The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Awol]

Yes and no. The women was picked up in 2005 and the AQ chappie in 2008, when IS was running as AQ in Iraq.

So, that's a yes, then?

Same people, same mission statement, just rebranded. Solution is the same as it was then, unfortunately the job was left unfinished last time when we had the chance to end it.

It will be a whole lot tougher now, but if we fail to deal with it a second time the next evolution will be even more difficult to address. We need to man up a little bit, accept the fact we'll lose some men in the process and send these people to their god ASAP.

Oh good. I take it you are not one of those people we might lose though?

As you know nothing about me, what I do or where I work, I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption. That aside I strongly believe you'd be hard pressed to find a soldier alive who wouldn't like a crack at IS.

[Awol]

Same people, same mission statement, just rebranded.

Excellent: another yes.

Depends whether you get your kicks dancing on the head of a pin.

[Xann]

Lots of mobile columns operating in the huge empty spaces of Eastern Syria, ripping up their lines of communication and supply, locating any concentrations of enemy forces and destroying them from the ground and air.

 

From a purely military perspective, I agree with this. Mobile units operating without fixed bases that can hit hard is probably the way.

 

Though we've proved pretty good at smashing stuff before.

 

It's the rebuild and the moving on which is the problem.

 

I'd want to know there's at least a chance of a workable solution to the regional upset, before sending in the children of the working and middle classes to fight a war started by the greedy, uncaring clearings in the woods at the top.

[snowychap]

Depends whether you get your kicks dancing on the head of a pin.

Not doing that at all. Just asking for some precision when debating details (as I was in the original comment).

Edit: Thanks for the nature of your post, too.

Edited February 4, 2015 by snowychap

[rendelc]

Evil words removed . They must be destroyed . Anyone who has gone and returned from the caliphate should be jailed for a very long time .

[Tayls]

Awol when I read your posts in this thread, I read them in a way that Ross Kemp speaks, if that makes sense. I enjoy your input in here.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Tayls

[OutByEaster?]

Same people, same mission statement, just rebranded. Solution is the same as it was then, unfortunately the job was left unfinished last time when we had the chance to end it.

Doesn't that kind of suggest that the solution doesn't work?

Or at least it does work, but in order to make it work are you actually suggesting a complete genocide of everyone fighting for ISIS or that might become ISIS in future, including those that used to be AQ and the modern equivalent of the woman picked up in 2005?

In short, I think we need a different solution and yours sounds a bit too close to the final solution for my liking.

[chrisp65]

 

Same people, same mission statement, just rebranded. Solution is the same as it was then, unfortunately the job was left unfinished last time when we had the chance to end it.

Doesn't that kind of suggest that the solution doesn't work?

Or at least it does work, but in order to make it work are you actually suggesting a complete genocide of everyone fighting for ISIS or that might become ISIS in future, including those that used to be AQ and the modern equivalent of the woman picked up in 2005?

In short, I think we need a different solution and yours sounds a bit too close to the final solution for my liking.

 

 

don't forget the 11 year old brothers of combatants, the 7 year old sons of combatants, the 45 year old fathers and uncles of combatants, their wives, their admirers, the wannabes, the mentally frail, the curious psychos, the recruiting sargeants and the internet preachers, the guys that whisper in their ear in youth custody centres and the guy that sells the dvd's.....they've all got to go

[AshVilla]

Would be interesting to know how many of these murderers have already returned to the UK and may be living among us

 

Scary thought

[maqroll]

 

I have just watched the video of the jordanian pilot (really dont know why i did it) and i have to say it is the worst thing i have watched in my entire life, If you are thinking about watching it, Don't.

 

I remember seeing a beheading video years ago and still haunts me to this day. Horrible horrible stuff. 

 

I guess morbid curiosity got the better of you, as it did me, all those years ago. 

 

I remember those Faces of Death movies. A buddy of mine loved that kind of crap. I always hated it. I've refused to watch any of these ISIS videos. They want us to see them. **** ISIS.

[maqroll]

It'll be interesting to see just how ferocious Jordan's response is besides killing the prisoners they had. 

[Awol]

Same people, same mission statement, just rebranded. Solution is the same as it was then, unfortunately the job was left unfinished last time when we had the chance to end it.

Doesn't that kind of suggest that the solution doesn't work?

Or at least it does work, but in order to make it work are you actually suggesting a complete genocide of everyone fighting for ISIS or that might become ISIS in future, including those that used to be AQ and the modern equivalent of the woman picked up in 2005?

In short, I think we need a different solution and yours sounds a bit too close to the final solution for my liking.

What is your definition of genocide? If you mean the killing or destruction of a national, ethnic or religious group then it's clearly not genocide to destroy IS. They are multi national, multi ethnic and although all are Muslim targeting them is clearly not an attempt to destroy all Muslims.

IS is an armed group that has graduated beyond the mantle of a terrorist organisation to a territory and population controlling (about 7.5 million people) organisation, that is itself bent on committing genocide against the minorities in the areas it controls. While evil is a subjective term I don't see how they could be described as anything else.

Mentioning the Final Solution seems to be an emotive attempt to conjure images of poor defenceless people being herded into gas chambers. An entire ethnic group being murdered simply because of who they born, not anything they have done. Have you really read the equivalent of that into my post?

Until they are stopped these people are going to continue their reign of terror and attempt to conquer more territory where they can begin the cycle of murder, torture, rape and slavery all over again. Those are not emotive terms, they are facts as anyone following IS's progress knows very well.

IS will not simply give up, call it a day and go home realising the error of their ways. They are adherents of a death cult and the only limits on their depravity are set by access to new victims , not by intent or moral values. These are not reconcilable people and even the odd one who decides he has had enough has taken part in activities that SS death squads would be proud of.

The failure to finish of Al Qaeda in Iraq has led to the formation, evolution and growth of what is now called IS.

If a patient has cancer you don't treat 85% of it then say "ah well, that'll do. Cancer has rights too." Now the disease this ideology represents is back and is spreading like wild fire through it's host. It needs to be attacked and destroyed before it spreads any further. Sure some people would always believe in their vision of hell on earth, but if those who pick up arms to make it reality are killed it will remain nothing more than a dark thought in the subconscious of the terminally insane.

Obviously that's only my opinion and I understand you fundamentally disagree with it. That's fair enough. I am though very interested to hear what the 'other way' you think we should find to deal with people might be?

Edited February 5, 2015 by Awol

[Awol]

Would be interesting to know how many of these murderers have already returned to the UK and may be living among us

Scary thought

The 'official' estimate is hundreds. Considering how much official estimates have low balled the numbers estimated to have gone there to fight (while the government line was 500, Khalid Mahmood MP was saying at least several thousand based on the numbers he knew had gone from Birmingham alone) it's equally likely they are under playing the numbers of returnees.

I think they are worried about the effect on community relations if Joe Public really knew the extent of the problem. Mustn't scare the horses...

[maqroll]

These crazed jihadis just keep coming though, that's the problem. Wherever there is a weakened government, they take root. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria). Iraq was a basket case in many respects under Saddam Hussein, but it was a stable basket case, and Al-Qaeda nor ISIS would have ever dared to set foot inside Iraq if he was still in charge. It seems to me the best way to destroy these terrorist groups is to try to stabilize (sorry Tony) these countries so there are no power vacuums to be exploited. We can bomb targets forever and they'll still keep coming, because the bombing only perpetuates the instability. ISIS wants and needs us to fight them, that's their whole raison d'être. So we can keep playing into their hands, and they can keep recruiting for the Holy War they're fighting.

 

An alternative strategy would be humanitarian missions, military engagement only in defense (sorry Tony) of refugees, and hardcore diplomatic efforts to try and get these countries more functional and less of a magnet and breeding ground for psychopaths.

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

Same people, same mission statement, just rebranded. Solution is the same as it was then, unfortunately the job was left unfinished last time when we had the chance to end it.

Doesn't that kind of suggest that the solution doesn't work?

Or at least it does work, but in order to make it work are you actually suggesting a complete genocide of everyone fighting for ISIS or that might become ISIS in future, including those that used to be AQ and the modern equivalent of the woman picked up in 2005?

In short, I think we need a different solution and yours sounds a bit too close to the final solution for my liking.

What is your definition of genocide? If you mean the killing or destruction of a national, ethnic or religious group then it's clearly not genocide to destroy IS. They are multi national, multi ethnic and although all are Muslim targeting them is clearly not an attempt to destroy all Muslims.

