The ISIS threat to Europe

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, YLN said:

...I've been thinking about your reply for a while, and my initial response was that you had misunderstood, and not given air to my idea that the religionist idiocy is bred by things being so poor over there, in terms of no education and poor quality to life relative to how well they think we live in the West. That has the potential to radicalize people, or at the very least means that they are very easily groomed by the people at the head of AQ and Daesh and the other groups. When ISIS does anything, they are facilitated by the fact that their soldiers are poor idiots. And one of the reasons that they are poor idiots is because their countries have been mined of their natural resources by the West for the past half a century, and that wealth has created the iPad-clad world that we live in today. The poverty and distaste for the West's invasion in those countries has given ISIS and AQ a pool of poor idiots, who are justifiably angry and mobilized, to pluck from in the creation of their armies. 

So that was my point. And I was keen to post it because I felt I had been misunderstood. But it's interesting that having spent a day away from the post, and looking at other posts like BOF vs WoodyTom in the main forum re: Richardson, that I was going to return to the argument ready to defend my point without actually really taking account of much of what you had said, but more so looking through it, trying to find parts of it that I could disagree with. I think that's just the nature of an internet discussion with seemingly opposing views

Anyway, my other thought is that I don't know anything. I haven't heard the word Yatzidis before. I don't really know what wahabising is, even though everyone has started to say it, as if it's something they've always said, like the word cup or plumber, which sort of annoys me, because it gives the impression that the poster has a better perspective than the reader, when in fact it may not be the case, he just knows that word. Like when people were using Daesh last week, to impress (and yeah delegitimize ISIS). So I've been watching videos today that make me feel even more like I don't know anything. I don't know what the French are bombing, although I've had the impression since they started that their bombings of these bases are 'Make a Wish Foundation' warfare - like a kid with cancer getting to run onto Wembley in a Man Utd shirt and score a goal.

I don't really know how many civilians are in these areas, and how many are getting killed. I don't know what Russia are doing. They're pro-Assad, and some commentators I've listened to seem to think that that is not necessarily a bad position to have, while my impression of it has always been that Assad was a bad guy, because I like to have villains, because it makes narratives easier to understand. And now I don't know. I also don't know what to do with the opinion that Syrian refugees are fleeing Syria and destabilizing Eastern Europe, because rebels and ISIS have made it a horrible place to be, and they were mobilised by the USA invasion. And that opinion then is synthesised into that the USA have intentionally destablilised Eastern Europe and Germany by creating ISIS and the rebels. And that half of the moderate rebels are from Chechnya and should not have a voice in determining the government of Syria. And I don't know what to do with these opinions that I've heard because I don't know anything.

Have a massive "Like", Yillan.

If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. I do agree with a fair chunk of that (including me also "not really knowing anything"). We try (I do anyway) to read and find out and understand, but my understanding is limited, also. 

The Yazidis were the people who were forced to flee up that mountain a while back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Yazidis_by_ISIL

On 3 August 2014, ISIL militants attacked and took over Sinjar in northern Iraq, a Kurdish-controlled town that was predominantly inhabited by Yazidis and the surrounding area. and internet postings of ISIL have reported summary executions that day by ISIL militants, leading to 200,000 civilians fleeing Sinjar, of whom around 50,000 Yazidis escaping to the nearby Sinjar Mountains. They were trapped on Mount Sinjar, facing starvation and dehydration.

On 4 August 2014, Prince Tahseen Said, Emir of the Yazidi, issued a plea to world leaders calling for assistance on behalf of the Yazidi facing attack from ISIL.

It's that kind of thing which I think is hard or impossible to even remotely say is caused by or even contributed to, somehow, by the west and by relative or actual poverty.

Wherever you get genocide and mass murder, I think the reasons go deep and I think sometimes blaming or partially blaming ourselves, or the west is almost an easy way out. Like a guilt thing. It's happened in Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and in Indonesia, Burma, Germany, Armenia.... I don't know what is common across those and other genocides, but I doubt it's caused by us (or our ancestors).

[Awol]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Interesting and also true I think. But if the proposed action won't make us safer short or medium term and only may in the very long term, that's hardly justification for it.

It's basically, "I want to do this, not because it'll make us safer, it won't, but because, er, um, another reason, er, yes, because we've got a handful of Tonkers with Brimstone woosh-bangs and Raptor recce. pods which are pretty good at what they do. Yes that's it. we've got a few bombers with some bombs. That's why. And because Paris made me sad and cross."

I don't think Cameron is advocating this on a whim, far from it.

IS needs to be confronted and destroyed because of it's actions, both as a matter of principle and because left unchecked it will consume the better part of the Middle East and North Africa. Success breeds success and in the process we'll see even greater numbers of young western Muslims getting involved.

The issue is the half measures employed to this point, and the incremental but clearly insufficient increases in commitment such as that we are seeing proposed from the UK now.

IS has to go, we all know that. Unfortunately the west is suffering from a leadership deficit across it's key countries that is being skillfully exploited by our adversaries. They will continue to do so until this problem is treated with the seriousness and urgency it requires.

We need to fundamentally readdress our relationships across the Middle East and deal with root of this evil once and for all.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, Awol said:

I don't think Cameron is advocating this on a whim, far from it.

Sorry, yeah, I was being a tad flippant to make a point that his desire to do something, to join in and play a part is not actually thought through in terms of detail. It's not that he hasn't thought about it, it's that he's thought about the politics of how to get something through parliament, but not about what the something should actually be, or why it should be that thing, rather than an alternative thing. It's just at the moment "join in the bombing" so "how can I justify that?". It's not "what is the best way to contribute?" It's all simplistic stuff so far.

 

[Awol]

@blandy For the UK I think part of the problem on global security issues is that we've taken our lead from the White House for so long, we're dislocated from doing the serious planning and policy generation process ourselves.

With a clueless inadequate like Obama in charge both the UK and NATO are effectively adrift, and arguably have been since the Arab Spring began.

That (IMO) is reason why Hollande has turned to Putin in the wake of Paris. He might be a rogue, but he is decisive and exudes leadership. That France has felt compelled to do so is the biggest indictment of the West you could imagine.

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, Awol said:

For the UK I think part of the problem on global security issues is that we've taken our lead from the White House for so long, we're dislocated from doing the serious planning and policy generation process ourselves.

Agreed. On the quoted part. I also think that we've (the Gov't) been cutting back on diplomacy and also focusing diplomatic efforts on trade, at the expense of other aspects. So we have a weaker understanding of the world and a less capable and much reduced diplomatic presence. Combine those with the Blair/Cameron hanging on to the coat tails of America stuff and it's made us less wise, less positive and less capable.

The other two comments, I genuinely don't know what to think, because I think Obama is less bad than Bush was and I'm not sure that Putin's decisiveness and leadership is necessarily for the best. I think his rogue nature lends suspicion as to his trustworthiness. In the same way that we lament the Turks going in against ISIS, then attacking the kurds, Russia's involvement in defending Assad is over-riding any fight against ISIS. They're looking after they interests, not helping France, unless by accident, I suspect. So I dunno.

[TheAuthority]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

We need to fundamentally readdress our relationships across the Middle East and deal with root of this evil once and for all.

I'm assuming you're referring to trade between the West and the Saudi's?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I think Isis should be tackled but I don't think bombing is the way forward. It is a good way to look like you are doing something without dealing with anything, though.

[Wainy316]

9 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Perhaps the answer is to also not continue to bomb Iraq, rather than declaring "in for a penny, in for a pound", and throwing more missiles their way.

We could do that, ignore the UN Resolution calling on member states to use all necessary means to defeat IS, and simply leave it to others. 

That said with many 100's of our own citizens committing atrocities in the service of IS, you could argue we have an additional level of responsibility to help the international community in dealing with the problem.

But we're not using all necessary means. Bombing won't defeat them it will just make us more likely to be attacked. Surely if we want to defeat them we go in on the ground, which will also cut collateral.

[villakram]

There is no singular need for bombs or ground troops to defeat ISIS. They cannot be militarily defeated and to claim they can is naive, e.g., Taliban or any other "freedom" struggle. As objectionable as they are, there are longer term issues related to Sykes-Picot that need to be resolved, ISIS are symptomatic of this. The easiest way to strip them of their "power" is to turn off the dollar/arms flows. These have matter of factly been provisioned by us and our allies, i.e., we are on the USA/Saudi/Turkey side. Somehow, we appear to believe that the people in those countries are not aware of this and that they will welcome our bombing them to their freedom.

Also, please don't hang on the "freedom struggle" comment above, it's not meant in a literal sense (e.g., interpret literally some of the nonsense recited in your local worship center of choice this Xday). ISIS/Daesh are clearly supported by significant powerful interests in this area and the general idealogical struggle against our (The West) long term imposition of Dictatorship etc. is keenly present in the minds of the populations of people living in that geographical area. A political solution is necessary... we support dictators in the gulf states and now in quasi-sense in Egypt too.

As for Cameron, he is looking for a seat back at the table after parliament slapped him down last year (or whenever it was)... realpolitik 101. The Turks are doing their thing, the Iranians another, etc., etc.

At this time I think it's worth reminding ourselves of the horror at the link below. The people currently in power (40-60yrs old) in Iraq all know someone whose child was from their perspective murdered. All of the current 20-30yr olds, engine of the economy and next leaders, generation have grown up sans a brother/sister, again murdered. This was all "worth it" for someone or something.

Madelaine Albright justifies genocide:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

This is a mess. More bombing by us is not an answer.

Edit: These are some of my thoughts on this that I just thought I'd add as the ongoing discussion here is very interesting with lots of good points and counterpoints.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2015 by villakram

[Demitri_C]

I honestly find it incredibly stupid that Turkey refuses to apologise to the Russians. they say they want to work with the Russians but fail to apologise. Do they not to know what putin is capable of??? This will not end well i think

[YGabbana]

I honestly find it incredibly stupid that Turkey refuses to apologise to the Russians. they say they want to work with the Russians but fail to apologise. Do they not to know what putin is capable of??? This will not end well i think

Why would they apologise for shooting down a plane in their airspace after warning the pilot several times?

[Demitri_C]

15 minutes ago, YGabbana said:

Why would they apologise for shooting down a plane in their airspace after warning the pilot several times?

How do we know they were warned? Its Turkeys word against Russia and come on Russia is no threat to turkey in my opinion

[omariqy]

Deciding who is more honest out of Turkey and Russia is like asking who do your prefer to go in goal for Aston Villa - Brad Guzan or Jed Steer.

[YGabbana]

15 minutes ago, YGabbana said: Why would they apologise for shooting down a plane in their airspace after warning the pilot several times?

How do we know they were warned? Its Turkeys word against Russia and come on Russia is no threat to turkey in my opinion

Exactly, theres no proof from either side. However, i find it hard to believe that Turkey would be stupid and ballsey enough to shoot down an aircraft over another countrys airspace.

[snowychap]

30 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Deciding who is more honest out of Turkey and Russia is like asking who do your prefer to go in goal for Aston Villa - Brad Guzan or Jed Steer.

More like sticking Andy Coulson up against Piers Morgan and asking who is most trustworthy.

[LondonLax]

20 minutes ago, YGabbana said:

Exactly, theres no proof from either side. However, i find it hard to believe that Turkey would be stupid and ballsey enough to shoot down an aircraft over another countrys airspace.

I wouldn't put anything past the current Turkish government myself. They hate the fact that Russia are bombing their Turkman 'brothers'.

Not that I'm saying I trust Putin either.

Edited November 27, 2015 by LondonLax

[Demitri_C]

19 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I wouldn't put anything past the current Turkish government myself. They hate the fact that Russia are bombing their Turkman 'brothers'.

Not that I'm saying I trust Putin either.

Thats what I think personally, the Turks are actually not fighting IS, they hate the kurds more. They want them wiped out

Edited November 27, 2015 by Demitri_C

[blandy]

11 hours ago, villakram said:

There is no singular need for bombs or ground troops to defeat ISIS. They cannot be militarily defeated and to claim they can is naive, e.g., Taliban or any other "freedom" struggle. As objectionable as they are, there are longer term issues related to Sykes-Picot that need to be resolved, ISIS are symptomatic of this. The easiest way to strip them of their "power" is to turn off the dollar/arms flows.

As for Cameron, he is looking for a seat back at the table after parliament slapped him down last year (or whenever it was)... realpolitik 101. The Turks are doing their thing, the Iranians another, etc., etc.

At this time I think it's worth reminding ourselves of the horror at the link below. The people currently in power (40-60yrs old) in Iraq all know someone whose child was from their perspective murdered. All of the current 20-30yr olds, engine of the economy and next leaders, generation have grown up sans a brother/sister, again murdered. This was all "worth it" for someone or something.

Madelaine Albright justifies genocide:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

This is a mess. More bombing by us is not an answer.

Edit: These are some of my thoughts on this that I just thought I'd add as the ongoing discussion here is very interesting with lots of good points and counterpoints.

 

 

I'm not being deliberately picky here, but the sanctions against Iraq that killed 500000 children. Wasn't that cutting off the money and Oil?  In other words if raqqah etc. is cut off from supplies, then everyone there suffers.  There is no way to stop IS in which innocent people won't also suffer 

[Mister_a]

Scary, but true....

Edited November 27, 2015 by Mister_a

[Awol]

13 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

But we're not using all necessary means. Bombing won't defeat them it will just make us more likely to be attacked. Surely if we want to defeat them we go in on the ground, which will also cut collateral.

Wainy, how does it make us more likely to be attacked? They are already trying to attack us at home and abroad (successfully in Tunisa) and we are already attacking them in Iraq.

Suggesting that bombing them in Syria increases the threat to us is logically and strategically incoherent. It's also (and this isn't a dig at you personally) a form of moral cowardice. 

FWIW I agree that bombing alone won't defeat them entirely, but it is a step in the right direction and not a reason for not doing it.

The west won't commit to a ground campaign until several more Paris style attacks get through and the various affected publics force the politicians to act.