ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
It seems French police have identified another of the Paris Attack suicide-bombers, as having entered Europe via Greece as a refugee.
Is there a case for 'Women and Children only' - or at least, 'First' - in terms of distributing them throughout the EU, whilst the Men are subjected to enhanced vetting at the points of ingress (principally Turkey)?
It feels faintly ridiculous even suggesting it, but we're obviously living in faintly ridiculous times, and any Father/Husband worth his salt, would surely be happy to put-up with a little more duress, if he knew his family were being moved swiftly onto more hospitable pastures.
Is there a case for 'Women and Children only' - or at least, 'First' - in terms of distributing them throughout the EU, whilst the Men are subjected to enhanced vetting at the points of ingress (principally Turkey)?
It feels faintly ridiculous even suggesting it, but we're obviously living in faintly ridiculous times, and any Father/Husband worth his salt, would surely be happy to put-up with a little more duress, if he knew his family were being moved swiftly onto more hospitable pastures.
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
EC1
On a break
this thread wouldn't be the same if people did that Simmo..it would be 40 pages shorter for one
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
I'm getting roundly irritated by talk of "going to war" in Syria, when there was no suggestion that we "went to war" fighting Daesh in Iraq.
The only material difference between the two approaches is that we were invited to participate by Iraq, but I'd reasonably certain that any intervention in Syria would be equally welcomed by Assad. But we want shot of Assad don't we, and therefore can't bring ourselves to openly-admit to helping him, hence the use of the word "war" to describe the proposed action - a word which is totally misplaced in the context of fighting Daesh; not least because we deny them the credibility of 'statehood' in every other respect.
In my view, the fight against Daesh has greater parallels with Rwanda than it does the Second Gulf War. It is essentially a humanitarian intervention* to prevent genocide.......and is finally being taken seriously by those best-placed to stop it, after a protracted period of not really knowing what the fu*ck to do about it.
* I'm aware that bombing the sh*it out of Raqqa and elsewhere ,will result in collateral damage, and that it's hard therefore to describe it as 'humanitarian intervention', but I couldn't think of a better name for it. Whatever it is, it's certainly not war.
The only material difference between the two approaches is that we were invited to participate by Iraq, but I'd reasonably certain that any intervention in Syria would be equally welcomed by Assad. But we want shot of Assad don't we, and therefore can't bring ourselves to openly-admit to helping him, hence the use of the word "war" to describe the proposed action - a word which is totally misplaced in the context of fighting Daesh; not least because we deny them the credibility of 'statehood' in every other respect.
In my view, the fight against Daesh has greater parallels with Rwanda than it does the Second Gulf War. It is essentially a humanitarian intervention* to prevent genocide.......and is finally being taken seriously by those best-placed to stop it, after a protracted period of not really knowing what the fu*ck to do about it.
* I'm aware that bombing the sh*it out of Raqqa and elsewhere ,will result in collateral damage, and that it's hard therefore to describe it as 'humanitarian intervention', but I couldn't think of a better name for it. Whatever it is, it's certainly not war.
Last edited:
It doesn't feel to me as if its what I would describe as a "war" either. We are only talking about a handful of jets firing no more than 500 low explosive missiles (which might be part of the problem imo). You kind of sense that everyone really wants someone else to fight it, allowing them to take a backseat and issue mock condemnation if need be for public consumption, whilst delivering a hearty diplomatic handshake behind the scenes. It's almost like the start of a 100m race where you might try and trigger a false start from your opponent. I think most government's are accept that being at the head of the field invites retaliation, and no one really wants to occupy this slot if you can find someone else to do it
It might be the start of a slide to war of course, but you might argue this is necessary, even if the participants haven't been identified yet. I think we also need to remember that as a fighting entity the caliphate shouldn't be any match on the battlefied, the threat comes elsewhere, and ultimately this is where the war is more likely to be fought longer term
I think the word was first used by France in the wake of Paris though
It might be the start of a slide to war of course, but you might argue this is necessary, even if the participants haven't been identified yet. I think we also need to remember that as a fighting entity the caliphate shouldn't be any match on the battlefied, the threat comes elsewhere, and ultimately this is where the war is more likely to be fought longer term
I think the word was first used by France in the wake of Paris though
Last edited:
The politico Magazine article referenced on Clive's, Election/ Today's Politics/ Corbyn thread (or whatever its become)
I don't believe it's without merit actually (well the demonstrable failure of the ideology argument) but I equally think we need to remember that theological regimes march to a different tune to those driven by political philosophies. People wedded to them have a much greater propensity to irrational belief, and very often don't associate their faith with the failure. I'm not totally convinced Islamic State measures its success in economics, and similarly, it might be a mistake to apply western yardsticks accordingly if the followers of Islamic State don't respond to them and judge it instead on its ability to practise strict sharia
I'm not sure the comparison with the Soviet Union works either, as ultimately Gorbachev, Glasnost, and Peristroika were actually products of the Soviet system. I'm personally struggling to see how any individual could challenge the authority of the Caliph without being branded an apostate and killed. I just can't see how any reforming momentum could ever get traction in the Islamic State, and what would it reform itself into anyway? I am sympathetic in principle however to the aspiration of trying to deny them a western narrative for the failure, as this will allow them to play the victim, and will be passed down to inheritting generations. But that's easier said then done
There aren't many regimes that 'fall' solely under the strength of economic sanctions etc Cuba, an isolated island surrounded by the worlds most powerful was subjected to an intense blockade and still survived. I'm not sure I'd personally like to rely on the theory in real life, and especially since I probably tend to the view that ISIL gets stronger and more attractive in the eyes of those most vulnerable to fall for its mythology the longer it lasts. The longer it is able to project this image as the strongman of sharia, the more strength it gains I reckon, and it's going to have its first IS children coming through in the next decade (even today's 10yo's are probably indoctrinated beyond redemeption already)
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/why-isil-will-fail-on-its-own-213401
I don't believe it's without merit actually (well the demonstrable failure of the ideology argument) but I equally think we need to remember that theological regimes march to a different tune to those driven by political philosophies. People wedded to them have a much greater propensity to irrational belief, and very often don't associate their faith with the failure. I'm not totally convinced Islamic State measures its success in economics, and similarly, it might be a mistake to apply western yardsticks accordingly if the followers of Islamic State don't respond to them and judge it instead on its ability to practise strict sharia
I'm not sure the comparison with the Soviet Union works either, as ultimately Gorbachev, Glasnost, and Peristroika were actually products of the Soviet system. I'm personally struggling to see how any individual could challenge the authority of the Caliph without being branded an apostate and killed. I just can't see how any reforming momentum could ever get traction in the Islamic State, and what would it reform itself into anyway? I am sympathetic in principle however to the aspiration of trying to deny them a western narrative for the failure, as this will allow them to play the victim, and will be passed down to inheritting generations. But that's easier said then done
There aren't many regimes that 'fall' solely under the strength of economic sanctions etc Cuba, an isolated island surrounded by the worlds most powerful was subjected to an intense blockade and still survived. I'm not sure I'd personally like to rely on the theory in real life, and especially since I probably tend to the view that ISIL gets stronger and more attractive in the eyes of those most vulnerable to fall for its mythology the longer it lasts. The longer it is able to project this image as the strongman of sharia, the more strength it gains I reckon, and it's going to have its first IS children coming through in the next decade (even today's 10yo's are probably indoctrinated beyond redemeption already)
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/why-isil-will-fail-on-its-own-213401
Breaking News - The Tories have an MP who 'gets it' - step forward Julian Lewis
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-magical-70000-moderates-figure-a6750161.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-magical-70000-moderates-figure-a6750161.html
Last edited:
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
I would think, by now, every man and his dog regards Cameron`s 75000 figure as ridiculous.
It comes down to how you define 'moderate' and just where and to what extent they're engaged in substantive fighting actions. I could probably accept that there are 70,000 opponents easily enough, perhaps more to the point, it's extremely reckless to rely on them under these circumstances and factor them into your planning. I don't see any evdience that they've shown any great ability to seize ISIL territory, and American training of such groups to date ahs been particularly poor $500m to ready something 120 fighters! That programme has been abandoned now of course and filed in the cabinet marked failed
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
That cabinet must be bulging now!
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
For "70,000 moderate troops' read "WMD deployable in 45 minutes".
A sprinkling of questionable advice from the Secret Services, with a drizzle of plausible deniability for the politicians. We've been here before, haven't we?
Regardless, the issue of ground troops (how many and where from) should not be on the critical-path to a decision on whether we (the UK) should bomb Daesh in Syria. The Ground Tropps question will undoubtedly have been under consideration for some weeks now, and the answer will manifest itself whenever agreements are reached between the relevant parties, or when someone is pushed to take the initiative (e.g. Putin).
Again, the suggestion in some quarters is that we shouldn't act until such time as there is a great big fu*cking bow on it. It's a ridiculous position to hold, imo.
A sprinkling of questionable advice from the Secret Services, with a drizzle of plausible deniability for the politicians. We've been here before, haven't we?
Regardless, the issue of ground troops (how many and where from) should not be on the critical-path to a decision on whether we (the UK) should bomb Daesh in Syria. The Ground Tropps question will undoubtedly have been under consideration for some weeks now, and the answer will manifest itself whenever agreements are reached between the relevant parties, or when someone is pushed to take the initiative (e.g. Putin).
Again, the suggestion in some quarters is that we shouldn't act until such time as there is a great big fu*cking bow on it. It's a ridiculous position to hold, imo.
Last edited:
I really should be doing other things, but sadly have embroilled myself into spending too much time this afternoon trying to get to the bottom of the FSA connundrum. It's an academic trial by 1000 inpenetrable Islamic names. It makes understanding the geneology of the Trotskyist family tree a relative picnic getting your head round this lot
The one name that keeps coming back time and time is Charles Lister, who has supplied a piece for the Spectator to support Cameron, (which I suspect will form the base of Cameron's defence if he chooses to maintain his FSA stance - as not to put to fine a point on it - it's the only piece of research out there that does!) however, Lister has also got plenty of articles all over the internet (some of which are being pulled it seems and having their links removed) that contradict it. I managed to salvage this one (link removed from original incidentally) by using google images as I remember the graphic
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/graphic-the-most-accurate-breakdown-of-the-syrian-rebels-2013-9
"Lister places the number of “genuine moderates” — rebels wholly loyal to the SMC — between 20,000 and 32,000."
For the Spectator though he produces a figure between 65,000 and 75,000
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...hters-in-syria-heres-what-we-know-about-them/
Of the 75,000, he places 35,000 in and round Aleppo. The following comes from Al Jazeera
Charles Lister of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center says that the majority of armed rebels fall between extremist groups like ISIL and the FSA, but notes that "the Syrian insurgency and its countless component parts are in a state of constant flux."
Al-Qaeda-linked rebels -- who, analysts estimate, number between 10,000 and 12,000 -- come from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. They have traditionally fought against the Assad regime and alongside the FSA, which is supported and armed by the United States.
While ISIL fighters and FSA battalions have only recently begun locking horns on the battlefield, as they did in Azaz, assassinations and disputes over who has the right to administer rebel-held territories have plagued Syria’s armed opposition for months.
In July, ISIL fighters assassinated two FSA commanders in separate incidents, exposing tensions between the groups. While the incidents riled some FSA fighters who were concerned that their allies could not be trusted, FSA leadership calmed the seas.
“ISIL are our brothers who came to help us in a time when other Islamic and Western countries kept silent about the regime’s crime,” read a statement from the FSA’s Aleppo Military Council on July 15.
It would appear that the American's tacitly abandoned the FSA about 12 months ago (which has to be a bit embarrassing for the British). Again you can only logically assume this is because they weren't gaining ground, were becoming increasingly unreliable, or both. You would imagine that with a lot less supply heading their way, and the well documented closure of the training programme, that their numbers would fall, not rise, especially as they'll also be losing personnel killed or wounded in action
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-has-officially-given-up-on-the-free-syrian-army-2014-10?IR=T
In the biggest shock of the day though, I distinctly heard the "so called" BBC radio, refer to the Islamic State as "Daesh" today. Has there been a change of strategy? we need to know!
The one name that keeps coming back time and time is Charles Lister, who has supplied a piece for the Spectator to support Cameron, (which I suspect will form the base of Cameron's defence if he chooses to maintain his FSA stance - as not to put to fine a point on it - it's the only piece of research out there that does!) however, Lister has also got plenty of articles all over the internet (some of which are being pulled it seems and having their links removed) that contradict it. I managed to salvage this one (link removed from original incidentally) by using google images as I remember the graphic
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/graphic-the-most-accurate-breakdown-of-the-syrian-rebels-2013-9
"Lister places the number of “genuine moderates” — rebels wholly loyal to the SMC — between 20,000 and 32,000."
For the Spectator though he produces a figure between 65,000 and 75,000
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...hters-in-syria-heres-what-we-know-about-them/
Of the 75,000, he places 35,000 in and round Aleppo. The following comes from Al Jazeera
Charles Lister of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center says that the majority of armed rebels fall between extremist groups like ISIL and the FSA, but notes that "the Syrian insurgency and its countless component parts are in a state of constant flux."
Al-Qaeda-linked rebels -- who, analysts estimate, number between 10,000 and 12,000 -- come from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. They have traditionally fought against the Assad regime and alongside the FSA, which is supported and armed by the United States.
While ISIL fighters and FSA battalions have only recently begun locking horns on the battlefield, as they did in Azaz, assassinations and disputes over who has the right to administer rebel-held territories have plagued Syria’s armed opposition for months.
In July, ISIL fighters assassinated two FSA commanders in separate incidents, exposing tensions between the groups. While the incidents riled some FSA fighters who were concerned that their allies could not be trusted, FSA leadership calmed the seas.
“ISIL are our brothers who came to help us in a time when other Islamic and Western countries kept silent about the regime’s crime,” read a statement from the FSA’s Aleppo Military Council on July 15.
It would appear that the American's tacitly abandoned the FSA about 12 months ago (which has to be a bit embarrassing for the British). Again you can only logically assume this is because they weren't gaining ground, were becoming increasingly unreliable, or both. You would imagine that with a lot less supply heading their way, and the well documented closure of the training programme, that their numbers would fall, not rise, especially as they'll also be losing personnel killed or wounded in action
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-has-officially-given-up-on-the-free-syrian-army-2014-10?IR=T
In the biggest shock of the day though, I distinctly heard the "so called" BBC radio, refer to the Islamic State as "Daesh" today. Has there been a change of strategy? we need to know!
Last edited:
Germany's committed what Clive?
A diplomatic frigate to protect the French aircraft carrier!!! - from what? ISIL's fleet air arm? (the Charles de Gaulle is more than capable of protecting itself anyway). I should say the Royal Navy has already sent HMS Defender to perform the same role. What next, Italy and Spain might send a few mine sweepers? The Portuguese a fisheries protection vessel?
and Merkel also sends some reconnaisance aircraft too lets not forget
It's no different to all those countries in GW1 or sent a frigate just to be seen to be doing the right thing, or a field hospital unit if they really wanted to risk action. Hell, the waters of the Persian Gulf were more in danger of the worlds warships crashing into each other.
When Germany starts to engage militarily I'll take notice, but far from saying they've committed, I'd be a lot more inclined to say that since they possess Europe's biggest standing army that they've done the opposite and fudged it. You could say its a smart play though. Let the others do the risky stuff and put themselves in the cross-hairs, whilst also lending just enough to the veneer of support to retain influence
A diplomatic frigate to protect the French aircraft carrier!!! - from what? ISIL's fleet air arm? (the Charles de Gaulle is more than capable of protecting itself anyway). I should say the Royal Navy has already sent HMS Defender to perform the same role. What next, Italy and Spain might send a few mine sweepers? The Portuguese a fisheries protection vessel?
and Merkel also sends some reconnaisance aircraft too lets not forget
It's no different to all those countries in GW1 or sent a frigate just to be seen to be doing the right thing, or a field hospital unit if they really wanted to risk action. Hell, the waters of the Persian Gulf were more in danger of the worlds warships crashing into each other.
When Germany starts to engage militarily I'll take notice, but far from saying they've committed, I'd be a lot more inclined to say that since they possess Europe's biggest standing army that they've done the opposite and fudged it. You could say its a smart play though. Let the others do the risky stuff and put themselves in the cross-hairs, whilst also lending just enough to the veneer of support to retain influence
Last edited:
reconnaissnce is every bit as vital as firing the missile isn't it. I would rather they do more of course
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...oops-planes-and-ship-to-support-a6755836.html
Last edited:
You could probably argue that they're under more of a threat from Turkey!!!
It's just a cynical stunt so that Merkel and Hollande can do the European solidarity photo op. It's actually faintly embarrassing.
Here comes ..... Europe's aircraft carrier ... ah .. and isn't that nice. Look, every member state has sent a ship along to hold its hand. Now whose going to tell them that the enemy is 300 miles inland
Hollande ought to really turn round and say "look here you unshaggable lump of lard, I've got up to 40 attack aircraft on the Charles de Gaulle and Assad holds the coast anyway. We don't actually need your tokenistic 'protection'. If you think you can get some kudos out the murders in Paris then how about sending your mechanised brigades in, otherwise don't insult me by making out that French aircraft carriers need German escorts"
It's just a cynical stunt so that Merkel and Hollande can do the European solidarity photo op. It's actually faintly embarrassing.
Here comes ..... Europe's aircraft carrier ... ah .. and isn't that nice. Look, every member state has sent a ship along to hold its hand. Now whose going to tell them that the enemy is 300 miles inland
Hollande ought to really turn round and say "look here you unshaggable lump of lard, I've got up to 40 attack aircraft on the Charles de Gaulle and Assad holds the coast anyway. We don't actually need your tokenistic 'protection'. If you think you can get some kudos out the murders in Paris then how about sending your mechanised brigades in, otherwise don't insult me by making out that French aircraft carriers need German escorts"
Last edited:
I was of course being sarcastic, but on closer investigation it transpires that Belgium have also deployed a frigate to escort the French aircraft carrier too. That's three escorts now. If Belgium really wanted to contribute to the safety of Europe, would they not be better encouraged to do so by looking at some of their own housing estates?
