't have sponsors (America cheered on by the usual suspects) issuing communiques expressing their support for "open and free democratic elections" and then putting a structure in place that amounts to them saying oh, and by the way, we're deciding which candidates you're allowed to consider. Which bit of open and free do you think that conforms with?
It would also be a massive mistake to think everyone in Syria hates Assad. He polled 55% in the last election, and the UN have been privately polling refugees in the border camps and finding similar figures (which is being largely unreported in the western media). You might argue that the Alawite population is about 200,000 down on where it was at the start of the conflict now, and of course it's tended to be Assad supporters who are fleeing as they're the ones being displaced, but even so, he still reprresents a sizeable chunk of the population who you will need to have onside in the future
It sounds as if Moscow is also looking at some kind of partition arrangement too. Syria let us not forget is something of an accidental country drawn up by British and French mathematicians. It's borders aren't a natural geographic fit that reflects regional identity.
Ultimately I don't think Assad is the big issue here. His role and significance is being vastly inflated by western politicians, who are getting caught looking in the wrong diretcion. Our foreign policy shouldn't revolve around Assad, it should instead be focused on ISIL. They aspire to present an existential threat to us, Assad never has done, nor would he.
As I've also said, it'll be a hell of a lot easier to sort out Assad post ISIL, then it will ISIL post Assad. In terms of our priorities, this should be a real no brainer
The other thing to note of course is that in terms of fighting you've got at least six easily identifiable factions
Syrian Government, Free Syrian Arny, ISIL, Al Nusra, Hezbollah and Kurdish Seperatists
One thing that's becoming more and more apparent to me since turning to other media organisations for my information, is the bewildering number of local, regional and national splinter groups that exist; groups which the western media never even name check. These groups are reported under a collective label of 'rebels', invariably with an implied 'good guys' hint. So far as I can work out however most of them represent different shades of Islamism. In fact it's almost as if everyone is fighting everyone else. The broad doctrine is attack the person nearest to you (its the old 99 call). As well as the Kurds, you've also got a series of nationalist groups too, who are bringing another dimension to the table, the Aleppans probably being the largest.
Actually I'll give you an example. On October 7th the ever biased BBC were complaining about the Russians attacking non ISIL rebels, (even calling them western backed rebels). If you chase this story down however you discover that the rebel group that came under attack were called Jaish al Fateh, a loose alliance of jihadi groups who's primary affiliation is to al-Nusra, themselves an AQ affiliate. This action resulted in about 50 kms of territory regained. The more you read from the region rather than the BBC, the more you come across this kind of thing
Now the reason for labouring this Marb isn't to point out how our own state propagandist is putting us away, but rather to ask you to imagine just what a ballot sheet is going to look like? There is no mature political philosophy driving the pretenders. The overwhelming affiliation is tribal, religious, or geographic. You could have dozens of candidates all taking out a few percent of the vote each. It could be a real mess, and this is where I disagree with Hilary Benn's take. I don't think it's by any means certain Assad will lose, and even if he does, he's still going to be a significant player in terms of popularity and quite capable of forming a coalition. Ignoring the will of the people in this regard would be a mistake and risk repeating the errors made in post Saddam Iraq
Syrian Government, Free Syrian Arny, ISIL, Al Nusra, Hezbollah and Kurdish Seperatists
One thing that's becoming more and more apparent to me since turning to other media organisations for my information, is the bewildering number of local, regional and national splinter groups that exist; groups which the western media never even name check. These groups are reported under a collective label of 'rebels', invariably with an implied 'good guys' hint. So far as I can work out however most of them represent different shades of Islamism. In fact it's almost as if everyone is fighting everyone else. The broad doctrine is attack the person nearest to you (its the old 99 call). As well as the Kurds, you've also got a series of nationalist groups too, who are bringing another dimension to the table, the Aleppans probably being the largest.
Actually I'll give you an example. On October 7th the ever biased BBC were complaining about the Russians attacking non ISIL rebels, (even calling them western backed rebels). If you chase this story down however you discover that the rebel group that came under attack were called Jaish al Fateh, a loose alliance of jihadi groups who's primary affiliation is to al-Nusra, themselves an AQ affiliate. This action resulted in about 50 kms of territory regained. The more you read from the region rather than the BBC, the more you come across this kind of thing
Now the reason for labouring this Marb isn't to point out how our own state propagandist is putting us away, but rather to ask you to imagine just what a ballot sheet is going to look like? There is no mature political philosophy driving the pretenders. The overwhelming affiliation is tribal, religious, or geographic. You could have dozens of candidates all taking out a few percent of the vote each. It could be a real mess, and this is where I disagree with Hilary Benn's take. I don't think it's by any means certain Assad will lose, and even if he does, he's still going to be a significant player in terms of popularity and quite capable of forming a coalition. Ignoring the will of the people in this regard would be a mistake and risk repeating the errors made in post Saddam Iraq
Last edited:
M
marbler
Guest
I'm frustrated with Western media too! I only trust them when they seem to be reporting factual information, as with the link I put above from Sky, quoted from the Russian foreign ministry. As for analysis, I'd rather glean that from places like talking horses.
You can listen to those that have no idea about what is actually happening there marble but are invariably anti west and pro Arab dictator as well as le pens and farages favourite world leader or you can take on board Reuters and many other news agencies other than the bbc .
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels-idUSKCN0S111020151007
or you can read an in the ground report from the guardian, which is hardly a U.S. forces fawning paper
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ikes-we-have-not-had-isis-here-in-over-a-year
its your choice
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels-idUSKCN0S111020151007
or you can read an in the ground report from the guardian, which is hardly a U.S. forces fawning paper
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ikes-we-have-not-had-isis-here-in-over-a-year
its your choice
Last edited: