ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
EC1
On a break
hang on Clive...we weren't talking about why isis is attacking us..we are talking about Muslims being asked about 7/7..bugger all to with what Isis is doing. I know that Isis hate the west..i've never said its just those that attack them.
The Islamists would laugh in your face doing their work for them by allowing yourself to be alienated from people within your own country though..they would love us all to turn on muslims here.
EC1
On a break
i never said they were..you have missed the point completely..we were talking about polls...well i asked you a poll question..which you have avoided by talking about things we were not discussing
i'm not continuing whilst you keep using these tactics Clive..you are a waste of time when you like this..which is a lot.
don't EVER say i make excuses for murderers..you are a post twister beyond belief
teh best thing you can do is just argue with yourself..which is basically what you do here..you take people's posts..twist them and then argue what the person hasn't even said
everyone that disagrees with you is a terrorist lover or an apologist....you wouldn't know a balanced view if it hit you
complete timewaster
Last edited:
What a dire read you have on the situation. It's really little wonder you keep blundering into poor decisions
Where has anyone said that it isn't foolish for Putin? You assume that it makes strategic sense for Putin. It doesn't. He'd much prefer America to be taking the risks and putting themselves in the crosshairs instead of him. There is a reason why 250 Russian bodies are being recovered from the Sinai. Indeed, if you'd read accounts of Dabiq this month, you'll know that ISIL (quite apart from showcasing their 'Schweppes bomb') also explain that the decision to target the Russian airliner was an eleventh hour change, based entirely on Putin's intervention. Their original intention was to bring down another western country's plane. They don't elaborate on which, but you can check the flight timetables into Sharm and pretty well work out who would have been in pole position
Putin has largely escalated in Syria because he's taken the view that Assad was going to lose to ISIL otherwise (an outcome which the west were foolishly working towards, and which you equally foolishly, supported). The absurdity of this poisition has of course been laid naked for what it is in the last few weeks, and western politicians are now desperately trying to untangle themselves from it. Obama and Cameron were basically following a line that empowered ISIL. They should both be ashamed of themselves for such a catastrophic and immoral misjudgement
Putin hasn't done this because it's his preferred choice. Let's make that clear. If this was his preferred option, he'd have been engaged in the first 3 months, not 4 years later. He knows the risks, and that's why he's appealling for international assistance, to share those. He's actually appealling, over the heads of the wests political leaders, and increasingly to the base instincts and inherrent insecurities of the populations to pressurise their own leaders to engage and join him
Would I describe Putin's intervention as foolish? possibly, as it was always the west that were going to bear the brunt of an empowered ISIL until he got involved. His intervention is laced heavily with the recognition that the prospects for his ally were deteriorating whilst the west sat back and happily allowed ISIL to expand, feeding us the palpable untruth that they're "contained"
As regards your idea of Soviet nostalgia, it's such a stupid comment it really doesn't warrant a rebuke. If you ever find youself able to throw off the cold war and allow yourself to form a considered judgement you'd stand a better chance of coming to a sensible conclusion. Putin might very well ape figures from Russian history Clive, but they aren't Soviets. See if you can work it out!
Last edited:
i have never said you support it but unlike you I answer as I read
you stated that they kill because their towns are bombed. You used that as the basis of your question. Who's wasting who's time?
The vast majority of terrorists in the west HAVE NOT had their towns bombed
it is a simple point.
Last edited:
Come off it. This is laughable
right from the beginning you have been calling for Russian intervention and cheered it all the way. Yet any uk intervention at any level is sneered at. Constantly . Cameron this Hague that.
i have no problem with them bombing isis but that was never the prime intention as we all know.. But the idea that addition bombing from the uk is "foolish" makes no sense .
as for Putin going in to protect Assad from Isil, don't give us that. They went in hard on other targets first and foremost. That was the priority. They didn't even deny it themselves Only when the airliner went down and clearly there is going to be a response at home did he suddenly start talking about some sort of United effort
Last edited:
Getting back to those who have a real problem with any attack on isis ...this fine article
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-anti-war-hes-just-anti-west/
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-anti-war-hes-just-anti-west/
Even by your standards, you're miles off the mark. Like I said in my first today, it's little wonder you keep blundering into error after error
"right from the beginning you have been calling for Russian intervention and cheered it all the way". - Yep - there's not alot wrong with this, and its a position that has been vindicated. My actual position was to support Assad and if that means encouraging the Russians to get involved, then that's good, they have an appreciably bigger military than us, so can do. Are you still holding onto this frankly delirious idea that Russia can't fight ISIL because their economy is smaller than Italy's? :lol:. It was always going to be easier to resolve Assad post ISIL, then it will ISIL post Assad.
"Yet any uk intervention at any level is sneered at. Constantly . Cameron this Hague that." - Wrong - any overseas intervention I'm most certainly questioning the value of. We should frame any intervention based around substantive contributions of difference, and not what fills you with a warm inner glow but otherwise does FA
I'm particularly concerned about tokenistic bombing from a Tornado or two. But let's also not forget that Cameron didn't want to bomb ISIL did he? Cameron actually took a motion to parliament to bomb Assad. Can you not see the lunacy in that? I have no problem sneering at an intervention that strengthens ISIL and those of you who backed it should be deeply ashamed of your poor judgement
I also think you need calling out on "any UK intervention"
I have been saying for a long time now that the threat to us comes from our own streets and communities, and that's where our attention should be focused, back in Europe. Passive preventative and covert aggressive contingency are both interventions. We should also be attempting a diplomatic offensive to persuade the countries who possess the big military machines of the world to do some heavy lifting, or those in the region who are less likely to be seen as occupiers to take responsbility. We also need to try and get some of the Gulf States to stop dealing a double hand on the supply side. Perhaps you don't reagrd these sorts of structural things as "interventions" because they don't involve fast jets and loud bombs? This isn't a game of boys toys Clive. It's bloody serious. I can't see any tactical reason why ISIL are going to wilt the moment six Tornados take to the skies of Syria, they haven't in Iraq have they? Yet we can most definitely say that our own domestic threat level increases. If we're going to do something, then for Gods sake do something meaningful rather than simply duplicating to a very small degree what already exists
Also in terms of intervention let it be acknowledged that I was first to raise the issue of sniper rifles and put that forward as a possible intervention where we do have some expertise and might make a difference (sight more ambitious than anything you've suggested to date). Somewhere along the line, there has to be a very realistic possibility that Raaqa is going to be reduced to rubble. Rubble as the American's discovered at Monte Cassino, and the Germans in Stalingrad, can become an absolute death trap to assault. Clearing that out is usually slow and very skilled work. I'll go further and say that tactically speaking, bombing Raaqa at this moment in time is a mistake, unless you've got assault troops in place who can capitalise on the first few hours of confusion.
"as for Putin going in to protect Assad from Isil, don't give us that. They went in hard on other targets first and foremost. That was the priority".
You really can not see the wider picture at all can you? Russia's primary objective was to defend Assad and retain his/their influence in Syria. That's because Putin is a modern day Tsar Clive. Only you could possibly conclude that this is some sort of retro Bolshevik fest!!! In entering Syria therefore, he was doing so against a deteriorating position for the Syrian army.
The Russian airliner was attacked for a reason Clive. If Putin was prioritising the various opposition groups with the view to clearing the way for a final shoot out between ISIL and Assad, don't you think ISIL would have left the airliner alone? They have no need to draw fire onto themselves. Let Russia and Assad fight themselves to exhaustion on the other groups first.
I note the BBC have removed the quote now (possibly aware of its implications) but David Richards had earlier observed that the Syrian army were the most capable anti Assad fighting body in the field this week, and that an accommodation in their direction was always the sensible anti ISIL play.
The great strength of the Islamic State is their zeal and ability to replenish losses. They can fight a war of attrition, and prevail. Try this exercise. Theoretically remove the Assad regime from the theatre and then ask yourself who the most capable, and best resourced fighting body left standing is? You were never going to meld 57 varieties of questionable democratic splinter groups into a coherent fighting force in the space of 6 months. It was complete and utter folly to think otherwise. Did you not even notice what happened in Iraq when you had 10 years to do it?
