The ISIS threat to Europe

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, villarocker said:

I believe that there is some western agenda that this is all part of. I am not sure what or who is enforcing it but I do not believe that a group of people managed to get hold of all this gear so easily and then went on its merry way from country to country persecuting people who don't believe in Islam. Apparently, more Muslim people died in the Paris attacks than there were perpetrators. If true, that goes to show that they don't really care about the Muslim faith and are part of something else that is discriminate against anyone who isn't part of that agenda.

Who is buying the oil from them and selling arms to them? Why isn't that being stopped? Another thing to question is why do they target the innocent members of the public? Why not target government buildings or officials?

I struggle to believe anything that comes from official channels these days. I think there's been so much bullshit over the years that I just don't believe anything they say anymore.

 

There are theories of Western agenda's (aren't there always) most commonly the theory that the West wants to draw all its enemies into one area/front. Personally I think it and any other theories that suggest ISIS is a Western construct for some sinister agenda is paranoid and more than a little silly. That isn't to say ISIS isn't in some sense an accidental creation of the West, that it hasn't fueled it or indeed let it out of Pandora's box by the way.

As for your various questions.... 

How did they get hold of the gear?

This one is relatively simple to answer. The West provided the Iraqi 'army' such as it was with the gear. They then deserted when it became apparent just how fanatic and barbaric their opponents were and what they would do to them and their families if they got hold of them. This created panic, panic fueled by the horrific videos from ISIS spread by social media this panic wasn't quelled by the army leadership, some of whom themselves deserted and the army ran. Leaving behind them much of what the West provided and which ISIS has subsequently used. Now if you want a conspiracy theory, the question here is were members of the command of the Iraqi army complicit rather than incompetent.... I rather suspect so.

So the West largely although not exclusively armed ISIS just not intentionally.

Who is buying the oil?

Its being spirited into Turkey and sold on the black market, largely ending up in bordering states of Iraq and Syria.

Who is arming them?

See the above answer, they seized huge stockpiles of weapons and ammunition. Beyond that, the same blackmarket arms dealers and rogue traders that provide weapons in internal national conflicts the world over. A recent(ish) study of shell cases in ISIS territory identified a wide range of national manufacturers. 

Why isn't it being stopped?

Money. That and not wanting to kick the hornets nest of some other countries like Saudi Arabia

Targets?

They aren't fighting a war, its terrorism. Aside from the fact that its far easier to target soft civilian targets they are going for maximum exposure, shock, panic and to try and have the maximum impact upon civilian populations. Attacking Paris has far more benefits to them than trying to attack a US base (oh how I'd love them to try).

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Oil is sold to neighbouring countries via black market routes, which makes cutting it off difficult. Bombing has been targeted at the oil fields but didn't make much difference, they quickly has them repaired and the group has other revenue sources anyway.

I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure the oil fields haven't been bombed.

The trouble with this is that it impacts on the domestic population many of whom are innocent, plus it indirectly/directly impacts upon other nations in the region who depend on the oil via the black market. Many of whom may either be supporting or supportive of the efforts of the West against ISIS.

There has been a very recent campaign to strike the tankers taking the oil to Turkey. 

[Chindie]

29 minutes ago, villarocker said:

They are very good responses could well be the way things have worked here but, for me personally, something doesn't seem right. I mean, Anonymous say they can hack ISIS and even posted video supposedly showing how to do it. Surely, if that is possible, there must be ways to track where these ISIS folks are and, if so, they must be vulnerable to an attack. Why don't special forces go in and take them out?

It's not a case of knowing where they are, really. We know an awful lot about ISIS. The issue is the political will to do anything, and more over what that 'anything' is, what the situation will be after, what the long term plan is... It's an immensely complicated situation. There are numerous forces in Syria, all varying in who's side, and to what extent, they're on. The government in Syria is one that the West is opposed to, with reason. The Russians however like him. If you go in, you have to go on with a plan for what the end hand will be and if you can't agree with a major power like Russia what will happen your not going to walk away with the situation sorted out. And the forces in Syria have support from various sources that also cause us problems to act.

There also the issue that this isn't a problem that bombs have improved to date. We've bombed vast swathes of the Middle East for years and nothing improved. We may have made it worse. Ultimately you're fighting an idea, and bombs don't kill ideas.

That's why nothing is really happening and what is happening is the easy bombing campaign answer. The whole situation is so complex no-one wants to touch it and overly commit to it. 

[Xann]

A journalist friend has complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Sun's headline.

Link here if anyone else fancies stuffing one to the prick Murdoch.

https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/index.html

 

 

[Chindie]

8 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure the oil fields haven't been bombed.

The trouble with this is that it impacts on the domestic population many of whom are innocent, plus it indirectly/directly impacts upon other nations in the region who depend on the oil via the black market. Many of whom may either be supporting or supportive of the efforts of the West against ISIS.

There has been a very recent campaign to strike the tankers taking the oil to Turkey. 

Bombing the oilfields and oil infrastructure has been going on since September last year.

I wanted to keep things fairly simple but yes the effect on 'friendly' nations and the innocent populace is also an issue, which may have prevented an outright obliteration of the oil infrastructure. But they have been targeted, with little effect.

[VILLAMARV]

So ALLEGEDLY there's this bit in an old document from the IMF which Greg Palast got banned from American TV for producing on air once about the strategy for removing regimes and putting in place a western owned capitalist structure on the countries natural resources. Involving going to war, putting in place a favourable government. Withdraw troops and leave to inevitable civil war/wars, come back in at a point where the victors become obvious. back them, sign them up to the IMF, sell them their water back to them etc etc etc. that feeds all the conspiracy theories and is supposed to suggest that the period of inactivity is all part of the plan. And you'd obviously be a fool and a communist for believing that.

The much heard idea that the largest military force on the planet mobilised half way round the globe, installing some of the biggest military complexes on the planet along the way without having a proper withdrawal strategy or thinking about the aftermath (if I hear this on Question Time one more time....) is simply laughable. Its just that the best answer for British and American troops is to be as far away as possible for about 10/20 years after such an invasion because of the possible blowback that comes with all the soldiers shooting and bombing freedom into people over the previous 10/20 years.

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

A journalist friend has complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Sun's headline.

Link here if anyone else fancies stuffing one to the prick Murdoch.

https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/index.html

 

 

welcome to 2015 where you can complain about something without even knowing what the hell it is you are complaining about

 

or have a missed a link somewhere to whatever it is the sun did

[chrisp65]

Tony in missing link shocka!

 

 

[Xann]

35 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

or have I missed a link somewhere to whatever it is the sun did

Here you go...

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Tony in missing link shocka!

 

 

Not the first time he has been accused of being the missing link.

[StefanAVFC]

Anybody who uses the word 'sympathy' in a poll and then tries to use the results to prove anything should have their poll making privileges revoked. 

Also, I'm pretty sure if you asked non-Muslims the same question, you'd get an answer nowhere near 0%. 

In fact, they did this in an independent article and k think it was 17%. Will link when I'm at home. 

[Wainy316]

Yeah, it's disgraceful and misleading.  I can't see any soap at all on Vic.

[villa4europe]

IS are responsible for climate change?

do people seriously still read this shit?

[blandy]

5 hours ago, Chindie said:

I've become a little tired of the implication that the loss in Paris should be diminished because there's been tragedies elsewhere, which seems to underpin the argument every time I see this discussion

I don't think that's been the case (that I've seen Chindie ) more that people have said that other tragedies have been ignored and diminished in impact or significance or horror because they were in countries with brown people/islamic populations/insert category. i.e kind of the opposite of what you're saying. But I could be wrong, I suppose.

[BOF]

My point about the discrepancy in emotional outpouring shown for the Paris attacks over attacks elsewhere was not so much an annoyance at people 'caring more' but rather an annoyance that people up to that point had been basically completely ignorant of the significance of the other attacks.  In other words people got worried for their own safety only off the back of the Paris attacks without realising that the attacks that had previously been happening 'over there' were always going to spill over and were always going to create the hate that caused Paris.

So mine is more the point that until we start to address attacks everywhere - and it might be an idea to stop providing the weapons for them - we will not address attacks in our own backyard.

But then my follow-up question is - Do people actually think Western governments want the wars in the middle east to end?

[blandy]

3 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure the oil fields haven't been bombed.

To be precise, oil refineries have and are being bombed to try and cut off the funding

[Chindie]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't think that's been the case (that I've seen Chindie ) more that people have said that other tragedies have been ignored and diminished in impact or significance or horror because they were in countries with brown people/islamic populations/insert category. i.e kind of the opposite of what you're saying. But I could be wrong, I suppose.

In at least some cases, I'd bet my final penny you're wrong, unfortunately.

[blandy]

Just now, BOF said:

But then my follow-up question is - Do people actually think Western governments want the wars in the middle east to end?

Yes, definitely. Western governments like stability in part because it makes behaviours predictable and in part because it's better for financial markets than volatility. War does not bring stability. And while there will be parts of western economies that benefit from a spot of war, overall western economies don't benefit from the proceeds of war.

For example you might say well arms companies benefit, because they sell more bombs or more protective jackets and minesweepers or whatever. But an area that's at war generally isn't buying jeans and iPhones and cars and so on. Money just gets spent differently and I reckon less is spent. I suppose you could say all the medicines and hospital work is "economic activity" but it's not the good kind.

When a war comes to an end there's work for rebuilding and stuff.

I just think it's very very simplistic to take the cynical view that the west wants the middle east to be permanently at war.

 

[BOF]

You might be right Pete but I'm genuinely not convinced.  First of all for governments, economic activity is economic activity.  There's no good or bad.  There's only more of it or less of it.  Secondly, as I've said in the past, another major plus point is that there is the environment of fear that war; and the resulting terrorism; creates in the West which makes it very easy for Western governments to bring in all manner of controls over its own populations.  The drip drip closing of freedoms one at a time and the ever-encroaching physical and electronic surveillance, all done with our blessing.  Things you wouldn't get away with implementing without the threat of attack.  Politicians want power.  It's why they're politicians.  Anything that gives them more power is a good thing in their eyes.  I'd say Theresa May was privately rubbing her hands watching Paris unfold.  My views may be cynical, but I also think that it is quite naïve for people (particularly people living in superpower nations) to think that their governments are not being slightly two-faced.  Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia and the USA's relationship with Israel being the outstanding examples.

[maqroll]

7 hours ago, omariqy said:

I don't suppose many have seen the impact of the recent bombings in Syria? There is a facebook group called #Live updates from Syria' by a British couple who have been there helping out for the last few years. Some of the vids and pics are horrifying.

So France and Russia have been bombing Raqqa, which is filled with not only ISIS, but regular citizens. Is there an accounting of "collateral damage" being done? The innocent must be dying at a much higher rate than ISIS fighters who have more freedom of movement and access to vehicles and bunkers.