ISIS...Islamic State Victims

Creeping Islamification has become an issue on Malta now for the last 10 years in particular, but it now appears that the media and people there are waking up to the new reality that they're the shop window and conduit for ISIL oil being smuggled by the ruling elite of Turkey

http://www.independent.com.mt/artic...being-implicated-in-ISIS-oil-trade-6736150377

Furthermore, the EU, and US are seemingly well aware of this, hence why it was the Russians who started bombing infrasturcture that should have been destroyed years ago
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-syria-idUSKBN0UB0BA20151228

This would pretty much be my read on what I think I've been able to piece together. The Syrian army has struggled, and ISIL have been able to make use of the Turkish border to replenish. Russia estimates their fighting strength to be about 60,000, albeit this number is increasingly being flushed up by other Islamist groups. The defection pattern has been from moderates to militants, and this has continued to gather pace. You might note a subtle change in the reporting? The phrase 'rebels' has now been used to describe opposition to Assad. When was the last time organisations like the BBC ran any serious reporting on the FSA?

Reports from the last 10 days also seem to indicate that the Turkish border is narrowing as Kurds squeeze it from east. ISIL seem to be shifting their oil supply through Iraq now. Russia estimates they've destroyed 2000 oil tankers and only about 200 a day are daring to run the route into Turkey from Syria. We've also seen a few blogs from USAF pilots stating that they were operating under orders not to attack oil tankers heading into Turkey, and that they were also told to leave ISIL fighter alone who they caught in the open if they were engaging the SAA

It backs up a theory that some us suspected was happening, and comes back to this notion I've raised before that ISIL were always someone's second priority. I think we were seeing America attempting to manage a situation that has some echoes of the Warsaw uprising. That is to say they were hoping to manage a conflict between two forces that would degrade both. They probably wanted ISIL to overthrow Assad, and once they'd achieved that, they'd then intervene more proactively to throw back a weakened ISIL. They would have had all manner of justification for being able to present their actions as humane, as few right minded people would have opposed such an action, when they were suddenly confronted with ISIL running Syria. America would be able to couch their intervention very differently to that which was a direct intervention on someone like Saddam. It would have the same result, but came with a mucher stronger camouflage

At one level it would have a lot of strategic attraction to it, but on another it was pretty naive to think ISIL would emerge from the conflict with SAA as a weakened entity. I suspect their numbers would swell. It also completely overlooked (or under estimated) Russia. Finally it would set off a massive displacement of refugees. If this is what America was thinking, it was a pretty poor, but then they've done some pretty stupid things before now

Am I right in recalling that in order to act out the prophecy of Dabiq, ISIL have to make a final stand on the plain and lose a battle against the infidel invaders from which they will re-emerge a greater force at some point in the future? This would be the glorious end game of the martyr wouldn't it. I think we ought to try and deny them this and sether the narrative by trying to orchestrate a situation where they are defeated by an arab force

I can't see the caliphate lasting another 12 months (surprised its lasted this long) but there are other theatres threatening to open, notably in Afghanistan and North Africa
 
Warbler said:
We've also seen a few blogs from USAF pilots stating that they were operating under orders not to attack oil tankers heading into Turkey,
Click to expand...
Or drop leafets on them a 1/2 hour beforehand warning that an attack is imminent !

sether the narrative by trying to orchestrate a situation where they are defeated by an arab force
Click to expand...
Would this be the same fake-ass "coalition" organised by Saudi Arabia that included countries -- Pakistan and Malaysia -- that weren't even aware that they were in it? Another ruse by Saudi to put together a Sunni force to wage a proxy war against Iran and Shia's generally to be fought on the lands of Syria.

I can't see the caliphate lasting another 12 months
Click to expand...
This is woefully optimistic, and most probably wrong, I'm sorry to say. :ninja:
 
icebreaker said:
Would this be the same fake-ass "coalition" organised by Saudi Arabia that included countries -- Pakistan and Malaysia -- that weren't even aware that they were in it? Another ruse by Saudi to put together a Sunni force to wage a proxy war against Iran and Shia's generally to be fought on the lands of Syria.
Click to expand...

No

It would be a reinforced Syrian army.

It isn't without risks of course, especially if it contains shia elements who then go on the rampage, but a Sunni army equally carries risks. Ideally you want both the Syrian and Iraqi governments to reassert control.

I suspect we might something of a 'dash' start to develop though, not dissimilar in concept to the final months of WWII, as the sponsoring powers start to put more resources into their proxies to secure the best territorial grab they can ahead of any negotiation

The fall of Ramadi was interesting in that ISIL chose to defend it with just 300, and yet it took the Iraqi's about 7 months to recapture without resorting to Shia militia to do it for them. That doesn't bode well, and does rather beg the question what the American's and British have achiebed in the 10 years previous when they were supposed to be building up, training, and supplying the Iraqi army.

I suspect that most ISIL fighters want to fulfil the prophecy of Dabiq and will see this as their last stand. 300 is only about 1% of their fighting strength, if we believe the American estimate. So far as I can work out the Russian estimate (about 60,000) is based on wrapping all the various Islamist militias into one homogenous entity.

The bogeyman in all this is increasingly Turkey. The Russians are trying to seal their porous border from the Syrian side with the SAA, and Kurds, but ISIL are now switching the supply route through Iraq and its not really clear that the Iraqi authorities, and to a lesser extent the Americans are doing much about it

On a change of subject, I do wonder if the British have a found a new weapon in the fight against the domestic terror threat - the GCSE!!!

I mean, have you seen this couple who were convicted yesterday? He called himself 'Silent Bomber' as a poster name on twitter, used a picture of Emwazi as his avatar, posted a nice little diary of his activities including video of his attempts to build a bomb, and then organised an on line poll as to whether to target the underground or Westfield. I've suspected that the authorities have been over stating the threats that they've disrupted for some time as they go in search of ever more invasive powers, but if they're all as co-operative as this one! Actually they aren't asking for new powers, what this government bill is asking for us to do is legalise what they already do illegally
 
I'll toss that slightly loaded coin again

45% of Saudis believe ISIS isn't a complete perversion of Islam, or aren't too sure if the survey included a 'don't know' option :blink::<3:
 
Strange how no more passenger planes anywhere in the world have been brought down by ISIS now that they "have the ability"?
Only the poor souls on the one Russian plane that allowed Russia to support Assad without any challenge whatsoever.
Odd how things work out!
 
Last edited:
This amused from the BBC

Mr Carter said US forces engaged in an air campaign against IS in Iraq and Syria were "starting to run low" on laser-guided missiles and "smart bombs".
"So we're investing $1.8bn (£1.2bn) in 2017 to buy over 45,000 more of them," he said in a speech to the Economic Club of Washington. :lol:

Well that's one each member of IS then by my estimation. Meanwhile the MoD refuse to say how many Brimstone missiles we've got, but its reckoned to be in the region of about 500 max based on how long they take to make, how many from stockpiles we've sold to Saudi Arabia and what the last audit was post Libya

Just go and buy 45,000 missiles, jaysus, it's a different world.

I was reading the other day an argument against their traditional pursuit of a 500 ship navy, arguing in favour of fewer hulls but more capability. Meanwhile I think we've got about 21 fighting surface ships
 
Well, their ISIS mates are getting their asses whupped in Aleppo so I guess they gotta prop up their pals.:thumbsdown:
 
Warbler said:
Now this could get really messy

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...y-troops-in-syria-to-counter-russia-1.2528577
Click to expand...

On the one hand, I'd rather the Saudis (and other Sunni nations) committed some treasure in stopping Deash, than have the West eventually be compelled to put boots on the ground.

On the other hand, in any fight against Deash, they may also see an opportunity to bolster support for their favoured Rebel groups - as a sort of counter-point to Russian intervention on behalf of Assad......in which case, I think you might be right.
 
Last edited:
So far at least, the YPG and shia have been the most effective on the ground forces fighting ISIS in Syria, with the SAA really relying on the Russians, and now the Turks and the Saudis are considering attacking them. Looks like ISIS might get their reinforcements from their allies after all

Saudi Arabia have been the biggest **** stirrers in the region for decades now and have been working towards trying to establish some sort of a Sunni super state, stretching from Turkey to Pakistan, or at the very least, a bloc which falls very much under their influence. It's little wonder that the Iranians seem perplexed as to why the west keeps throwing their lot in with this ultimately more reactionary country. Perhaps its no coincidence that within days of Iran having their sanctions lifted they were touring Europe signing trade deals and awarding infrastructure contracts to Italy, France and Germany. Get that buy in, once you give powerful nations an incentive to turn a blind eye, they will

I've also been struck by the 'noise' in social media, particularly from Americans, regarding their attitude towards Saudi Arabia. I'd estimate it to be about 95% hostile (very) and about a third of it openly expressing support for the Russians (albeit that's limited to this area of policy only). This would have been unimaginable just 6 months ago when they were being told by Obama how Russia is propping up the evil Assad who is the root cause of all of this Islamic terrorism, and that Russian intervention will make things worse etc The vox pops I'm reading have seen straight through this (eventually). They're seeing Russia starting to push back these Al Quada affiliates that no one (and I mean no one) believes are really pro democracy moderates

It's about time the United States started to re-evaluate the way they've allowed trade to forge their global alliances. It's leading them into poor decision making. I do detect however that the people of America are seeing through it, and frankly getting fed up with it. So we can expect the US, the UK and the French to stop selling arms to the Saudis then? Of course not.

America needs to strong Saudi Arabia here, and coming off the back of their refusal to discuss their own nuclear aspirations last month I'm growing ever more concerned about what could role out from this country yet.
 
Last edited:
The biggest load of crap you could hope to read here

saudi taking over turkey? What? Pakistan? For anyone who's stupid enough to believe this drivel it is about as realistic as Belgium taking over France or Germany. That's the scale of it. I think thie Saudis know full well that both are countries with strong independent identities where the vast majority of the populatiin does not but into wahhisbsm

iran perplexed because it's "less reactionary". Perhaps taking hostages and death to America every week might make them reflect somewhat on the comparative relationships. Jesus christ

america should be more favourable to Iran because it's "less reactionary". So it should have been friendlier to Russia rather than China during cold war because it was less communist

assad root of all Islamic terrorism ? Not even worth an answer

saudi has a lot to answer for and is far from a state I admire but the above its old anti American Stalinist pro dictator garbage.

Not getting into a debate on this and taking my leave but above needed pointing out in case there are any iloveassad badge wearing simpleton students giving the above post a moments thought
 
Last edited:
Reading has never been a strong part has it?

You'd need to be blind not to realise there is a regional conflict going on in the middle east. Saudi Arabia and Iran might be the nation face of it, but it's clearly underwritten by sunni and shia, and is spreading

Shortly before his death King Abdullah at the Gulf Cooperation Council called for the beginning of this

"I ask today that we move from a phase of cooperation to a phase of union within a single entity".

We also know from wikileaks that the Saudis had been imploring the Americans to attack Iran. Since then the Saudi's have dramatically increased their defence procurement and been actively intervening in Bahrain and Yemen. They've been actively supplying weapons into Syria that continue to prolong that conflict, with a new king who has demonstrated his willingness to take a more radical and expansionist approach.

I was careful to describe it as "some sort of sunni superstate", with the observation that it would at the very least be a "bloc that falls under their (Saudis) influence". This sets it apart from an expanded Saudi Arabia, but you clearly read straight past that bit and only saw what you wanted to see. In this regard the control structure would be similar to something like the EU (which ironically is the observation that some of the American conservative press has drawn). It wouldn't be about take over and occupation as you seem to be implying. Germany doesn't 'take over' other European states, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that it doesn't exert considerable influence and is able to persuade subordinate partners to follow its tow. In the case of a sunni super state trade won't be the driving force, but rather conservative theology

Last month when the Saudis were quizzed about harbouring Pakistani nuclear wepaons on their soil as a bullwark aganist a pre-emptive Indian action, they only said that the two things that were non-negotiable are their security and their faith. It follows on from moves last summer

http://www.timesofisrael.com/report-saudis-may-purchase-pakistani-atomic-bomb/

I can however actually accept your assertion that you aren't particularly in love with Saudi Arabia (it would be difficult to be). Iran is hardly a great prospect either, but it is a better prospect with both coming from particularly low medieval bases. Iran does at least have something that passes as a democracy, does permit the wearing of western clothing for instance, allows women to attend university. Now admittedly there's a hell of a long way to go, but its perhaps a couple of centuries nearer to civilisation than the uber conservative world of Saudi Arabia. The world is fluid place Clive with lots of moving parts. Locking yourself into the cold war doesn't help you

I was of course being sarcastic when I described "the evil Assad as the root cause", but I'll let you look up who made this allegation on September 27th, 2015.

"He is one of the great recruiting sergeants for Isis."

Given that he's the one fighting ISIS, it's a remarkable statement of the deluded. What does the person making it seriously suggest, he surrender? That would only bolster ISIS. Ironically, a few months later the person concerned decided to join the fight!!!
 
Last edited:
Waffle as usual

essays are of no interest and just used for obsfucation .

This is is simple. Pakistan and turkey are proud independent states many times the size of Saudi. There is NO WAY they will wish to come under Saudis "sphere of influence". Turkey is trying to join the Eu ffs

saudis are not stupid. They know this

turkey could not be a more different Islamic state from Saudi. The idea that they would illingly be part of a Saudi led superstate is barmy. By all past polls the harder line element of Islam in Pakistan is never more than 20%. And both countries are that very thing you have stated does not exist, again exposing a lack of knowledge. They are long established Islamic democracies. X

Far too busy these days to get into this and the contribution was to simply clearly knock back a number of ludicrous statements for the benefit of otehrs who may be naive enough to give them any credibility
 
Last edited:
Edit

Actually.... with hindsight, I can't be bothered indulging him and his cold war time warp and silly opinion polls. He's worse than Trump for it
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Edit

Actually.... with hindsight, I can't be bothered indulging him and his cold war time warp and silly opinion polls. He's worse than Trump for it
Click to expand...

what?

You are stuck with the stupid Cold War views. The idea that Saudi is going to lead a Sunni superstate with turkey and Pakistan is total ignorance. No understanding whatsoever of those states and their culture. Zero

the whole idea would be laughed at right across the region. Does it really need explaining that turkey of all countries is going to willingly throw its lot behind the sheiks. When they are aiming to join the European community ffs

its based nothing more on a paranoid view based on the fact that they are evil American allies.
 
Have you thought through what happens with Kurdistan when they ask for a homeland? Try sketching it out instead of firing from the hip. How do you think Turkey reacts and what becomes their direction of travel there after?

There are dozens of paralells for this kind of arrangement. Do you seriously think proud countries with their own histories and cultures like the UK, France, and Italy wouldn't enter a union because they might not be the most influential player in it. Think EU and think NATO.

On a smaller scale you have the African Union, and at this precise moment negotiations are advanced for Japan, China and South Korea to formerly pal up. ASEAN already have done (changed their acronym recently), and they have members as diverse as Thailand and Myammar. There is the OAS to in South America too

Is it really beyond your comprehension to think that a Sunni bloc couldn't possibly emerge? Tell me why you think it won't and yet just about every meaningful part of the globe has such arrangements? Why do you think a bloc based around a common culture and religion which seeks to ensure mutual security and trade wouldn't be something they're considering? They already have things like the Arab League, The Gulf Council and OPEC, but these aren't exclusively Sunni. Indeed there is a theory that the west have encouraged it before now as a bulwark against Iran and the more anti-Israel focused Shia culture. The problem with Frankenstein monsters though, is that they come alive

And just to give you some food for thought on scale Clive, the 2500 warplanes that they're assembling for this exercise is about 3 times what Europe could field today. 20,000 tanks is similarly massive compared to Europe

It's got absolutely nothing to do with a "paranoid view based on the fact that they are evil American allies". Absolutely nothing at all. Thats's just you going into silly default mode. It's a logical reading of the direction of travel and other global trends.
 
Last edited:
This is why I can't really be bothered. You claimed a "sunni superstate". Forget it. That is not a loose military alliance full stop

just accept that your assertion that Saudi is looking to build and lead such a entity is destroyed by the very nature of turkey and Pakistan. Not least because they are democracies. Something you admittedly despise

im not the slightest bit interested in tank numbers . Wtf has that got to do with turkey giving up isn't sovereignty nato membership and proposed membership of the eu?

as with your assertion that there was actually no uprising in Syria, this stuff is just culled from hard left conspiracy websites

qs for the Anglophobe's remarks, if there was no ignorance then the prick or others would have countered this rubbish themselves. Got it ??
 
The calling of their religion is a much stronger bonding than any governmental structure. They will not refuse to participate in a Saudi influenced bloc because they are erstwhile democracies. Have you learned nothing from the last 15 years? You keep telling us that Israel is the most democratically mature country in the region, why aren't Pakistan, Turkey, and even Iraq now, aligned with Israel then if the calling of governmental structures was so powerful?

I asked you to demonstrate your strategic perspective of course regarding how you're going to resolve the Kurdistan issue. I note you completely ducked it. It's little wonder you keep blundering into things Clive. I'll ask you again.

In perhaps as little as 18 months the Kurds could conceivably be declaring that they have an autonomous nation, what are you going to do?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top