Migration and Asylum

Absolute rubbish. You have no idea whatsoever whether he army would split. for reasons that I have clearly stated. Don't waste my time by making assumptions about societies you know nothing about.

Who knows who he would "hand over" to. In so many of these situations a unifying force can come from anywhere. Who knew what would happen when the eastern bloc fell down? Who were the leaders then? Most countries have loads of factions. So what?

Again in don't make statements about situations you know nothing about and countries you couldn't locate on a map

Whre di I say a peacefui transitions was guaranteed? It was in clear response to statements of fact from warbler and yourself flattering yourselves with your tin pot knowledge that you know precisely what the outcome would have been. You don't and that's that

the statement made was that isis would take over the country if Assad had stood down. It's nothing but dictator fawning conjecture

You talk crap once again. I am against dictators who are a threat to security in their region and beyond. Hussein was rather more militaristic than the uae I think. have no strong opinion about the uae but can't be bothered with dreary left wing whataboutism
 
Last edited:
Amusing though it is to watch Clive skating round and round in circles on ever thinner ice, hurling abuse, and frankly pedalling some gloriously reckless ideas, we do perhaps need to move on before he throws so many supermarket shopping trolleys into the stream of discussion that the flow stops.

I don't normally make a point of watching the BBC ten o'clock any longer, but did catch Jeremy Bowen's piece last night from Beirut and Syria. Now I should say at the outset, I hold Bowen in pretty low regard for his bias and poor judgement, but there were a number of departures I noted from the narrative he was pedalling a few years ago

The piece opened with shots of Syrians on the Mediterranean playing on jet skis, sunbathing, and swimming etc This he told us was "safe Syria" because it was in "the hands of the adminsitration". A few years ago Bowen wouldn't have have been saying this. He used to continually use the word "dictator" and introduced the name "Assad" at every opportunity. Neither word made a single appearance last night and have now been replaced by "government", "adminsitration" and "Syrian government" as if trying to lend it legitimacy.

He went onto discuss the migration crisis and must have used the would "war" 4 or 5 times to describe what people were fleeing from. He couldn't have been less subtle. A few years ago he used the phrases "human rights" and "abuse". He was most definitely responsible for planting this wholly misleading, and frankly very unhelpful idea that Assad was responsible for the migration, and not the rising tide of Islamism. Indeed, Bowen had spectacularly failed to diagnose it's emergence in Libya too

The opposition groups (which barely anyway) have now become "islamists". Gone were words like "freedom" and "pro democracy campaigners"

He went onto interview injured Alawites who'd been fighting the Islamic State, and families who'd lost sons. The narrative was clear. These were gallant and decent people standing alone trying to defend the "government" and the "adminsitration" against the onslaught of Islamist terror, with limited weaponry. Note incidentally that not a single one of them talked about defending "Syria", Clive. The bonding to this artifically conceived country isn't as strong as the loyalty to the adminsitration, which is itself, a manifestation of the tribe. Four years ago, Bowen was presenting these same people to us as the extension of the brutal arm of a dictator trying supress democracy. Sadly this populist misreporting stuck, and still resonates today with those unable to escape their own doctrinal straight jacket

By far the most chilling thing for me though was that he reported the Syrian army had suffered 80,000 casualties in the last 5 years, and drew the rather obvious paralell with the British army given that 80,000 is the same as our entire full time strength. He referenced this figure to the Syrian government. Lets remember that government's normally under play their losses, so perhaps we can take him on his word this time. The implications of this are clear

This is a war of attrition, and the Syrian army can not replenish these losses at this rate. ISIL, with their flying global jihadists being bred all round the world, can. If they've inflicted 80,000 casualties, even on the Syrian army, they're a more capable fighting force than we're being led to believe. Finally, and most obviously, the Syrian government is going to lose on this trajectory and fall to Islamic State, unless something is done to arrest this direction of travel.

I noted earlier that i was growing concerned that the recent influx in the last 6 weeks of Syrians in particular (remember the focus had been on North Africa all summer until now) could be signalling something else. These sorts of movements should be seen as a moving needle. In the last hour the Syrian government are admitting they've lost a strategic airbase to the Al Nusra Front

Replacing Assad, and then hoping that the Syrians might fight on, and hoping that someone might emerge to show leadership, because sometimes someone does (more often than not you create a chaotic vacuum incidentally) is clearly no answer now (not that it ever was the sensible play anyway)

Some military planners who view this thing through the prism of winning a conflict dared to start thinking out aloud a few years ago. Our doctrinal politicians are hopelessly shackling themselves in blind dogma though. The Syrian army is the only substantial body of fighting men taking the fight to ISIL in Syria. Plucky as they might be, they don't look to be in a good place right now, and could be showing the first signs of terminal fracture. If the west doesn't want to lend a hand, and is prepared to sit back and allow ISIL to kill, torture and enslave whilst former foreign secretaries use their status to rub shuolders with Hollywood A listers yesteday in the believe that rape in war zones is the most pressing priortity, then for heavens sake at least consider freeing up other proxies to get involved

There is a leadership vacuum on the world stage at the moment. If Syria falls to ISIL, today's refugee crisis will be nothing, and this brings them onto Jordan's borders next. They gain in strength each time they expand as more flood in pledging allegiance to the calliphate
 
Last edited:
What reckless ideas? What are you talking about?

words in mouth again???

Either front up with that statement or fck off with your long winded boring posts

ill say it one more time. You make statements based on presumed outcomes which you are in no position whatsoever to call. All of which lead back to the same theme that "arabs need totalitarian regimes."

And you know full well i made no suggestion at all as to what should happen now but very clearly stated that your assumptions about assad were nothing more than wishful thinking

Frankly its the familar pattern of being unable to back your points so attribute arguments that havent even been made

That is timewasting. no more time to waste here
 
Last edited:
  • "Who knows who he would "hand over" to. In so many of these situations a unifying force can come from anywhere".

    Reckless beyond belief. You want him to hand over to persons unknown. You can't identify a single dynamic leader, nor coherent group. It's no surprise that you can't though, neither could David Cameron or Hillary Clinton, and they spent long enough trying to find one. Unlike you though, they rowed back, rather than blundering in, in blind hope - reckless in any other language

    Despite all the evidence from identical situations in Iraq and Libya you're prepared to disregard this in the blind hope (and that's what is has to be now) that the army has some allegiance to the country rather than the adminsitration that has promoted them, paid them, and generally given them a stake and status in the society - reckless in the face of compelling contrary and contemporary evidence from the region

    You describe this phantom ascedancy as a "unifying force", (clear aspiration on your part and devoid of any foundation) as again you're clearly disregarding the evidence from Geneva 2 which was anything but unifying - this is also reckless. This is swinging through the line and just hoping to connect. It's the behaviour of an uncultured slogger who possesses no other approach; hit and hope.

    Then to cap it all, you say it could be from "anywhere" - unbelievable Jeff. It's an admission that you don't know. So let's call you out. Name them, and expalin to us why we should have confidence in your nomination, and provide us the hard evidence other than fanciful hope that you've used to base your conclusion on.

    There is not a smidgen of evidence on the ground now to suggest that any unifying force (other than ISIL) would come from anywhere, so the removal of Assad would almost certainly allow ISIL in for dinner (and boy would they eat!).

    It's perfectly clear that you're guessing as you go along, hence why you even had the crazy idea to suggest that no one was even "talking about democracy" when clearly it was the central plank of the entire western response. 40 bloody countries attended Geneva2 Clive to put flesh on the Geneva1 proposal - 40!!! How can you possibly conclude that this constitutes no one when they include the US, Russia, China, France the UK + the Arab league, the EU, the UN and the organisation for muslim co-operation. You even have a much better evidence based example from the region that you've failed to use in support of your position. Instead you've gone throwing about red herrings like South Africa or the eatern bloc. It does give the impression that you aren't thinking this through, and are simply defaulting like an android to a doctrinal play book without recognising that it needn't apply n this case
    ​

 
Last edited:
I don't know what the answer to all this is. But I know what it is not.

10,458.

The number of words Warbler has contributed (net of quotes) to this topic and I still haven't a clue what he is on about. Sorry Dude, no disrespect, but you are ruining the internet for everyone.
 
an capall said:
Sorry Dude, no disrespect, but you are ruining the internet for everyone.
Click to expand...
No, he's fcking not !!!
Get a grip. If his musings are too much for your capacity to absorb, then just don't read them.
I enjoy reading his reasonings, and I hope he is not discouraged from posting by the likes of the above nihilism.
 
9999 of them must be due to having to find different ways of trying to explain the same thing to the same roadblock. Who then responds with abuse and limp attemtpted character assassination (mind you, I should conceed for consistancy that I do tend to think he adds significantly to the colour of the argument too!)

In any event, forums die when no one contributes anything.

Anyone know what's happened to Final Furlong this week and why?
 
Last edited:
Must agree with icebreaker. I enjoy Warblers contributions. His arguments are always well-reasoned and devoid of the juvenile abuse he receives from some.
 
Warbler said:
9999 of them must be due to having to find different ways of trying to explain the same thing to the same roadblock. Who then responds with abuse and limp attemtpted character assassination (mind you, I should conceed for consistancy that I do tend to think he adds significantly to the colour of the argument too!)

In any event, forums die when no one contributes anything.

Anyone know what's happened to Final Furlong this week and why?
Click to expand...

you are kidding

I took up your unsubstantiated "fact" that assad resigning would lead to an isis take over as being clearly guesswork at best and only the mugs here could possibly believe that 5000 words of nothing in response proves anything at all

Not once in all the complete waffle and obsfucation have you answered that.
 
Last edited:
Desperate Dan said:
Must agree with icebreaker. I enjoy Warblers contributions. His arguments are always well-reasoned and devoid of the juvenile abuse he receives from some.
Click to expand...

See above. but lets face it, you haven't read them have you?

but when did you.....
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
  • "Who knows who he would "hand over" to. In so many of these situations a unifying force can come from anywhere".

    Reckless beyond belief. You want him to hand over to persons unknown. You can't identify a single dynamic leader, nor coherent group. It's no surprise that you can't though, neither could David Cameron or Hillary Clinton, and they spent long enough trying to find one. Unlike you though, they rowed back, rather than blundering in, in blind hope - reckless in any other language

    Despite all the evidence from identical situations in Iraq and Libya you're prepared to disregard this in the blind hope (and that's what is has to be now) that the army has some allegiance to the country rather than the adminsitration that has promoted them, paid them, and generally given them a stake and status in the society - reckless in the face of compelling contrary and contemporary evidence from the region

    You describe this phantom ascedancy as a "unifying force", (clear aspiration on your part and devoid of any foundation) as again you're clearly disregarding the evidence from Geneva 2 which was anything but unifying - this is also reckless. This is swinging through the line and just hoping to connect. It's the behaviour of an uncultured slogger who possesses no other approach; hit and hope.

    Then to cap it all, you say it could be from "anywhere" - unbelievable Jeff. It's an admission that you don't know. So let's call you out. Name them, and expalin to us why we should have confidence in your nomination, and provide us the hard evidence other than fanciful hope that you've used to base your conclusion on.

    There is not a smidgen of evidence on the ground now to suggest that any unifying force (other than ISIL) would come from anywhere, so the removal of Assad would almost certainly allow ISIL in for dinner (and boy would they eat!).

    It's perfectly clear that you're guessing as you go along, hence why you even had the crazy idea to suggest that no one was even "talking about democracy" when clearly it was the central plank of the entire western response. 40 bloody countries attended Geneva2 Clive to put flesh on the Geneva1 proposal - 40!!! How can you possibly conclude that this constitutes no one when they include the US, Russia, China, France the UK + the Arab league, the EU, the UN and the organisation for muslim co-operation. You even have a much better evidence based example from the region that you've failed to use in support of your position. Instead you've gone throwing about red herrings like South Africa or the eatern bloc. It does give the impression that you aren't thinking this through, and are simply defaulting like an android to a doctrinal play book without recognising that it needn't apply n this case
    ​
Click to expand...

absolute rubbish

You think that Assad would have negotiated and handed over to a Cameron or Clintons proxy? Isn't it pretty obvious that is why they didn't get involved

It doesn't take 10000 words to state something simple and obvious

You don't know whether there was a solution and a leader in waiting or not. That is entirely within Syria



    • It does give the impression that you aren't thinking this through, and are simply defaulting like an android to a doctrinal play book without recognising that it needn't apply n this case
    ​
    ​




 
Last edited:
on that last point you are once again a liar and you know it

I said medium to long term democracy is the solution...i said it over and over again..but frankly a better response to such a patronising comment is the usual response. two words

waste of time. ill leave this now

engage dan in a debate instead...

enjoy
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
You think that Assad would have negotiated and handed over to a Cameron or Clintons proxy? Isn't it pretty obvious that is why they didn't get involved
Click to expand...

The Syrian governemnt attended Geneva2, it was the opposition groups that fractured and couldn't hold a line, (assuming "they" is a reference to the government - which it needn't be?). The record shows that it was the opposition groups who the UN ended up blaming for the talks failure

The propositon then is broadly the same as it is today. It will be a damned sight easier to deal with Assad, post ISIL, then it will ISIL post Assad
 
Last edited:
I find these Warbler - Clivex cruiserweight contests contested over an infinite number of rounds, as one would expect when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, to be entertaining, interesting and certainly worth reading; moreso when Grasshopper creeps up behind them and inflicts a stinging southpaw jab in their nether regions

Having spent most of the current millennium - and a significant part of the previous one - luxuriating on the verdant turf in racing never-never land, their - and others - admirable grasp of real-real world affairs, just emphasises how out of touch I've become living the utopian dream

Satiated Mr Creosote-like, I've had enough of all that

Thank you gents

Yours
The Luckiest Man in the World
 
Where i will make Clive a concession of the obvious however is when he (or anyone for that matter) decides to hide out in the inherrant uncertainty of the future. There is always an element of doubt involved here, and it's unavoidable. It goes with the job. So although anyone takes a view based on the best information we have available to us as to how things are most likely to pan out, he does have a pedants technical edge in being able to defend an assertion that we can't be 100% certain as to the outcome (until its to bloody late). This applies as to whether the Syrian army will to continue fighting if Assad is removed. Having said that, it's no different to any contrary assertion that they will fight on as they are regardless (he doesn't know that), so you have to take a view whether you want to run such a risk, or decide that's its unacceptably reckless to do so when alternative strategic responses are available

We do know certain things from the recent past and the present though

1: The army's officer corps is Alawite
2: The army has shown a willingness to fight
3: Faced with a very similar situation, plus the additional advantage of numerical and weapons superiority, the Iraqi's ran
4: Without their leader and 'patron' (for want of a better word) the Libyians melted into militia

So understanding why they are fighting should help inform us?

Loyalty to Assad is only likely to be relevant amongst the officer corps. Loyalty to tribal Alawism is likely to be stronger. Loyalty to Syria is the one with the least evidence base behind it, and you can almost see this looking at the lack of Syrian Sunni involvement in the fight against ISIL.

We know from hundreds of examples across recorded military history that armies snap when their command and control breaks down and their officers corps/ knights/ centurions give up. Outside of special forces or some very pecuiliar fanatics, the rest normally folds very quickly there after

I did check Jeremy Bowen's figure of 80,000 out, and it appears likely that it's an underestimate, and that it actually relates to deaths, not casualties as I'd suggetsed earlier which is even more chilling (albeit getting a reliable figure from anywhere is hazardous)

For context, 80,000 is in similar territory to the British losses in the European theatre of world war 2. It must be evidence of prisoner executions? I can't believe that ISIL are able to rack up the same body count as a highly industrialised nation like Germany, and a well trained fighting vanguard like the Wehmarcht, but seemingly they have

The conclusion is obvious though

Even though reports of the collapse of the Syrian army have been made before, the Syrian government doesn't have the population to sustain these losses. There have been examples of armies turning turtle and running in the face of less (Iraq being a rather obvious and relevant one) equally there have been other examples of armies fighting to the last man.

So which pans out here? The fact that ISIL don't do prisoners would make you think the Syrian army is more inclined to fight. However, they have escape routes too and the possibility to join wider resistance movements beyond their own borders.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to think that a fracturing will occur. Some of those loyal to Assad would desert. Thats' inevitable. Equally inevitably (probably more so) is that some will join, or form their own militia. Finally some will continue to fight as the Syrian government. Which ever way you look at this, the Syrian army (already under stress) will be diminished. The only way it could replenish it's losses is from new volunteers coming forward, or an outside military power providing top cover. I think you can rule the first of these scenarios out though. Even if 50,000 sunnis did present themselves, their fighting capability would highly questionable going up against battlehardened ISIL. They'd be swept aside, and that's provided you could train and equip them in a timeframe of about 2-3 weeks. Remember how successful the Americans have been over 10 years in Iraq

I haven't monitored it that closely, but thinking about it now, I have seen a rise in small news story reporting of minor territorial losses in the last few months (if anyone starts spotting these it might be useful to post them). I've already speculated that the surge in refugees could be another proxy verdict as to how this war is playing out. Even if it's those moving out of holding camps, it has to be likely that theyre reacting to reports coming from the recently arrived. Refugee flows have certainly predicated collapses before in history. Finally there is this speculation that Lavrov is trying to clear something off with America. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that the Russian's will be amongst the first to know if Syria's fighting capacity is disintegrating. Is it so incredulous to suggest they're trying to get some agreement to intervene before it's too late and ISIL sweep through Syria? That we don't know, but I'd like to think the two are still talking with each other on this issue

I think the mood music is pointing to the defeat of the Syrian army, and this will be at the hands of ISIL in the south, and the al Nusra Front in the north west. You might conclude that it has shades of the Warsaw Uprising about it, but I'm more inclined to invoke the little old lady who swallowed a fly

As I said previous, surely it's going to be easier, less bloodshed, and infinitely less population displacement to deal with Assad post ISIL, than it is ISIL post Assad?
 
Last edited:
Drone said:
I find these Warbler - Clivex cruiserweight contests contested over an infinite number of rounds, as one would expect when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, to be entertaining, interesting and certainly worth reading;
Click to expand...

It might disappoint you to learn then, that i don't actually dislike him (even if he is a complete git)

I should also acknowledge that your own contribution regarding Bulgaria (which I thought had merit at face value) seems to have got lost in all this, but hopefully things might swing back in that direction soon
 
Last edited:
Slightly belatedly, the BBC are again showing evidence of a shift in the narrative.

Today and last night they briefly ran a piece to suggest that ISIL were using chemical weapons. In truth the Kurds had been reporting that chemical wepaons had been used against them in Iraq months ago, and whereas this was never quite swept under the carpet, it didn't generate anything like the prominence that Assad's alleged use of them in Damascus just when UN weapons inspectors were visiting a few blocks away, and under the threat of American air strikes did. In fact that had all the hallmarks of a black op

Anyway what I found more interesting was this piece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131573

The paragaph that seemed to be signalling an acceptance of misjudgement was this

Russia did not respond to the upheavals of the "Arab Spring" with the enthusiasm of many Western governments.
And in retrospect, given that hopes for a democratic surge through the region have collapsed, Russia's hard-headed pragmatism looks to be a little more realistic than much of the West's "aspirational" diplomacy.


Clearly Jonathan Marcus can't bring himself to insert the BBC's own acronym alongside the western governments just yet, but they were equally culpable in blindly cheering on this rush to empower the expansion of Islamists

It increasingly struck me the other day that everyone seemed to have a higher priortity 3 or 4 years ago, and that as the vaguaries of the 'transferable vote' are likely to be thrown into the spotlight tomorrow, ISIL would have been everyone's second preference.

He's right to look at the countries of the Arab spring though and ask which are better off today?

Egypt is probably the best of the lot, and that's as damning an indictment as it gets.

Libya is significantly worse off and no serious commentator would pretend otherwise. Even Cameron has stopped trying to invoke it as evidence of the success of the movement

Tunisia is the most interesting. Before the arab spring, they were reasonably passive. Today they supply more foreign fighters for ISIL than any other country in the world per head of capita. It's not even close. Where have these guys come from? It's tempting to put 2 and 2 together and note that the Ben Ali machinary was dismantled and then all of sudden having been a complete non player in the Islmaist arena, they're suddenly providing more than anyone, many of whom it would appear from reports are distinguishing themselves in battle. urm ..... Well we certainly saw saddamists take up with fundamentalists in the early days of the ISIL putsch in Iraq, is it to far fetched to suggest something similar has happened here?

Finally I note that having reported that ISIL has developed chemical weapons, the BBC have now decided that the more important news worthy development concerns Benedict Cumberpatch launching a hashtag #helpiscoming. Well that'll do the trick. He's obviously inspired by the success of #bringbackourgirls. I've noticed before how Islamists always cave in to pressure brought about by social media and public opinion

Interesting to contrast the vigour Cameron and Hague showed when it was alleged that Assad was using chemical weapons then, to the compratively impassive response they show today when it's the Islamic State though?

Questions of enemy identification and priorities again I'm afraid. I look forward to the emergency commons debate that they saw fit to call in support of a motion to bomb Assad on the back of much more flimsy evidence (and which they failed to prove). Surely it isn't asking too much for them to perhaps thinks that ISIL might not be very nice people. Could they not do the same now (even though this was known about months ago and they did nothing). Admittedly Hague isn't there now (thank God) he's been busy telling men this week that we should all be collectively ashamed of ourselves over our record of raping women in war zones again.





 
Every thread is Assad Cameron gadafi Hague..

this is is migration isn't it?

the whole situation is running out of control isn't it. Whilst I have tended to beieve that there was a case for some liberalism frankly the issue of precedent has completely trumped that. Germany virtually inviting migrants and then insisting quotas across Europe is a disgrace. If merkel wants them then she can have them



this could break the eu.
 
I suspect she's realised that her initial analogy with East Germnay is deeply flawed

You can almost imagine some civil servant having to point out that East Germans spoke the same language, came with houses, schools, hospitals, and an employment base of sorts. Sure it wasn't a perfect economic fit, but it was a better building block then taking in an endless stream of poorly skilled, shell shocked, non German speakers who've spent four years sitting in transitory holding camps, and who would carry a pretty high risk of failing to integrate. And that's before you look at the inevitable terrorist risk as no one is denying that infiltration isn't happening
 
Germany's death rate has exceeded its birth rate since the 1970s so the population of German-born nationals is in decline; hence there is a labour shortage amidst an ageing population

So it's hardly surprising that they're willing to let hundreds of thousands of immigrants settle as they're needed to service the economy. Frau Merkel et al may use the cloak of 'compassion' to explain their generosity but it ain't really so

Further to this importing of labour, much of it educated and skilled, from Syria into Europe: by allowing this we are depriving Syria of just the people it needs to rebuild the economy of a war-torn country in the future

So if we in Europe really want to help the Syrians we should be implementing what has been mooted by several: the pouring in of money and resources to the refugee camps in neighbouring middle-eastern countries to maintain them safely and healthily until (if?) the time comes for a return to their homeland. Or my compromise mentioned earlier of 'temporary integration' in the nearby underpopulated Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria

It irks, but I'm more-or-less in agreement with Cameron's approach
 
Back
Top