IS is an armed group that has graduated beyond the mantle of a terrorist organisation to a territory and population controlling (about 7.5 million people) organisation, that is itself bent on committing genocide against the minorities in the areas it controls. While evil is a subjective term I don't see how they could be described as anything else.

Mentioning the Final Solution seems to be an emotive attempt to conjure images of poor defenceless people being herded into gas chambers. An entire ethnic group being murdered simply because of who they born, not anything they have done. Have you really read the equivalent of that into my post?

Until they are stopped these people are going to continue their reign of terror and attempt to conquer more territory where they can begin the cycle of murder, torture, rape and slavery all over again. Those are not emotive terms, they are facts as anyone following IS's progress knows very well.

IS will not simply give up, call it a day and go home realising the error of their ways. They are adherents of a death cult and the only limits on their depravity are set by access to new victims , not by intent or moral values. These are not reconcilable people and even the odd one who decides he has had enough has taken part in activities that SS death squads would be proud of.

The failure to finish of Al Qaeda in Iraq has led to the formation, evolution and growth of what is now called IS.

If a patient has cancer you don't treat 85% of it then say "ah well, that'll do. Cancer has rights too." Now the disease this ideology represents is back and is spreading like wild fire through it's host. It needs to be attacked and destroyed before it spreads any further. Sure some people would always believe in their vision of hell on earth, but if those who pick up arms to make it reality are killed it will remain nothing more than a dark thought in the subconscious of the terminally insane.

Obviously that's only my opinion and I understand you fundamentally disagree with it. That's fair enough. I am though very interested to hear what the 'other way' you think we should find to deal with people might be?

 

 

I'm not for a moment saying that they shouldn't be stopped, we should make every possible effort to prevent murder, genocide and terror everywhere it occurs. 

 

Our approach to doing this has traditionally been to kill as many people who look like they might be trouble in any affected area that has something of value to us (we're not so keen where that's not the case). That approach has shown itself over the last fifty years to do nothing but perpetuate a cycle where we leave an angry vacuum ready to be filled with the next vile, violent group.

 

It also achieves our secondary aim whereby it prevents the growth of any sort of self governing democracy within those countries that might affect our control of their resources.

 

By rights, Iraq should be the second richest country on earth - we've spend half a century ensuring it's not, and have helped provide a breeding ground for extremism, taught a language of violence and murder and let a region that's always been volatile reach its current point.

 

To take your cancer metaphor further, we've given them sixty fags a day for ten years and the solution you seem to be proposing is kill the patient, and maybe kill the patient's brother too just in case, and maybe give the patients son 200 Rothmans by way of compensation.

 

These aren't sub-human people - people are people wherever they are - they have different beliefs, different politics, they're angry about different things, but they're still exactly the same as you and I in every way that counts - they feel the cold, they get hungry, they love their moms, they miss their families, they get scared at night in the desert, they want societies that are ordered, governed and safe. Their method might be bonkers, but people are people. I don't and will not buy into the subhuman monsters of propaganda, it's got echoes of baby eating Germans; surely we've moved on from that?

 

Have they committed atrocities? Of course they have. Has every armed force throughout history? Of course they have. War is war. Media is media.

 

The evil we need to face, can for me be defined in two ways - criminal activity and ideas. 

 

We do nothing to address the ideas end of that, the key to success in Iraq isn't killing enough people so that it stops being a problem, it's building a successful Iraq. One with a government that matches the will of the Iraqi people, within the boundaries of international law - one with Universities, factories, hospitals, roads, railways, banks, parks, housing and shops - that's how you beat ISIS - you offer an alternative. We can't just continue to knock the country to rubble and hope no rats appear. 

 

To some extent that means allowing Iraq to disagree with us, allowing them some control over their own resources, allowing the rights of the Iraqi people to become the defining principle of government in the country, allowing them a government that does what they want and not a government that does what we want under an Iraqi flag. It also means your gas bill going up.

 

You're proposing that we beat down ISIS - ISIS is a nasty, aggressive fighting unit, being beaten down is what it is for - they aren't expecting to win; they're expecting to be angry. 

 

A fire needs oxygen, fuel and heat and to put out the fire of extremism, you have to take one of those things away - I don't think you achieve that by bombing, I think you achieve that by changing things and giving people alternatives.

 

I might be completely wrong - but we've tried the other way for 50 years and all we've got is a really angry country - and a whole load of cheap oil - if the current situation in Iraq looks like success to you then, in the words of the great man himself - "We go again."

[Ads]

 

Depends whether you get your kicks dancing on the head of a pin.

Not doing that at all. Just asking for some precision when debating details (as I was in the original comment).

Edit: Thanks for the nature of your post, too.

 

 

You were given details, which you then limited to get the answer you wanted.

 

The point is that IS are Anbar's finest; Al Qaeda in Iraq, They've been hit and shovelled and melted away and now they're back and don't have to worry about JSOC or the US Marines or tooled up Sunni awkening forces rocking up on their doors anytime soon.

[Ads]

 

Same people, same mission statement, just rebranded. Solution is the same as it was then, unfortunately the job was left unfinished last time when we had the chance to end it.

Doesn't that kind of suggest that the solution doesn't work?

Or at least it does work, but in order to make it work are you actually suggesting a complete genocide of everyone fighting for ISIS or that might become ISIS in future, including those that used to be AQ and the modern equivalent of the woman picked up in 2005?

In short, I think we need a different solution and yours sounds a bit too close to the final solution for my liking.

 

 

You're looking at the wrong problem. It wasn't the response to the insurgency post-2004, but what came after it had been crushed. Obama following an election promise is fine, but it left a weak secterian government behind who were too interested in their own patronage and filling their own pockets that a silce wasn't left for the Sunnis. A big mistake was made by not bringing in the Awakening Forces as part of the Iraqi Army. People want to get paid at the end of the day; the same people who were planting IED's for US Marines one week in 2005, were fighting alongside coalition forces the next and getting stuck into AQI.

 

We wasted a lot of human inteligence and good will when Iraq was abandonned. The invasion was a foolish idea, but if you are the one responsible for pulling the lid off of Pandora's Box, then you bare a responsibility to put what falls out back in.

[blandy]

...The invasion was a foolish idea, but if you are the one responsible for pulling the lid off of Pandora's Box, then you bear a responsibility to put what falls out back in.

Another saying is "when in a hole, stop digging"

 

The invasion wasn't "a foolish idea" - That's like saying "the sun is warm" or that "the sea is moist". The invasion was an act of monumental, criminal, epic, delusional, criminal, monstrous, incomprehensibly large, criminal, humungous stupidity that is off the scale - and that's probably an understatement.

That's not with hindsight  either (though hindsight does make it even worse).

[maqroll]

Sadly, I think perpetual war in the Middle East is what buoys the stock of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon et al and thwarts any meaningful and effective attempts at resolving these conflicts. Eisenhower's warning was spot on, but nobody listened.

[snowychap]

You were given details, which you then limited to get the answer you wanted.

Not quite.

I was given, by you, the answer that supported the point I was making (in that the people who were hanged were not 'suspected ISIS captives' but people already caught and convicted a number of years ago of offences that occurred before IS existed in the form it does now). Those two may well have been mates with the new band members, members of the former band, a sister of one of the lead guitarists who played with both bands or whatever but they were not 'suspected ISIS captives'.

It was a point about painting the situation in and around that region (and beyond, perhaps) in a simplistic and dichotomous way (okay that point may be slightly ironic bearing in mind the pedantry I employed but that pedantry had a particular purpose) which you also appear to have gone on to do when you have said, "The point is that IS are Anbar's finest; Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Earlier in the thread, when discussing IS/ISIS, you wrote (amongst other things) about their recruits from other arenas (including Chechen commanders) making them, at the time, happen to be less terrorist band and more effective army and that their recruits on the ground included people who would have simply wanted to survive - either by not having their head hacked off or by being paid and fed by someone for doing something (The make up of IS in Syria is distinctly Syrian, &c.).

This would help one to tend towards an appraisal of the situation thus: that it's a complicated, ever changing scene with evolving groups.

The 'same people - just rebranded' thing appears to be mistaken according to some of the comments already made by people who appear to know considerably more about the detail of the situation than I would claim, or want, to know (i.e. you and others) and it seems to be worryingly so if it used as a basis for proposing solutions.