Refugee crisis

[omariqy]

Trojan Horse springs to mind

The one that didn't exist in Birmingham schools or the shit Brad Pitt version?

[Marka Ragnos]

 

but then, I've just watched World War Z whilst having a rather lovely St Emillion, so I'm still a bit jittery and reactionary

dya think the zombies might have been ISIS?

It's all a lot less interesting than that, IMO. Those zombies are simply about Hollywood's industrial spectacle of waste. You watch them because it's weirdly fun and satisfying to watch money burn. The story, after all, is predictable shit, right? Been done like 50,000 times, right?

That movie's budget is equal to Iraq's entire annual expenditures, so whilst those zombies aren't ISIS, they must seem, to ISIS, like a good approximation of what we must look like making $200,000,000 films about actors with pretty **** perfect teeth.

 

[villakram]

Trying not to mix up the refugee and Middle East conflict threads too much but as one causes the other to a large extent it's difficult and plain wrong to treat them as separate issues.

Islamic State, a large contributor to the refugee crisis from Syria is not a terrorist group. It was once, but they are now a state. They levy taxes, they operate critical infrastructure, they run courts and dispense (extremely rough) justice, they recruit soldiers and operate an army, they trade internationally, they deliver local and national governance, public services, policing et al. Islamic State is a State, not a terrorist group. 

They also butcher anyone who disagrees with them in bizarre and horrific ways, they operate slave markets, commit genocide for fun then brag about it on twitter. They are the antithesis of civilisation, they don't want to talk, they have nothing to say to the west or anyone else that doesn't share their world view. They want to conquer, rape and pillage and that is exactly what they are doing.

I don't mean to sound rude but people need to start getting their heads around this. Reading some of the things on here recently it's like posts are appearing from a parallel universe.

 

Sounds quite a lot like Saudi Arabia.... but anyway you are absolutely on the money.

 

China used to be run by Mao (butcher supreme), and there was no coup or other overthrow but an evolution over time. They're quite sensible right now.

The Taliban (or whatever they are now) are very likely to be involved in the next Afghan government. They're a little bit sensible right now.

Members of the IRA are in government in NI. They're quite sensible right now.

ISIS are scum right now, no argument, but at some point we have to either (i) war or (ii) grow up and negotiate. Regardless of what one thinks, a simple analysis of the facts they have created on the ground reveals they are quite close to or already have enough chips in the game that any solution will require interacting with them. The sooner this happens the better, unfortunately as has been seen in Vietnam, Korea before that and WWI, there's always some smartass in a suit 4000 miles from the front with an idea to get an edge and change the potential negotiating dynamic. How many yrs it takes until ISIS are appreciated as part of the middle east... Power and money on the up, people down. 

I'm dismissing the war angle out of hand, because that has been proven to simply not work.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2015 by villakram
spelling

[Awol]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Awol

[Awol]

Trojan Horse springs to mind

The one that didn't exist in Birmingham schools..?

Obviously a wind up, yes?

For those wondering where the rich Arab States are in this cluster f***, Kuwait has provided the answer:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2015/09/now-we-know-where-the-celebrated-ummah-is/

Fahad Alshalami, Kuwaiti official, explaining why the gulf countries aren’t taking Syrian refugees 

 

‘Kuwait and the other Gulf Cooperation Council countries are too valuable to accept any refugees. Our countries are only fit for workers. It’s too costly to accept them here. Kuwait is too expensive for them anyway. As opposed to Lebanon and Turkey which are cheap.

They are better suited for the Syrian refugees.‘In the end it is not right for us to accept a people that are different from us. We don’t want people that suffer from internal stress and trauma in our country.’

They're all heart.

 

PS. What's the score with shortening links now?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Awol
Format how?!

[HanoiVillan]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

[snowychap]

 

PS. What's the score with shortening links now?

There's a link button between the underline and the quotation marks in the editor bar which gives you a pop up dialogue box where you can enter the url in the first box and then whatever text you want in the link text box.

Edited September 13, 2015 by snowychap

[Awol]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

Not ridiculous at all, you'll note (or rather you didn't in your haste to dismiss the comparison) I referenced 1933 and whether with hindsight people would have dealt with the Nazis then, before they were capable of marching on Moscow. The inference being that IS are still in the early stages of their development and are defeatable at relatively low cost, for now. That aside...

If you substitute racial for religious ideology you get Islamic fascism, a doctrine that is actually more extreme than its Nazi equivalent.  You still have absolute obedience to the Dear Leader, exclusivity of the 'in group' (in this case Sunni Muslims of suitable piety rather than being of Aryan extraction) and the brutality towards 'out groups', in the case of IS that is Christians, Jews, Shia Muslims, basically anyone outwith their narrow doctrinaire religious world view. You could easily argue that the Nazis, although viewing themselves as the master race, were reasonably tolerant towards certain ethnic identities even though they were non Aryan, reserving their worst excesses for Slavs and Jews. Not so with IS.  Their territorial ambitions actual outstrip those of the Nazis when you look at the map of the Caliphate they wish to create.

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability, but their intent to do so has been clearly expressed and is plainly visible in territory they have already taken over.  Should they succeed in knocking over Saudi Arabia they will have access to the world's 5th largest stockpile of military equipment and an awful lot of oil. This is very high on IS' to-do-list.  If you doubt that, their vision for the future and the extent of their ambition I'd suggest looking at the volumes of material that address the subject, or if you already have then perhaps taking them a little more seriously.  

Edited September 13, 2015 by Awol

[Jarpie]

 

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

Not ridiculous at all, you'll note (or rather you didn't in your haste to dismiss the comparison) I referenced 1933 and whether with hindsight people would have dealt with the Nazis then, before they were capable of marching on Moscow. The inference being that IS are still in the early stages of their development and are defeatable at relatively low cost, for now. That aside...

If you substitute racial for religious ideology you get Islamic fascism, a doctrine that is actually more extreme than its Nazi equivalent.  You still have absolute obedience to the Dear Leader, exclusivity of the 'in group' (in this case Sunni Muslims of suitable piety rather than being of Aryan extraction) and the brutality towards 'out groups', in the case of IS that is Christians, Jews, Shia Muslims, basically anyone outwith their narrow doctrinaire religious world view. You could easily argue that the Nazis, although viewing themselves as the master race, were reasonably tolerant towards certain ethnic identities even though they were non Aryan, reserving their worst excesses for Slavs and Jews. Not so with IS.  Their territorial ambitions actual outstrip those of the Nazis when you look at the map of the Caliphate they wish to create.

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability, but their intent to do so has been clearly expressed and is plainly visible in territory they have already taken over.  Should they succeed in knocking over Saudi Arabia they will have access to the world's 5th largest stockpile of military equipment and an awful lot of oil. This is very high on IS' to-do-list.  If you doubt that, their vision for the future and the extent of their ambition I'd suggest looking at the volumes of material that address the subject, or if you already have then perhaps taking them a little more seriously.  

Couldn't have put this any better, I agree completely. I can't believe how anyone can say that we could possibly have anykind of peaceful co-existance with the ISIS, or make peace with them. Also don't forget that if someday they manage to conquer Turkey, they're practically in our doorsteps, and then it'd be much more worse war.

If the nazis would've been stopped in the first half of the 30s then tens of millions people would've been spared from their deaths. Western nations would have now chance to stop ISIS before they have chance to really grow, and save millions of people they'll undoubtedly kill.

The war with them later will become much more costlier than what it'd be now.

[MakemineVanilla]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

 

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability,

Any idea who has been the main supplier of their weapons?

And was Caroline Lucas correct in suggesting that some of those arms are British?

[TrentVilla]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

 

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability,

Any idea who has been the main supplier of their weapons?

And was Caroline Lucas correct in suggesting that some of those arms are British?

Depends how you interpret the question. If you mean who did they get them from its the Iraqi army predominately who ran away from them or handed them over depending on how cynical you are and the U.S and Britain provided a lot of them to the Iraqi army so yes a lot came from us.

If you mean who is selling them to them directly you need look no further than China.

[Awol]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

 

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability,

Any idea who has been the main supplier of their weapons?

And was Caroline Lucas correct in suggesting that some of those arms are British?

A whole mix of people have supplied IS, particularly in the early days of the Syrian revolution. Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, some individuals from the UAE, Turkey etc.  but as Trent said, IS have captured loads of equipment from the Iraqi government, both Russian and US in origin. Iraq has been awash with weapons since 2003 and they can be purchased down the market if you have cash.

[OutByEaster?]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

 

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability,

Any idea who has been the main supplier of their weapons?

And was Caroline Lucas correct in suggesting that some of those arms are British?

Depends how you interpret the question. If you mean who did they get them from its the Iraqi army predominately who ran away from them or handed them over depending on how cynical you are and the U.S and Britain provided a lot of them to the Iraqi army so yes a lot came from us.

If you mean who is selling them to them directly you need look no further than China.

If the arms are coming from a variety of sources (and I've no reason to doubt any of the sources you quote above) where is the money coming from?

Is it exclusively Saudi Arabia, or is it a mixture of different gulf regimes, or does IS operate at a profit?

 

 

 

[foreveryoung]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

 

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability,

Any idea who has been the main supplier of their weapons?

And was Caroline Lucas correct in suggesting that some of those arms are British?