So yes Putin was ultimately going into Syria to protect Assad from ISIL, becuase that is how it would have panned out in this deadly game of last man standing. The only other group in the west of Syria capable of checking an ISIL advance would be Hezbollah. Putin was looking at the end game scenarios. The imaginary democratic opposition would be swept away by a combination of ISIL and Al Nusra. So too would Assad as he can't replenish his losses from the Alawite population. I'm pretty certain Putin doesn't really want to be there, and has resisted putting in ground troops to date. He would much prefer that Assad could clear this out on his own, but the time when that might have happened has passed.
My own read has always been to prioritise the defeat of the Islamic State, and ideally to do so through an Arabic proxy. When you're presented therefore with such a body of fighting men prepared to stand their ground and fight the Islamic State, you don't try and bomb them as you wanted to do. That only strengthens ISIL and could be interpreted as support for the Islamic State. Instead I would encourage you to support those who are opposed to the Islamic State, and then try and sort it all out later. I certainly don't mind being accussed of sneering at Cameron and Hague as they wanted to do the same. It was incredibly foolish path to go down.
Last edited:
I am not reading that. Right through
Also so as we saw with the very deliberate and snide misquote from cameron in previous posts, it's going to take far too long to check what can or cannot be believed (and is never linked)l it strikes me that there is a tendency to bury this stuff in the morass of 550000 words in an attempt to give it credibility.
Putin went in to defend Assad first and foremost. His one sphere of influence in the Middle East. That is the priority. He attacked isis on a limited basis because they had to be seen to do so internationally They attack isis intensely now because they were attacked
And in some fairness it is no secret that he absolutely hates islam
no one really knows what putins end game is here but let's just consider a split Syria with Assad in control and the caliphate set within its borders is or a Syria United but not under Assad? Which would he have chosen I wonder???
there is no pint in speculating now but I will say it again. I am more concerned at this point about those that want to do absolutely nothing to combat isis than those that do. Cameron does. Others don't
i
Also so as we saw with the very deliberate and snide misquote from cameron in previous posts, it's going to take far too long to check what can or cannot be believed (and is never linked)l it strikes me that there is a tendency to bury this stuff in the morass of 550000 words in an attempt to give it credibility.
Putin went in to defend Assad first and foremost. His one sphere of influence in the Middle East. That is the priority. He attacked isis on a limited basis because they had to be seen to do so internationally They attack isis intensely now because they were attacked
And in some fairness it is no secret that he absolutely hates islam
no one really knows what putins end game is here but let's just consider a split Syria with Assad in control and the caliphate set within its borders is or a Syria United but not under Assad? Which would he have chosen I wonder???
there is no pint in speculating now but I will say it again. I am more concerned at this point about those that want to do absolutely nothing to combat isis than those that do. Cameron does. Others don't
i
Last edited:
I wouldn't expect you to read it, but just for the record, there are less words in it than the link you've posted and expect everyone else to read that would have us believe that the most pressing concern of the day is Jeremy Corbyn (yes - Corbyn again!)
And for the second time, you can only misquote someone if you're using quotation marks - dear or dear CSE material I'm afraid
Last edited:
Found it. The loyal BBC might have airbrushed the account from their reporting, but the gallant Guardian haven't
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-are-contradictory-says-former-military-chief
“The real issue is can you use the one army that’s reasonably competent which is President Assad’s army? In that respect I personally would see a ceasefire being agreed in the way people are now talking, allowing potentially Assad’s army and Hezbollah and their Iranian backers and others to turn their attention on Isis in a sequential operation. After that the politics would kick in and you would have to do something about the residual political structure within Syria.” - David Richards
The real tragedy is this could have been done three years ago, which is what the likes myself wanted, and only if the Syrians started to lose need the Russians get involved (and ideally a few other major powers). It is always desirable for the government's that have lost the territory to be seen to have regained it, rather than having infidel forces of occupation coming into seize for them (for obvious reasons). It was a massive mistake, but totally foreseeable. Before we try and rewrite David Cameron Jihadi fighter, lets have it remembered that they wanted to attack and kill what Richards describes as "the one army that's reasonably competent" who were engaged in the direct fight in the field against ISIL.
Last edited:
Can I just clarify Clive. Are you suggesting that the first Gulf war of 1990/91 took place in 1993 instead? and the the first attempt to blow up the WTC (which did take place in 1993) can't therefore have been a response to the first Gulf War?
Last edited:
Damn, I was rather hoping you might try and deny it and claim 1993
The causation thing to be honest is an inter-related chain, all of which is capable of being subjected to the question would X have happened without Y
Take the Islamic revolution in Iran
Would Saddam have invaded Iran had a fundamentalist Islamic regime not gained power there with the attendant threat that posed to him?
Would he subsequently have invaded Kuwait had he not bust his economy fighting this very war with Iran?
If the first Gulf War hadn't happened then, would the second (especially so given what happened in 1996)?
AQ had no presence in Iraq prior to the second gulf war, afterwards they did. Islamic State has spun out of AQ in Iraq, would Islamic State have happened then without the second gulf war?
The thing about this kind of analysis is that you can find a station to jump off on, at many points on the time line and provide a reasonably convincing linear progression to today. Some of it is more convincing than others, as you'd expect though. Can you take it back to 1978 for instance and say that the Islamic Revolution wouldn't have happened without the misrule of the Shah which created the environment for Khomeni? If so, can you take it back to 1959 and the disruption of the democratic movement in Iran by the CIA in order to install the Shah?
I'm struggling to fit the Satanic Verses into it though, I'll be honest. There's loads of fatwas issued all over the world, and some are just plain barking mad to actually make them comical. I just think you're trying to drive a square peg into a round hole with this one though because it impacted on the UK
The causation thing to be honest is an inter-related chain, all of which is capable of being subjected to the question would X have happened without Y
Take the Islamic revolution in Iran
Would Saddam have invaded Iran had a fundamentalist Islamic regime not gained power there with the attendant threat that posed to him?
Would he subsequently have invaded Kuwait had he not bust his economy fighting this very war with Iran?
If the first Gulf War hadn't happened then, would the second (especially so given what happened in 1996)?
AQ had no presence in Iraq prior to the second gulf war, afterwards they did. Islamic State has spun out of AQ in Iraq, would Islamic State have happened then without the second gulf war?
The thing about this kind of analysis is that you can find a station to jump off on, at many points on the time line and provide a reasonably convincing linear progression to today. Some of it is more convincing than others, as you'd expect though. Can you take it back to 1978 for instance and say that the Islamic Revolution wouldn't have happened without the misrule of the Shah which created the environment for Khomeni? If so, can you take it back to 1959 and the disruption of the democratic movement in Iran by the CIA in order to install the Shah?
I'm struggling to fit the Satanic Verses into it though, I'll be honest. There's loads of fatwas issued all over the world, and some are just plain barking mad to actually make them comical. I just think you're trying to drive a square peg into a round hole with this one though because it impacted on the UK
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Do you see the glaring contradiction surrounding this event?
The American and western media were non-stop telling us from the beginning that Russian forces were only attacking the moderate forces, and NOT touching ISIS. So why would ISIS have specifically targetted a Russian airliner rather than the many other flights out of Sharm? It has to be because they (ISIS) were suffering badly from Russian intervention in their region of interest; that the Russians actually were attacking ISIS. If what the Americans were saying was true -- Russians only attacking FSA etc -- then ISIS would have been cheering them.
ISIS brought down the Russian airliner as a response to Russian attacks on their forces on the ground. What we were told by the western controlled media was a lie and propaganda spin.
