Isis attacks in Iraq

[Pretty Boy]

Seriously just what the hell is going there?

A group of Christians forced to take refuge half way up a mountain as fundementalist nutters rampage through their city.

Did Blair and Bush not heed any of the numerous warnings about the sectarian can of worms they would open when they invaded? I see the US are planning a humanitarian aid drop:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

[Stranraer]

Seriously just what the hell is going there?

A group of Christians forced to take refuge half way up a mountain as fundementalist nutters rampage through their city.

Did Blair and Bush not heed any of the numerous warnings about the sectarian can of worms they would open when they invaded? I see the US are planning a humanitarian aid drop:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

I think the escalation of sectarian violence in Iraq puts to bed the few people who think invasion turned the country around. Maybe the first time I have disagreed with Christopher Hitchens.

[--------]

Seriously just what the hell is going there?

A group of Christians forced to take refuge half way up a mountain as fundementalist nutters rampage through their city.

Did Blair and Bush not heed any of the numerous warnings about the sectarian can of worms they would open when they invaded? I see the US are planning a humanitarian aid drop:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

The Yazidi are seen as 'devil-worshippers' by Muslims - their beliefs are a mixture of Judaism, Islam and Christianlty, with a bit of Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism thrown in. The've been around for a very long time - well over a millennium, I think.

Of course neither Bush nor Blair were concerned about what would happen after their war was over and they'd handed Iraq back to whatever previously puppet government happened to be around at the time. They were well warned that the most likely outcome would be a revival of the very same violent and intolerant Islamism that they were allegedly going into Iraq to destroy.

ISIS aren't nutters - they're a very nasty, very intolerant, merciless and ruthless group of extreme Muslims who will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. They're in a fair way to taking over Syria and Iraq already, and their influence is growing among other extreme Islamist groups like our friends Hamas.

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

[Sir David Gray]

Yet another country where Christians are facing persecution from Islamic extremists over their faith.

Unlike some countries though, until recently, Iraq has always been a nation where its Christian population has been able to live in relative peace and safety.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who did some really awful things during his time in power, however things have got a whole lot worse in the 11 years since his removal as President.

I don't see any sign at the moment that the current government in Iraq is capable of stopping ISIS' growing influence in the north of the country and for those Christians who live there and are deciding to stay in their homes, I really fear for their safety.

[Bristolhibby]

Seriously just what the hell is going there?

A group of Christians forced to take refuge half way up a mountain as fundementalist nutters rampage through their city.

Did Blair and Bush not heed any of the numerous warnings about the sectarian can of worms they would open when they invaded? I see the US are planning a humanitarian aid drop:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

Bush didn't even know that there were different types of Muslims (Sunni or Shiia).

It's a bit like not knowing about Catholics and Protestants.

J

[NAE NOOKIE]

Seems to me that these lunatics need to be stopped in their tracks.

There are many lunatic religious groups in the world of every faith and denomination. But ISIS seem determined to out do all of them for brutality and insanity. Its been the case in many parts of the world that one faith or denomination will persecute another, even leading at times to one side or another carrying out massacres.

The big problem here is that we are not talking about some frenzied outburst of sectarian violence. If reports are to be believed ISIS are systematically and deliberately carrying out a policy of religious ethnic cleansing. E.G. If you are a Shia muslim or a Christian, or I dare say Jewish .... basically anything that isn't a sunni muslim, your choice is convert or die. Apparently they have little problem carrying out the 'or die' part.

This is an organised heavily armed movement with thousands of highly motivated fighters. The problem is, who is going to stop them? If the Americans wade in the next thing that happens is the whole muslim world turns on the "great satan" for yet again killing muslims. As the Yanks have found getting involved is a no win situation.

Who will stop these modern day Nazis ?

[Pretty Boy]

Seems to me that these lunatics need to be stopped in their tracks.

There are many lunatic religious groups in the world of every faith and denomination. But ISIS seem determined to out do all of them for brutality and insanity. Its been the case in many parts of the world that one faith or denomination will persecute another, even leading at times to one side or another carrying out massacres.

The big problem here is that we are not talking about some frenzied outburst of sectarian violence. If reports are to be believed ISIS are systematically and deliberately carrying out a policy of religious ethnic cleansing. E.G. If you are a Shia muslim or a Christian, or I dare say Jewish .... basically anything that isn't a sunni muslim, your choice is convert or die. Apparently they have little problem carrying out the 'or die' part.

This is an organised heavily armed movement with thousands of highly motivated fighters. The problem is, who is going to stop them? If the Americans wade in the next thing that happens is the whole muslim world turns on the "great satan" for yet again killing muslims. As the Yanks have found getting involved is a no win situation.

Who will stop these modern day Nazis ?

That's the massive problem.

You look at perhaps the Saudis who involved themselves in the Iran/Iraq war and also allowed the US and UK to base themselves there during the 1st Gulf War? Would they be willing as a predominantly Wahhabi and Sunni state to get involved? Do they have any desire to or anything to gain by doing so?

Turkey? Unlikely as a predominantly secular society that relies so heavily on tourism. They would also likely be worried about losing land to a Kurdish movement looking for a state of it's own. Probably have enough to worry about with the tensiond with Syria as well.

UAE, Qatar, Russia, France.....? Unikely.

[NAE NOOKIE]

That's the massive problem.

You look at perhaps the Saudis who involved themselves in the Iran/Iraq war and also allowed the US and UK to base themselves there during the 1st Gulf War? Would they be willing as a predominantly Wahhabi and Sunni state to get involved? Do they have any desire to or anything to gain by doing so?

Turkey? Unlikely as a predominantly secular society that relies so heavily on tourism. They would also likely be worried about losing land to a Kurdish movement looking for a state of it's own. Probably have enough to worry about with the tensiond with Syria as well.

UAE, Qatar, Russia, France.....? Unikely.

All true and very, very depressing.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

If it was genuinely UN sanctioned, I would support anyone with the means to do so, getting the refugees in the area supplies and targetted strikes against those ISIS loons, even if those involved were the US air force, and all the baggage that entails.

We should hang our heads in shame at the devastation we left that country in. It seems like the whole expensively assembled 'democratic' government infrastructure we created has just imploded, including the joke of the army we were supposedly training in Basra. And meanwhile, religious minorities that coexisted for hundreds of years are now on the run from the religious zealots.

[judas]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

If it was genuinely UN sanctioned, I would support anyone with the means to do so, getting the refugees in the area supplies and targetted strikes against those ISIS loons, even if those involved were the US air force, and all the baggage that entails.

We should hang our heads in shame at the devastation we left that country in. It seems like the whole expensively assembled 'democratic' government infrastructure we created has just imploded, including the joke of the army we were supposedly training in Basra. And meanwhile, religious minorities that coexisted for hundreds of years are now on the run from the religious zealots.

Wait for the Afghanistan farce, coming soon.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

If it was genuinely UN sanctioned, I would support anyone with the means to do so, getting the refugees in the area supplies and targetted strikes against those ISIS loons, even if those involved were the US air force, and all the baggage that entails.

We should hang our heads in shame at the devastation we left that country in. It seems like the whole expensively assembled 'democratic' government infrastructure we created has just imploded, including the joke of the army we were supposedly training in Basra. And meanwhile, religious minorities that coexisted for hundreds of years are now on the run from the religious zealots.

Public outrage is a dangerous animal.

Saddam Hussein is a monster and needs to be removed!

We've no right to start an illegal war in Iraq.

Troops out of Iraq.

We're deserting the Iraqi people.

We need to intervene against ISIS.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Just Alf]

Sometimes I give up on "Humanity" :brickwall


What's happening in Iraq is wrong
What's happening in Palestine is wrong
What's happening in Central Africa etc is wrong

sometimes I just want to give up.

[Hibrandenburg]

Sometimes I give up on "Humanity" :brickwall


What's happening in Iraq is wrong
What's happening in Palestine is wrong
What's happening in Central Africa etc is wrong

sometimes I just want to give up.

I hear you mate, it's the feeling of helplessness to do anything about it that gets me most. When I joined the army I naively thought I could make a difference, when I left I swore I would only ever take up arms to fight fascism. It would appear that fascism has again raised its ugly head in new forms.

[heretoday]

We have to get out of these countries and worry about our own problems. What a mess we in the West have made of things.

[Hibbyradge]

You just gotta love religion.

[Beefster]

You just gotta love religion.

Whilst not on the same scale, isn't that's a bit like saying "you gotta love Scotland", becasue a few dafties stab folk etc or "you gotta love Hibs" because some of the support like to go fighting or throw coins on the pitch?

The vast, vast majority of folk who believe in a deity/deities, whilst I might think they're misguided, live peaceful lives and generally do more good than harm IMHO.

[Stranraer]

Obama authorises air strikes on Iraq. Here we go again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28699832

[--------]

You just gotta love religion.

Aye, right - we all operate on the same level as Jim Jones or the Westchester Baptists or the Mad Mahdi.

Has it occurred to you that that mindless undiscriminating scatter-gun dismissal of "religion" - as if every religious believer from the cowards who organise the Hamas suicide-bombers to the people who run the food-bank at Glasgow City Mission are all cut from the same cloth - is as bigoted and intolerant as the sectarian attitudes evident at Ibrox and Parkhead?

Quite apart from being the sort of smart-ass one-liner I'd expect from someone like Dubya.



Whilst not on the same scale, isn't that's a bit like saying "you gotta love Scotland", becasue a few dafties stab folk etc" or "you gotta love Hibs" because some of the support like to go fighting or throw coins on the pitch?

The vast, vast majority of folk who believe in a deity/deities, whilst I might think they're misguided, live peaceful lives and generally do more good than harm IMHO.

:agree: The distinction we need to be making isn't between religious believers and secular non-believers - hard as it may be for some folks to take in, the vast majority of people get on with one another regardless of the colour of their skin, the size of their bank-account or the church/chapel/mosque/temple/none of the above the go/do not go to to worship/refrain from worshipping. The only disagreement I have with my oppo in St Mary's is about football - he's a Celtic supporter.

The distinction we need to be making is between those who respect the law and those who do not, those who respect human rights and those who do not.

I want to see an end to the fighting in the Gaza Strip, but to suggest that the problem is wholly down to the Israeli government and the IDF and nothing whatever to do with the intransigent terrorists in power on the other side of the border is naive if not outright dishonest.

Gaza has become a convenient "cause". It's easy to whip up a demo or two against Israel, get your piccies in the papers and on the net, and maybe even get interviewed for the media as well. And it's awfully good for one's sense of self-congratulatory self-esteem. It counts as "good works" in our new secular way of thinking.

Pardon me if I'm being unfair or over-cynical, but right now something in the region of 200,000 of my fellow Christians are fleeing and homeless in Iraq since ISIS took their city of Qaraqosh. That's around 25% of all the Christians in Iraq - who have been under severe threat from both the Sunni and Shi'a Muslims in Iraq since the handover to an indigenous Iraqi government. This is in addition to the 50,000 or so Yazidi "infidels" hiding in the mountains since their homes were seized by the same group last week. Neither the Yazidi nor the Qaraqosh people are terrorists - or at least they weren't before ISIS arrived. I guess some of them will now be re-thinking their position.

The approach of ISIS is having the effect of radicalising Muslim attitudes in the countries around - religious intolerance has been increasing in Pakistan for the past few years, for example - not just towards Christians, but towards everyone considered an infidel by the more intolerant members of the Muslim community. We're even seeing a hardening of attitudes in our own country - on both sides of the racial and ethnic divide.

It's not about religion - it's about respect for the law and for other people's human rights, and however I may disagree with secularists and atheists and adherents of other faiths and religions, I need to respect them. What I find very hard to respect is the way some liberals pick 'n mix the causes they choose to support while majestically ignoring other causes equally urgent and distressing.

[marinello59]

Aye, right - we all operate on the same level as Jim Jones or the Westchester Baptists or the Mad Mahdi.

Has it occurred to you that that mindless undiscriminating scatter-gun dismissal of "religion" - as if every religious believer from the cowards who organise the Hamas suicide-bombers to the people who run the food-bank at Glasgow City Mission are all cut from the same cloth - is as bigoted and intolerant as the sectarian attitudes evident at Ibrox and Parkhead?

Quite apart from being the sort of smart-ass one-liner I'd expect from someone like Dubya.




:agree: The distinction we need to be making isn't between religious believers and secular non-believers - hard as it may be for some folks to take in, the vast majority of people get on with one another regardless of the colour of their skin, the size of their bank-account or the church/chapel/mosque/temple/none of the above the go/do not go to to worship/refrain from worshipping. The only disagreement I have with my oppo in St Mary's is about football - he's a Celtic supporter.

The distinction we need to be making is between those who respect the law and those who do not, those who respect human rights and those who do not.

I want to see an end to the fighting in the Gaza Strip, but to suggest that the problem is wholly down to the Israeli government and the IDF and nothing whatever to do with the intransigent terrorists in power on the other side of the border is naive if not outright dishonest.

Gaza has become a convenient "cause". It's easy to whip up a demo or two against Israel, get your piccies in the papers and on the net, and maybe even get interviewed for the media as well. And it's awfully good for one's sense of self-congratulatory self-esteem. It counts as "good works" in our new secular way of thinking.

Pardon me if I'm being unfair or over-cynical, but right now something in the region of 200,000 of my fellow Christians are fleeing and homeless in Iraq since ISIS took their city of Qaraqosh. That's around 25% of all the Christians in Iraq - who have been under severe threat from both the Sunni and Shi'a Muslims in Iraq since the handover to an indigenous Iraqi government. This is in addition to the 50,000 or so Yazidi "infidels" hiding in the mountains since their homes were seized by the same group last week. Neither the Yazidi nor the Qaraqosh people are terrorists - or at least they weren't before ISIS arrived. I guess some of them will now be re-thinking their position.

The approach of ISIS is having the effect of radicalising Muslim attitudes in the countries around - religious intolerance has been increasing in Pakistan for the past few years, for example - not just towards Christians, but towards everyone considered an infidel by the more intolerant members of the Muslim community. We're even seeing a hardening of attitudes in our own country - on both sides of the racial and ethnic divide.

It's not about religion - it's about respect for the law and for other people's human rights, and however I may disagree with secularists and atheists and adherents of other faiths and religions, I need to respect them. What I find very hard to respect is the way some liberals pick 'n mix the causes they choose to support while majestically ignoring other causes equally urgent and distressing.

:top marks

[Stranraer]

You just gotta love religion.

I hear "it's all down to religion" quite a lot. As an Atheist I thoroughly reject the idea that we are born sinners. That being said, I have nothing against particular religions / religious people.

There are extremists in Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other religion but I don't think they are representative.

[hibsbollah]

US air strikes on ISIS positions being reported in the last hour.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Aye, right - we all operate on the same level as Jim Jones or the Westchester Baptists or the Mad Mahdi.

Has it occurred to you that that mindless undiscriminating scatter-gun dismissal of "religion" - as if every religious believer from the cowards who organise the Hamas suicide-bombers to the people who run the food-bank at Glasgow City Mission are all cut from the same cloth - is as bigoted and intolerant as the sectarian attitudes evident at Ibrox and Parkhead?

Quite apart from being the sort of smart-ass one-liner I'd expect from someone like Dubya.




:agree: The distinction we need to be making isn't between religious believers and secular non-believers - hard as it may be for some folks to take in, the vast majority of people get on with one another regardless of the colour of their skin, the size of their bank-account or the church/chapel/mosque/temple/none of the above the go/do not go to to worship/refrain from worshipping. The only disagreement I have with my oppo in St Mary's is about football - he's a Celtic supporter.

The distinction we need to be making is between those who respect the law and those who do not, those who respect human rights and those who do not.

I want to see an end to the fighting in the Gaza Strip, but to suggest that the problem is wholly down to the Israeli government and the IDF and nothing whatever to do with the intransigent terrorists in power on the other side of the border is naive if not outright dishonest.

Gaza has become a convenient "cause". It's easy to whip up a demo or two against Israel, get your piccies in the papers and on the net, and maybe even get interviewed for the media as well. And it's awfully good for one's sense of self-congratulatory self-esteem. It counts as "good works" in our new secular way of thinking.

Pardon me if I'm being unfair or over-cynical, but right now something in the region of 200,000 of my fellow Christians are fleeing and homeless in Iraq since ISIS took their city of Qaraqosh. That's around 25% of all the Christians in Iraq - who have been under severe threat from both the Sunni and Shi'a Muslims in Iraq since the handover to an indigenous Iraqi government. This is in addition to the 50,000 or so Yazidi "infidels" hiding in the mountains since their homes were seized by the same group last week. Neither the Yazidi nor the Qaraqosh people are terrorists - or at least they weren't before ISIS arrived. I guess some of them will now be re-thinking their position.

The approach of ISIS is having the effect of radicalising Muslim attitudes in the countries around - religious intolerance has been increasing in Pakistan for the past few years, for example - not just towards Christians, but towards everyone considered an infidel by the more intolerant members of the Muslim community. We're even seeing a hardening of attitudes in our own country - on both sides of the racial and ethnic divide.

It's not about religion - it's about respect for the law and for other people's human rights, and however I may disagree with secularists and atheists and adherents of other faiths and religions, I need to respect them. What I find very hard to respect is the way some liberals pick 'n mix the causes they choose to support while majestically ignoring other causes equally urgent and distressing.

http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/top%20marks.gif

[NAE NOOKIE]

You just gotta love religion.

Always spoken as if religion is always a bad thing and as if religion has a monopoly on lunacy.

The Communists under Stalin who had no religion killed about 20,000,000 people. The Kurdish PKK who are communist / socialist have enlisted the use of suicide bombers.

I'm willing to bet that for every person who has killed in the name of religion a thousand have died because they were religious. Those who do kill in the name of God, as they see it, are always going against the actual teachings of the religion they follow and have twisted it to suit their ends.

For my part....... "You shall not kill" ....... not exactly unclear or ambiguous.

[Stranraer]

Always spoken as if religion is always a bad thing and as if religion has a monopoly on lunacy.

The Communists under Stalin who had no religion killed about 20,000,000 people. The Kurdish PKK who are communist / socialist have enlisted the use of suicide bombers.

I'm willing to bet that for every person who has killed in the name of religion a thousand have died because they were religious. Those who do kill in the name of God, as they see it, are always going against the actual teachings of the religion they follow and have twisted it to suit their ends.

For my part....... "You shall not kill" ....... not exactly unclear or ambiguous.

How many religious people don't kill because of a commandment as basic as that?

[Lucius Apuleius]

How many religious people don't kill because of a commandment as basic as that?

Me. Along with the other nine.

[--------]

Me. Along with the other nine.

Me too.

And Mao Tse-Tung (who wasn't a noticeably religious guy) was directly reposnsible for around 70 million deaths from famine during the Great Leap Forward and another 20 million or so during the Cultural Revolution.

How many millions did the present rulers of the PRC kill after the students' revolt and Tiananmen?

Was Pol Pot a 'religious' guy? Saddam Hussein? Don't think so.

[NAE NOOKIE]

How many religious people don't kill because of a commandment as basic as that?

It should be all of them .... that isn't pro or anti what I was saying in context of the post it was directed towards. Morality or moral behaviour isn't the sole preserve of religion or religious people any more than genocide or murder is restricted to those groups. The point I was making is that certainly in the case of Christianity based on the New Testament the instruction to Christians not to kill is clear .... therefore any Christian who does is disobeying the very instruction of that which they profess to follow. Hardly then the fault of the book if any do.

I am no expert on the Muslim faith, but from what I understand of it the subjugation of women and extreme behaviour practiced by a far too large percentage of its followers comes from extreme or mistaken interpretations of the text .... rather than any clear instruction in the Quran to behave in that manner.

Ideology isn't the problem really, we as human beings are the problem, it seems we have an inbuilt need or compunction to destroy each other. The examples I gave in my other post pointed to that, and by implication suggested that it is also a fact that decent moral behaviour can be practiced by anybody, religious or not.

The main gripe I have is that suggestions are made that religion instructs its followers to kill when in fact, certainly in the case of Christianity, it patently does not.

[Stranraer]

Based on that logic if your master said "Kill" you would have to do it. Ridiculous, if someone isn't killing because God has told them not to there is something far wrong.

[Stranraer]

Me too.

And Mao Tse-Tung (who wasn't a noticeably religious guy) was directly reposnsible for around 70 million deaths from famine during the Great Leap Forward and another 20 million or so during the Cultural Revolution.

How many millions did the present rulers of the PRC kill after the students' revolt and Tiananmen?

Was Pol Pot a 'religious' guy? Saddam Hussein? Don't think so.

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. I'm not saying Atheistic regimes haven't committed genocide but religious killers claim to have a God given right to kill.

Numbers 31:13-18 Moses was not a nice guy either.

[Stranraer]

It should be all of them .... that isn't pro or anti what I was saying in context of the post it was directed towards. Morality or moral behaviour isn't the sole preserve of religion or religious people any more than genocide or murder is restricted to those groups. The point I was making is that certainly in the case of Christianity based on the New Testament the instruction to Christians not to kill is clear .... therefore any Christian who does is disobeying the very instruction of that which they profess to follow. Hardly then the fault of the book if any do.

I am no expert on the Muslim faith, but from what I understand of it the subjugation of women and extreme behaviour practiced by a far too large percentage of its followers comes from extreme or mistaken interpretations of the text .... rather than any clear instruction in the Quran to behave in that manner.

Ideology isn't the problem really, we as human beings are the problem, it seems we have an inbuilt need or compunction to destroy each other. The examples I gave in my other post pointed to that, and by implication suggested that it is also a fact that decent moral behaviour can be practiced by anybody, religious or not.

The main gripe I have is that suggestions are made that religion instructs its followers to kill when in fact, certainly in the case of Christianity, it patently does not.

Yes, maybe the Christian old testament is better forgotten about. (Deuteronomy 17).

I guess I'm taking that part of out context?

[Hibrandenburg]

Me too.

And Mao Tse-Tung (who wasn't a noticeably religious guy) was directly reposnsible for around 70 mj.j.illion deaths from famine during the Great Leap Forward and another 20 million or so during the Cultural Revolution.

How many millions did the present rulers of the PRC kill after the students' revolt and Tiananmen?

Was Pol Pot a 'religious' guy? Saddam Hussein? Don't think so.


The common denominator between religious and political madness is people believing they are doing what they do to satisfy a cause. They're all nuts and scare the **** out of me.

Why can't people just believe what they want/need to believe and be done with it. Why the mental urge to find others of a similar thinking and bond into a group and demonize those who think differently? I just don't get it, safety in numbers?

[Pete]

The details coming out now are horrific. Men and boys being slaughtered, children being mutilated, heads impaled on crosses, mass rape...and now we have hundreds of Yazidi women taken by the ****, probably to become "brides" or just sex slaves.

I'm struggling to read and watch as I can't imagine what it must be like. I don't care about the ramifications, the people who left this vacuum have a duty to stop this and stop it now by any means. Tough talk, a few food parcels and the odd air strike aren't good enough when you consider what's happening right now to these innocent people.

The behaviour of our own, supposedly civilised governments in the west makes me absolutely sick sometimes.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Based on that logic if your master said "Kill" you would have to do it. Ridiculous, if someone isn't killing because God has told them not to there is something far wrong.

I think that reply is ridiculous to be honest. Why would anything that preaches peace tell someone to kill? I don't kill anymore than I commit adultery (even if I was capable) or steal, or take the name of God in vain etc etc. Why not? Probably not purely because it says in the bible I shouldn't do it, common decency and respect would dictate I do it anyway. Any book that agrees with these principles is alright in my opinion. Remembering that the bible was allegedly written at a time when murder etc was pretty rife it took brave men, in my opinion, to tell people that these things were wrong and wjhy they were wrong. Not going to get into a huge theological debate. I believe in what I believe.

[Stranraer]

I think that reply is ridiculous to be honest. Why would anything that preaches peace tell someone to kill? I don't kill anymore than I commit adultery (even if I was capable) or steal, or take the name of God in vain etc etc. Why not? Probably not purely because it says in the bible I shouldn't do it, common decency and respect would dictate I do it anyway. Any book that agrees with these principles is alright in my opinion. Remembering that the bible was allegedly written at a time when murder etc was pretty rife it took brave men, in my opinion, to tell people that these things were wrong and wjhy they were wrong. Not going to get into a huge theological debate. I believe in what I believe.

It's not ridiculous, you have to follow your God's orders do you not and the Bible is not a peaceful book neither is the Christian God peaceful. Maybe we should "thank God" that the Old Testament has all but been forgotten about by most 21st century Christians.

And I would never question that you have the right to believe what you want but when you believe in something so extraordinarily improbable you have to expect to be questioned from time to time.

[Rasta_Hibs]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

The Yazidi are seen as 'devil-worshippers' by Muslims - their beliefs are a mixture of Judaism, Islam and Christianlty, with a bit of Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism thrown in. The've been around for a very long time - well over a millennium, I think.

Of course neither Bush nor Blair were concerned about what would happen after their war was over and they'd handed Iraq back to whatever previously puppet government happened to be around at the time. They were well warned that the most likely outcome would be a revival of the very same violent and intolerant Islamism that they were allegedly going into Iraq to destroy.

ISIS aren't nutters - they're a very nasty, very intolerant, merciless and ruthless group of extreme Muslims who will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. They're in a fair way to taking over Syria and Iraq already, and their influence is growing among other extreme Islamist groups like our friends Hamas.

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

Sorry to be a dick but why should we afraid? Im not living in fear of anyone. If anyone from ISIS wants a square go id fight them. If they going to blow me up, so be it but I will never live in fear from these **** bags!

[--------]

Yes, maybe the Christian old testament is better forgotten about. (Deuteronomy 17).

I guess I'm taking that part of out context?


The Nt puts the OT law into its Christian context.

John 8:2-11

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.

They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?”

They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

The Pharisees and their mates were trying to trap Jesus - either he says that the Law doesn't matter any longer, or he condemns the woman to death.

If he says the first, he's in trouble with the people watching and listening, because they know that the Pharisees are at it, and besides, they've arrested the woman, but where's the man? (Adultery even in those days was a two-person activity, after all.) They know that there's an injustice going on here, and they don't expect Jesus to connive at it.

If he says the second, he's in trouble with the Temple authorities, for contradicting the Scriptures and saying in effect that God's Law is wrong.

His answer is neither - he doesn't say that what the Law condemns is OK, because it isn't. But, he says, the only person qualified to enforce that Law is the person who has never broken that Law himself. And since in the Sermon on the Mount he's already made it clear that the Law stands as one Law - no one can pick 'n mix which bits he keeps and which bits he ignores - we can't take the line that those who've never committed adultery kill the adulterers, and those who've never stolen anything can kill the thieves. Only the righteous man in the sight of God can stand up to enforce God's Law and judge the sinner.

So the standard of righteousness and moral conduct hasn't changed; what has changed is that the self-righteous who condemn others while remaining convinced of their own moral probity are forced to look at themselves and understand that their conduct falls far short of what it should be, just as much as the conduct of folks like the woman caught out with her married boyfriend. Romans 3:10-12 -" There is none righteous, not even one ..."

Deuteronomy and Leviticus stand as Law, but Christ makes it absolutely clear that the only person qualified to enforce them is the person who has never broken the Law contained in them to even the smallest extent.

A fuller and more explicit expression of how Christ sees OT Law, and how he expects his followers to treat it, is in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5,6,and 7.

As a general rule, the NT always defines and qualifies the OT in matters of Law and morality.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Yes, maybe the Christian old testament is better forgotten about. (Deuteronomy 17).

I guess I'm taking that part of out context?

I guess most Christians prefer to look at the OT in the context of the NT and the teachings of Christ which preach non violence.

Don't get me wrong here ...... There have been and will be many so called Christians who use their own interpretation of the bible as an excuse to persecute and worse. Muslims are the same ..... As I understand it the Quran actually instructs Muslims to be tolerant of other faiths and to live in peace with them, certainly in the case of Jews and Christians.

You can draw an analogy with football here I suppose:

All clubs encourage the loyalty of their supporters, but non of them want to see one of their supporters batter a fan of another club. I have never felt the need to fight with someone coz they didn't support Hibs. But football violence happens, even though from FIFA down to the smallest regional association football related violence is condemned and the vast majority of football fans agree with them.

Should football as a sport, or everybody who follows it then be condemned because a minority of its devotees act like idiots.

Its a clumsy analogy ... but you see what I'm getting at.

[Beefster]

@DMcCaffreySKY: BREAKING: Islamic state killed at least 500 Yazidis, buried them in mass graves. Evidence some children and women were buried alive -Iraq.

https://twitter.com/dmccaffreysky/status/498412719432024064

Unbelievable.

[hibsbollah]

@DMcCaffreySKY: BREAKING: Islamic state killed at least 500 Yazidis, buried them in mass graves. Evidence some children and women were buried alive -Iraq.

https://twitter.com/dmccaffreysky/status/498412719432024064

Unbelievable.


Ive just had to prise the iPad out of my childs hand earlier when she was accessing that piece of news. Absolutely horrific.

[NAE NOOKIE]

@DMcCaffreySKY: BREAKING: Islamic state killed at least 500 Yazidis, buried them in mass graves. Evidence some children and women were buried alive -Iraq.

https://twitter.com/dmccaffreysky/status/498412719432024064

Unbelievable.

I'm a commie pinko liberal pacifist ....... But sometimes a situation arises where things are so bad, so utterly inhuman, that any measures available to put a stop to it have to be considered. Is there any sane person in the world, no matter what their religion, politics or national interest, who can look on this situation and these people with anything other than utter revulsion.

Of the myriad of utter evils available to human beings to perpretate deliberate and calculated genocide has to be top of the list. It is a condemnation of the so called international community that there is not already a concerted and determined international effort to wipe these **** from the face of the earth.

Even if a person is a Sunni muslim and wants to see the whole world under sharia law based purely on their interpretation or sect of Islam ....... how can they have any sympathy with this barbaric and savage movement. What are Sunnis world wide saying about this?

[hibsbollah]

I'm a commie pinko liberal pacifist ....... But sometimes a situation arises where things are so bad, so utterly inhuman, that any measures available to put a stop to it have to be considered. Is there any sane person in the world, no matter what their religion, politics or national interest, who can look on this situation and these people with anything other than utter revulsion.

Of the myriad of utter evils available to human beings to perpretate deliberate and calculated genocide has to be top of the list. It is a condemnation of the so called international community that there is not already a concerted and determined international effort to wipe these **** from the face of the earth.

:agree:

I think theres a danger of liberals/left leaning people reacting negatively to any overseas ntervention automatically, because of the baggage of US intervention in Iraq Afghanistan and elsewhere. The UN is in theory an organisation that should be willing and able to get involved in a humanitarian capacity where there is an obvious need.

[Pretty Boy]

I'm a commie pinko liberal pacifist ....... But sometimes a situation arises where things are so bad, so utterly inhuman, that any measures available to put a stop to it have to be considered. Is there any sane person in the world, no matter what their religion, politics or national interest, who can look on this situation and these people with anything other than utter revulsion.

Of the myriad of utter evils available to human beings to perpretate deliberate and calculated genocide has to be top of the list. It is a condemnation of the so called international community that there is not already a concerted and determined international effort to wipe these **** from the face of the earth.

Even if a person is a Sunni muslim and wants to see the whole world under sharia law based purely on their interpretation or sect of Islam ....... how can they have any sympathy with this barbaric and savage movement. What are Sunnis world wide saying about this?

Excellent post and sums up my feelings.

[Stranraer]

I'm a commie pinko liberal pacifist ....... But sometimes a situation arises where things are so bad, so utterly inhuman, that any measures available to put a stop to it have to be considered. Is there any sane person in the world, no matter what their religion, politics or national interest, who can look on this situation and these people with anything other than utter revulsion.

Of the myriad of utter evils available to human beings to perpretate deliberate and calculated genocide has to be top of the list. It is a condemnation of the so called international community that there is not already a concerted and determined international effort to wipe these **** from the face of the earth.

Even if a person is a Sunni muslim and wants to see the whole world under sharia law based purely on their interpretation or sect of Islam ....... how can they have any sympathy with this barbaric and savage movement. What are Sunnis world wide saying about this?

I sincerely doubt another intervention would work and why are you asking a football forum what Sunni Muslims think of these cretins?

[Stranraer]

http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-scholars-condemn-expulsion-iraqs-christian-brothers-120656878.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1298792/british-muslims-unite-to-condemn-evil-isis

[NAE NOOKIE]

:agree:

I think theres a danger of liberals/left leaning people reacting negatively to any overseas ntervention automatically, because of the baggage of US intervention in Iraq Afghanistan and elsewhere. The UN is in theory an organisation that should be willing and able to get involved in a humanitarian capacity where there is an obvious need.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but this is not a regime change scenario or a case of going in out of self interest. If this was a civil war where the side you don't like is winning, tough, you don't have a right to interfere.

But this is more than that ..... in this situation I fail to see how anybody, especially those of a liberal bent, can turn a blind eye to what is going on ...... It seems to me that ISIS / Islamic State will only stop their insanity when they have total control of the region or they are destroyed. I don't think food parcels dropped onto a mountain is going to do that.

Even the Sunni majority states in the region face danger. From what I can see I'm willing to bet that ISIS look on the people in charge of these states ( Sunni or not ) as a bunch of infidel traitors to the faith because they havnt themselves introduced a policy of butchering anybody who isn't a Sunni or willing to become one to save their life. Apparently they nice people at ISIS are also big fans of female genital mutilation and the odd bit of sex slavery too.

[Betty Boop]

Well Im confused to say the least. Is ISIS not the same rebels backed by the West and Gulf states in Syria ? Bit of an about turn now surely ?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate/5386998

[Hibrandenburg]

Well Im confused to say the least. Is ISIS not the same rebels backed by the West and Gulf states in Syria ? Bit of an @about turn now surely ?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate/5386998

That site is Crackpot Central.

[lobster]

The stories and pictures coming out of Northern Iraq right now are truly terrifying. I hope the neocons with their deranged 'clash of civilizations' ideology are pleased with the results of the invasion in 2003. They seem to have helped materialised this horror through their ill-conceived and ill-informed ideological dreamstate. Really tragic situation.

[Betty Boop]

That site is Crackpot Central.Aye because only your opinion counts on here.

[Sir David Gray]

There's now a picture emerging from Twitter of an ISIS fighter tweeting a picture of his seven year old son apparently holding up the severed head of a Syrian soldier.

Unbelievable.

[Hibrandenburg]

Aye because only your opinion counts on here.

Awe c'mon, ISIS being covertly funded by the Yanks and used as a tool to force a merger into 3 states in Iraq and Syria.

9/11 conspiracy links.

Your having a laugh if you expect me to accept that site as a credible source of information.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I sincerely doubt another intervention would work and why are you asking a football forum what Sunni Muslims think of these cretins?

What do you think would work ..... negotiation ?

I'm asking that question on a football forum because the discussion is on a football forum. I did not ask it because I thought there are mountains of Sunni muslims logged on to Hibs.Net dying to find out our opinion on ISIS. I posed the question because I genuinely don't know the answer in the hope that someone would enlighten me ........ which I see you have, thanks.

From the apparently annoyed tone of your post I can only presume that you think my question was asked based on a presumption on my part that sane ordinary run of the mill Sunni Muslims are in some way in favour of ISIS methods ........... I assure you it was not.

[Stranraer]

What do you think would work ..... negotiation ?

I'm asking that question on a football forum because the discussion is on a football forum. I did not ask it because I thought there are mountains of Sunni muslims logged on to Hibs.Net dying to find out our opinion on ISIS. I posed the question because I genuinely don't know the answer in the hope that someone would enlighten me ........ which I see you have, thanks.

From the apparently annoyed tone of your post I can only presume that you think my question was asked based on a presumption on my part that sane ordinary run of the mill Sunni Muslims are in some way in favour of ISIS methods ........... I assure you it was not.

Sorry mate I must have misinterpreted your post. I must say though I hear a lot of talk anytime a Muslim does something bad about "where is the Muslim condemnation"? As if Muslims have an international spokesperson ready to condemn evil doers.

Anyway, negotiation it has to be. After the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 Britain and America need to keep their troops on home soil.

[hibsbollah]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but this is not a regime change scenario or a case of going in out of self interest. If this was a civil war where the side you don't like is winning, tough, you don't have a right to interfere.

But this is more than that ..... in this situation I fail to see how anybody, especially those of a liberal bent, can turn a blind eye to what is going on ...... It seems to me that ISIS / Islamic State will only stop their insanity when they have total control of the region or they are destroyed. I don't think food parcels dropped onto a mountain is going to do that.

Even the Sunni majority states in the region face danger. From what I can see I'm willing to bet that ISIS look on the people in charge of these states ( Sunni or not ) as a bunch of infidel traitors to the faith because they havnt themselves introduced a policy of butchering anybody who isn't a Sunni or willing to become one to save their life. Apparently they nice people at ISIS are also big fans of female genital mutilation and the odd bit of sex slavery too.

I think we're in agreement. An isolationist foreign policy isnt always a good thing.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Sorry mate I must have misinterpreted your post. I must say though I hear a lot of talk anytime a Muslim does something bad about "where is the Muslim condemnation"? As if Muslims have an international spokesperson ready to condemn evil doers.

Anyway, negotiation it has to be. After the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 Britain and America need to keep their troops on home soil.

Nae probs, looking back I could have worded it better.

Perhaps it is a problem that there is difficulty getting an organised Muslim response in situations like this one ... would help if there was one to address the sections of society who love to tar everybody with the same brush ...... often for their own ends.

I understand why so many are down on U.S. / U.K. involvement against ISIS considering the utter balls up we have made of the middle east up to now ..... what we have done has positively encouraged the rise of this movement, or at least enabled its rise.

But IMO two wrongs don't make a right. To ignore this situation would be as bad a mistake as going off half cocked was in the first place. The stated aim of ISIS as I understand it is nothing less than conversion of the whole world to their extreme form of Islam. That is not an unusual outlook for Islamists, but how they are prepared to go about it is. They are in the process of setting up their own Islamic state which if they have their way will exclude any other form of Islam, never mind tolerate any other religion.

There are many Islamic states in the region like Iran and Saudi Arabia .... Though other religions in these countries are hardly encouraged and in some cases, like 7 million Christians in the new Egypt, get a pretty hard time with little intervention from the authorities, they still stop short of outright state run persecution. That obviously will not be the case in the new Islamic state if current events are anything to go by.

What is the future then? From their new state will ISIS set out on a vicious expansion policy taking in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc etc. What will be the target after that? Egypt, Algeria, Turkey .......... Israel. Then what?

