The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[TrentVilla]

I'm not saying that anyone has used those precise words and I'm not saying that is the governments position (though I suspect it's the position of quite a number of people in government and probably a huge number of hawks).

It might be but we can't really know either way.

 

 

I'd be interested to know why, if one holds the positions that once individuals have crossed the Rubicon and fled the West to Syria and joined ISIS they are terrorists and once intelligence is such they are deemed to be a credible threat to the UK then I would want, no I would expect our Government to take action by whatever means are available to them, one wouldn't be of the opinion that any IS actors (be they British Jihadis or from elsewhere) are not fair targets for the same actions as were taken in this case?

Because unless they pose a direct threat to the UK then there doesn't appear to be a legal basis for the action as is being argued in this case. They are still clearly terrorist but are free to operate as they wish within Syria because of our current restrictions on engagement.

Apologies in advance Snowy if this ends up being a rather disjointed reply but the quoting system on the new site and I simply aren't friends.

[TrentVilla]

Well, I totally oppose invading Syria, and certainly nothing will persuade me otherwise. So we're implacably opposed on this issue. 

Well that's it then. Pistols at dawn      

Do you concede that it is logically, strategically and militarily incoherent to attack IS in Iraq but not in Syria, when chunks of  the former territories of both countries are now incorporated into the Islamic State?   For example had these two little 'erberts been plinked by drones on the Iraqi side of the old border this would be a non-issue and indeed have been done with the full (however legally irrelevant) backing of Parliament.  

I'm not asking you to agree that we should invade, only to recognise the obvious failing in the current  UK arrangements for targeting Islamic State.    

I completely agree with you.

The current restriction on engagement based on a border that has long since ceased to exist really is quite a farce. Irrespective of your fundamental position on our engagement in conflict in the region surely anyone would agree with that.

The rule of engagement is in place therefore should be respected by but its a rule that makes little or no sense in reality.

[Awol]

 

The current restriction on engagement based on a border that has long since ceased to exist really is quite a farce. Irrespective of your fundamental position on our engagement in conflict in the region surely anyone would agree with that.

I'm curious to know the answer to that too..

[snowychap]

Because unless they pose a direct threat to the UK then there doesn't appear to be a legal basis for the action as is being argued in this case. They are still clearly terrorist but are free to operate as they wish within Syria because of our current restrictions on engagement. 

Cameron has already told us that IS(IL) poses a direct threat to the Britain.

As for the legality, the link in my post above to David Allen Green's blog (which also contains links to two other legal commentators' blogs/articles) suggests as I've said earlier that the case surrounding this action and the invocation of article 51 is likely to be under discussion by legal people from now until eternity.

Apologies in advance Snowy if this ends up being a rather disjointed reply but the quoting system on the new site and I simply aren't friends.

I'm in the same boat!

[snowychap]

I'm not saying that anyone has used those precise words and I'm not saying that is the governments position (though I suspect it's the position of quite a number of people in government and probably a huge number of hawks).

It might be but we can't really know either way.

Indeed. I'm just advancing my suspicions.

[lapal_fan]

Can't we all just get along?

[foreveryoung]

As is fact we are a small Island in comparison to some, So for me I am more than happy consentrating on the security of the UK than every other country in the world. So if a couple of Isis crew who happen to be British are threatening our country, I am more than happy for the Goverment to send a drone out to turn them into part of a 50ft crater.

I know there are political issues in making these decisions, an sure you will never get everyone to agree on the matter, but for me its the right move and sends out the right signals to other British nationals thinking of joining ISIS. I certainly don't want to hear the story of these guys being tracked for 3 years before blowing up 200+ people at a some huge event.

[Awol]

Huge development.  The German government has confirmed that the rumoured chemical weapon attacks on Kurdish Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq last week were genuine.  IS has apparently developed the capability to manufacture mustard gas in Raqqa and are actively using it on the battlefield - no link yet, hearing it on Radio 4 this morning.

No doubt the cynics will now come pouring out of the woodwork - and they should - but I'd point out that the Germans are not known for their bellicosity and despite numerous rumoured uses of mustard gas over recent months this is the first time they have been sure enough to confirm it.

The clock is now ticking on the formation of a genuine international coalition to attack and defeat IS. Not before time. 

[snowychap]

Huge development.  The German government has confirmed that the rumoured chemical weapon attacks on Kurdish Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq last week were genuine.  IS has apparently developed the capability to manufacture mustard gas in Raqqa and are actively using it on the battlefield - no link yet, hearing it on Radio 4 this morning.

Having looked at recent articles (i.e. googled news reports for the last month), it would appear that there have been reports claiming that mustard gas attacks have happened several times recently and that the German intelligence bod said that their tests confirmed its use on Kurdish fighters. He was quoted - in this article - as saying:

“We have knowledge of ISIS using mustard gas against Kurds in North Iraq,” German media reports quoted BND chief Gerhard Schindler as saying.

“We recovered injured Kurds (from the frontlines) and on the basis of blood samples we can confirm the use of poison gas,” he said.

The combat agent, which is prohibited by the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), originates either from old stocks of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein “or the Islamists have managed to produce the toxic gas themselves, after they took the University of Mosul with its chemistry laboratories,” according to Schindler.

This is not to make a comment on the abhorrent use of chemical weapons (and what that may mean) but just to urge caution about the 'developed the capability' line (all I can see on that is the Heil's headline on their story saying that ISIS are making [and using] chemical weapons, US officials believe).

That's obviously the most worrying angle but from what I've read commentators saying it's as per the above quote (with an extra option): the source of these could be an Assad stockpile, stuff left over in/from Iraq or their own production line. 

[chrisp65]

death cult about to get about 50% of it's wish list dropped on it from a great height

[Awol]

Huge development.  The German government has confirmed that the rumoured chemical weapon attacks on Kurdish Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq last week were genuine.  IS has apparently developed the capability to manufacture mustard gas in Raqqa and are actively using it on the battlefield - no link yet, hearing it on Radio 4 this morning.

Having looked at recent articles (i.e. googled news reports for the last month), it would appear that there have been reports claiming that mustard gas attacks have happened several times recently and that the German intelligence bod said that their tests confirmed its use on Kurdish fighters. He was quoted - in this article - as saying:

“We have knowledge of ISIS using mustard gas against Kurds in North Iraq,” German media reports quoted BND chief Gerhard Schindler as saying.

“We recovered injured Kurds (from the frontlines) and on the basis of blood samples we can confirm the use of poison gas,” he said.

The combat agent, which is prohibited by the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), originates either from old stocks of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein “or the Islamists have managed to produce the toxic gas themselves, after they took the University of Mosul with its chemistry laboratories,” according to Schindler.

This is not to make a comment on the abhorrent use of chemical weapons (and what that may mean) but just to urge caution about the 'developed the capability' line (all I can see on that is the Heil's headline on their story saying that ISIS are making [and using] chemical weapons, US officials believe).

That's obviously the most worrying angle but from what I've read commentators saying it's as per the above quote (with an extra option): the source of these could be an Assad stockpile, stuff left over in/from Iraq or their own production line. 

Thanks for doing that, not had time yet to properly search. Wireless had the Aussie government as source on the Raqqa angle. Suggesting they had recruited scientists are we're producing there.

However as Chris put it, they may soon wish they hadn't

EDIT: and what is it with gassing Kurds? They seem to have been on the wrong end of chemical weapons more often than any other people since WW1...

Edited September 11, 2015 by Awol

[snowychap]

Thanks for doing that, not had time yet to properly search. Wireless had the Aussie government as source on the Raqqa angle. Suggesting they had recruited scientists are we're producing there.

However as Chris put it, they may soon wish they hadn't

EDIT: and what is it with gassing Kurds? They seem to have been on the wrong end of chemical weapons more often than any other people since WW1...

No probs. There may be more out there - that was just what I could find and as I say it was just to look at the production angle (which is obviously going to get people even more exercised than the use - as horrific as that is on its own).

As for the Kurds, I agree - they can count themselves as more than a shade unfortunate.

[TrentVilla]

 

I feel for the Kurds, I really do so I've come up with a cunning plan.

All we need to do is wipe out ISIS and then take the territory that they currently control that was once part of Iraq and Syria. 

Then the U.S and Britain can fund them and then sell weapons to them, then they can invite Kurds from all over the world to come to their new nation. When it gets too crowded they will have the military power and political backing to just extend their territory, nobody will mind its just desert anyway. (Reminder to self, order large quantity of white phosphorus)

Problem sorted and we have a stable Middle East. 

 

Genius.

Edited September 11, 2015 by TrentVilla

[Wainy316]

I once made the mistake of asking a guy where he was from and he said he was Kurd. I said "yeah, but which country?" He didn't look impressed to say the least.

[Ikantcpell]

@Awol

Can you explain to me why the russians are so supportive of Assad.

The whole world hates him, yet Putin supports him, is it only because they are making alot of money selling him weapons?

[Xann]

If anyone knows their mustard gas, it should be the Germans.

[Awol]

@Awol

Can you explain to me why the russians are so supportive of Assad.

The whole world hates him, yet Putin supports him, is it only @Awol

Can you explain to me why the russians are so supportive of Assad.

The whole world hates him, yet Putin supports him, is it only because they are making alot of money selling him weapons?

No, weapons sales are incidental. Russia has a naval base in Syria which gives them a footprint in both the Med' and the Middle East.  Assad is also a longstanding ally of Russia and in Moscow that tends to mean more than it would in a Western European capital.

Equally important though is the fact Russia views Assad's regime as a bulwark against Jihadism, which they rightly fear will turn towards the Caucausus in the fullness of time should Syria fall. Make no mistake if the Assad regime loses it will leave several flavours of Neo-Wahhabi Salafist Jihadis fighting to control the country. He is the least worst alternative at the moment and the Russians get that, far more than many policy makers in the West.

[TrentVilla]

Oh I think the policy makers in West know that only too well but it puts them in an awkward position given their quite correct position on Assad these last few years.

Personally I think that is why we still aren't actively engaging ISIS on the other side of the imaginary border except for the odd kill list hit obviously.

The don't want to be seen proping up Assad especially by Israel.

[foreveryoung]

Is the rumour that Isis were actually trained and set up by the CIA true. Obviously they have got too big for there boots now, or is this what the Americans want. Awol??

[snowychap]

What 'rumour'?