To bomb or not to bomb
- Thread starter archie
- Start date
ould take up politics...Colin Phillips
At the Start
"head kicked-in" "knife across his face" - a touch violent there, Clive.
EC1
On a break
Frankie Boyle is the type of "comedian" who needs the word "comedian" putting in front of his name..just so people know that is what he is supposed to be good at. He isn't a funny man imo..then again we all laugh at different things..but i've always rated comedians by how many laughs i get listening to them..seems a fair measure imo. I actually like the guy Grass put up..Jerry Sadowitz was the first man to openly accuse Savile of being a paedo in the 80's..his LP record with that on got banned by the beeb at the time. So i am not averse to extreme comedy...i just find Boyle an odious little man..not funny at all. Personal choice int it really?
Last edited:
M
marbler
Guest
What is it about Boyle that provokes such contrasting opinions?
I know he did the ceremony at the Olympics...
I know he did the ceremony at the Olympics...
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
How about starting a specific thread for Frankie-fukking-Boyle, and having any views on that two-bob excuse for a comic posted over there.
This topic on Syria and its consequences for the world is far too serious for a side-show about an imbecilic and twisted "comedian" like him.
This topic on Syria and its consequences for the world is far too serious for a side-show about an imbecilic and twisted "comedian" like him.
Libya next?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/warplanes-libya-next-battlefront-isis-nato
Thought this might be intersting too (or at least the quote I've extracted)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35013221
"The government said security plans have been reviewed in the wake of recent events and at least seven potential plots have been foiled in the last year, although not on the same scale as the one carried out in Paris".
This is the first time that anyone has expanded on the seven plots that were constantly being invoked to suggest that we're already targets and so bombing Syria doesn't make any difference. Obviously the key word is "scale" and no one is going to be able to interrogate this further for obvious reasons, so we have to enter the world of speculation.
What might scale refer to, the number of attackers? the firepower? or the level of international planning and involvement? The Paris attacks had some Daesh co-ordination, but what if the UK plans (like those in Califormia) had none? That would be very significant. I think the government would actually be wrong to connect homegrown ISIL inspired attacks with those which have been planned, ordered, and sposnsored by ISIL. If all we've been subject of to date is homegrowns, then it becomes difficult to sustain the argument that the threat level is just the same. What we'd be facing now would be nearer to homegrowns, plus Daesh central command (or whatever it is they have)
There is a grey area of course in the form of what you might refer to as Daesh encouraged attacks, but this call has been made now for years. It stops short of being a directed attack, but rather an appeal to anyone listening who wants to join in. Again though, I think it's a bit naughty of the government if this global call is being counted in our risk assessment to say we're already targets
Mind you, my own prefered option also risks exposing us, it's just that I don't believe it would be such a long tail
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/warplanes-libya-next-battlefront-isis-nato
Thought this might be intersting too (or at least the quote I've extracted)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35013221
"The government said security plans have been reviewed in the wake of recent events and at least seven potential plots have been foiled in the last year, although not on the same scale as the one carried out in Paris".
This is the first time that anyone has expanded on the seven plots that were constantly being invoked to suggest that we're already targets and so bombing Syria doesn't make any difference. Obviously the key word is "scale" and no one is going to be able to interrogate this further for obvious reasons, so we have to enter the world of speculation.
What might scale refer to, the number of attackers? the firepower? or the level of international planning and involvement? The Paris attacks had some Daesh co-ordination, but what if the UK plans (like those in Califormia) had none? That would be very significant. I think the government would actually be wrong to connect homegrown ISIL inspired attacks with those which have been planned, ordered, and sposnsored by ISIL. If all we've been subject of to date is homegrowns, then it becomes difficult to sustain the argument that the threat level is just the same. What we'd be facing now would be nearer to homegrowns, plus Daesh central command (or whatever it is they have)
There is a grey area of course in the form of what you might refer to as Daesh encouraged attacks, but this call has been made now for years. It stops short of being a directed attack, but rather an appeal to anyone listening who wants to join in. Again though, I think it's a bit naughty of the government if this global call is being counted in our risk assessment to say we're already targets
Mind you, my own prefered option also risks exposing us, it's just that I don't believe it would be such a long tail
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
The first link -- Libya.
Yeh, for some time now ISIS has been regrouping in Sirte; it's fast becoming the new Raqqa. Surely, if we are being told that if bombing Syria is fundamental in defeating ISIS then we also have to start bombing Libya too? And what about Nigeria -- Boko Haram has the highest kill-rate of all the ISIS franchises so we must bomb that country also? Then how about Afghanistan -- apparently ISIS has taken over from the Taliban and are threatening to over-run the country. Yep, gotta bomb Afghanistan too.
The whole thing is crazy. This is some seriously fucked-up sh!t. And if the Americans have already carried out over 6,000 air bombing sorties on ISIS in Syria, what difference is a couple of more strikes from the RAF gonna achieve. Dropping a few paveways in the desert won't shut down the Islamic State.
Hate to say it again; this war is already lost. The only hope for the West ( and for civilisation) is to go into defensive mode. ISIS have won in the Levant and are winning elsewhere. Furthermore, they are everywhere in Europe and in the U.S., whether as sleeper cells or as "lone wolves". There are an estimated 600 die-hard jihadi's waiting to "go live" in Britain alone. So yes, we should go full on defensive mode. Secure the borders; beef up intelligence and surveillance ops on suspecteds; get tough on and get heavy on the islamicist preachers and fellow-travellers of ISIS in our own countries. Hopefully that might give us another 20 or so years of, if not peace, at least some security. After that, who knows ...............
Stop wasting billions in fighting them in the desert -- it won't achieve much anyway -- and spend the resources on the defense of your own jurisdiction.
Yeh, for some time now ISIS has been regrouping in Sirte; it's fast becoming the new Raqqa. Surely, if we are being told that if bombing Syria is fundamental in defeating ISIS then we also have to start bombing Libya too? And what about Nigeria -- Boko Haram has the highest kill-rate of all the ISIS franchises so we must bomb that country also? Then how about Afghanistan -- apparently ISIS has taken over from the Taliban and are threatening to over-run the country. Yep, gotta bomb Afghanistan too.
The whole thing is crazy. This is some seriously fucked-up sh!t. And if the Americans have already carried out over 6,000 air bombing sorties on ISIS in Syria, what difference is a couple of more strikes from the RAF gonna achieve. Dropping a few paveways in the desert won't shut down the Islamic State.
Hate to say it again; this war is already lost. The only hope for the West ( and for civilisation) is to go into defensive mode. ISIS have won in the Levant and are winning elsewhere. Furthermore, they are everywhere in Europe and in the U.S., whether as sleeper cells or as "lone wolves". There are an estimated 600 die-hard jihadi's waiting to "go live" in Britain alone. So yes, we should go full on defensive mode. Secure the borders; beef up intelligence and surveillance ops on suspecteds; get tough on and get heavy on the islamicist preachers and fellow-travellers of ISIS in our own countries. Hopefully that might give us another 20 or so years of, if not peace, at least some security. After that, who knows ...............
Stop wasting billions in fighting them in the desert -- it won't achieve much anyway -- and spend the resources on the defense of your own jurisdiction.
Last edited:
Not sure Boko Haram are really that potent, albeit they've probably benefited from the Gadaffi arsenals being shipped south to them. So far as I can see most of Boko Haram's success has been gained against isolated rural villages and populations woefully unable to defend themselves or summon help fast enough to reach them (sounds like a few places in the UK I could think of). I'd have thought they were the least sophisticated of the IS family, but so far to date they haven't really faced much (President Johnaton deliberately refuses to challenge them, or when he does, the army ran away). They're probably closer to the guerilla armies we saw in Africa throughout the 1970's
I'm slightly concerned today to hear that coalition aircraft have targeted a Syrian army base. I just have a horrible feeling you know who's behind this. The Americans have denied it, but depending on where you take your news from, the American's appear to have said that their planes weren't responsible (as in Americans) weren't responsible, which stops short of saying it wasn't someone else. I'm just hoping it's a Russian **** up
I'm slightly concerned today to hear that coalition aircraft have targeted a Syrian army base. I just have a horrible feeling you know who's behind this. The Americans have denied it, but depending on where you take your news from, the American's appear to have said that their planes weren't responsible (as in Americans) weren't responsible, which stops short of saying it wasn't someone else. I'm just hoping it's a Russian **** up
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
This beggars belief, and almost makes you think Clivex isn't actually a frothing-at-the-mouth nutter (which is really scary), when it comes to certain lefties.
I am still trying to comprehend the thought-processes which would make someone hold such a point-of-view, and can only surmise the author is a monstrous fu*cking arsepiece:
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...een-accused-of-complimenting-isis--Wyg4nnxLql
I am still trying to comprehend the thought-processes which would make someone hold such a point-of-view, and can only surmise the author is a monstrous fu*cking arsepiece:
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...een-accused-of-complimenting-isis--Wyg4nnxLql
Last edited:
It's a bit of a mish mash in terms of what they're saying, and how the examples are being mixed up with each other
Which bit are you disagreeing with?
Historically speaking, the international jihadis do have a lot in common with the International Brigades of Spain, but only in terms of the way they are recruited and organised.
Both rely/ relied on civilian volunteers to come forward and travel to the theatre to take up arms and fight for a cause. Both involved motivational speakers (platform, or more recently of course, cyberspace). Both then relied on a network of agents/ fixers arranging passage for them. Benn would be right to say that it was mainly the working classes and the trade unions that supplied the International Brigadists, but others were drawn from middle class professions. There are echoes here too with the social class of those travelling to join ISIL. Benn also omitted to say that many of the international brigadists were arrested on their return to the UK (more so in the US where the Abraham Lincoln brigade faced all sorts of punishment).
Where the distinction occurs of course is the enemy. Those fighting in Spain did so in support of a democratically elected government in the face of fascism, albeit the opposition groups had completely splintered and ended up fighting each other, again an eerie echo of what Syria looks like today. I've drawn the paralell with Spain myself on a few occasions, (and long before Benn mentioned it).
However, there is a distinction. Those who've become international jihadists can't exactly claim that they're fighting in support of democracy, and it is here where I would agree with Benn that they're answering what is essentially a fascist calling, but it would still fall within the broad confines of an international.
I think a lot of the principles are similar, albeit the composition of the groups and the causes they're fighting in support of, are polar opposites.
I should perhaps also point out that Franco also succeeded in generating his own volunteers from European countries, mainly those who fought in support of the Catholic church. If Benn was looking for a better comparison than it would be something like the Irish Brigade of Eion O'Duffy, who were moved by a religious calling, and who fought on the side of fascism. Invoking these groups however, wouldn't fit the parliamentary narrative he was hoping to appeal to
Which bit are you disagreeing with?
Historically speaking, the international jihadis do have a lot in common with the International Brigades of Spain, but only in terms of the way they are recruited and organised.
Both rely/ relied on civilian volunteers to come forward and travel to the theatre to take up arms and fight for a cause. Both involved motivational speakers (platform, or more recently of course, cyberspace). Both then relied on a network of agents/ fixers arranging passage for them. Benn would be right to say that it was mainly the working classes and the trade unions that supplied the International Brigadists, but others were drawn from middle class professions. There are echoes here too with the social class of those travelling to join ISIL. Benn also omitted to say that many of the international brigadists were arrested on their return to the UK (more so in the US where the Abraham Lincoln brigade faced all sorts of punishment).
Where the distinction occurs of course is the enemy. Those fighting in Spain did so in support of a democratically elected government in the face of fascism, albeit the opposition groups had completely splintered and ended up fighting each other, again an eerie echo of what Syria looks like today. I've drawn the paralell with Spain myself on a few occasions, (and long before Benn mentioned it).
However, there is a distinction. Those who've become international jihadists can't exactly claim that they're fighting in support of democracy, and it is here where I would agree with Benn that they're answering what is essentially a fascist calling, but it would still fall within the broad confines of an international.
I think a lot of the principles are similar, albeit the composition of the groups and the causes they're fighting in support of, are polar opposites.
I should perhaps also point out that Franco also succeeded in generating his own volunteers from European countries, mainly those who fought in support of the Catholic church. If Benn was looking for a better comparison than it would be something like the Irish Brigade of Eion O'Duffy, who were moved by a religious calling, and who fought on the side of fascism. Invoking these groups however, wouldn't fit the parliamentary narrative he was hoping to appeal to
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
By the above measure, the Salvation fu*cking Army have a similar recruitment approach to ISIS, for fu*cks sake.
Here is what ISIS have in common with those Internationalists who rose against Facism - nothing.
The above post is the worst kind of 6th-form-essay wankery; something you are apparently compelled to trot-out now and then, and which compromises those posts where you are otherwise lucid and occassionally on-the-money.
Here is what ISIS have in common with those Internationalists who rose against Facism - nothing.
The above post is the worst kind of 6th-form-essay wankery; something you are apparently compelled to trot-out now and then, and which compromises those posts where you are otherwise lucid and occassionally on-the-money.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Mate, please, please don't compare the moral, good men who died fighting for democracy and freedom in Spain with the filth operating for ISIS.
That's all.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Ooops, cross-posted with GH above. 
I've explained where the similarities exist, and even gone further by suggesting where a better example from the same war exists. It's the same principle in operation. I don't think there is any harm in recognising that. Indeed, I did so months ago when comparing the International Brigades to the way that ISIL's international jihadists were developing as a threat. It's not an endorsement, it's an observation. It's actually a really important point though, as the way they replenish their losses is crucial to defeating them, and that requires that we understand this and react accordingly (sealing borders with drones).
At the moment we have a finite number of expensive missiles being used to kill a small number of people piecemeal who they replenish within a day or so due to their undoubted international appeal. Until we can redress this, they would win a war of attrition in Syria. You could see the evidence in the first half of 2015 as both the SAA and these moderate groups were losing ground until Russia's intervention. It's not "wankery", it's an appraisal of what's happening on the battlefield and draws on the best historcial paralell we have; Spain.
We look on the International Brigades of 1936-38 fondly because they took up a noble cause we would agree with. We don't look on the ISIL international jihadis because they've taken up an abhorent cause we don't agree with. That's the primary distinction. The mechanism by which they're being moved to the international call is similar though. It's not glorifying ISIL, it's simply an observation.
At the moment we have a finite number of expensive missiles being used to kill a small number of people piecemeal who they replenish within a day or so due to their undoubted international appeal. Until we can redress this, they would win a war of attrition in Syria. You could see the evidence in the first half of 2015 as both the SAA and these moderate groups were losing ground until Russia's intervention. It's not "wankery", it's an appraisal of what's happening on the battlefield and draws on the best historcial paralell we have; Spain.
We look on the International Brigades of 1936-38 fondly because they took up a noble cause we would agree with. We don't look on the ISIL international jihadis because they've taken up an abhorent cause we don't agree with. That's the primary distinction. The mechanism by which they're being moved to the international call is similar though. It's not glorifying ISIL, it's simply an observation.
I don't think I am. I clearly acknowledge that the causes are very different, but the calling and the way it mobilises people across contienents is similar
"However, there is a distinction. Those who've become international jihadists can't exactly claim that they're fighting in support of democracy, and it is here where I would agree with Benn that they're answering what is essentially a fascist calling, but it would still fall within the broad confines of an international. I think a lot of the principles are similar, albeit the composition of the groups and the causes they're fighting in support of, are polar opposites."
It's not a socialist international as we might understand it, but an Islamic international. Actually ... the better comparison might be Afghanistan circa 1980's, albeit we tended to support that one as it cast the Soviets in the role of oppressor, albeit neither the Afghan government or the tribal fighters would be described as democratic
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Warbler, it's none of the above......it's navel-gaving, bespectaled nonsense, and the parallels you attempt to draw are farcical.
Last edited:
Oh I think there's an academic point too. I think the author is probably trying to score a point off Benn to be honest, but it's not an irrelevant observation. Indeed, if you try and unpick the detail of what's been happening on the Aleppo front in the last 8 weeks, it's actually quite pertinent. There is a very real danger I think that the SAA are simply going to run out of men, whilst the Jihadis can supplement their ranks through their international substitute bench. Their position has been strengthend further by the number of FSA who appear to be going over to al Nusra in particular
Why do you think it's farcical then?. I'd be more convinced if you could tell me why rather than simply saying so.
Both armies draw heavily on overseas volunteers from civilian life to flush up their numbers don't they? - ISIL more so than the Spanish Republic
Both armies use appeals to a certain sentiment to move these volunteers into coming forward - this is quite powerful
Both armies use fixers and 'routes' to deliver these volunteers to the front (Louis Blum's popular front government in France was the exception, but otherwise Europe's governments tried to prevent volunteers coming forward in the 1930's - only retrospectively did they revise their view)
All of these similar in the way the respective armies are put together
The difference is really defined in the causes that they're fighting, not the way the armies are constructed, but then I made that point in the first post on the subject
Corbyn would have helped himself if he'd made the jump which identified ISIL as fascists, things become much clearter then, but so far he's clinging to some fantasy of a political settlement which has never been a goer in this case
Why do you think it's farcical then?. I'd be more convinced if you could tell me why rather than simply saying so.
Both armies draw heavily on overseas volunteers from civilian life to flush up their numbers don't they? - ISIL more so than the Spanish Republic
Both armies use appeals to a certain sentiment to move these volunteers into coming forward - this is quite powerful
Both armies use fixers and 'routes' to deliver these volunteers to the front (Louis Blum's popular front government in France was the exception, but otherwise Europe's governments tried to prevent volunteers coming forward in the 1930's - only retrospectively did they revise their view)
All of these similar in the way the respective armies are put together
The difference is really defined in the causes that they're fighting, not the way the armies are constructed, but then I made that point in the first post on the subject
Corbyn would have helped himself if he'd made the jump which identified ISIL as fascists, things become much clearter then, but so far he's clinging to some fantasy of a political settlement which has never been a goer in this case
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
You actually can't let it lie, can you?
Having made a cu*nt of yourself with your hideously-misplaced comparison between ISIS and those who rose against Facism in the early/mid 20th century, you don't even have the minerals to concede that it was misplaced.
No....you would rather descend into yet more technocratic, 6th-form drivel, in a vainglorious atrempt to justify it.
Clive never admits he's wrong either, but at least he just tells me to go fu*ck myself when knows he is on the wrong-end, which is infinitely more honest than your comebacks over the last couple of hours.
Having made a cu*nt of yourself with your hideously-misplaced comparison between ISIS and those who rose against Facism in the early/mid 20th century, you don't even have the minerals to concede that it was misplaced.
No....you would rather descend into yet more technocratic, 6th-form drivel, in a vainglorious atrempt to justify it.
Clive never admits he's wrong either, but at least he just tells me to go fu*ck myself when knows he is on the wrong-end, which is infinitely more honest than your comebacks over the last couple of hours.
Last edited:
I've told you where I believe the similarities exist and where they end. You can throw as many names around as you like; ducks back Grasshopper, but I'd be more impressed if you could find some facts
Which bits do you think are factually incorrect regarding my description as to how the two armies were/ are sourced? I can accept that the use of the word (draw) "heavily" is over-stating things regarding the Spanish republic, and perhaps "significantly" draw/ drew would be more accurate
It's also got massive implications for the outcome of an attritional war too.
Which bits do you think are factually incorrect regarding my description as to how the two armies were/ are sourced? I can accept that the use of the word (draw) "heavily" is over-stating things regarding the Spanish republic, and perhaps "significantly" draw/ drew would be more accurate
It's also got massive implications for the outcome of an attritional war too.
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Remember this bit?
"They do have a lot in common.......but only in the way they recruit and are organised....."
This is an example of an oxymoron.
Beyond the self-evident fact that armies need to recruit and organise themselves , there is nothing whatsoever in common between ISIS and the International brigades. Nothing.
But you can't pass-up an opportunity to demonstrate your command of history - even if the context is totally irrelevant. It's principally this type of pontification which makes your posts more than somewhat tedious.
I should add that at least you make an effort in these discussions, which is admirable.......but you need to find an editor for your posts. They are almost always far too long and rambling to hold the attention.
Have a nice day.
"They do have a lot in common.......but only in the way they recruit and are organised....."
This is an example of an oxymoron.
Beyond the self-evident fact that armies need to recruit and organise themselves , there is nothing whatsoever in common between ISIS and the International brigades. Nothing.
But you can't pass-up an opportunity to demonstrate your command of history - even if the context is totally irrelevant. It's principally this type of pontification which makes your posts more than somewhat tedious.
I should add that at least you make an effort in these discussions, which is admirable.......but you need to find an editor for your posts. They are almost always far too long and rambling to hold the attention.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
Isn't this the crap that came from stop the war?
frankly comparing two organisations purely in the basis of the way they are organised is a bit like comparing hitlers gas chambers with Greggs the bakers baking ovens
the comparison was indicative of the underlying sympathies on the far left.
frankly comparing two organisations purely in the basis of the way they are organised is a bit like comparing hitlers gas chambers with Greggs the bakers baking ovens
the comparison was indicative of the underlying sympathies on the far left.
Last edited:
...and there we have it, at last: the stating of the bleedin' obvious that Warbler chose to expand into a lengthy essay; and for this 11+ history pupil it was quite interesting to read some 6th form stuff
An international calling to join a cause however worthy of vile it may be will, if well organized, follow a similar pattern; and Daesh are certainly well organized, as presumably were the International Brigades...and that's where the similarity ends between those two causes/callings with polar-opposite objectives
Much like the mantra 'you can't win a war without ground troops': that infantry may be under the command of fascists (vile) or democracies (worthy) but their battlefield strategies will follow a similar time-honoured tried-and-tested path
Like it or not, no more no less
Of course I remember that bit, and it's hugely relevant.
The evidence is simple. Hilary Benn wanted to make the connection with ISIL and fascism. No problem with that. Ideally he wanted to do so in a way that presented Labour as the exclusive fighter of fascism in order to appease his own party. Since the conservatives opposed the creation of the international brigades Spain potentially played out to this narrative very well. But only so far. As the Trot whose made the observation points out, the appeal that ISIL is having, and the way it is able to reach beyond the borders of the conflict to recruit, is closer to the way that the international brigades formed than the government's aerial bombing campaign. It's not an unreasonable observation based on both historical fact and recent history
From this the Independent have run a headline which has succeeded in stirring up the emotional response in someone like yourself they were no doubt hoping to provoke. I don't see what they've said as some sort of glorification at all. At worst I'd call it point scoring, at best I'd call it cold observation. It is definitely based in fact though rather than opinion. Unless of course you want to try and deny that ISIL are able to lever in volunteers from around the world, and that the international brigades didn't appeal to similar sentiment, albeit with a polar opposite focus
Look, the way an army recruits and organises is actually very important, and in both cases the role played by international civilian volunteers is much, much higher than we usually see. It's a very pertinent dynamic and in the case of ISIL one of the horcruxes. I made it pretty clear that after this though, the similarities end due to they pursuing polar opposite objectives. I really don't see why you've got so animated about it.
The evidence is simple. Hilary Benn wanted to make the connection with ISIL and fascism. No problem with that. Ideally he wanted to do so in a way that presented Labour as the exclusive fighter of fascism in order to appease his own party. Since the conservatives opposed the creation of the international brigades Spain potentially played out to this narrative very well. But only so far. As the Trot whose made the observation points out, the appeal that ISIL is having, and the way it is able to reach beyond the borders of the conflict to recruit, is closer to the way that the international brigades formed than the government's aerial bombing campaign. It's not an unreasonable observation based on both historical fact and recent history
From this the Independent have run a headline which has succeeded in stirring up the emotional response in someone like yourself they were no doubt hoping to provoke. I don't see what they've said as some sort of glorification at all. At worst I'd call it point scoring, at best I'd call it cold observation. It is definitely based in fact though rather than opinion. Unless of course you want to try and deny that ISIL are able to lever in volunteers from around the world, and that the international brigades didn't appeal to similar sentiment, albeit with a polar opposite focus
Look, the way an army recruits and organises is actually very important, and in both cases the role played by international civilian volunteers is much, much higher than we usually see. It's a very pertinent dynamic and in the case of ISIL one of the horcruxes. I made it pretty clear that after this though, the similarities end due to they pursuing polar opposite objectives. I really don't see why you've got so animated about it.
Last edited: