The ISIS threat to Europe

[villakram]

Careful, if Fox news hear that Daish are/was in Birmingham as well as Sharia law... who knows what kind of fun will ensue 

[gharperr]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

Well worth watching for anyone with 55 minutes to spare and a desire to know more.  Will McCants is one of the best English speaking analysts out there for Islamic State issues.

 

ended up watching a few of the vids he was in. Good watch!

[omariqy]

So how's the revenge mission from France getting on? Is it a daesh best served cold?

[mjmooney]

So how's the revenge mission from France getting on? Is it a daesh best served cold?

[emoji4] Bravo, sir.

[Xann]

3 hours ago, omariqy said:

So how's the revenge mission from France getting on? Is it a daesh best served cold?

Local sources reckon they hit a primary school killing 28 children.

Clicky (No idea how trustworthy the report is). 

translates as:

Quote

French fighter jets

 

MOSUL (DPA): Iraqi military source in Nineveh province announced Wednesday the killing of 28 students when French aircraft bombed a primary school east of Mosul, 400 / km north of Baghdad. 

Brigadier-General Thanon Sabawi from the Second Division of the Iraqi army that "the French aircraft bombed today Fatima Zahra Primary School in the eastern area of Mosul, flowers, killing 28 pupils and wounding five others in the primary outcome.

He explained that "the victims were transported to nearby hospitals."

 

 

[Davkaus]

That'll teach the little shits to live close to some bastards, won't it? Keep fighting the good fight, France.

[tinker]

Corbyn in speaking sense shock as he questions if bombing Syria will decrease or increase the terrorist threat against us . 

Edited November 26, 2015 by tinker

[Awol]

9 minutes ago, tinker said:

Corbyn in speaking sense shock as he questions if bombing Syria will decrease or increase the terrorist threat against us . 

No he's spouting nonsense, as per. IS are already trying to attack us (7 plots disrupted so far this year apparently) and will keep doing so regardless of whether we bomb them in Syria or not.

Why? We are already bombing them in Iraq and the West are the only people still talking in terms of the land they control in Iraq and Syria as separate entities, for them it's all the Caliphate.

There are other risks to extending the bombing into Syria, not least that Russia now owns the airspace by virtue of the assets it has deployed there, but asking whether it makes us more vulnerable to terrorism is a daft question for someone who receives the level of security briefing he is privy to.

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Local sources reckon they hit a primary school killing 28 children.

There is stuff that claims the report isn't true, too:

Quote

Rumours of a French air strike on a school in Islamic State controlled Mosul that killed over two dozen children quickly spread on Wednesday, but journalists and locals have denied the attack took place.

A report by the Arabic-language outlet Al Quds was shared widely on Twitter. It said that France had bombed on Tuesday night a school in Mosul, IS's de facto capital in Iraq, killing 29 children.

The report led to Egypt's grand mufti, Shawki Allam, putting out a statement condemning the alleged strike.

“This French military operation that targeted innocent civilians, children, is a mark of shame on France. It is no less abhorrent than the way terrorist organisations target innocents,” he said.

The religious leader also called it a violation of the Geneva Convention and expressed condolences to the relatives of those killed.

The Al Quds report cited German Press Agency DPA as their source on the alleged strike. However, when Middle East Eye contacted DPA, the outlet said it had not published a story on the reported bombing.

Middle East Eye later established that the source was in fact a tweet put out by German news channel Deustche Welle on their Arabic feed.

Deustche Welle told MEE that they were informed on Wednesday France had bombed the school in Mosul. They said their source was an Iraqi military source who they did not name.

However, a local in Mosul told MEE on condition of anonymity that France had not bombed a school in Mosul.

Numerous journalists have since said the rumour was false, including Al Jazeera Arabic's Amer al-Kubaisi, who wrote on Facebook: “Reports of the killing of children in Mosul as a result of French bombing are incorrect. This did not happen – no school was bombed. Such reports must be treated with utmost caution. People’s lives are not a game. People should not make them into a political game.”

As per your post, not sure how trustworthy this media source is either.

[Awol]

Where Cameron is being disingenuous is suggesting that the Kurds and the FSA can act as the ground forces to defeat IS in Syria.

Kurds taking Arab towns will be seen as occupiers and the FSA (a constellation of 100's of mainly Islamist groups) are fighting Assad, not IS. Chances of them volunteering in numbers to act on behalf of the West are nil.

IS won't be defeated unless or until western/Russian ground forces get involved. Even then the only way that works is with a parallel political settlement covering the entirety of Syria AND Iraq.  If not IS will just continue in a different form. 

I don't see the politics side getting sorted any time soon.

[TrentVilla]

Just now, Awol said:

Where Cameron is being disingenuous is suggesting that the Kurds and the FSA can act as the ground forces to defeat IS in Syria.

Kurds taking Arab towns will be seen as occupiers and the FSA (a constellation of 100's of mainly Islamist groups) are fighting Assad, not IS. Chances of them volunteering in numbers to act on behalf of the West are nil.

IS won't be defeated unless or until western/Russian ground forces get involved. Even then the only way that works is with a parallel political settlement covering the entirety of Syria AND Iraq.  If not IS will just continue in a different form. 

I don't see the politics side getting sorted any time soon.

100% on the money for me that.

Trouble is Cameron has to be disingenuous doesn't he? He clearly believes that we need to bomb Syria, now some may argue he is as bad as Tony Blair etc and they may be right. But given everything that has happened since Blair took action I personal believe Cameron genuinely thinks it the best course of action.

Irrespective of if people agree or otherwise that is his view and sadly he is in a position where in order to get the backing for that action he has to be disingenuous.

Its a sad reflection of past decisions, the current house that represents us and the wider shame of party politics in this country.

[Davkaus]

44 minutes ago, Awol said:

No he's spouting nonsense, as per. IS are already trying to attack us (7 plots disrupted so far this year apparently) and will keep doing so regardless of whether we bomb them in Syria or not.

Why? We are already bombing them in Iraq and the West are the only people still talking in terms of the land they control in Iraq and Syria as separate entities, for them it's all the Caliphate.

 

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.

[Awol]

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.

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

sadly he is in a position where in order to get the backing for that action he has to be disingenuous.

While agreeing with the other parts of your post, this is (IMO) utterly wrong.

In order to get he backing for action he thinks is needed, he should have to and be able to use the information and arguments he has, to make that case. That other people think action is not the right course to take, or are undecided due to lack of information, or other reason, then he HAS to give them the tools to make the decision. Deception/disingenuity is appalling for such a monumental decision as killing people. He or you might feel he has to. But it is quite quite wrong at any level. If he has to deceive or weasel then he's not got a good case.

He is of course unable to answer all of the 7 questions put by the select committee. There is not comprehensive argument for bombing. The lesson of Irag and Afghanistan is plans have to be in place for "what happens after the bombing". Suppose it is successful and the ISILs run away and hide. Who controls the ground then? He can't answer with truth, because he doesn't know. No one does. We saw in Afghan that the taliban melted away when troops took over an area. Then they regrouped and took areas back as soon as the guard was let down.

The UN needs a proper plan. A resolution to do whatever's necessary is fine. But the whatever has to be decided upon, its scope fully defined and agreed and understood. Then go and do it. Do not just drop some bombs and hope to wing it as you go along. He might be mostly sincere in his desire to bomb them, but he's not basing his desire solely on what's best. He's doing it on "I want to" not "here's why I want to". Like a child.

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, tinker said:

Corbyn in speaking sense shock as he questions if bombing Syria will decrease or increase the terrorist threat against us . 

 

3 hours ago, Awol said:

No he's spouting nonsense, as per. IS are already trying to attack us (7 plots disrupted so far this year apparently) and will keep doing so regardless of whether we bomb them in Syria or not.

 

 

If part of Cameron's case for extending bombing to Syria revolves around that quoted below (as per beeb article) then it is very much an apposite question to ask (though other potential implications behind the question would be better if made explicitly and discussed openly rather than left under the surface).

Quote

But do I stand here with advice behind me that taking action will reduce and degrade that threat over time? Absolutely and I have examined my conscience and that's what it is telling me.

 

[Awol]

@Snowychap I don't believe that taking action in Syria will reduce the threat in the short or medium term, primarily because the threat vis a vis terror attacks in UK is primarily from passport owning UK citizens who are in the country.

That situation may well improve once IS has been destroyed as a fighting force (no one volunteers to die for a defunct organisation), but that could be a very long way away as things currently stand - politically. 

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, Awol said:

@Snowychap I don't believe that taking action in Syria will reduce the threat in the short or medium term, primarily because the threat vis a vis terror attacks in UK is primarily from passport owning UK citizens who are in the country.

That situation may well improve once IS has been destroyed as a fighting force (no one volunteers to die for a defunct organisation), but that could be a very long way away as things currently stand - politically. 

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."

[snowychap]

@Awol You may well be right. None of us know.

What you or I believe will happen though shouldn't affect the appropriateness of posing a question about what the Prime Minister views will be the consequences of taking the action he is asking other people to support - especially as part of Cameron's justification is that the action he is proposing will 'reduce and degrade that threat over time'. Whilst I accept that Corbyn's question was somewhat loaded (at least with his preconceptions about what action shouldn't be taken), I think that the best thing for people to do (especially in parliament) is discuss where people believe action A or action B or action C would lead and how and why it would get there.

At least people can then make up their minds on whether to support proposals on more than just politician's logic.

[YLN]

On 21/11/2015, 13:15:07, blandy said:

No, I profoundly disagree. The situation you describe is a contributory factor, but not the cause. And Bicks is on the right lines when he talks about "The current wave" of terrorism - because it's more of factor, perhaps.

I just really don't think that the terrorism going on around the world - the suicide bombings at the peace rally in Turkey, the regular atrocities in Syria and Iraq, the Russian airliner being downed by a bomb - these are not " a direct consequence of us having lived for so relatively well for so long..".

That's a massively simplistic and inaccurate verdict, I think. There are multiple factors at work. There is for example religionist idiocy. There is the Bush/Blair calamitous idocy (that's too mild a name for it, but I can't think of the right words). There is the greed and lust for power of some of the people at the head of AQ and Daesh an all the other nutjob groups. When the ISIS attacked, murdered, raped those Yatzidis - that wasn't because the west has iPods and fast internet and cars and shops, was it?

And it's the same group that attacked the Russian airliner and the Yatzidis and Paris. It's the same group trying to take over Syria. It's the same group that did genocide in the Christian enclave of Syria.

The west has done many ill advised, grossly wrong, appalling things, yes. But still the terrorism isn't the direct consequence of that.

And one other side note: When I say the West, I mean the Governments of some of the western nations - I don't mean us as in all of us who live there. We're no more responsible than is the normal peaceful Muslim population of (wherever you choose to name) for the terror.

I suppose the problem with what I posted was my understanding of the term direct consequence, and I'm not keen to engage in semantics about that. 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.

[blandy]

Also, the whole thing isn't really about facts and specific plans and a proposed course of action, exactly. It's not an open discussion of the situation with evidence from diplomats, from collected intelligence and with defined criteria and background, as far as I can tell. It isn't about alternative possible courses of action and which might be best, or most helpful.