This is wrong. no one said "only" and every report has Been very clear the vast majority of the attacks were not against isis.
domt nut fall into the trap of simply claiming that reporting from Reuters or whoever is suddenly a lie when inconvenient. We've had a lot of that on here and it's a bore
Eitehr way, the Russians practically admitted it themselves
Because it has been stated that the first gulf war was what drove european muslims to violence and radicalisation. It wasn't
Satanic verses was the first large scale sign of fundamentalist Islam flexing its muscles in the uk. And testing how far they would be appeased, which was predictably far too much as many on the right and left warned at the time.
i can't believe that anyone cannot understand the significance of the whole affair
as for the rest, salafism has existed for decades and the idea that it is simply a response to the evil west is a nonsense. It was always likely to have filled a vacuum in any situation
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
I wonder, then, what could be the explanation for ISIS's decision to bring down the Russian airliner rather than a european one (as originally planned) if Russia had not been attacking them (as you say). It doesn't make strategic sense for them to do so -- if Russia had been solely attacking their (ISIS) enemies, the FSA and other rebels. Why poke the bear and bring him into direct confrontation with you when he has previously been hibernating as far as you are concerned?
I dunno. I do understand that Putin's main drive at the beginning was to shore up the Assad forces, but American spin that he was completely avoiding any attacks on ISIS I simply do not now believe. Yes, western media were spinning the same line, but I was watching Russia Today and Al Jazeera from the start, and they were telling a different story.
I'm with Ice on this. I don't believe the American's either. I absolutely agree that ISIS wouldn't have brought down a Russian airline without what they saw as a direct attack on themselves. No need. Their whole modus operandi outside the region is retaliation every time and this fits the bill perfectly.
Last edited:
It would help if posters bothered to read posts properly
I would also refer back to the piece tfrom o the notoriously pro american guardian I linked a few pages back.
To suggest that only the Americans reported this is a joke frankly.
I would also refer back to the piece tfrom o the notoriously pro american guardian I linked a few pages back.
To suggest that only the Americans reported this is a joke frankly.
Last edited:
Something our own media have glossed over as it doesn't suit the current narrative. As Maurco says, retaliation is a clear correlation in targeting, and there's a good reason for this. The Islamic State observe the sharia principle of Qisas (the biblical equivalent being and eye for an eye). Its why a captured Jordanian pilot who drops incendiary bombs on them is burnt alive in a cage as they need to replicate the best they can the punishment that he is held to have carried out. All of the countries attacked in the last 6 weeks, Russia, Turkey, France and Lebanon (Hezbollah) are actively engaged. It's why I'm very nervous about preening politicians and irresponsible media reporting glorifying our role. The UK aren't engaged in Syria, but are in Iraq. It would make us a second tier target. We'd be much better advised to operate covertly rather than trying to draw popularity onto the politician concerned, as ultimately their own vanity is exposing all of us to a risk of differing degrees which simply isn't necessary (I think the necessity is a crucial factor here)
The decision to target the Russian jet was an 11th hour change of plan. OK, ISIL haven't said who the original target was other than it was western .... It isn't difficult to check flight destinations in and out of Sharm al Sheikh to see who would have been in the firing line though. No French carriers fly there. Other countries engaged to some extent or other (Jordan and Turkey) are continuing to fly there. Of the European candidates, the German's, Italian's and Polish continue to fly there. Fill in the missing pieces and you'd have an odds on favourite. The only other western European country to have suspended their flights to Sharm el Sheikh is Denmark - it must have been them then, crikey, those Danes had a lucky miss didn't they?
Reading the various 'experts' in today's Sunday's you can see four common strands of agreement
1: ISIL can be defeated on the battlefield, albeit everyone acknowledges the threat will continue exist in other theatres
2: Adding half a dozen Tornados to a duplicated effort won't make any significant difference, but doesn't do any harm and will add a bit to the firepower
3: Someone is going to need to prosecute a ground war (note that Putin is in Tehran tomorrow, whilst Hollande is travelling to Washington to plead with Obama - but if the American's were really engaged of course this wouldn't be necessary)
4: The loss of British prestige and influence is a factor in their argument
Last edited:
I've re-read the posts concerned on pages 67 and 68 so far as I can see Clive, and they're largely down to Simmo and Grasshopper. So far as I can establish though, they aren't attributing GW1 as being responsible for driving "european muslims to violence and radicalisation". What I took them to be saying is that this started a process which was then exacerbated later by GW2
GW1 you'll remember was quite well received across the arab world. Saddam was never in liege with fundamentalist Islam anyway. He was one of its biggest enemies (another reason why his removal was questionable imo). A number of arabic countries (including Syria) joined the coalition to kick him out of Kuwait
It's what happened afterwards that started to sow some of the seeds as the withdrawal of the infidels from the holy land was one of the key planks of AQ's original demands post 1991. Basically once there, the American's stayed
I don't personally see any continuation of the Satanic Verses which leaves a trail into today's world that you would say has led to the formation of islamic state, a lot of the other causes that people have put forward do at least have a clear linear progression. I think you're basically running round with a preconceived idea and are trying to fit into an argument to suit a point
I'm also inclined to ask the question that if you think Salafism would always fill a vacuum, why did you think it was a good idea to create one?
Last edited:
Rather than upload a link to Dabiq onto the TH server, I'll use the BBC who I assume can view it, and report its content, without drawing GCHQ onto them
Note just one small paragraph acknowledging that Metrojet was a late target change. To my mind at least, this should have been the main story, but none of British media are really underlining the significance of this. Do we really think 6 Tornados duplicating an activity that is already taking place for the benefit of a vainglorious politician is a good swap for say 225 British lifes if this were a Thomas Cook charter?
If it were a necessary and decisive role we were playing, I'd accept the risk, but right now I don't see it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34861346
Note just one small paragraph acknowledging that Metrojet was a late target change. To my mind at least, this should have been the main story, but none of British media are really underlining the significance of this. Do we really think 6 Tornados duplicating an activity that is already taking place for the benefit of a vainglorious politician is a good swap for say 225 British lifes if this were a Thomas Cook charter?
If it were a necessary and decisive role we were playing, I'd accept the risk, but right now I don't see it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34861346
Last edited:
Patronising crap . Especially when you seem to have little or no idea of the history of islamofacism in this country
Waste of time if you are not aware that the radicalisation of many muslims in this country stemmed from the hate preachers seizing on the whole business surrounding the satanic verses
the appeasement of such views and the disgraceful tolerance of the preachers in what was described as londonistan was a huge factor in the troubles we have now.
amazed frankly that that has to be explained
Last edited:
Wrong - Londonistan was a deliberate policy of the intelligence services to grant asylum to hate preachers who were wanted in their own countries of origin. It allowed the UK authorities (or so they thought) to more closely follow this emerging threat and learn about it, and they also believed it would provide us with a degree of insurance against attacks. Indeed, Abu Hamza (the face of Londonistan - or should that be hook?) was a veteran of the Soviet Afghan war, which much more closely supports Grasshoppers thesis than yours
I realise that no one has ever accused you of thinking before Clive, and don't worry, I'm not about to either, but I am inclined to ask you a question to see if you can possibly disavow me of this disturbing impression that I'm forming that you're little more than an empty echo chamber for Dave. Would you possibly be so good as to lay out how you would approach this now? You see Dave's having a rethink, and hasn't submitted his strategy for public scrutiny yet, so I'm kind of suspecting that you're sailing blind at the moment until he tells you want to think. I'd be really curious to see if you have any ideas or analysis of your own, or whether you have to wait until you can be reprogrammed with the latest words. I'm sure we'd all welcome your insights and even more so, the rationale behind your conclusions
I realise that no one has ever accused you of thinking before Clive, and don't worry, I'm not about to either, but I am inclined to ask you a question to see if you can possibly disavow me of this disturbing impression that I'm forming that you're little more than an empty echo chamber for Dave. Would you possibly be so good as to lay out how you would approach this now? You see Dave's having a rethink, and hasn't submitted his strategy for public scrutiny yet, so I'm kind of suspecting that you're sailing blind at the moment until he tells you want to think. I'd be really curious to see if you have any ideas or analysis of your own, or whether you have to wait until you can be reprogrammed with the latest words. I'm sure we'd all welcome your insights and even more so, the rationale behind your conclusions
Last edited: