Jump to content

The ISIS threat to Europe


Ads

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ikantcpell said:

Yes, i want to erase, exterminate muslim terrorists from Europe.

If you think i mean something else, that is your problem not mine!

Congratulations. I'm sure you're a very lonely figure wanting that. Do you also want water when you're thirsty?

How do you propose doing so? Unfortunately these people look like everyone else. So elaborate on 'erasing the cancer', exterminating the terrorists. 

Or is the comment just the impotent wailing of self righteous anger?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

As for non bombing of ISIS oil trucks, I'm a little confused by this the oil distribution was heavily targeted.

John McCain explained to a Senate Committee that the White House decided not to attack the trucks.  Video here:

https://www.waazon.com/video/8581930

They first attacked oil trucks in November 2015, just after Russia had created some embarrassment by outlining the funding received by ISIS from many western countries.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, peterms said:

John McCain explained to a Senate Committee that the White House decided not to attack the trucks.  Video here:

https://www.waazon.com/video/8581930

They first attacked oil trucks in November 2015, just after Russia had created some embarrassment by outlining the funding received by ISIS from many western countries.

Thanks, can't watch right now but will do.

My understanding of the situation was that initially military targets were the primary objective. And that they also didn't want to destroy the countries infrustructure and kill innocent (scoff away) contractors such as the civilian drivers.

I will though take a look at that video, I'm always open minded.

I don't though accept that any delay in coalition targeting of the oil revenues is in any way evidential of ISIS being funded by the likes of Cameron and Obama.

As for Russia revealing Western Government funding of ISIS that is something I must have missed, so will look into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

So no actual evidence then, just repeated conspiracy theories with little or no foundation other than reference to previous decades.

Does anyone seriously dispute that the US created al Qaeda?  It was even explained to the House of Commons by Robin Cook, shortly before his death.

The US also supported some Islamist groups in various countries as part of the usual strategy of playing people off against each other.  This was probably a contributory factor in the rise and strengthening of such groups, some of which coalesced into something bigger than the US would have expected.

The break-up of the Iraqi state, the removal from jobs of many thousands of experienced and well-trained military personnel, and the poverty and lawlessness of the country immediately after the disastrous US-led war was another very big factor in creating the conditions for the rise of Isis.

I think it is unlikely the US directly funded Isis once it had emerged.  The US weapons and supplies the group has been using - all those hundreds of brand new Hummers, as well as the weaponry - seem to have come from a combination of capture from the Iraqi army, direct supply from the US and other countries to "moderate rebels" which then quickly found its way to Isis, and purchase from the looted oil supplies which the US decided not to disrupt.  All this on top of massive support and supply from Saudi and other countries, which the US was well aware of (as the Clinton emails demonstrate, I gather).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

Does anyone seriously dispute that the US created al Qaeda?  It was even explained to the House of Commons by Robin Cook, shortly before his death.

The US also supported some Islamist groups in various countries as part of the usual strategy of playing people off against each other.  This was probably a contributory factor in the rise and strengthening of such groups, some of which coalesced into something bigger than the US would have expected.

The break-up of the Iraqi state, the removal from jobs of many thousands of experienced and well-trained military personnel, and the poverty and lawlessness of the country immediately after the disastrous US-led war was another very big factor in creating the conditions for the rise of Isis.

I think it is unlikely the US directly funded Isis once it had emerged.  The US weapons and supplies the group has been using - all those hundreds of brand new Hummers, as well as the weaponry - seem to have come from a combination of capture from the Iraqi army, direct supply from the US and other countries to "moderate rebels" which then quickly found its way to Isis, and purchase from the looted oil supplies which the US decided not to disrupt.  All this on top of massive support and supply from Saudi and other countries, which the US was well aware of (as the Clinton emails demonstrate, I gather).

I don't disagree on any of that.

I dispute that Western Governments directly funded ISIS which is a claim that keeps being made.

Seemingly you agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

As for Russia revealing Western Government funding of ISIS that is something I must have missed, so will look into that.

Western countries, not governments.  Putin announced in November 2015 that he had shared information with western governments about funding coming via 40 countries to Isis.  His implication was no doubt that the governments would have known about this already, but he made no claim that the funding was direct.  US action against oil tankers started a day or two later.  Here.

Quote

Antalya, Turkey – Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that he has shared intelligence with the other G20 member states, which reveals the 40 countries from which ISIS finances the majority of their terrorist activities. The list reportedly included a number of G20 countries.

“I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them,” Putin told reporters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Western countries, not governments.  Putin announced in November 2015 that he had shared information with western governments about funding coming via 40 countries to Isis.  His implication was no doubt that the governments would have known about this already, but he made no claim that the funding was direct.  US action against oil tankers started a day or two later.  Here.

 

Once again, thanks. Interesting and something I'd either missed or forgotten but it's very different to state funding.

Im struggling slightly to see the connection between this and the start of action against oil targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

Im struggling slightly to see the connection between this and the start of action against oil targets.

I think the connection was that the point Putin was making was that Isis could only strengthen and grow with access to resources; governments were turning a blind eye to this acquisition of resources, both by failing to act against people funding Isis, and by choosing not to disrupt the oil sales; and that this amounted to complicity.  (Wasn't Erdogan's son involved in the oile sales?)

So it's the public shaming element that is the connection.  I think the McCain video also plays to this - if it is publicly admitted by a senior US politician that they have chosen to allow Isis to continue to get the money which funds their actions, the very next question is "WHY?".  I doubt many people would find this less than astonishing, and unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, peterms said:

Does anyone seriously dispute that the US created al Qaeda?  It was even explained to the House of Commons by Robin Cook, shortly before his death.

Yes. Maybe tomorrow I'll post more, but ffs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, peterms said:

I think the connection was that the point Putin was making was that Isis could only strengthen and grow with access to resources; governments were turning a blind eye to this acquisition of resources, both by failing to act against people funding Isis, and by choosing not to disrupt the oil sales; and that this amounted to complicity.  (Wasn't Erdogan's son involved in the oile sales?)

So it's the public shaming element that is the connection.  I think the McCain video also plays to this - if it is publicly admitted by a senior US politician that they have chosen to allow Isis to continue to get the money which funds their actions, the very next question is "WHY?".  I doubt many people would find this less than astonishing, and unacceptable.

Erdogan's son in law I believe and yes, he is up to his eye balls in it.

I think it's a little far fetched myself to think that coalition action against oil revenue was only the result of Russian intellegance about Western individuals funding of ISIS. 

As for why they allowed them to continue to receive income, there are a number of potential reasons other than they were happy for them to grow. It is though an area for speculation as firm answers aren't really available.

One thing is for certain though there is absolutely no evidence at all of direct or indirect Government funding of ISIS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the West funds ISIS AND A-Q? Russia is actually the good guy giving Assad a helping hand? Imagine that, Russia being the good guy... The Turks and the Kurds are now on the same side, both are backing ISIS. Wait, wut?

I love reading this thread, but there's a solid reason I don't get involved. It makes my head spin. Keep up the good work chaps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just dog whistle stuff. He doesn't give the tiniest element of a **** about any of those dead people, just sees the chance for political headway.

I hope he's so forward the next time a right winger takes action. A forlorn hope though. He'll be outraged at the suggestion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't even established who did it yet have they ?

 

i suspect Farage is right in so much the way some French people appear to have blamed Hollande for the attacks on Fench soil ,Merkel will probably end up taking the fall on this one (assuming it turns out to be what everyone assumes it is )

but that's not excusing Farage for thinking he's Katie Hopkins and trying to incite hatred 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â