Ads Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 What is your solution to IS, if not a military one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 What is your solution to IS, if not a military one? There are some valid points made by the Syrian spokesperson quoted in this from the Guardian news page: http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/sep/24/battle-against-isis-cameron-says-britain-cannot-opt-out-live-updates Syria has urged Britain and the west to coordinate attacks on Islamic State militants with Damascus. In an interview with BBC News, Bassam Abu Abdullah, from Syria’s information ministry, said: “We are facing the same enemy.” He confirmed that the US had informed Damascus about the air strikes before they took place, but he said the campaign should involve a broader international coalition including Syria, Russia, China and Iran. He also urged the west to tackle ideological and financial support for Isis in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Abdullah also stressed that the Syrian army was leading the fight against Isis on the ground in Syria. He said: “We are facing one enemy. We should cooperate. We can’t ignore the fact there is a Syrian government ... The Syrian army is still the only power [which] is fighting terrorism [for] three years.” He said Syria was not inviting Britain to take part in air strikes against Isis in Syria and that the issue should be a matter for the UN security council. Abdullah said the current UN security council resolution on Syria was not enough to justify attacks on Syrian soil. "At the end of the day the west should coordinate and cooperate with the Syrian government. We are facing the same enemy - Isis or groups like al-Nusra. They are a serious challenge to humanity. As Mr Cameron mentioned they want to kill British [people]. They want to kill everyone who is opposed to their ideology. We should approach the question of combating terrorism more comprehensively. It is not [just] a question of air strikes. I mean [tackling] the financial support for these terrorist organisations. Some members of this coalition are involved in supporting terrorism like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey. We should include other important regional states like Syria, Iran, Russia, China. It is not a question of the west only. It is not only air strikes. The British parliament should discuss the question of ideology and financial support for these terrorist organisations." In the short term, there would have to be a military response to IS if it is to be stopped. But there is a world of difference between an agreed international approach, including the consent of the countries actually facing the IS actions, and what is happening now. Put it another way. If you described to an independent observer two possible courses of action, one involving the countries affected working alongside other regionally important countries, the other a distant country assembling a grouping of the very countries which have been funding and arming and hosting IS, they would think you utterly insane if you seriously proposed the second approach to be more appropriate. And yet that is what is happening. It's the US taking unilateral decisions about the region, and dressing it up as a "coalition of the willing", laughably including the very terror states which have enabled IS to become what it is. Kafka would have thought it too far-fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Assad is reaching out and is grasping for rehabilitation. It’s a very tricky sitaution and complex situation with no real "good guys", hence its absence from our news screens. However, I see US providing CAS to Iranian backed militia and potentiallty Quds Froce in Iraq, as well as being welcomed into Syrian air-space, that there is a willingness from Washington to engage with Iran and their proxies in Iraq/Syria. It is something of an elephant in the room that The Kingdom et al are involved in strikes on groups they facilitated while Obama was twiddling his thumbs. Contradictory policies from states in that region are not uncoomon. ISI in Pakistan are another classic example of a bizzare duelism. The building of the border fence between The Kingdom and al Anbar province perhaps does give an indication that the Saudis have woken up to a problem of their creation; a porous border can flow both ways. It was fine when Salafists were flooding Anbar to be human ordinance in their insurgency against the US, but now IS have specifically rejected SA, the penny may have dropped. For what it is worth, I think bringing Iran into the tent is a very good idea. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 24, 2014 Poor bloke. n Algerian jihadist group has released a video that appears to show the beheading of French tourist Herve Gourdel, who was seized on Sunday. Militant group Jund al-Khilafa had set a 24-hour deadline on Tuesday for France to halt air strikes in Iraq. Mr Gourdel, 55, was abducted in the north-east Kabylie region. France joined the US last week in launching air strikes on Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq but did not take part in the strikes on IS in Syria. French President Francois Hollande and his Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, publicly rejected the group's ultimatum on Tuesday. The video of Mr Gourdel apparently being killed was entitled "Message of blood for the French government", reports said. IS itself has beheaded three Western hostages since August: US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and British aid worker David Haines. Their deaths were all filmed and posted online. The group has also threatened to kill Alan Henning, a taxi driver from the UK, who was seized while on an aid mission to Syria in December. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29352537 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Well the latest round of air strikes blew up a chunk of Isil's oil refineries, which earned them around $2m per day. Saudi's & UAE made up the majority of the aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Tough decision for the UK if we agree to airstrikes they are practically signing Alan Henning's death warrant That's if he's not dead already which is a possibility i suppose who know's when the footage is actually taken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Although calling for a UNSC resolution to get authority to bomb IS in Syria sounds good in principle, that relies on the consent of Russia. Given the fact Russia is currently annexing parts of a European country and managing/fighting on one side of a civil war it has caused, it seems a fairly ludicrous position that they could then veto international action by a broad coalition against a terrorist group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Although calling for a UNSC resolution to get authority to bomb IS in Syria sounds good in principle, that relies on the consent of Russia. Given the fact Russia is currently annexing parts of a European country and managing/fighting on one side of a civil war it has caused, it seems a fairly ludicrous position that they could then veto international action by a broad coalition against a terrorist group. It's an interesting comparison. What Russia is doing in the Ukraine is in fact a toned-down version of what the US is doing in Syria - less weaponry, more short-term, and more limited in strategic intent. If Russia's actions should prevent it from having the right to determine international action, then so should those of the US; more so, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Although calling for a UNSC resolution to get authority to bomb IS in Syria sounds good in principle, that relies on the consent of Russia. Given the fact Russia is currently annexing parts of a European country and managing/fighting on one side of a civil war it has caused, it seems a fairly ludicrous position that they could then veto international action by a broad coalition against a terrorist group. It's an interesting comparison. What Russia is doing in the Ukraine is in fact a toned-down version of what the US is doing in Syria - less weaponry, more short-term, and more limited in strategic intent. If Russia's actions should prevent it from having the right to determine international action, then so should those of the US; more so, in fact. Hang on, Russia has annexed the Crimea and declared it to be sovereign Russian territory. What part of Syria has been annexed and declared the 51st state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The vast majority of people in the Crimea decided to return to Russia, in preference to being ruled by the regime which took over in Ukraine. Now Russia is intervening to support another group of people who similarly don't want to be ruled by the new regime. The regime in question was installed following US action to stir up action against the previous government in order to topple it, to threaten Russia in line with longstanding aggressive US policy discussed by Brzezinski in his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" (interestingly subtitled "American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives"; and revealingly dedicated " For my students - to help them shape tomorrow's world"). Russia's actions are primarily defensive and concerned with its own borders and safety, those of the US aggressive, on the other side of the world in a region where it faces no conceivable threat to its own territory. As for annexation, as you know, the US uses the technique of installing pliant puppet regimes or supporting tame dictatorships which can be relied on to do as told. No need to send the tanks in, when corrupt regimes can be bribed to allow US bases to be created. Much more cost-effective to have tame natives keeping people in line while doing the asset-stripping, as the Romans discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 UAE strikeseas by a female pilot too. That will twist a few Takfiri heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The vast majority of people in the Crimea decided to return to Russia, in preference to being ruled by the regime which took over in Ukraine. Now Russia is intervening to support another group of people who similarly don't want to be ruled by the new regime. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I would have to question the legitimacy of that Russia Today press release on the vote in Crimea. I wonder how free the vote in Scotland would have been last week if we had 16 Air Assault milling around the polling stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Of course in the US things are done differently. They used to leave nooses at polling stations to discourage blacks from voting. Now they engage in more subtle ways of discouraging voter registration. If all that fails, there's always electronic malfunctions, hanging chads, or the outright stealing of the election. And all that between two parties which are virtually indistinguishable. When I hear complaints about the quality of democracy in Russia, and see US actions presented as those of a democratic model, I have to laugh. US intervention in foreign affairs is certainly not in some way more legitimate than Russian intervention in Ukraine, and a lot more threatening to world peace. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 But Peter at the time nooses were left at polling stations in the US, there was no voting allowed in Russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Russia's actions are primarily defensive and concerned with its own borders and safety...Whilst I have sympathy with (and often agree with) much of what you post, Peter, I simply don't/can't on this.I would have to question the legitimacy of that Russia Today press release on the vote in Crimea.If that's a reference to Peter's post then it's a bit cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 (edited) Although calling for a UNSC resolution to get authority to bomb IS in Syria sounds good in principle, that relies on the consent of Russia. Given the fact Russia is currently annexing parts of a European country and managing/fighting on one side of a civil war it has caused, it seems a fairly ludicrous position that they could then veto international action by a broad coalition against a terrorist group. The president of Ukraine were presented with a choice: EU/NATO or Russia. He obviously went with Russia as they are completely dependent on them for energy etc. That was not what the US wanted after spending 5 billion dollars on Ukraine and the coming missile shield. So they created chaos and had their guy installed. Just ask Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland. Edit Nyland/Nuland Edited September 25, 2014 by DanishVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Russia's actions are primarily defensive and concerned with its own borders and safety... Whilst I have sympathy with (and often agree with) much of what you post, Peter, I simply don't/can't on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 But Peter at the time nooses were left at polling stations in the US, there was no voting allowed in Russia No, voting was strongly encouraged in Russia at that time. The choice of party was rather limited; at least in the US, the single party was presenting itself in two forms, but the Russians didn't bother with such niceties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Russia's actions are primarily defensive and concerned with its own borders and safety... Whilst I have sympathy with (and often agree with) much of what you post, Peter, I simply don't/can't on this. In respect of current actions in the Ukraine, I mean, not everywhere at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts