ISIS...Islamic State Victims

One of the most boring responses here is the ah yes but

daily Mail supported the blackshirts so therefore they must do now. Eh?

usa supported juntas so therefore they must do now. Bollocks

who cares about the long dead when we are talking about now. Waste of space
 
No one here can say anything other than that they don't know what it will take too defeat isis. It's not an admittance of ignorance. It's an understanding that clearly no one here knows exactly what the situation is, however much they flatter themselves

especially if they are watching the far right new con bbc eh? Or reading the Murdoch press? All those media outlets that lie about the glorious leader Putin?

It's down to military experts to work that one out. There are none of those here
 
So presumably you do accept then that there are occasions when the champions of democracy have been less than forthright in promoting it for fear of what the result might bring, and that these events have impacted on the world we see today? Put it like this, the CIA don't deny it. The example of Iran in 1959 is particularly important, as that represented the best chance for democracy they had, which had it been risked might very well have averted the Islamic Revolution, itself a product of the Shah's misrule. I'm only inviting you to correct your assertion made earlier and recognise that as Grasshopper said, there are clear instances where the result is more important than the governmental structure.

As regards your conversion to the idea that the military experts should sort this out, I think you need to be aware that David Richards was openly questioning Cameron 2 years ago about 'are you sure you're bombing the right people' (in Syria). Since retiring he has also let it be known through friends that he advised Cameron to stop in Libya when the massacre of Benghazi had been averted (not that there was ever any evidence it genuinely existed) and that Cameron should observe the "real politik" and "come to an arrangement" with Gadaffi. Richards has explained that in his experience Cameron has a very narrow world view of good and bad, and an irrationally romantic view of the underdog that led him into poor decision making. Some of Cameron's decision making have been borderline insane, and the view that he's massively lost ground in Washington is confirmed by Richards, who seems to be regarding him as 'the embarassing boss'

I've made the point previously that the military planners were way ahead of the politicians on this, so you'll permit me a smile when I now hear you doing likewise. Militray planners tend to be more pragmatic and have a more acute sense of correct enemy identification. If you want an example of this, look no further than Michael Fallon this very morning who now has the gall to suggest "that it is morally indefensible not to bomb ISIS in Syria". This let us not forget, is a man who just like yourself, only two years ago wanted to bomb their principal opponent, a move that would only have strengthend ISIL. It's difficult to imagine a more blatant admission of we got it wrong. Lets be under no illusions, the UK government actually took a motion to parliament to bomb the side best qualified to defeat them didn't it? and you (FWIW) supported that

It's made all the more laughable actually as it comes at the end of a week which started with the better informed Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluding that there was nothing that the RAF could usefully do now in Syria with both the American's and the Russians engaged, and that their involvement would be totally tokenistic and only likely add to the fog of confusion. Personally I suspect Fallon's intervention has more to do with the fact that the French have just announced the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the theatre 12 hours earlier, complete with 40 aircraft, and that once again they're soliciting American favour and its this which has irked Fallon

Anyway Clive, given that your an echo chamber for the government, and offer us little more, are you prepared to conceed yet, (as they are doing tacitly) that they got it wrong two years ago, for its apparent to everyone that they're in the process of performing a u-turn.

I actually find your suggestion that no one should comment on these affairs highly amusing in light of this u-turn though. I think the translation of what you're really saying is pretty clear. When you thought you had the answers it was open season, but now that they're being laid bare for what they always were your response is one of, well if I haven't got the answers how can anyone else possibly have them, so no one should offer any views anymore.

I should say incidentally, I'm not totally convinced this new approach is going to work (it might have done 3-4 years ago) but the Syrian army is 200,000 men down today from where it was then, and hasn't got the array of weapons it had either. Better kit has also found its way into the hands of ISIL. The borders which are used to resupply and replenish their numbers still look pourous. They might prove capable of arresting the territorial balance, but I'm by no means certain of it, and unlike others, I don't expect to see any imminent commitment of Russian forces to redress this other than providing air cover
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
you are talking about 50 plus years ago. You continually live in the past.
Click to expand...

