The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[snowychap]

...neither should we delude ourselves that it's all a plot by capitalist authoritarian 1%ers to gallop of with our civil liberties in a swag bag.

Who has (or how many of this 'we' have) claimed that it's all a plot by capitalist authoritarian one-percenters [that seems to be quite a confused and convoluted conglomeration, there] to gallop of [sic] with our civil liberties in a swag bag?

[Awol]

...neither should we delude ourselves that it's all a plot by capitalist authoritarian 1%ers to gallop of with our civil liberties in a swag bag.

Who has (or how many of this 'we' have) claimed that it's all a plot by capitalist authoritarian one-percenters [that seems to be quite a confused and convoluted conglomeration, there] to gallop of [sic] with our civil liberties in a swag bag?

The "we" was a reference to Westerners in general. There is well justified public cynicism and suspicion around anything politicians say, I was just expressing my own opinion on the actual threat posed by jihadi groups - based on being resident in the Middle East through the entire Arab Spring.

Thanks also for the English lesson - and lovely demonstration of alliteration.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Awol

[blandy]

There's definitely an undercurrent of that, snowy - I kind of feel it a bit myself.

That Tony Abbott is a right wing bonkers. Quite conceivably he'd gladly grab a bit of "Fear and countermeasures" stuff to use in his own interests, as well as it be instinctive.

 

I think the problem is the cry wolf syndrome, brought about by the likes of Blair, Bush and so on.

The problem is compounded by the utter mix of sects and groups in Syria and the middle east. There seems to be no "moderates" they all seem extreme. There's no easily identifiable "that lot are right and fair" group(s).

 

So when faced with an unstable, war torn region, full of religious and terrorist groups waging terror and atrocities, which draws in people from the wider world, there is perhaps a need to adapt and change our response and security measures.

But when you've had Blair and Co. lie and deceive and use conflict and fear to push through policies that were inappropriate in the past, there's natural and understandable caution and cynicism when it happens again, justified or not.

And no one has explained exactly what's going on, because no one has a handle on it all.

[blandy]

Blair is just warmongering. Again.

Indeed. He's the last man anyone should be listening to.

[Ads]

As AWOL said, it's the secterian point. Shia boys aren't going to die for Sunni land, while the Sunni tribes welcomed them in because they had been abandoned by Maliki and excluded from the top table, while their own Awakening forces were not amalgamated into the Iraqi army. IS became a lesser of two evils, although many of those tribal leaders have now paid for that choice with their necks.

It's not about the size of the force, but how it's applied. When IS rolled in, it was a brigade size, full of people who had cut their teeth against the likes of Hezbollah (get good or die) et al in Syria, Chechens etc and soon supplemented by men who had survived ten years of insurgency in al Anbar. They showed a genuine capability to manoeuvre at a battalion level and re-supply on the go, while only facing small pockets of Iraqi Special Forces and some pretty poorly directed air from the IA. It's no mystery or grand conspiracy, they happen to be less terrorist band and more effective army, offering soft government to the locals, while flogging oil to pay wages that go along with all that lovely US kit they swagged.

Edit for spelling

Edited September 22, 2014 by Ads

[snowychap]

Thanks also for the English lesson - and lovely demonstration of alliteration.

To be fair, it wasn't a lesson. I knew (assumed) your error was a typo but wanted to faithfully reproduce what you wrote. And ta.

 

p.s. I don't think the cynicism should stop with politicians but with anyone who may have a vested interested in pursuing policies of reduced civil liberties, 'reducing technicalities' (which sounds like a euphemism for writing as wide-ranging and loose legislation as possible), &c., and, in my view, that includes the 'authorities' (police, security services, whomever) when given the opportunity to lobby and push for new powers, new toys and so on.

[TrentVilla]

Following up on the informative (as always) posts from AWOL and Ads on this topic, anyone who still doesn't think that IS(IS) pose a threat to those in the West might want to have a look at the following.

 

If anyone seriously thinks these chaps are under our direction or control in any shape or form are utterly deluded or seriously ill informed.

 

 

'If you can kill a disbelieving American or European - especially the spiteful and filthy French - or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State … kill him in any manner or way however it may be,' says al-Adnani.  

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764736/ISIS-urges-Muslims-kill-disbelievers-calls-Secretary-State-John-Kerry-old-uncircumcised-geezer-latest-audio-release.html#ixzz3E2lwlRYU 

 

Apologies for quoting myself but in the context of the below they could well be relevant and have been missed previously.

 

An Islamic State splinter group has released a video purporting to show a French national kidnapped in Algeria, according to news agency Reuters.

The Frenchman, who gives his name, age and date of birth, says he was taken by the Caliphate Soldiers of Algeria on Sunday. 

He calls on France's President Francois Hollande directly to end military action in Iraq.

He says: "I am in the hands of Jund al-Khilifa, an Algerian armed group. 

"This armed group is asking me to ask you (President Hollande) to not intervene in Iraq. They are holding me as a hostage and I ask you Mr President to do everything to get me out of this bad situation and I thank you."

The abduction is reported to have taken place hours after Islamic State threatened attacks on French citizens after Paris launched airstrikes against them in Iraq.

http://news.sky.com/story/1340339/video-appears-to-show-abducted-french-tourist

[Ads]

Tunisian forces have had a go with brand IS in the last week too. The franchise is spreading.

[snowychap]

The franchise is spreading.

It's not a Burger King.

The 20th and 21st centuries (and, sneeringly, marketing) have a lot to answer for.

Edited September 23, 2014 by snowychap

[Xann]

Tunisian forces have had a go with brand IS in the last week too. The franchise is spreading.

 

Or was it already there and is now choosing to show itself?

 

I can't work out if the whole IS thing is an enormous cock up, or a brilliant strategy.

 

Give them some equipment and a couple of victories, sympathisers to the cause flood in - suddenly instead of guerillas you've got an army.

 

Armies are easier to blow up than guerillas.

[peterms]

The previous invasion of Iraq was illegal. This current program of US bombing runs inside Syria and Iraq has been approved by both Syria and Iraq, although the latter was never in doubt.

 

But it seems the US and whoever else is roped into this has the tacit "support" of Assad, and by extension, Iran, who both also want IS crushed. Strange days.

I've seen reports that both Syria and Russia have said US bombing in Syria would be illegal and an act of war, which on the face of it is clearly the case.

Where have you seen that Syria has approved US bombing in Syria?

[TrentVilla]

Where have you seen that Syria has approved US bombing in Syria?

 

I don't think they have, they've said they would welcome talking with the US about it but the US isn't keen to deal with Assad for obvious reasons.

[Ads]

Assad would love to be brought in from the cold. There are 1800 factions in the Syrian Civil war, complex doesn't cut it.

[snowychap]

Assad would love to be brought in from the cold. There are 1800 factions in the Syrian Civil war, complex doesn't cut it.

There are 1800 factions?

Edit: Do they all shout 'splitter' at one another?

Edited September 23, 2014 by snowychap

[Ghost]

[Awol]

 

Where have you seen that Syria has approved US bombing in Syria?

 

I don't think they have, they've said they would welcome talking with the US about it but the US isn't keen to deal with Assad for obvious reasons.

 

Official line is that the US briefed the Syrian rep at the UN in advance, in reality this will have been agreed behind the scenes between the parties well in advance.  Just because inter-governmental communication isn't necessarily plastered over the media doesn't mean it isn't happening, but the lack of any response by Syria's top class air defence system indicates the strikes had their tacit consent.

 

The really interesting part is the involvement of Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Jordan and Bahrain.  The last time that lot got together to drop bombs was when they faced an existential threat from the Saddam regime after it took Kuwait.  The above nations have been fighting with each other like cats in a sack for months, so to put all of that aside and bomb targets in another Muslim country is a big fat indicator of how seriously this is - finally - being taken.

[maqroll]

I cant recall where I saw that syria gave the ok for bombing. It was a credible source though, or i wouldnt have repeated it. I think its highly probable that the US has had talks with the Assad regime, either directly or through an intermidiary, despite what they say. In any event, Assad has not denounced it, as far as i know. And he shouldnt, because bombing IS helps him.

[Ads]

Why would Assad object to strikes around Raqqa anyway? It's the heartland of bandit country.

[TrentVilla]

Why would Assad object to strikes around Raqqa anyway? It's the heartland of bandit country.

 

That is a valid point, why would he? Quite clearly he wouldn't object.

 

I'm therefore not convinced that a lack of interaction of Syria's air defense system or public complaint at the actions of the allies is evidence that Syria has approved the action. It is possible for them to welcome it without approving it officially or even unofficially with the US.

 

Obviously what AWOL suggests could be accurate, the US I'm sure have briefed Syria at some level that it was going to happen.

 

But the last Syrian spokeswomen I saw recently was clearly stating that they wanted to be involved in the process and the coalition, allies or whatever banner term is being used this time.

 

So for me at least there seems a small but important distinction between saying Syria has approved the strikes and Syria is allowing them to happen.

[Ads]

If I had to place my money on somebody approaching another, it would be Syria approaching the US. Just a hunch.

On a side note, we could have a situation with US, KSA and Iranian air are all in the same Syrian air space providing CAS. That's a bit of a head scratcher.