Depends how you interpret the question. If you mean who did they get them from its the Iraqi army predominately who ran away from them or handed them over depending on how cynical you are and the U.S and Britain provided a lot of them to the Iraqi army so yes a lot came from us.

If you mean who is selling them to them directly you need look no further than China.

If the arms are coming from a variety of sources (and I've no reason to doubt any of the sources you quote above) where is the money coming from?

Is it exclusively Saudi Arabia, or is it a mixture of different gulf regimes, or does IS operate at a profit?

 

 

 

I believe the money is coming from a variety of sources also. Starting with the rich oil fields of Iraq and Syria they have taken control of. Also from taxes from the towns they have infutrated. I have also heard about 20 million quid a year comes from ransoms paid from kidnapping. Please quote me if im wrong

[TrentVilla]

 

Oh and Serbia I forgot Serbia, but there was also a study of the spent bullets found in the area that identified 21 countries munitions. U.S. China and Serbia being the top 3.

As for the funds, the Saudi's and very wealthy individuals across the region plus the illicit oil trade, the sale of slaves and antiquities which contribute. But they are also taxing their population.

I also recently read that there was around 9 Billion of Iraqi money spirited abroad by Saddam that is unrecovered and claimed by some to be being used to sponsor some groups in the country.

 

 

 

[Awol]

Plus people smuggling, particularly from Libya where the trade is now largely regulated by IS, in mafioso style. They don't run it themselves but take a 50% cut of all the trafficking revenues from areas under their control - in turn about 50% of the trade. Not a shabby number at all, but more importantly it ensures they can infiltrate fighters to Europe at will through Italy. 

EDIT: in cash terms about 45 million so far in 2015... 

Anyone got a rubber boat spare?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Awol

[chrisp65]

BBC R4 news just reported that Germany have advised Austria that they are going to re introduce border controls...about now.

Germany really are sticklers for the rules aren't they.

 

[snowychap]

 

Anyone got a rubber boat spare?

Rubber dinghy, bro, surely?

Edited September 13, 2015 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

@villakram: well, that's a pretty revealing post.

You're right of course we have indeed learned to live with some pretty unsavoury characters, but Islamic State's combination of fascism (dressed up as religion), expansionary territorial ambitions and threat to European domestic security mark it out as a threat that cannot be ignored. 

Like the Nazis before them Islamic State is beyond the Pale. Some well meaning people thought we could live with them too if only we gave up a little more to their ambitions. Few would argue now against dealing with them in 1933 given the benefit of hindsight.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. 

Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations.  

Not ridiculous at all, you'll note (or rather you didn't in your haste to dismiss the comparison) I referenced 1933 and whether with hindsight people would have dealt with the Nazis then, before they were capable of marching on Moscow. The inference being that IS are still in the early stages of their development and are defeatable at relatively low cost, for now. That aside...

If you substitute racial for religious ideology you get Islamic fascism, a doctrine that is actually more extreme than its Nazi equivalent.  You still have absolute obedience to the Dear Leader, exclusivity of the 'in group' (in this case Sunni Muslims of suitable piety rather than being of Aryan extraction) and the brutality towards 'out groups', in the case of IS that is Christians, Jews, Shia Muslims, basically anyone outwith their narrow doctrinaire religious world view. You could easily argue that the Nazis, although viewing themselves as the master race, were reasonably tolerant towards certain ethnic identities even though they were non Aryan, reserving their worst excesses for Slavs and Jews. Not so with IS.  Their territorial ambitions actual outstrip those of the Nazis when you look at the map of the Caliphate they wish to create.

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability, but their intent to do so has been clearly expressed and is plainly visible in territory they have already taken over.  Should they succeed in knocking over Saudi Arabia they will have access to the world's 5th largest stockpile of military equipment and an awful lot of oil. This is very high on IS' to-do-list.  If you doubt that, their vision for the future and the extent of their ambition I'd suggest looking at the volumes of material that address the subject, or if you already have then perhaps taking them a little more seriously.  

Thanks for the patronising suggestion, but your argument still seems to rely on 'if we ignore all of the differences, then there are some similarities'. Lots of tinpot dictators and grandiose terrorist groups want to remake the world, it doesn't actually mean they're going to achieve it. 

The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability

You talk about this as if this is a trivial difference! They aren't going to 'knock over Saudi Arabia', the idea is absurd. But I'll tell you what, why don't we have a bet? If IS pose as much of a threat to us in 6 years time as the Nazis did 6 years after 1933, I will do or hand over literally anything you can possibly think of. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I don't think the idea of IS taking Saudi Arabia is altogether that absurd and if we had any sense we'd kill them off before finding out whether they can or not.