If you could be realise incidentally, the same principle also applies today and you can very much see it alive and well

American foreign policy in South America throughout the cold war, and particularly through the period 1970-1985, was dominated by keeping the Soviet Union's influence out of the region. The Americans (quite correctly I believe) identified that the people of these impoverished economies would find a calling in Socialism, and that promoting democracy in these countries ran the risk of legitimately electing governments like Allende's. In truth, I'd have done the same if I were America. They duly recognised that right wing military juntas could prove a very effective bulwark against this, and started to support them in preference to democracy, even to the point of direct intervention

The modern day equivalent are the autocratic dynastic monarchies of the Gulf. These are states with a strong under current of theological conservatism. There would have to be a very real risk, that if they were ever encouraged down the democratic route, these are the types of government they'd elect. At the moment there is no good strategic reason to risk this. It's the primary reason why I've had to reluctantly conceed in my own mind that attemtping to replace the regimes in these states would be a mistake too.
 
You will have to keep this briefer if I'm going to reply. It's too long by far. There is no need. I am actually working

no government is perfect in all their intentions and actions. It is not a perfect world and rumsfelds great quote about unknowns is as true then as it is now. The usa has got a lot wrong in past. Name me a country that hasn't? Are we going to state that Germany can have no stance on liberal democracy because they elected hitler.?

Political expediency is a ugly fact of life but no one anywhere can deny the values that the western states believe in. Of course it's not ideal but frankly give me our way of life rather than the alternatives . In fact aside from fellow travellers on the far right and far left, Nick griffin and seamus Milne perhaps, then who disagrees?


im only interested in the here and now. Liberal democracy has always delivered by far the best States. By a country mile. Thats all there is to it

Everyone goes on about saudi but it very clear indeed that there is virtually no groundswell for democracy there. It's a lost cause whilst that remains the case. Forget it
 
Last edited:
If you're only interested in the here and now, then don't make irrelevant references to democracy taking-hold in South America and Eastern Europe in the 80's and 90's.

There was no groundswell for democracy in Iraq in 2003 either. You can't have it both ways.
 
What a stupid comment.

I think it's pretty fair to say that under sadam the slightest call for freedoms ended up with being thrown in the plastic threshing machine or having petrol poured down the throat ..before being set alight. Not to mention the chemical attacks and intentional genocide of certain groups that dared waver from total support

Others can keep believing that Islam and democracy is incompatible and hold on to their feeble minded (definitely a psychological weakness imo) admiration for the "strong men".

ans one more fact. Far more Muslims live under democracy than under authoritarian states. In fact taking into account the west, India, Indonesia , Turkey , Pakistan and talking horses hate state, the evil tunisia, I reckon the Multiple would be very very high
 
clivex said:
What a stupid comment.

I think it's pretty fair to say that under sadam the slightest call for freedoms ended up with being thrown in the plastic threshing machine or having petrol poured down the throat ..before being set alight. Not to mention the chemical attacks and intentional genocide of certain groups that dared waver from total support

Others can keep believing that Islam and democracy is incompatible and hold on to their feeble minded (definitely a psychological weakness imo) admiration for the "strong men".

ans one more fact. Far more Muslims live under democracy than under authoritarian states. In fact taking into account the west, India, Indonesia , Turkey , Pakistan and talking horses hate state, the evil tunisia, I reckon the Multiple would be very very high
Click to expand...

FFS - it's like trying to engage with a simpleton.

Let's try it this way.

1. You have a state with a majority-Islamic population which chooses a democratic path, through the will/preference of its people. Turkey and Indonesia would be examples of this.

2. You have a state with a majority-Islamic population which is under the control of a Totalitarian regime that legislates for its own benefit, and not along Sharia lines. This model fits most Middle-Eastern countries; principally Iran, Egypt and pre-Wars Iraq and Syria.

3. You have a state with a majority-Islamic population which is under the control of a Totalitarian regime that legislates along Sharia lines. Saudi Arabia would be an example of this.

Of the above three categories, ask yourself which is closest to the Islamic State model?


Acknowledging that Category 3 is the closest to the IS model, it suggests that Saudi Arabia is a wholly-unnatural ally for Western countries. And whereas we may find Category 2 governments unpalatable, are they really any worse than Russia or China in terms of how they suppress dissent?

The truthful answer to that question is 'Not really, so why pick a fight with Saddam in 2003?

And in a compound-interest error following the misadventure in Iraq, why pick a fight with Assad and support local militias who have - at best - questionable loyalty to democracy or the Western countries supporting them. In taking such courses of action in these countries, we create space for ISIS to exploit, and set them on the road to a Category 3 country.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - tactically or strategically - to have engaged in these actions.

There is an undercurrent through all of these types of discussions that the 'removal of dictators' is somehow a noble cause, and justifies the decisions in and of itself - and is therefore not open to question.

Well I'm telling you it is - especially when the consequences of such a 'noble cause' is even greater destruction, death and chaos than the 'evil dictator' could or would ever hoped to have wreaked in ten lifetimes.
 
Last edited:
You have stated that Islam is not compatible with democracy. Fact

you are so thoroughly ignorant taht you simply weren't aware that there are plenty of Islamic States that are democratic

only a simpleton would not know about the existence of Turkey indonesia and pakistan

it is laughable to claim that the Turks Indonesians and Pakistanis let alone Tunisians are somehow less Islamic than the Saudis. Total rubbish

is a Plymouth brethren nutter more Christian than a catholic? No way.




that is all I was answering . The rest of your response is waffle
 
Last edited:
Are you for real, Jolly Boy John??

Those 'Islamic States' which choose democracy i.e. those in Category 1 above, are not 'Islamic States' - they are merely secular States which have a majority-Muslim population.

Of course Turkey, Indonesia, and others are 'less Islamic' than Saudia Arabia. Any country which adopts secular democracy as its governance-of-choice is self-evidently "less Islamic" than a totalitarian theocracy which bases its legislature on Sharia.

You utter fu*cking yahoo.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Political expediency is a ugly fact of life
Click to expand...

Leaving aside your scandalous allegation that there was a democratic deficit in the court of Camelot, and that King Arthur's Round Table was a fig leaf, I wanted instead to return to your belated introduction to the real politik of Syria, and your apparent recognition of sub optimal solutions, not only do they exist (I think we knew that incidentally) but sometimes they're you're best get out. I'm sure you'll accept that those of us who've argued in favour of destroying ISIL had long suggested that this meant bringing the likes of Assad into an uncomfortable accommodation. Sure he's not about to win the nicest government in the world competition any time soon, but you were never going to win this war pursuing a policy of fairy castles sitting on nice fluffy clouds either. The notion that the factions making up the Free Syrian Army could be remotely trained to not only simultaneously defeat Assad, ISIL, and Al Nusra, but to then mature into a fully functioning democracy was away with the pixies quite frankly. It's perhaps no coincidence that since William Hague left office UK foreign policy has become a little more realistic and based on evidence.

The most obvious roadblock is that you can't negotiate a settlement with ISIL, so you have very few avenues available. This isn't an election where we can vote for our preferred favourite. This is a war It requires a much harder nosed appraisal.

Basically to defeat ISIL, we needed to find people who were prepared to fight them, and capable of delivering the blows necessary, if we weren't prepared to risk doing it ourselves. Ideally, we also want someone whose participation isn't going to risk expanding the conflict. We had this handed on a plate, but we not only turned it down, we set about degrading the candidate as a fighting unit. It's nothing short of absolutely feckin unbelievable. We played right into ISIL's hands. It was unforegivable

It's got nothing to do with 'hardman fantasies' (that's just the tedious product of your imagination, which the fact no one else repeats should tell yiou something). Instead it's a cold and calculating appraisal based on the elimination of feasible options. You basically had a choice between a poor option with scope to reform, and a frankly horrible one. It shouldn't have been too difficult to read or call. It might be an uncomfortable acknowledgement of Assad's 'legitimacy', but surely this is preferable to the Islamic State running the house?

So then Clive, you were asked last night about what you'd do now and backed off answering. Fair enough. Tis your right etc I think what you're basically acknowledging though is that British policy is clearly on the turn, and whereas no one expects a formal alliance with Assad, the emphasis does finally seem to be focusing on the true enemy (four years too late). What I suspect you're reluctance really betrays mind you, is that Dave hasn't spoken yet and until he does, you'd prefer to hold fire - but this is your chance.

I have some hope for you since you appear now to be accepting that in the real politik, expediency is an ugly fact. Can you finally comprehend that unless you're prepared to do the heavy lifting yourself, the road to ISIL goes through Assad? If not, then what alternative do you have (and when I say alternative I mean a workable and credible alternative, not an aspirational wish list based on sentimental ideals - anyone can make one of those out) - actually, I wouldn't just restrict the invitation to Clive, anyone fancy sorting out Syria?
 
Last edited:
So then Clive, you were asked last night about what you'd do now and backed off answering. Fair enough. Tis your right etc I think what you're basically acknowledging though is that British policy is clearly on the turn, and whereas no one expects a formal alliance with Assad, the emphasis does finally seem to be focusing on the true enemy (four years too late). What I suspect you're reluctance really betrays mind you, is that Dave hasn't spoken yet and until he does, you'd prefer to hold fire - but this is your chance.

You what? Don't dare assume I am saying something which I am clearly not

who do you think you are?

i made it perfectly clear that I don't know which military tactics are best because quite frankly I don't know what the situation is there.

And nor do you

but as I have said quite clearly, whatever it takes to finish them off. The only belief I have is that it will be gradual and not overnight
 
Last edited:
Yes the hard left and hard right fellow travellers routinely defend gadafi Assad sadam Putin and so on. Yes many do fawn over "hard men" Galloway?

Corbyns sinister close advisor's columns in the guardian are great fun to read because he,leaps to the defence of just about every dictator going not to mention the equally authoritarian Islamic terrorists. He is a known apologist for stalin ffs

its a mindset. Often attributed to the supposedly educated public school set who "knows what's best for everyone" (encountered this) and have a genuine contempt for the dreadful middle class with their Ford Focus's ' semis and their embarrassing jobs in "trade"
 
Last edited:
This is probably a naive view, but I believe fighting both President Assad and ISIS -- as recommended by Obama and Cameron -- is NOT a strategy.

Clive, I'm not sure if you include me as amongst those fawning over Vlad Putin -- I certainly do not. But I recognise that Putin is absolutely correct on one thing: that Assad is a better option for stability and security in the region than the nihilism and tyranny of militant jihadism.
 
Not at all ice. It's an off subject observation and very telling too that he unites hard left and hard right. Quite why those of a left wing stance would be so adoring of a kleptocracy should take some Explaining but then again it's instructive

it's not what they stand for, it's what they hate

remember all those protests and squealing against the air attacks on isis? The ones that went a long way to saving 40000 chrsitians? A seriously sick minded stance if you ask me But do we see them protesting against Russia's air strikes?

although it does get ratehr complicated for the useful idiots given putins (correct) very personal genuine dislike of Islamic fundamentalism and his real support for the evil jewish state

putin saddens me in many ways. Shooting journalists, Pointless grandstanding wars and provocation when the focus should be on reversing the dreadful domestic decline. An economy smaller than Italy's and demographic disaster. Unlike pisshead predecessors you feel he should be better than that
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
remember all those protests and squealing against the air attacks on isis? The ones that went a long way to saving 40000 chrsitians? A seriously sick minded stance if you ask me But do we see them protesting against Russia's air strikes?
Click to expand...

This is a figment of your imagination.

Give me an example of a protest or hand-wringing about whether or not we should bomb ISIS (cue some 'I'm too busy - look it up yourself' rhetoric).

You make this sh*it up. It's your usual smokescreen - hoping we get sidetracked challenging fraudulent statements like the above, and distracted from digging you up on the wider shambles that is your 'argument'.........something that is further exposed as utterly incoherent by dint of your being merely "saddened" by Putin, whereas you recommend bombing the sh*it out of Saddam or Assad (with all the collateral damage that creates) when they are essentially the same type of dictator/villain as Putin.

It's these double-standards that make you look like a prize chump, every time you get involved in these discussions.
 
Last edited:
Prefect ignorance once again

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/eve...ion-stop-the-bombing-of-iraq-don-t-bomb-syria

this was a big protest in London (I was in area that day) and was strongly supported by corbyns media advisor as well as the moron brand

it was in direct response to the attack to clear the way for the Christians to escape

i will draw my own conclusions about that one...

Frankly you are a time waster.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected - thanks for the link. I hadn't actually realised that this shower of fu*ckwits had suggested not bombing ISIS.

I will concede you one point.

The rest regarding the shambles of your argument generally, and the apparent double-standards you apply, still stands.
 
As much as I dislike Putin to put him in the same class as saddam in extraordinary. That is simply ridiculous
 
Last edited:
In what way is it extraordinary or ridiculous?

The only material difference between the pair is that Saddam used chems against the Kurds in the early 90's. In every other respect, you could barely slide a rizzla between them.

Both are/were ruthless when it comes to suppression of domestic dissent - whether it be unexplained deaths of political rivals and journalists, or the putting down an internal uprising (for Marsh Arabs/Kurds read Chechnya) - and both started wars with neighbouring countries (for Kuwait read Ukraine or Georgia) for no apparent good reason.

Far from the suggestion being extraordinary or ridiculous, you will find that the comparison is valid - though it does need one to take a dispassionate view, and put dearly-held prejudices to one side, before it becomes apparent.
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
This is probably a naive view, but I believe fighting both President Assad and ISIS -- as recommended by Obama and Cameron -- is NOT a strategy.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's necessarily representing Cameron's position. His is even more confused.

Cameron's line is a qualified fight against ISIS in Iraq. But he ends up assisting ISIS in Syria, by prioritising the fight against Assad :rolleyes: It's frankly a bonkers position, and not surprisingly, is finally falling apart. He's playing a fight - help -fight formation

I think it's also worth revisiting the word "fighting". Let's not over-state things. Flying around at 20,000 ft and programming co-ordinates into a computer isn't necessarily 'fighting' in the sense that its a game changer. It was revealed last month that since they started bombing in Iraq about 3 years ago, the RAF estimate they've killed about 300. To be honest, ISIL replenish that within a week. It's what's led the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee to conclude that we aren't doing anything substantive. The sub text is that the whole campaign is being based around the needs of one individual, and to allow him to ponce around the world stage pretending he's relevant. With Russia involved now, the select committee are quite rightly saying that the risks don't justify the paltry reward any longer

So ultimately someone has to go in on the ground, and when they do you can see that any operation will inevitably get bogged down in rubble filled urban landscapes which are notoriously difficult to assault with all the concealed sniper positions they present defenders with. ISIL will have dug tunnels and made use of cellars too (as a heavy gas chlorine works quite well on those! - but we'll see if this ever becomes an issue if they ever get to Raaqa)

The big flaw in Cameron's position of course is that he was actively trying to degrade the best engaged fighting proxy available to the west. It was madness! Sheer bloody madness

We're now learning from the American's (in a desperate attempt to re-write their misjudgements) that they knew all along that the Free Syrian Army were unlikely to simultaneously defeat ISIL, Assad, and Al Nusra, but that they needed to prove their mettle to get a place at the negotiating table - what!!!

Ideally you could do with the FSA going over to the government, but that isn't going to happen. Indeed, the FSA's second preference vote seems to be more aligned towards Al Nusra, as this has tended to be the pattern of defections to date (which tells its own story perhaps)

About the only thing Clive has said that makes sense, is that a quick defeat doesn't look likely. The time where that might have been delivered has passed, something which is largely down to western and gulf state meddling in the name of enemy identification (I wouldn't exonorate Turkey either).

We need to try and seal up the borders and stop the supply routes now (easier said than done) but so far the Islamic State have seemingly not had too much difficulty brining in new fighters and getting their hands on weapons and ammunition. They don't have any ports, or any operational air supply. The tracks across deserts are slow and hazardous as well, and could be patrolled by high altitude drones that can stay on station for 36 hours. They should be one of the easier lumps of territory to isolate
 
Last edited:
British military commanders seemingly going a little bit more public now over the inept political leadership. The BBC however remain loyal in failing to qualify that MP's rejected a motion to bomb Assad, not ISIL, and have left it implied that ISIL were the target when they weren't



General Sir Nicholas Houghton, Chief of the defence staff, criticised the UK policy of restricting RAF strikes to neighbouring Iraq. He told Sky News the decision "makes no sense" when IS, also known as ISIL, has its strognhold in Syria. MPs rejected possible UK military action in Syria in 2013.

"I don't think we should play the decisive military role because it runs the risk of adding fuel to the radicalisation of Isis as an abhorent cult".



I have to say General Warbler's interpretation would be closer to one of you shouldn't risk playing the decisive role because you can't!!!



He also said evidence that a bomb may have brought down a Russian airliner in Syria may prove to be a turning point in the west's relationship with Russia and attitudes towards the future of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

"There is an opportunity for political convergence between America, ourselves, the west and Putin" he said.



If he hadn't but already realised it, that process started last month. Sergi Lavrov and John Kerry are working quite closely together as they recognise that in theatre this is a potentially very dangerous and complicated situation they're both trying to manage. Non of the partners he cites actually need British blessing and approval, so at best we're commentators. Indeed, they're trying to build up a relationship of co-operation and trust in order to avoid an incident, and don't need an annoying little wasp buzzing around like we saw on Friday bragging about the fact that GCHQ had got some retrospective intelligence but they weren't prepared to share it with Russia. It's this sort of attitude which only helps convince General Warbler that the UK isn't fit for purpose to enter this theatre. America has accidentally shot down British Tornados before, these are fluid environments and need people to work together. I note incidentally that Russia seemed to be in possession of it a few hours later, which means either the French or the Americans shared it, or the Americans (who've been getting increasingly exasperated with the UK) told them to stop being so unhelpful and get onside. The quote most often cited of course is the one which goes to an adminsitration official describing Camerons management as "one of those astonishing displays of incompetance that sort of leaves you wondering about how, you know, have we ever got this far?" (with the British) and that the American's had been "fecked over" (by the British regarding faulty intelligence in Libya) - given that Hillary Clinton has seen the biggest fall out on this, I wouldn't be so certain that is about to be forgiven

A lot of the chickens coming home to roost are not surprisingly the product of William Hague. Suffice to say it is left to Phillip Hammond to try and salvage something from Hague's repeated misjudgements and ham fisted performances, but speaking to Andrew Marr this morning he sounds like a spectator rather than a player.



Britain sees "eye to eye" with Russia on "lots of things" in Syria, such as "the need to destroy ISIL" but he added "the one thing we disagree on is the future of Bashar al-Assad"



So in other words, you don't agree. It's not too far removed from the Palestinians and the Israelis saying we've sorted everything out, but we can't agree on Jerusalem. It falls short of being an agreement then. In any case, events are moving to a natural compromise here. You can see what's coming, and sadly it was an obvious solution, has precedents, and was available years ago.

The bottom line here is that the countries active in theatre don't need Britain. What do we think we're going to provide anyway? Six Tornados? It's the better informed conservatives of the foreign affairs select committee and defence committees who can see the military folly of this. We just become another thing that can go wrong, for no material gain of any consequence. The French have just sent 40 jets on an aircraft carrier to the region capable of flying 100 sorties a day, on top of what the Russians and American's have there. I'm afraid Cameron looks like he's after a verility symbol to try and look relevant, but the conflict is passing him by, as is the diplomacy. If he wants to contribute, he'd be better off turning his attention to the ground war rather than trying to find some 'feel good about myself' bombing campaign of no consequence
 
Last edited:
Doesn't it just go to show the utter lunacy of all this ................
Last year David Cameron brought to Commons a motion requesting permission to allow bombing of Assad government assets in support of the rebels. This year he wants to bomb ISIS assets in support of Assad forces. A complete U-turn.

Please don't be offended when I, as a non-UK person, calls this a dreadful, un-joined up policy/strategy. A chimp would have pursued a more sensible agenda.
 
Back
Top