Rugeley Villa Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 true. a clash of cultures which will never be settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islingtonclaret Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 IS is routing the undertrained Iraq army and has an effective way to get tons of fighters in now that there's control in Libya. ....and we're busy helping the Saudis. Absolute madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 would not surprise me if the US have been letting this snowball for some mad power trip to come in the next few years. everything has fitted together nicely over the last few years. IS will keep expanding if things continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikantcpell Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Just read that Ramadi (a city very close to Baghdad) has fallen to isis. And i thought that the iraqi army had isis on the run.. No not at all. IS has a big offensive coming up around the middle Euphrates and by taking Ramadi has finally secured Anbar Province - about 1/3 of Iraq. Regular Iraqi army again deserted in droves from Ramadi and the only ground forces capable of taking them on are the Pesh up north and the Iranian backed Shia militia in the central regions. Although IS "lost" Tikrit the reality is they pulled back their main forces ahead of the Shia militia led attack and left behind a few hundred well dug in suicide troops. It still took massive US air support to finally enable the attacking forces to overcome them. As for Noelvilla's post below yours, it's been well flagged that IS in Libya has used the flow of illegal migrants into Europe to both raise funds (taking 50% of earnings from the people traffickers) and infiltrate their own fighters into Europe to prepare atrocities. For example their intent to attack the Vatican has been trailed in videos and statements for a long time, although whether they go for a softer target remains to be seen. In another thread outbyeaster was talking about the terrorist threat currently being overstated to allow greater surveillance by GCHQ et al. In fact as far as media reporting goes it is probably being understated. The whole IS/Caliphate malarkey has got an increasing level of support within Europe and in the next few years that's going to manifest itself in some very ugly scenes. Sorry, i got my information from the swedish media, should have known better then to trust them, the journalists over here are the most cluless you ever find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Awol Posted May 18, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted May 18, 2015 Sorry, i got my information from the swedish media, should have known better then to trust them, the journalists over here are the most cluless you ever find. No need to say sorry, my post was meant to be informative only, I'm sorry if it came across as a put down. Some interesting (to me anyway) things said in the posts above though: Rugeley talks about a clash of cultures but the real clash is ideological, or more specifically within an ideology - Islam. At its root this whole thing is a battle for the soul and future direction of a religion. Whatever influence the West generically may have had in the past we are now peripheral to the conflict and involved only in so far as we host significant Muslim populations and represent a target that, if hit, gives propaganda value to the protagonists by strengthening their particular narrative. We can never "win" because it isn't our fight, winning for us is the absence of terrorism on our streets, nothing else. It will go on for as long as it takes the Muslim world to make peace with itself. I fear very many more will die before that happens. However there are things we can do to avoid making the situation worse and Islingtonclaret nails it in one, namely our current support for the heart of darkness a.k.a. Saudi Arabia, in their illegal assault on the people of Yemen. It is astonishing that with no UN mandate the Saudis are deliberately bombing hospitals, food distribution centres, Oxfam warehousing and any useful infrastructure while simultaneously doing all they can to block the delivery of aid to a population they are systematically starving as a matter of policy. Like a bunch of trained seals the UK media repeats the line that the Saudis are opposing an Iranian take over of Yemen, which any analyst worth their salt can and do say is total dog toffee. I can't remember a more disgraceful episode in foreign policy, at least with Iraq HMG had the good grace to fabricate some evidence but with Yemen they are not even trying. Why? A few hundred million in contracts for nice new fighter jets from those thieving desert pirates in Riyadh. While we're on the subject let's not forget that Saudi created modern Jihadism and supply's a steady steam of cannon fodder to IS and AQ alike. I know I'm ranting now so will stop BUT, what is being done in our name is flat out criminal and I'm certain most people in the UK have not the slightest clue or care. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 As long as Middle East instability prevails, shareholders of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin etc., will make a tidy little sum of money. We are well beyond fighting for a cause, we are fighting to keep a sector of the economy humming. It's the most cynical military pursuit in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 It's all going to shit very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Last word on the Saudi thing... A distinguished chap I know who moves in the diplomatic circles of the Gulf had this to say: The Saudi rulers love the West but their people generally hate you. The rulers of Iran hate the West but their people generally love you. The rulers of both countries will be gone in a decade. That's worth thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Sorry, i got my information from the swedish media, should have known better then to trust them, the journalists over here are the most cluless you ever find. No need to say sorry, my post was meant to be informative only, I'm sorry if it came across as a put down. Some interesting (to me anyway) things said in the posts above though: Rugeley talks about a clash of cultures but the real clash is ideological, or more specifically within an ideology - Islam. At its root this whole thing is a battle for the soul and future direction of a religion. Whatever influence the West generically may have had in the past we are now peripheral to the conflict and involved only in so far as we host significant Muslim populations and represent a target that, if hit, gives propaganda value to the protagonists by strengthening their particular narrative. We can never "win" because it isn't our fight, winning for us is the absence of terrorism on our streets, nothing else. It will go on for as long as it takes the Muslim world to make peace with itself. I fear very many more will die before that happens. However there are things we can do to avoid making the situation worse and Islingtonclaret nails it in one, namely our current support for the heart of darkness a.k.a. Saudi Arabia, in their illegal assault on the people of Yemen. It is astonishing that with no UN mandate the Saudis are deliberately bombing hospitals, food distribution centres, Oxfam warehousing and any useful infrastructure while simultaneously doing all they can to block the delivery of aid to a population they are systematically starving as a matter of policy. Like a bunch of trained seals the UK media repeats the line that the Saudis are opposing an Iranian take over of Yemen, which any analyst worth their salt can and do say is total dog toffee. I can't remember a more disgraceful episode in foreign policy, at least with Iraq HMG had the good grace to fabricate some evidence but with Yemen they are not even trying. Why? A few hundred million in contracts for nice new fighter jets from those thieving desert pirates in Riyadh. While we're on the subject let's not forget that Saudi created modern Jihadism and supply's a steady steam of cannon fodder to IS and AQ alike. I know I'm ranting now so will stop BUT, what is being done in our name is flat out criminal and I'm certain most people in the UK have not the slightest clue or care. what do you think is the real islam? are the jihadists following the word of allah and the quran correctly or do you think they are twisting it to create terror etc. ive heard many people say IS and its sort are following the true ways of islam from centuries ago. if that is the case then your modern or peaceful muslim are following their religion wrong right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 18, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 18, 2015 As long as Middle East instability prevails, shareholders of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin etc., will make a tidy little sum of money. We are well beyond fighting for a cause, we are fighting to keep a sector of the economy humming. It's the most cynical military pursuit in history.I'm not sure about that.While I can see that Gov'ts are not condemning the Suadi's as they should be, because the Saudi's buy lots of expensive toys and own lots of expensive proerties in London and NY and so on and pay taxes and all of that, I don't think "we are fighting to keep [Defence contractors] humming...the most cynical military pursuit in history.".In fact, many would and have argued that we should be fighting but aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Islam from centuries ago didn't look like IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 18, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 18, 2015 ..ive heard many people say IS and its sort are following the true ways of islam from centuries ago. if that is the case then your modern or peaceful muslim are following their religion wrong right?Those things don't follow logically, though, do they?I mean think about it - what was (say) Christian religions doing centuries ago? Similarly barbaric things. The Crusades, slavery, the whole lot.I dunno the full complete content of all of the Bible, but isn't it the case that the Old testament goes into all kinds of stuff about punishing and killing innocents (and the New testament does a bit as well)So basically because some book says something, most people have the decency and sense to know it's a load of stories and not to be taken literally, or followed to the word (not least because it's so contradictory). That's the bible. Bonkers contradictory stories, is what it is.If you get some sect that decides they fancy a bit of murdering looting killing action, which co-incidentally gets them wealth and power and fear, then you can't go blaming the peaceful normal folk, or a whole religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The rulers of both countries will be gone in a decade.To be replaced by whom or by what and for how long, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 i was not saying that i think the islam they are putting into practice was the true islam i was just asking the question and what other posters thought. i do believe islam more than any religion has a huge problem that threatens the destabilization of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) As long as Middle East instability prevails, shareholders of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin etc., will make a tidy little sum of money. We are well beyond fighting for a cause, we are fighting to keep a sector of the economy humming. It's the most cynical military pursuit in history. I'm not sure about that. While I can see that Gov'ts are not condemning the Suadi's as they should be, because the Saudi's buy lots of expensive toys and own lots of expensive proerties in London and NY and so on and pay taxes and all of that, I don't think "we are fighting to keep [Defence contractors] humming...the most cynical military pursuit in history.". In fact, many would and have argued that we should be fighting but aren't. The current enemy is ISIS, but ISIS is a direct result of a destabilized Iraq, which is a direct result of US led military adventurism. We are fighting in ISIS in every way but with infantry, but as soon as Baghdad falls, there will be infantry deployed there. Obama has no election to win, and the incoming president will not want to look weak. But the politics and the particulars don't really matter in the long run if what you really care about are the quarterly reports from defense contractors. What matters long term to these people is keeping the region unstable. Obama/Clinton/Whoever will send in the newest jet fighter and drone and state of the art weapons system to keep the marketplace of weaponry buzzing. ISIS is a goldmine, and when they are "defeated", a new mortal enemy will require the newest latest shiny new killing machine. Edited May 21, 2015 by maqroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islingtonclaret Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Soooooo.........one of the most important sites in human civilisation has been taken over by our Pedigree Chums in ISIS, and the very likely outcome is that they'll blow the place up. Cheers guys, great contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I always hoped that one day I'd be able to see all great historical sites of Iraq, but even if it does one day become safe, they'll be no point after these **** morons are finished with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 21, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 21, 2015 The current enemy is ISIS, but ISIS is a direct result of a destabilized Iraq, which is a direct result of US led military adventurism. We are fighting in ISIS in every way but with infantry, but as soon as Baghdad falls, there will be infantry deployed there. Obama has no election to win, and the incoming president will not want to look weak. But the politics and the particulars don't really matter in the long run if what you really care about are the quarterly reports from defense contractors. What matters long term to these people is keeping the region unstable. Obama/Clinton/Whoever will send in the newest jet fighter and drone and state of the art weapons system to keep the marketplace of weaponry buzzing. ISIS is a goldmine, and when they are "defeated", a new mortal enemy will require the newest latest shiny new killing machine. No. Not that. Not that, at all. Unstable middle East is very bad for everyone. Politicians, arms companies, the people who live there, Oil companies, Shareholders....outgoing and incoming Presidents, Israel, Despots, Palestine... The only part I agree with is the situation has resulted in part from the intervention of Bush and Blair, which unleashed the genie from the bottle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 21, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted May 21, 2015 The current enemy is ISIS, but ISIS is a direct result of a destabilized Iraq, which is a direct result of US led military adventurism. We are fighting in ISIS in every way but with infantry, but as soon as Baghdad falls, there will be infantry deployed there. Obama has no election to win, and the incoming president will not want to look weak. But the politics and the particulars don't really matter in the long run if what you really care about are the quarterly reports from defense contractors. What matters long term to these people is keeping the region unstable. Obama/Clinton/Whoever will send in the newest jet fighter and drone and state of the art weapons system to keep the marketplace of weaponry buzzing. ISIS is a goldmine, and when they are "defeated", a new mortal enemy will require the newest latest shiny new killing machine. No. Not that. Not that, at all. Unstable middle East is very bad for everyone. Politicians, arms companies, the people who live there, Oil companies, Shareholders....outgoing and incoming Presidents, Israel, Despots, Palestine... The only part I agree with is the situation has resulted in part from the intervention of Bush and Blair, which unleashed the genie from the bottle. This. The Middle East has just about survived in recent years on the basis that, whilst it's unstable and tense, the instability is predictable, controllable, and (counterintuitively) 'stable'. ISIS is a wildcard that threatens that, and big business hates uncertainty. What affects big business ultimately affects everything else, and as the world is now globalised, ISIS are costing everyone money, making everything infinitesimally more difficult at every stage... Etc etc. Arms manufacturers benefit more abruptly from wars, because wars for all their horror tend to be slow and predictable ACD large scale. Fighting ISIS, in the little that the West is, isn't going to be swelling the coffers of many, and isn't going to massively benefit anyone from a pure greed or power perspective. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts