Islamic State...What would you do?

I'm disappointed that Obama announces his intent on repeating a previous error of judgement by allocating another 500 million to further fund rebels in Syria.

(Is this even legal under U.N. and international law?)


________________________________________
 
I'm staggered by this one......

Mr Kerry also rejected accusations that President Obama is responsible for the rise of IS because he failed to take action against the group earlier in the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"I think over time people will realise the outgrowth of this is really the responsibility of Assad himself," he said. "He has been the magnet that attracted foreign fighters."


I look forward to Kerry condemning his rich donors (well his wife) as being the outgrowth of crime as their wealth was the magnet that attracted burgulers.

It beggers belief that they could seriously accuse the man who stands to lose most by the success of IS (his life), from stirring them up. Remember they blamed Gadaffi the same and look what they've created there, a failing state sliding into a second caliphate

More muddled and confused thinking by the US I'm afraid.

And when's someone going to tell Cameron to shut up and stop pretending that he's the slightest bit relevant. He's becoming more and more embarrassing by the day with his hokey cokey approach to intervention
 
Hamm said:
I am aware of that but Saudi Arabia - really?

Convenient how they are never mentioned as supporters of terror by the US and UK. I wonder why...
Click to expand...

Because the state isn't. They have successfully fought aq for years. There is no evidence that the state has supported isis
 
Neither is there any evidence that it has moved against the rich and influential benefactors that use Saudi soil to fund them.

There is paralell here with NORAID. It allowed America to say it didn't fund the IRA as a government, but gave patriotic associations charitable status with all the tax relief to set about funding them

Cameron accussed Pakistan of looking both ways, Saudi Arabia are the worst offenders. They're not far off being the most sectarian country of the lot and certainly one of the most socially regressive and undemocratic. They're a stain compared to somewhere like Libya (were)

They think they can pick and choose the groups they support and are more than happy to do so, as long as they keep off Saudi soil and target shia's elsewhere in the region. At the same time they lobby the US to declare war on Iran. They're quite a nasty little insidious country as they also showed calling the shots in Bahrain you'll recall. No western intervention in support of the Arab spring there was there? With a couple of weeks the Bahrani's were going through the front door of Downing Street all handshakes and smiles

Until the west gets a handle on enemy identification that can't even begin to address the issue and people like Clive falling back into old cold war divisions don't actually help. It's the misjudgement that has already led to two catastrophically bad interventions, and a narrow aversion of another (which we will have to do ultimately). Cameron incidentally is the worst offender on the world stage for it
 
This is just nonsense. If Saudi individuals back ISIS or AQ then why should the state be held responsible? Its unstoppable.

I dont have any time for the Saudi administration but the way they battled and ultimately took the steam out of AQ and extreme islamism within their country was quite impressive

Pakistans "security" almost certainly managed the AQ attacks in India. They shielded Bin Laden. They are far more complicit and two faced

As compared with Libya? Well has the Saudi state blown up a western airliner ?

And if anyone comes up with the sub third form explanation that the 9./11 hijackers were saudi, then you will have to pin the ISIS beheadings on the UK given that it was a british citizen who carried out the act
 
Last edited:
That's quite an excellent post (Clive's).
I was agreeing fully with the previous post until reading Clive's superb rebuttal ...... and swung polar. Very persuasive.
 
Back
Top