This movement simply cannot be allowed to establish any form of organised state from which to expand their modern day Nazi empire, to allow them to do so would be a mistake of ( no pun intended ) Biblical proportions to the utter detriment of the whole world, from the most fervent atheist to the most fanatical non Sunni Muslim.

[Stranraer]

Nae probs, looking back I could have worded it better.

Perhaps it is a problem that there is difficulty getting an organised Muslim response in situations like this one ... would help if there was one to address the sections of society who love to tar everybody with the same brush ...... often for their own ends.

I understand why so many are down on U.S. / U.K. involvement against ISIS considering the utter balls up we have made of the middle east up to now ..... what we have done has positively encouraged the rise of this movement, or at least enabled its rise.

But IMO two wrongs don't make a right. To ignore this situation would be as bad a mistake as going off half cocked was in the first place. The stated aim of ISIS as I understand it is nothing less than conversion of the whole world to their extreme form of Islam. That is not an unusual outlook for Islamists, but how they are prepared to go about it is. They are in the process of setting up their own Islamic state which if they have their way will exclude any other form of Islam, never mind tolerate any other religion.

There are many Islamic states in the region like Iran and Saudi Arabia .... Though other religions in these countries are hardly encouraged and in some cases, like 7 million Christians in the new Egypt, get a pretty hard time with little intervention from the authorities, they still stop short of outright state run persecution. That obviously will not be the case in the new Islamic state if current events are anything to go by.

What is the future then? From their new state will ISIS set out on a vicious expansion policy taking in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc etc. What will be the target after that? Egypt, Algeria, Turkey .......... Israel. Then what?

This movement simply cannot be allowed to establish any form of organised state from which to expand their modern day Nazi empire, to allow them to do so would be a mistake of ( no pun intended ) Biblical proportions to the utter detriment of the whole world, from the most fervent atheist to the most fanatical non Sunni Muslim.

Utter balls up is an understatement. If this (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/) report is true and 500,000 Iraqi's have been killed then Blair and co. are guilty of war crimes. That being said I know some people on the left like to think they can simply win an argument by mentioning the Iraq war - it's very easy to bring it up.

The point is, and ISIS expansion wouldn't happen in Shia Iran - I'm sure the regime there is helping fight ISIS.

I really don't know what the future is in the Middle East. Syria is a mess and many Jihadists are part of the rebel fight against Assad but I have seen no evidence that intervention by the US / Britain would do any good whatsoever in either Syria or Iraq. We tend to make a bad situation worse.

[ballengeich]

Well Im confused to say the least. Is ISIS not the same rebels backed by the West and Gulf states in Syria ? Bit of an about turn now surely ?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate/5386998

Was it not the case that an initial western intention to aid the Syrian rebels foundered when the involvement of ISIS became known?


That site is Crackpot Central.

Yes.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Utter balls up is an understatement. If this (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/) report is true and 500,000 Iraqi's have been killed then Blair and co. are guilty of war crimes. That being said I know some people on the left like to think they can simply win an argument by mentioning the Iraq war - it's very easy to bring it up.

The point is, and ISIS expansion wouldn't happen in Shia Iran - I'm sure the regime there is helping fight ISIS.

I really don't know what the future is in the Middle East. Syria is a mess and many Jihadists are part of the rebel fight against Assad but I have seen no evidence that intervention by the US / Britain would do any good whatsoever in either Syria or Iraq. We tend to make a bad situation worse.

As always in the middle east there is no way to predict what will happen. Syria and Saudi Arabia are majority Sunni countries and though Iran would be a hard target for ISIS they would have different thoughts on these two.

The position of Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest factor here. ISIS look upon Shias as heretics and therefore it may be the case that they would want to control Saudi Arabia and therefor Mecca to prevent Shias access. That of course would give them control of the massive Saudi oil fields. I have my doubts that the Saudi army would be capable of putting up a fight against my local TA regiment no matter how incredibly well armed they are .... where would there motivation be up against not only ( in the case of most Saudis ) fellow Sunnis, but fellow Sunnis who are likely to shoot captured Saudi prisoners as traitors for resisting ...... God help any Shia captives.

One thing is for sure. Forget the humanitarian angle or any measured response from the U.S. if the Saudi oil fields look like being over run. They will see it as a direct threat to their national security and hit ISIS with everything they've got. They will do that with the blessing of the Saudi royal family whose 5,000 odd members will do anything required to maintain their eye wateringly opulent and privileged lifestyle.

Which ever way things turn out one thing is for sure ..... Its not going to end well, when does it ever in that part of the world?

[John_the_angus_hibby]

The details coming out now are horrific. Men and boys being slaughtered, children being mutilated, heads impaled on crosses, mass rape...and now we have hundreds of Yazidi women taken by the ****, probably to become "brides" or just sex slaves.

I'm struggling to read and watch as I can't imagine what it must be like. I don't care about the ramifications, the people who left this vacuum have a duty to stop this and stop it now by any means. Tough talk, a few food parcels and the odd air strike aren't good enough when you consider what's happening right now to these innocent people.

The behaviour of our own, supposedly civilised governments in the west makes me absolutely sick sometimes.

As General Powell warned Bush et al. If you break it, you fix it. How many years was the US in Germany and Japan before they became stable?

"we" broke Iraq (forget the "should we have bit" that's history and now irrelevant), we should fix it. And I don't care if it takes another 10 years. It's our responsibility.

[NAE NOOKIE]

As General Powell warned Bush et al. If you break it, you fix it. How many years was the US in Germany and Japan before they became stable?

"we" broke Iraq (forget the "should we have bit" that's history and now irrelevant), we should fix it. And I don't care if it takes another 10 years. It's our responsibility.

Unfortunately the parallel with Japan and Germany isn't much help when it comes to the middle east. The Germans had been battered into submission and in any case would have fallen into line with anyone who would keep the Russians out. The Japanese are and were a self contained state and all singing from the same song sheet ..... lucky for them the Americans got in before the Chinese were in a position to.

Iraq is more like the old Yugoslavia or just about any sub Saharan African country you care to name, where people with different loyalties, tribal groupings and religious identities were all thrown together into artificially created countries by the likes of the British and French before they had the chance to create nations based on their own societies make up. The results of that can be seen in what happened in Rwanda.

I do not think US intervention or any intervention in the middle east will fix things the way it did in Japan or Germany. The best they could ever hope for is a controlled situation where people can live some sort of 'normal' day to day lives without the fear of death or persecution. That can never happen with ISIS around ..... getting rid of them probably wont improve or solve the long term problem of the region, but not having them around cant be a bad thing that's for sure.

[John_the_angus_hibby]

Unfortunately the parallel with Japan and Germany isn't much help when it comes to the middle east. The Germans had been battered into submission and in any case would have fallen into line with anyone who would keep the Russians out. The Japanese are and were a self contained state and all singing from the same song sheet ..... lucky for them the Americans got in before the Chinese were in a position to.

Iraq is more like the old Yugoslavia or just about any sub Saharan African country you care to name, where people with different loyalties, tribal groupings and religious identities were all thrown together into artificially created countries by the likes of the British and French before they had the chance to create nations based on their own societies make up. The results of that can be seen in what happened in Rwanda.

I do not think US intervention or any intervention in the middle east will fix things the way it did in Japan or Germany. The best they could ever hope for is a controlled situation where people can live some sort of 'normal' day to day lives without the fear of death or persecution. That can never happen with ISIS around ..... getting rid of them probably wont improve or solve the long term problem of the region, but not having them around cant be a bad thing that's for sure.

Point well made re the Balkanised nature of this area. But I see sectarian problems giving. Oxygen to the likes of IS, but I also see them as (I hold my hand up but will defend the use of the word, old fashioned tho it is) evil. In other words, I don't care about their ideology. There is good, bad and evil. Evil I believe needs addressing regardless. I know there is also a law of unforseen consequences also. But some of this is beyond human behaviour.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Point well made re the Balkanised nature of this area. But I see sectarian problems giving. Oxygen to the likes of IS, but I also see them as (I hold my hand up but will defend the use of the word, old fashioned tho it is) evil. In other words, I don't care about their ideology. There is good, bad and evil. Evil I believe needs addressing regardless. I know there is also a law of unforseen consequences also. But some of this is beyond human behaviour.

Nae argument from me JTAH. Their ideology is immaterial ... wouldn't matter if they were Christians, Communists or waiting for the return of space beings to take them home ....... evil is evil.

[Hibrandenburg]

Unfortunately the parallel with Japan and Germany isn't much help when it comes to the middle east. The Germans had been battered into submission and in any case would have fallen into line with anyone who would keep the Russians out. The Japanese are and were a self contained state and all singing from the same song sheet ..... lucky for them the Americans got in before the Chinese were in a position to.

Iraq is more like the old Yugoslavia or just about any sub Saharan African country you care to name, where people with different loyalties, tribal groupings and religious identities were all thrown together into artificially created countries by the likes of the British and French before they had the chance to create nations based on their own societies make up. The results of that can be seen in what happened in Rwanda.

I do not think US intervention or any intervention in the middle east will fix things the way it did in Japan or Germany. The best they could ever hope for is a controlled situation where people can live some sort of 'normal' day to day lives without the fear of death or persecution. That can never happen with ISIS around ..... getting rid of them probably wont improve or solve the long term problem of the region, but not having them around cant be a bad thing that's for sure.

That's quite a good summary of the situation. Maybe you could post it to our and the US' government. :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

That's quite a good summary of the situation. Maybe you could post it to our and the US' government. :greengrin

I don't have to mate ......Like all commie pinko liberals everything I do is monitored by the government :confused:

[Betty Boop]

What a catalogue of disasters the "west " creates. Libya on the verge of meltdown.

[(((Fergus)))]

What a catalogue of disasters the "west " creates. Libya on the verge of meltdown.

There are no westerners in Libya. Are you saying that Arabs are incapable of free will and self-government?

[(((Fergus)))]

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/FlZBJpg_exR8oxOheSBEQ01m6g8=/775x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/671674/france_isis.0.png

More here: http://www.vox.com/2014/8/26/6067123/isis-poll

[hibsbollah]

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/FlZBJpg_exR8oxOheSBEQ01m6g8=/775x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/671674/france_isis.0.png

More here: http://www.vox.com/2014/8/26/6067123/isis-poll

That demographic data was compiled by Putin's Russian State run media, Fergus. As even the source states, it is hardly unbiased.

[Betty Boop]

There are no westerners in Libya. Are you saying that Arabs are incapable of free will and self-government?

I'm talking about our interventions as well you know.

[Stranraer]

To be honest the more I read about ISIS and the more I see makes me think more needs to be done to crush them, I'm not sure if air strikes are enough.

[Sylar]

To be honest the more I read about ISIS and the more I see makes me think more needs to be done to crush them, I'm not sure if air strikes are enough.

So help me God if you dare suggested 'tactical nuclear strike' :greengrin

[Stranraer]

So help me God if you dare suggested 'tactical nuclear strike' :greengrin

the words tactical and nuclear should be followed by penguin - a drink that has got me off my head once or twice!

[The_Exile]

I see the terror threat level has been increased to "Severe". I'm assuming this is par for the course with what's going on just now but quite unsettling none the less!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271

[TheReg!]

I see the terror threat level has been increased to "Severe". I'm assuming this is par for the course with what's going on just now but quite unsettling none the less!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271


Mmmmm, the cynic in me thinks that this has only been done for the NATO summit in the coming week, it gives the police and security service more powers to stop and search etc.

[Hibrandenburg]

Mmmmm, the cynic in me thinks that this has only been done for the NATO summit in the coming week, it gives the police and security service more powers to stop and search etc.

Or we're just about to poke a stick in some hornet's nest somewhere!

[CropleyWasGod]

Or we're just about to poke a stick in some hornet's nest somewhere!

Tanks on Charlotte Square outside Eck's house by next weekend?

:cb

[TheReg!]

Or we're just about to poke a stick in some hornet's nest somewhere!

Possibly, however that hornet 's nest doesn't need a stick to send them crazy, they do that them self due to the cult that they follow!

[Stranraer]

Apparently IS have beheaded another American journalist

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29038217

[CB_NO3]

Why do IS not attempt to remove Israel? All the media here are claiming that the IS is a major worry and a threat to the west. Do they know they are not capable of doing anything to Israel? Or are they happy with the occupied land of Iraq and Syria that targeting the West is their next aim?

[Stranraer]

Why do IS not attempt to remove Israel? All the media here are claiming that the IS is a major worry and a threat to the west. Do they know they are not capable of doing anything to Israel? Or are they happy with the occupied land of Iraq and Syria that targeting the West is their next aim?

Apparently IS think killing other Muslims is more important.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.605097

[hibsbollah]

Apparently IS think killing other Muslims is more important.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.605097

Hence ISIS getting low levels of support in Gaza, less than they do in France, if Fergus' earlier link is to be believed. An apostate is worse than an unbeliever, apparently.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't hate religion and I don't hate Islam, I just hate how some people decide how to practice their religion.

Religion is an idealogical choice and IS have decided to enforce their beliefs on others. They are a cancer that needs to be removed and that needs to be done now.

[Stranraer]

I don't hate religion and I don't hate Islam, I just hate how some people decide how to practice their religion.

Religion is an idealogical choice and IS have decided to enforce their beliefs on others. They are a cancer that needs to be removed and that needs to be done now.

Religion makes people believe they have the God-given right to carry out obscene practises.

[Hibrandenburg]

Religion makes people believe they have the God-given right to carry out obscene practises.

No causes do, whether it be religious or political.

[Stranraer]

No causes do, whether it be religious or political.

Religious acts are usually carried out BECAUSE people think they have God on their side.

[Hibrandenburg]

Religious acts are usually carried out BECAUSE people think they have God on their side.

Yes, BUT these kind of barbaric atrocities are not confined to ideological religious fanatics, there's been enough atrocities committed in the name of "Glorious Leaders" or political beliefs to prove that point. People with a cause political or religious (I personally don't distinguish between the two) can become monsters in its name.

[Stranraer]

Yes, BUT these kind of barbaric atrocities are not confined to ideological religious fanatics, there's been enough atrocities committed in the name of "Glorious Leaders" or political beliefs to prove that point. People with a cause political or religious (I personally don't distinguish between the two) can become monsters in its name.

Fair enough, very good point :aok:

[Betty Boop]

This is from the Daily Mail letters page, however the woman has nailed it for me.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByW-gTFCEAAGNxe.jpg

[NAE NOOKIE]

This is from the Daily Mail letters page, however the woman has nailed it for me.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByW-gTFCEAAGNxe.jpg

Sums it all up nicely. Now then Aubrey ... the solution please :greengrin

[Dinkydoo]

Sums it all up nicely. Now then Aubrey ... the solution please :greengrin

That's it for me. A lot of people seem to be shouting about us funding "another illeagal war" but what are we supposed to do? We seem to pick and choose which fights to get involved in and I'm not comfortable with a lot of choices we've made in terms of military involvement over the past decade however, IS currently appear to pose the greatest threat to ourselves and that coupled with our aid workers being beheaded and a real genocide of percieved apostates in that part of the middle east, I feel that if we can make a contribution, it would be inhumane not to. This part of the ME won't be stablised with military involvement alone but I can't think of any other feasible option for a 'first step' in that process - IS need to be controlled and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think they'll respond to reasoninng and diplomacy.

[Sir David Gray]

That's it for me. A lot of people seem to be shouting about us funding "another illeagal war" but what are we supposed to do? We seem to pick and choose which fights to get involved in and I'm not comfortable with a lot of choices we've made in terms of military involvement over the past decade however, IS currently appear to pose the greatest threat to ourselves and that coupled with our aid workers being beheaded and a real genocide of percieved apostates in that part of the middle east, I feel that if we can make a contribution, it would be inhumane not to. This part of the ME won't be stablised with military involvement alone but I can't think of any other feasible option for a 'first step' in that process - IS need to be controlled and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think they'll respond to reasoninng and diplomacy.

:top marks It's all fine to say we caused the emergence of IS in Iraq after invading the country in 2003. That may be largely true and the legalities of the Iraq war have been done to death but that's in the past and we can't undo what's gone on over the last 11 years.

We need to react to what's going on right now and what's happening just now in Iraq and Syria is intolerable. The level of brutality that's being displayed by these fanatics is something which cannot be allowed to continue.

They are modern day Nazis. People like that will not simply stop after conquering Iraq and Syria. Their intention is to spread right across the world and anyone who has the mindset of "It doesn't affect us because it's thousands of miles away" would do well to realise that there are many people who sympathise with, and support, these people living in almost every single country in the world, including the United Kingdom.

Doing nothing just because there's an argument which says that if it wasn't for us invading Iraq in 2003 then IS wouldn't exist today doesn't make any sense to me.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:top marks It's all fine to say we caused the emergence of IS in Iraq after invading the country in 2003. That may be largely true and the legalities of the Iraq war have been done to death but that's in the past and we can't undo what's gone on over the last 11 years.

We need to react to what's going on right now and what's happening just now in Iraq and Syria is intolerable. The level of brutality that's being displayed by these fanatics is something which cannot be allowed to continue.

They are modern day Nazis. People like that will not simply stop after conquering Iraq and Syria. Their intention is to spread right across the world and anyone who has the mindset of "It doesn't affect us because it's thousands of miles away" would do well to realise that there are many people who sympathise with, and support, these people living in almost every single country in the world, including the United Kingdom.

Doing nothing just because there's an argument which says that if it wasn't for us invading Iraq in 2003 then IS wouldn't exist today doesn't make any sense to me.

Sorry Trig, but my catch all for this argument is why stop at places where oil supply is at stake. We are standing back whilst Zimbabwe and Burmah, to name but two, are guilty of human rights abuses. Doesn't bother us too much about them.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry Trig, but my catch all for this argument is why stop at places where oil supply is at stake. We are standing back whilst Zimbabwe and Burmah, to name but two, are guilty of human rights abuses. Doesn't bother us too much about them.

This is one of my arguments.

However, it's a mind-****. If we go in, we risk radicalising thousands (hate to say it, but Galloway was right on that score), thereby storing up more trouble for the future. If we don't do it, are "we" (ie the UK public) actually at risk? I believed Campbell et al back in 2003, with the 45-minute claim, and hate myself for doing so. I'm not keen to go down that route again.

Think I've said it before on here, but the West didn't actually defeat Al-qaeda on the battlefield. That was done through other means, by degrading their support networks, cutting off their funding.... and by the lovely black ops. Is there a case for taking those options against IS?

[Phil D. Rolls]

This is one of my arguments.

However, it's a mind-****. If we go in, we risk radicalising thousands (hate to say it, but Galloway was right on that score), thereby storing up more trouble for the future. If we don't do it, are "we" (ie the UK public) actually at risk? I believed Campbell et al back in 2003, with the 45-minute claim, and hate myself for doing so. I'm not keen to go down that route again.

Think I've said it before on here, but the West didn't actually defeat Al-qaeda on the battlefield. That was done through other means, by degrading their support networks, cutting off their funding.... and by the lovely black ops. Is there a case for taking those options against IS?

I think Britain needs to reassess its pretensions to be a World power. I'm sick of our (the UK at present) oil wealth being squandered on wars. I think we got a five year gap between paying off WW2 and getting involved in the Middle East.

[Dinkydoo]

I can't really disagree with any of the points made by Trig, Rolls and CWG since my last post but I'd add that unfortunately, we can't resolve every case of Human Rights abuse going on in the world alone and therefore, we have to be selective in the conflicts we choose to get involved in and (rightly or wrongly) those are, first and foremost the conflicts that we have a vested interest in - whether oil, public saftey...etc is concerned.

Maybe if other Western countries got more involved in trying to resolve some of these issues then some of the wars involving countries that are further down on 'the priority' list could be given support too. It does sadden me to think that one set human lives being lost is 'more important' than another but that is the reality of the situation, we unfortunately don't have endless resources to throw at these problems.

[Sir David Gray]

Sorry Trig, but my catch all for this argument is why stop at places where oil supply is at stake. We are standing back whilst Zimbabwe and Burmah, to name but two, are guilty of human rights abuses. Doesn't bother us too much about them.

I think the fact that IS has already beheaded one British citizen and posted the video of his execution on the internet and have threatened to behead a further two British citizens was the point when most people in the country realised that we could no longer look at this situation from afar and do nothing.

There's many countries across the world whose governments do horrible things to their own people and whilst I certainly support the use of sanctions being taken against those countries and various other forms of punishment, I think we need to reserve military action for cases where there is a direct threat to the UK.

I'll repeat what I said in my last post and I have alluded to this before as well. The rise of Islamic State draws many parallels with the rise of the German Nazi party in the 1930s. I think, given the benefit of hindsight, most people would accept that the approach taken at the time to defeat them was the right one.

If Islamic State is allowed to carry on unchallenged then I hate to think what they might become.

[Bristolhibby]

Sorry Trig, but my catch all for this argument is why stop at places where oil supply is at stake. We are standing back whilst Zimbabwe and Burmah, to name but two, are guilty of human rights abuses. Doesn't bother us too much about them.

Add China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think the fact that IS has already beheaded one British citizen and posted the video of his execution on the internet and have threatened to behead a further two British citizens was the point when most people in the country realised that we could no longer look at this situation from afar and do nothing.

There's many countries across the world whose governments do horrible things to their own people and whilst I certainly support the use of sanctions being taken against those countries and various other forms of punishment, I think we need to reserve military action for cases where there is a direct threat to the UK.

I'll repeat what I said in my last post and I have alluded to this before as well. The rise of Islamic State draws many parallels with the rise of the German Nazi party in the 1930s. I think, given the benefit of hindsight, most people would accept that the approach taken at the time to defeat them was the right one.

If Islamic State is allowed to carry on unchallenged then I hate to think what they might become.
Don't necessarily disagree, but why does it have to be us? The killing of UK citizens feels like a come-on to us .. to justify further attacks within the UK.

[One Day Soon]

Don't necessarily disagree, but why does it have to be us? The killing of UK citizens feels like a come-on to us .. to justify further attacks within the UK.

Who else is going to do it? We are the US' closest ally, an integral part of NATO and our military is one of the most professional, disciplined and experienced in the world.

China and Russia don't do that kind of intervention, France can't or won't. Of the UN Security Council, that leaves us and the US. The BRIC nations don't have the military capacity to do it.

We have to intervene otherwise we are allowing these people to become more powerful, better trained and equipped and more capable of exporting their mayhem. Never mind what they are routinely doing by way of the complete lexicon of crimes aginst humanity on a daily basis. As has been said elsewhere, we either confront them where they are now or we will face them here.

[hibsbollah]

Who else is going to do it? We are the US' closest ally, an integral part of NATO and our military is one of the most professional, disciplined and experienced in the world.

China and Russia don't do that kind of intervention, France can't or won't. Of the UN Security Council, that leaves us and the US. The BRIC nations don't have the military capacity to do it.

We have to intervene otherwise we are allowing these people to become more powerful, better trained and equipped and more capable of exporting their mayhem. Never mind what they are routinely doing by way of the complete lexicon of crimes aginst humanity on a daily basis. As has been said elsewhere, we either confront them where they are now or we will face them here.

I profoundly disagree with that. Turkey and Israel (especially) but also Syria Saudi Jordan and Iran have got well trained fearsome armies, are in the region and are all threatened by IS. What is the British armed forces bringing to the table except for Cameron and Osborne's barely contained militaristic arousal? The UK doesnt even have a functional aircraft carrier capability anymore. We are emphatically NOT required to take on a military pygmy like IS,except for figleaf diplomatic purposes.

[Mibbes Aye]

I profoundly disagree with that. Turkey and Israel (especially) but also Syria Saudi Jordan and Iran have got well trained fearsome armies, are in the region and are all threatened by IS. What is the British armed forces bringing to the table except for Cameron and Osborne's barely contained militaristic arousal? The UK doesnt even have a functional aircraft carrier capability anymore. We are emphatically NOT required to take on a military pygmy like IS,except for figleaf diplomatic purposes.

I think that's an interesting point and I think it's political.

Turkey are arguably more threatened by the Kurds than IS, and if the Kurds are fighting IS then it does no harm to the Turks to allow the Kurds to be depleted.

Israel's concerns aren't centred on Sunni fundamentalism as that is as much focused against the West generally as it is at them - far easier to let the US pick up the gauntlet. That argument itself is political - if you agree with Eisenhower and his comments about the strength of what we used to call the military-industrial complex then bogeymen are necessary to justify defence spending on the scale that occurs, when arguably investing a significant fraction of that money in raising living standards in Iraq would persuade/pacify enough of the population to really dilute some of the fundamentalist message.

I would argue that Israel's fear is secular nationalism, its regional hegemony is more vulnerable to that than some extremist interpretation of Islam - they faced a big threat in the time of Nasser and they perceive a big threat from the pan-Shi'ite alliance of Iran, Assad and Hezbollah today, which while obviously not out-and out secular is closer to that Western liberal democratic tradition in its underpinning philosophies in a way that Sunni'ism doesn't match. On that basis they are like the Turks. IS are ultimately as much a threat to Israel's enemies as they are to Israel.

Obviously Syrian government forces will be engaged in fighting IS. It's fair to assume there's Iranian involvement as well. The Saudis are in the same position they were with Al-Qaeda I guess and as before the US won't want to push for them to be taking a prominent lead in case it leads to too much internal instability.

All IMO admittedly :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

I think that's an interesting point and I think it's political.

Turkey are arguably more threatened by the Kurds than IS, and if the Kurds are fighting IS then it does no harm to the Turks to allow the Kurds to be depleted.

Israel's concerns aren't centred on Sunni fundamentalism as that is as much focused against the West generally as it is at them - far easier to let the US pick up the gauntlet. That argument itself is political - if you agree with Eisenhower and his comments about the strength of what we used to call the military-industrial complex then bogeymen are necessary to justify defence spending on the scale that occurs, when arguably investing a significant fraction of that money in raising living standards in Iraq would persuade/pacify enough of the population to really dilute some of the fundamentalist message.

I would argue that Israel's fear is secular nationalism, it's regional hegemony is more vulnerable to that than some extremist interpretation of Islam - they faced a big threat in the time of Nasser and they perceive a big threat from the pan-Shi'ite alliance of Iran, Assad and Hezbollah today, which while obviously not out-and out secular is closer to that Western liberal democratic tradition in its underpinning philosophies in a way that Sunni'ism doesn't match. On that basis they are like the Turks. IS are ultimately as much a threat to Israel's enemies as they are to Israel.

Obviously Syrian government forces will be engaged in fighting IS. It's fair to assume there's Iranian involvement as well. The Saudis are in the same position they were with Al-Qaeda I guess and as before the US won't want to push for them to be taking a prominent lead in case it leads to too much internal instability.

All IMO admittedly :greengrin

Was there not a deal done between Turkey and Isis, re the release of 46 hostages kidnapped and held in Mosul ? Maybe on condition that Turkey would not take part in military action ?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/09/22/isis_hostages_turkey_just_got_46_hostages_back_fro m_the_terror_group_how.html

[Betty Boop]

Sums it all up nicely. Now then Aubrey ... the solution please :greengrin

Just realised that says Aubrey not Audrey ! Need to get my eyes tested ! :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Does anybody see a way out of this mess even assuming the war goes well? Seems to me we either go with the states that exist (on borders arbitrarily carved out of the Ottoman empire) which means installing a new generation of brutal dictators to hold them together or we try and let the Kurds have a Kurdistan, the Shi'ites join a greater Iran? God knows what you do with the various sunni factions. Bloody disastrous chaos seems a given. :-(

[One Day Soon]

I profoundly disagree with that. Turkey and Israel (especially) but also Syria Saudi Jordan and Iran have got well trained fearsome armies, are in the region and are all threatened by IS. What is the British armed forces bringing to the table except for Cameron and Osborne's barely contained militaristic arousal? The UK doesnt even have a functional aircraft carrier capability anymore. We are emphatically NOT required to take on a military pygmy like IS,except for figleaf diplomatic purposes.


We are taking here about co-ordinated and sustained action to intervene in Iraq. Syria might come later but let's leave that for now. Are you seriously suggesting that an Israeli role is sensible in any of this politically? That is the maddest thing I can think of. And if you think Israel will commit serious hardware to intervene in an Islamic internal civil war which is currently weakening all of her immediate neighbours you need to seriously rethink your Middle east geopolitics.

The countries you mention probably mostly - I'm dubious about doubt Jordan and Saudi - are well equipped to resist IS on the ground internally. Their capacity to deal effectively with IS externally within Iraq is entirely another thing.

Syria's armed forces are a basket case and are fighting a civil war. That leaves Turkey, Saudi, Jordan and Iran. Saudi and Jordan will want ISIS stopped but without too much hands on delivery of their own lest it stir fundamentalist forces within their own borders. So we are down to Turkey and Iran. Turkey will happily see Kurdish forces within Iraq otherwise detained trying to stem the growth of ISIS. So just Iran left. Iran goes in heavy handed and you have a full on Islamic war between Shia and Sunni factions.

No-one likes the idea of Western intervention here. The choice is pretty simple - stand back and let a humanitarian bloodbath continue to unfold or intervene to try and reduce it but be yet again involved in the unsolvable danger of Middle Eastern gangsterism. There's no easy pick because the cavalry is emphatically not going to arrive from somewhere else. While IS may be a military pygmy it is one which is slaughtering, maiming and abusing thousands daily - and the other military pygmies in the region cannot or will not stop it.

Militaristic arousal - what do you actually mean by that? There is no political premium for Cameron and Osborne in this, no votes to be had. The left don't want it, I doubt UKIP want it and the public will be very wary of it.

By the way we don't need an aircraft carrier for this role, we have ground based Tornado aircraft in the region which can do the job and one would assume special forces on the ground too.

[One Day Soon]

Does anybody see a way out of this mess even assuming the war goes well? Seems to me we either go with the states that exist (on borders arbitrarily carved out of the Ottoman empire) which means installing a new generation of brutal dictators to hold them together or we try and let the Kurds have a Kurdistan, the Shi'ites join a greater Iran? God knows what you do with the various sunni factions. Bloody disastrous chaos seems a given. :-(


It seems to me JMS that this is the theater for which the term Cluster Fakk was coined. Sometimes in life there are no happy outcomes, just 5hit ones in which the choice is between different kinds of 5hit. I have no doubt however that the same warped mentality that drives IS will be looking for the West next if it can establish any kind of permanence in the region.

[Big Ed]

Does anybody see a way out of this mess even assuming the war goes well? Seems to me we either go with the states that exist (on borders arbitrarily carved out of the Ottoman empire) which means installing a new generation of brutal dictators to hold them together or we try and let the Kurds have a Kurdistan, the Shi'ites join a greater Iran? God knows what you do with the various sunni factions. Bloody disastrous chaos seems a given. :-(

How about the notion that the vast majority of people living there, would prefer to do so in peace and not under the yoke of vicious murderers masquerading as religious purists: supporting the decent majority sounds good.

Undermining and exposing the charmers, who think that funding these ***** is a good idea, might be a start.

Back on Planet Earth however...

[snooky]

Religious acts are usually carried out BECAUSE people think they have God on their side.

You been listening to Bob D again? :wink:



Oldest political trick in the book. When you have trouble at home, start a war to create a distraction? :dunno:

[steakbake]

Bit of a half baked plan. Years of commitment rather than months. UK are taking a relatively limited roll of bombing only in Iraq. Most analysis are saying it has to end in boots on the ground, but the question is when and whose.

[One Day Soon]

Bit of a half baked plan. Years of commitment rather than months. UK are taking a relatively limited roll of bombing only in Iraq. Most analysis are saying it has to end in boots on the ground, but the question is when and whose.


This is becoming a habit. That is exactly right.

[One Day Soon]

You been listening to Bob D again? :wink:



Oldest political trick in the book. When you have trouble at home, start a war to create a distraction? :dunno:


Who has trouble at home and what war are they starting?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Who else is going to do it? We are the US' closest ally, an integral part of NATO and our military is one of the most professional, disciplined and experienced in the world.

China and Russia don't do that kind of intervention, France can't or won't. Of the UN Security Council, that leaves us and the US. The BRIC nations don't have the military capacity to do it.

We have to intervene otherwise we are allowing these people to become more powerful, better trained and equipped and more capable of exporting their mayhem. Never mind what they are routinely doing by way of the complete lexicon of crimes aginst humanity on a daily basis. As has been said elsewhere, we either confront them where they are now or we will face them here.

Sorry mate, this reads like a press release from the Ministry of Information. For me, the question is why is nobody else doing it? Furthermore, our best chance of avoiding fights with anybody is not to radicalise their youth who live in this country.

Much of what you are saying about ISIS could also have been applied to people fighting to establish a Jewish homeland after WW2.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Who has trouble at home and what war are they starting?

The UK is deep in debt, and can't rely on dwindling oil reserves to finance it. It also as massive problems with the likes of UKIP and the SNP (source, BBC et al. 2014). What better way than to get everybody pulling together than the threat of a bad bogeyman knocking at the door?

[hibsbollah]

We are taking here about co-ordinated and sustained action to intervene in Iraq. Syria might come later but let's leave that for now. Are you seriously suggesting that an Israeli role is sensible in any of this politically? That is the maddest thing I can think of. And if you think Israel will commit serious hardware to intervene in an Islamic internal civil war which is currently weakening all of her immediate neighbours you need to seriously rethink your Middle east geopolitics.

The countries you mention probably mostly - I'm dubious about doubt Jordan and Saudi - are well equipped to resist IS on the ground internally. Their capacity to deal effectively with IS externally within Iraq is entirely another thing.

Syria's armed forces are a basket case and are fighting a civil war. That leaves Turkey, Saudi, Jordan and Iran. Saudi and Jordan will want ISIS stopped but without too much hands on delivery of their own lest it stir fundamentalist forces within their own borders. So we are down to Turkey and Iran. Turkey will happily see Kurdish forces within Iraq otherwise detained trying to stem the growth of ISIS. So just Iran left. Iran goes in heavy handed and you have a full on Islamic war between Shia and Sunni factions.

No-one likes the idea of Western intervention here. The choice is pretty simple - stand back and let a humanitarian bloodbath continue to unfold or intervene to try and reduce it but be yet again involved in the unsolvable danger of Middle Eastern gangsterism. There's no easy pick because the cavalry is emphatically not going to arrive from somewhere else. While IS may be a military pygmy it is one which is slaughtering, maiming and abusing thousands daily - and the other military pygmies in the region cannot or will not stop it.

Militaristic arousal - what do you actually mean by that? There is no political premium for Cameron and Osborne in this, no votes to be had. The left don't want it, I doubt UKIP want it and the public will be very wary of it.

By the way we don't need an aircraft carrier for this role, we have ground based Tornado aircraft in the region which can do the job and one would assume special forces on the ground too.

As it happens, Israeli involvement in a coalition with Arab states against a common enemy might be just what the region needs. Although I acknowledge the difficulties and my main point was the vast military power in the region that most Brits probably dont realise now dwarf our own. The Turks long period of semi genocide against the Kurds, aa a NATO ally, complicate their involvement slightly but we have to look at the important dynamic in all of this; relative military might. The US has almost all of it, and the rest of the 'major powers' are way behind, and their involvement in Syria and Iraq should be looked at through the context of how it plays in the region. You dont won hearts and minds by making it look like Shock n Awe Part 2.

I was being 'saucy' about Camerons arousal. He was actually trembling in the commons. War does that to a certain sort of well bred Etonian.

[One Day Soon]

As it happens, Israeli involvement in a coalition with Arab states against a common enemy might be just what the region needs. Although I acknowledge the difficulties and my main point was the vast military power in the region that most Brits probably dont realise now dwarf our own. The Turks long period of semi genocide against the Kurds, aa a NATO ally, complicate their involvement slightly but we have to look at the important dynamic in all of this; relative military might. The US has almost all of it, and the rest of the 'major powers' are way behind, and their involvement in Syria and Iraq should be looked at through the context of how it plays in the region. You dont won hearts and minds by making it look like Shock n Awe Part 2.

I was being 'saucy' about Camerons arousal. He was actually trembling in the commons. War does that to a certain sort of well bred Etonian.


Yes an Israeli/Pan Arab coalition could have all sorts of wider benefits, the problem is that it is just not deliverable. The unresolved Israeli/Palestinian conflict pi55es in all Middle Eastern waters where Israel is concerned. And Shock and Awe won't do it longer term.

My point still stands, if the West doesn't intervene no-one else is going to. We have seen that time and again in this region and in others. Which is fine, so long as we can live with the video hostage executions, the genocide, the rape, the economic destruction, the subjugation of women and the ritual persecution of all other religious beliefs.

It is do something or do nothing. Everything else in my book is vacillation while people die.

[hibsbollah]

Yes an Israeli/Pan Arab coalition could have all sorts of wider benefits, the problem is that it is just not deliverable. The unresolved Israeli/Palestinian conflict pi55es in all Middle Eastern waters where Israel is concerned. And Shock and Awe won't do it longer term.

My point still stands, if the West doesn't intervene no-one else is going to. We have seen that time and again in this region and in others. Which is fine, so long as we can live with the video hostage executions, the genocide, the rape, the economic destruction, the subjugation of women and the ritual persecution of all other religious beliefs.

It is do something or do nothing. Everything else in my book is vacillation while people die.

So its this way or the highway then? There are no other options on the table?

Are you happy with Camerons intention stated today to continue bombing Iraq and then move on to Syria, and for this to continue for 'three years, perhaps more?'.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Looks like we'll be bombing Oklahoma next.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/26/oklahoma-beheading-muslim-convert-police/16263941/

[One Day Soon]

So its this way or the highway then? There are no other options on the table?

Are you happy with Camerons intention stated today to continue bombing Iraq and then move on to Syria, and for this to continue for 'three years, perhaps more?'.


I think so but otherwise show me the alternative. Would be great if someone else would shoulder the responsibility but they won't. They never do. What are the other options on the table?

Continue bombing Iraq? Is that what is being done? My understanding is that they are trying to target IS - in Iraq. Since IS are headquartered in and mainly spring from Syria I'm not sure how they are stopped unless someone deals with them there, whether that's Assad, the opposition or the West. As for the three years, is that not an estimate of how long it may take to either defeat or deplete IS? Do you have a better timescale?

[hibsbollah]

I think so but otherwise show me the alternative. Would be great if someone else would shoulder the responsibility but they won't. They never do. What are the other options on the table?

Continue bombing Iraq? Is that what is being done? My understanding is that they are trying to target IS - in Iraq. Since IS are headquartered in and mainly spring from Syria I'm not sure how they are stopped unless someone deals with them there, whether that's Assad, the opposition or the West. As for the three years, is that not an estimate of how long it may take to either defeat or deplete IS? Do you have a better timescale?

There are countless alternatives, including diplomacy, special forces, ground troops, arab league, un, multi faceted coalitions that havent been explored simply because the powers involved want it to play out the way it is playing out now. IS wouldnt last two months against a boots on the ground force and against the overwhelming firepower available to the 'coalition'. Three years? Crazy. Maximise the suffering. Why? Pummelling a guerilla force with unmatched air power doesnt work. The guerrillas go into the civilian population and the lopping off of charity workers heads will probably speed up as they run out of options. North Vietnam was fifty years ago and this basic concept hasnt sunk in. There WILL be thousands of civilian deaths, inevitably. Leaving aside the moral question, and indeed the efficacy question, how will three years of bombing Iraq from the skies (third time in 25 years, they probably even recognise some of the pilots from down there in the desert, so yes, from their point of view we are CONTINUING to bomb Iraq, in fact we've barely paused for breath) result in anything else but increased radicalisation?

I support intervention to deal with IS. But wheres the strategy? Whats the destination? And again, what is Britains USP that makes our badly equipped forces (borrowing body armour from the yanks, driving about in jeeps while trying to disable roadside bombs in Helmand) indispensable over there? We walked out of Basra trumpeting how we'd made Iraq safe for democracy and trained the Iraqi army to be strong, and then they crumble in the face of some loons with black flags. Our involvement has been, and will probably continue to be, a total farce.

[(((Fergus)))]

It's all fine to say we caused the emergence of IS in Iraq after invading the country in 2003. That may be largely true and the legalities of the Iraq war have been done to death but that's in the past and we can't undo what's gone on over the last 11 years.



It is false to say we *caused* the emergence of IS. We created a power vacuum by removing the Baathists, then tried to fill that vacuum with a contrived democracy that is not genuine enough to resist what is actually a grassroots movement "caused" by the sunni muslims involved. They were given a fresh start and this is what they came up with.



Does anybody see a way out of this mess even assuming the war goes well? Seems to me we either go with the states that exist (on borders arbitrarily carved out of the Ottoman empire) which means installing a new generation of brutal dictators to hold them together or we try and let the Kurds have a Kurdistan, the Shi'ites join a greater Iran? God knows what you do with the various sunni factions. Bloody disastrous chaos seems a given. :-(


I think the antidote is tribalism. IS is a magnet for lost young men and women who have left their families and changed their names. The map needs to be redrawn to create nation states rather than large multinational entities that suit large multinational companies but where the citizens are alienated. There are very few nation states in the middle east right now but those that do exist are models of stability and prosperity. Iraq has huge oil wealth, Dubai has none, yet only one is stable and prosperous. Even Iran consists of multiple nationalities, including what will hopefully one day be part of an independent Kurdistan.



And if you think Israel will commit serious hardware to intervene in an Islamic internal civil war which is currently weakening all of her immediate neighbours you need to seriously rethink your Middle east geopolitics.


Turkey will happily see Kurdish forces within Iraq otherwise detained trying to stem the growth of ISIS. So just Iran left. Iran goes in heavy handed and you have a full on Islamic war between Shia and Sunni factions.



Israel has said that if Jordan is threatened it will help Jordan defend itself - as it has done in the past.

Turkey seems to be positioning itself relative to the non-Gulf sunni arabs in the way Iran is with the shia. IS fighters have no problem crossing Turkey's borders whereas Kurdish civilians do.




Much of what you are saying about ISIS could also have been applied to people fighting to establish a Jewish homeland after WW2.


More accurately it could reapplied to the people who fought and failed to destroy the Jewish community in Palestine after WWII. They were waging the same jihad for islamic supremacy and dhimmitude of minorities that Islamic State, the Islamic Resistance Movement, and all the other zombified pr1cks continue to wage today.

[(((Fergus)))]

I support intervention to deal with IS. But wheres the strategy? Whats the destination? And again, what is Britains USP that makes our badly equipped forces (borrowing body armour from the yanks, driving about in jeeps while trying to disable roadside bombs in Helmand) indispensable over there? We walked out of Basra trumpeting how we'd made Iraq safe for democracy and trained the Iraqi army to be strong, and then they crumble in the face of some loons with black flags. Our involvement has been, and will probably continue to be, a total farce.

For me, it's enough that the Kurds etc. have asked us. We can do what we can do and I bet the Kurds, Yezidis, Assyrians, etc. will thank us for it. Better we create alliances with them and forget about sucking up to the sunni arabs who will hate the west whatever. (I realise that is unlikely with such an arabist FCO)

[hibsbollah]

For me, it's enough that the Kurds etc. have asked us. We can do what we can do and I bet the Kurds, Yezidis, Assyrians, etc. will thank us for it. Better we create alliances with them and forget about sucking up to the sunni arabs who will hate the west whatever. (I realise that is unlikely with such an arabist FCO)

Fergus, I bet forty or fifty organisations currently fighting wars around the world would 'ask us and then thank us' for attacking their enemies. That doesn't in itself represent a good reason for doing so. Anyway, the question i was posing was not 'do we get involved?' but 'how do we get involved?'.

Incidentally, Have we forgotten about Assad? A few months ago he was the inhuman lunatic, dropping barrel bombs in playgrounds and killing thousands with chlorine. Now he's another forgotten despot and we're being primed to attack his enemies.

As for the Kurds, perhaps only the Palestinians can have a claim to have had so many major powers claim to act on their behalf while doing the exact opposite. We set up 'no fly zones' to protect them from Saddam and then stand by while a NATO power tries to wipe them out. PKK bad, Iraqi Kurds good. Thats the narrative. Except they are the same. I seriously doubt they have much faith in the West to deliver them the state theyve wanted since Balfours time.

Have you any evidence of Philip Hammond being the new Nasser (only reference to the region i can see on their website recently is a rosh hashanah message) or are you just being silly?

[GreenLake]

Awe c'mon, ISIS being covertly funded by the Yanks and used as a tool to force a merger into 3 states in Iraq and Syria.

9/11 conspiracy links.

Your having a laugh if you expect me to accept that site as a credible source of information.

And you are having a laugh if you expect anyone to believe the BBC, CNN or Fox News is a credible source of information.

Seriously, get a grip. :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

I profoundly disagree with that. Turkey and Israel (especially) but also Syria Saudi Jordan and Iran have got well trained fearsome armies, are in the region and are all threatened by IS. What is the British armed forces bringing to the table except for Cameron and Osborne's barely contained militaristic arousal? The UK doesnt even have a functional aircraft carrier capability anymore. We are emphatically NOT required to take on a military pygmy like IS,except for figleaf diplomatic purposes.

Interesting article here. As the weeks go on it appears that the bombing is having even less success than pessimists might have thought. As I said previously, a boots on the ground type force is the only thing that is going to win this war. Turkey looks the most likely to actually have the will to fight a war like that, based on recent developments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/guardian-view-special-forces-air-power-isis

[Hibrandenburg]

Fergus, I bet forty or fifty organisations currently fighting wars around the world would 'ask us and then thank us' for attacking their enemies. That doesn't in itself represent a good reason for doing so. Anyway, the question i was posing was not 'do we get involved?' but 'how do we get involved?'.

Incidentally, Have we forgotten about Assad? A few months ago he was the inhuman lunatic, dropping barrel bombs in playgrounds and killing thousands with chlorine. Now he's another forgotten despot and we're being primed to attack his enemies.

As for the Kurds, perhaps only the Palestinians can have a claim to have had so many major powers claim to act on their behalf while doing the exact opposite. We set up 'no fly zones' to protect them from Saddam and then stand by while a NATO power tries to wipe them out. PKK bad, Iraqi Kurds good. Thats the narrative. Except they are the same. I seriously doubt they have much faith in the West to deliver them the state theyve wanted since Balfours time.

Have you any evidence of Philip Hammond being the new Nasser (only reference to the region i can see on their website recently is a rosh hashanah message) or are you just being silly?

Now we know what we're dealing with in ISIS, maybe it's time we ask ourselves if it was really Assad that deployed chemical weapons? As far as I recall it was never really clarified who actually was responsible. :dunno:

[hibsbollah]

Now we know what we're dealing with in ISIS, maybe it's time we ask ourselves if it was really Assad that deployed chemical weapons? As far as I recall it was never really clarified who actually was responsible. :dunno:

I think most sources (amnesty, hrw iirc) were fairly unanimous that they were both doing it. With the tacit knowledge of the German manufacturers.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think most sources (amnesty, hrw iirc) were fairly unanimous that they were both doing it. With the tacit knowledge of the German manufacturers.

Of course, I'm sure they'll be very interested to know how effective their product is and if they can build a new and improved version.

[hibsbollah]

Of course, I'm sure they'll be very interested to know how effective their product is and if they can build a new and improved version.

There's a graphic novel called Persepolis about the true story of a girl growing up in Iran in the 80s. The boss of the hospital at one point says 'Look in this room! They're all victims of chemical weapons! 'The Germans sell chemical weapons to Iran AND Iraq. The wounded are then sent to Germany to be treated. Veritable human guinea pigs'.

Been going on a long time.

[Betty Boop]

Interesting article here. As the weeks go on it appears that the bombing is having even less success than pessimists might have thought. As I said previously, a boots on the ground type force is the only thing that is going to win this war. Turkey looks the most likely to actually have the will to fight a war like that, based on recent developments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/guardian-view-special-forces-air-power-isis


Do you really think Turkey will put 'boots on the ground', when they're swapping prisoners with ISIS ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29504924

[Hibrandenburg]

Do you really think Turkey will put 'boots on the ground', when they're swapping prisoners with ISIS ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29504924

Why would they? ISIS are sorting out the Kurdish problem for them.

[hibsbollah]

Do you really think Turkey will put 'boots on the ground', when they're swapping prisoners with ISIS ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29504924

That story wouldn't rule it out. Lots of antagonists swap prisoners :dunno:

[hibsbollah]

Why would they? ISIS are sorting out the Kurdish problem for them.

That's the main impediment to their involvement, without a doubt. On the other hand, they're still keen on that pesky EU accession deal and closer ties with Obama. Quid pro quo?

[Betty Boop]

For anybody interested 'Inside The Islamic State' http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39864.htm

[Hibrandenburg]

For anybody interested 'Inside The Islamic State' http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39864.htm

Didn't know that. ISIS being a Zionist controlled organization is a bit of a turn up for the books.

[Betty Boop]

Didn't know that. ISIS being a Zionist controlled organization is a bit of a turn up for the books.

Eh ?

[One Day Soon]

Do you really think Turkey will put 'boots on the ground', when they're swapping prisoners with ISIS ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29504924


I'm still not seeing any effective external intervention so far unless I'm missing something.

[Hibrandenburg]

Eh ?

There's a guy suggesting it in the comments section.

[allmodcons]

For anybody interested 'Inside The Islamic State' http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39864.htm

Cheers BB, found that to be quite informative.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the solution is here.

The US/UK 'whack a mole' approach to foreign affairs of this nature seems to have failed again.

Should we put 'boots on ground', not sure I would.

Support for the Iraqi army is important if the advance of ISIS is to be stopped but, for me, Turkey is key. I think as a NATO member there needs to be a measure of carrot & stick to get them involved. Looking from afar, it would appear that right now they are happy to sit on the sidelines and watch the PKK take a beating.

[(((Fergus)))]

Fergus, I bet forty or fifty organisations currently fighting wars around the world would 'ask us and then thank us' for attacking their enemies. That doesn't in itself represent a good reason for doing so. Anyway, the question i was posing was not 'do we get involved?' but 'how do we get involved?'.

Incidentally, Have we forgotten about Assad? A few months ago he was the inhuman lunatic, dropping barrel bombs in playgrounds and killing thousands with chlorine. Now he's another forgotten despot and we're being primed to attack his enemies.

As for the Kurds, perhaps only the Palestinians can have a claim to have had so many major powers claim to act on their behalf while doing the exact opposite. We set up 'no fly zones' to protect them from Saddam and then stand by while a NATO power tries to wipe them out. PKK bad, Iraqi Kurds good. Thats the narrative. Except they are the same. I seriously doubt they have much faith in the West to deliver them the state theyve wanted since Balfours time.

Have you any evidence of Philip Hammond being the new Nasser (only reference to the region i can see on their website recently is a rosh hashanah message) or are you just being silly?

I hope we are seeing the break up of the Ottoman Empire into nation states after having helped suppress that process for a century (for economic reasons). We have natural allies among those nations and natural enemies (not that we necessarily want to be their enemies but in their eyes we are). I think we should redraw the borders based on current ethnic realities and realistic roll-back of IS and help our allies to defend those borders in whatever way is (economically) feasible. I don't see any reason to destroy an "Islamic State" if it is confined to sunni arab areas. It would serve as a great example to the world and an excellent "bin" for deportees.

Britain has enormous business interests in the sunni arab world. It is the job of the FCO, no matter what the colour of government, to maintain those interests, encouraging us to turn a blind eye to their "illiberal" practices and encouraging them to turn a blind eye to our "kuffar" ways. The FCO also consider Turkey to be a more important ally than a Kurdistan, which is another cynical and servile position.

[Betty Boop]

Cheers BB, found that to be quite informative.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the solution is here.

The US/UK 'whack a mole' approach to foreign affairs of this nature seems to have failed again.

Should we put 'boots on ground', not sure I would.

Support for the Iraqi army is important if the advance of ISIS is to be stopped but, for me, Turkey is key. I think as a NATO member there needs to be a measure of carrot & stick to get them involved. Looking from afar, it would appear that right now they are happy to sit on the sidelines and watch the PKK take a beating.

Yeah informative and fascinating, hard to believe they have a force of more than 30,000. I wouldn't put 'boots on the ground' either, given our track record of intervention.

[Sir David Gray]

I hope we are seeing the break up of the Ottoman Empire into nation states after having helped suppress that process for a century (for economic reasons). We have natural allies among those nations and natural enemies (not that we necessarily want to be their enemies but in their eyes we are). I think we should redraw the borders based on current ethnic realities and realistic roll-back of IS and help our allies to defend those borders in whatever way is (economically) feasible. I don't see any reason to destroy an "Islamic State" if it is confined to sunni arab areas. It would serve as a great example to the world and an excellent "bin" for deportees.

Britain has enormous business interests in the sunni arab world. It is the job of the FCO, no matter what the colour of government, to maintain those interests, encouraging us to turn a blind eye to their "illiberal" practices and encouraging them to turn a blind eye to our "kuffar" ways. The FCO also consider Turkey to be a more important ally than a Kurdistan, which is another cynical and servile position.

The problem with an "Islamic State" is that it won't confine itself to that area. The whole point of Islamism is to spread its message to all parts of the world and convert (by force if necessary) all non-believers to their brand of Islam. That's exactly what we're seeing right now in Iraq and Syria.

If I.S. gets a recognised independent state here it would be a nightmare.

[Rasta_Hibs]

David Icke said a long time ago that ISIS would be allowed to establish themselves for two reasons - 1 to allow strikes in Syria which will lead to Assad being toppled. 2 - Pulling Iran into a war that they cannot get out off.

[johnbc70]

David Icke said a long time ago that ISIS would be allowed to establish themselves for two reasons - 1 to allow strikes in Syria which will lead to Assad being toppled. 2 - Pulling Iran into a war that they cannot get out off.

He also knew all about Jimmy Saville as well.... But he also claims the Queen is a lizard.

[Hibrandenburg]

But he also claims the Queen is a lizard.

Funny enough, having listened to him babbling on, I thought this was the most likely!

[Haymaker]

He also knew all about Jimmy Saville as well.... But he also claims the Queen is a lizard.

Played in goal for Hereford United too.

[Scouse Hibee]

We can't afford (financially) to intervene, we don't have the funds available for the armed forces unless we take them from somewhere else!

[Big Ed]

The problem with an "Islamic State" is that it won't confine itself to that area. The whole point of Islamism is to spread its message to all parts of the world and convert (by force if necessary) all non-believers to their brand of Islam. That's exactly what we're seeing right now in Iraq and Syria.

If I.S. gets a recognised independent state here it would be a nightmare.

The two parts of the sentence that I've highlighted don't seem compatible: would you mind clarifying?

[steakbake]

We can't afford (financially) to intervene, we don't have the funds available for the armed forces unless we take them from somewhere else!

The UK has an over inflated military for the size of area they purport to be there to defend. However, the defence policy post-1945 is militarist, aggressive and designed to ensure a level of world prominence that serves only a national sense of self-esteem and (of course) one of the few remaining UK manufacturing industries: the arms industry.

We are over stretched not necessarily because we've a lot to defend, but because we are engaged in various military adventures that we've historically had a hand in causing in the first place. There have been just 3 years in 70 where the UK has not been involved in some kind of military action.

Problem with this (aside from our responsibility in creating the circumstances for it) is i) one of our key arms export destinations (Saudi) is privately funding IS and ii) supporting the group most likely to manage to push IS back and make them containable would probably result in one of our NATO allies likely ceding part of its territory as a result.

[Sir David Gray]

The two parts of the sentence that I've highlighted don't seem compatible: would you mind clarifying?

Certainly.

Islamic State and other Islamist groups like them have one main aim, which is to spread their brand of Islam throughout the world by any means necessary.

They don't tolerate any faith or ideology which differs to their own and they want to rule across as many areas of the world as possible.

[Big Ed]

Certainly.

Islamic State and other Islamist groups like them have one main aim, which is to spread their brand of Islam throughout the world by any means necessary.

They don't tolerate any faith or ideology which differs to their own and they want to rule across as many areas of the world as possible.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Ring the date on the calender.

We agree.

[Sir David Gray]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Ring the date on the calender.

We agree.

Now's your chance to change your mind.

I won't tell anyone!

[Dinkydoo]

Food for thought:


http://youtu.be/ESZN_YDE-TU

Edit: It doesn't all relate to ISIS but it is relevant, I think.

[hibsbollah]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29546714

If it was 'never envisaged they were going to work', what was the point of air strikes at all?

[Dinkydoo]

To pave the way for boots on the ground

[Mon Dieu4]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29546714

If it was 'never envisaged they were going to work', what was the point of air strikes at all?

Air strikes alone were never going to work, they definitely need boots on the ground, IS have been lording it over the area but let's face it they are yet to come up against a proper army yet, they will get obliterated, really not sure what the answer is but someone needs to get in there

[hibsbollah]

Air strikes alone were never going to work, they definitely need boots on the ground, IS have been lording it over the area but let's face it they are yet to come up against a proper army yet, they will get obliterated, really not sure what the answer is but someone needs to get in there

Turkey will be in there before too long IMO. They have the second biggest army in NATO, only behind America, and It has all the high tech weaponry going. They would destroy ISIS in a matter of days if the political will is there to do it.


http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=turkey

[Betty Boop]

Great interview from Chomsky, including his take on the current situation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39899.htm

[hibsbollah]

Great interview from Chomsky, including his take on the current situation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39899.htm

Chomsky is a lot better on Palestine, US power and general global politics than he is on Islamic fundamentalism, which I think he underemphasises. Although the western invasions in the middle east were part of the reason for a rise in anti Americanism in the region, it's not the source of ISIS as Chomsky is suggesting. Even if it is, the question 'so what do we do about it now?' remains unanswered. In fact, I don't think he even refers to ISIS as a threat that needs to be confronted at all.

[allmodcons]

Turkey will be in there before too long IMO. They have the second biggest army in NATO, only behind America, and It has all the high tech weaponry going. They would destroy ISIS in a matter of days if the political will is there to do it.


http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=turkey

:agree: IMO the only thing holding them back is concern over future attacks.

If they take on and defeat ISIS which, I agree, is entirely possible, they may have to counter future 'terror' attacks on all fronts (i.e. - from the PKK, the PYD and what is left of ISIS).

That said, I think the best option for Turkey is to confront ISIS with a view to appeasing their own Kurdish population in the first instance and, at a later date, having found some common ground, look to improve long term relations with the Syrian Kurds.

[Betty Boop]

:agree: IMO the only thing holding them back is concern over future attacks.

If they take on and defeat ISIS which, I agree, is entirely possible, they may have to counter future 'terror' attacks on all fronts (i.e. - from the PKK, the PYD and what is left of ISIS).

That said, I think the best option for Turkey is to confront ISIS with a view to appeasing their own Kurdish population in the first instance and, at a later date, having found some common ground, look to improve long term relations with the Syrian Kurds.

Turkey is definitely not in a hurry to help out the Kurds in Kobane, this article may go some way in explaining the reasons why, but you won't read this on Mm.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39928.htm


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39922.htm

[allmodcons]

Turkey is definitely not in a hurry to help out the Kurds in Kobane, this article may go some way in explaining the reasons why, but you won't read this on Mm.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39928.htm


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39922.htm

Thanks again BB. Very interesting and perfectly feasible. Explains the inaction over Kobane and confirms my own believe that the West has created its very own Frankenstein's Monster in the form of ISIS.

[hibsbollah]

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/noam-chomsky-what-links-isis-to-world-war-1-gaza-and-nuclear-catastrophe

This is much better by Chomsky. His analysis of ISIS/Iraq/syria seems to have changed slightly, probably reflecting recent developments. NATO is right there, on the ground with the power to obliterate ISIS and is doing nothing. Politically, we seem to prefer rabid fundamentalist failed states than strong independent secular ones. And as I referred to a while back, the collapse of the Iraqi army in the face of this fairly inconsequential force of nutters is nothing short of bizarre, as Chomsky points out.

[Stranraer]

Air strikes alone were never going to work, they definitely need boots on the ground, IS have been lording it over the area but let's face it they are yet to come up against a proper army yet, they will get obliterated, really not sure what the answer is but someone needs to get in there

This sort of lazy response isn't going to cut it. IS are growing fast and any talk of British troops getting involved should be stamped out now. Britain has a habit of making bad situations worse and I don't want to see more young men return home in boxes after getting involved in yet another war.

[Mon Dieu4]

This sort of lazy response isn't going to cut it. IS are growing fast and any talk of British troops getting involved should be stamped out now. Britain has a habit of making bad situations worse and I don't want to see more young men return home in boxes after getting involved in yet another war.

Eh? At what point in my post did I mention British troops going in there? I said someone needs to get in there, the world is a gigantic place with lots of armies, my first choices would be neighbouring countries and states who have more to lose with the rise of IS than we do, my next choice would be a force of the UN, finally it would be NATO doing something as a combined force

Maybe you just lazily read my post and jumped to some random conclusion

[Betty Boop]

Eh? At what point in my post did I mention British troops going in there? I said someone needs to get in there, the world is a gigantic place with lots of armies, my first choices would be neighbouring countries and states who have more to lose with the rise of IS than we do, my next choice would be a force of the UN, finally it would be NATO doing something as a combined force

Maybe you just lazily read my post and jumped to some random conclusion


The Saudis and the Gulf States could go in. However that would be a conflict of interest then wouldn't it ?

[Stranraer]

Eh? At what point in my post did I mention British troops going in there? I said someone needs to get in there, the world is a gigantic place with lots of armies, my first choices would be neighbouring countries and states who have more to lose with the rise of IS than we do, my next choice would be a force of the UN, finally it would be NATO doing something as a combined force

Maybe you just lazily read my post and jumped to some random conclusion

"Someone needs to get in there". What did you mean? Apparently just 32 civilians have been murdered by US strikes in Syria. Just the 32, these lives mean F all to the British and American powers that be.

http://news.sky.com/story/1358681/us-led-airstrikes-against-is-in-syria-kill-553

Just 32

[Mon Dieu4]

"Someone needs to get in there". What did you mean? Apparently just 32 civilians have been murdered by US strikes in Syria. Just the 32, these lives mean F all to the British and American powers that be.

http://news.sky.com/story/1358681/us-led-airstrikes-against-is-in-syria-kill-553

Just 32

how can I say it any clearer?, some country, Army or coalition of troops need to enter Iraq and Syria to have fisty cuffs with IS

[Stranraer]

how can I say it any clearer?, some country, Army or coalition of troops need to enter Iraq and Syria to have fisty cuffs with IS

Oh that's clear enough but do you really think it will work?

[Mon Dieu4]

Oh that's clear enough but do you really think it will work?

For a while of course it would, I'm all for diplomacy but sometimes a bunch of bams come along who will not listen to reason or entertain talks, these people only understand one thing, force, I don't buy into the whole they are well trained nonsense at all, they are the equivalent of giving 30,000 mentalists weapons, a proper army on the ground would sort them out fairly rapidly, then there would need to be a UN peace force left behind to make sure it doesn't start up again

There is no real right or wrong answer here, but you can't stick with the status quo of them lording about doing whatever they please with no come back at all, this is the western countries predominantly the US and our fault, we should be taking steps to help the poor people left behind in our cluster****

I stand by my point that air strikes are not really going to do an awful lot

[hibsbollah]

For a while of course it would, I'm all for diplomacy but sometimes a bunch of bams come along who will not listen to reason or entertain talks, these people only understand one thing, force, I don't buy into the whole they are well trained nonsense at all, they are the equivalent of giving 30,000 mentalists weapons, a proper army on the ground would sort them out fairly rapidly, then there would need to be a UN peace force left behind to make sure it doesn't start up again

There is no real right or wrong answer here, but you can't stick with the status quo of them lording about doing whatever they please with no come back at all, this is the western countries predominantly the US and our fault, we should be taking steps to help the poor people left behind in our cluster****

I stand by my point that air strikes are not really going to do an awful lot

I cant disagree with any of that. We need an intervention, but a better kind of intervention. Learning from our past mistakes should be easy.

[Big Ed]

I cant disagree with any of that. We need an intervention, but a better kind of intervention. Learning from our past mistakes should be easy.

ISIS now controls an area roughly the size of France. It has declared itself to be a state and has its own Civil Service. They are extremely well funded and despite having volunteers arriving from abroad, to be used as cannon fodder, also has very experienced troops who have fought all over the region for many years.

They are up against a truly pathetic Iraqi army that have offered no resistance, a Syrian army busy fighting a Civil War and various Shia and Kurdish militias.

ISIS are unquestionably in the ascendency and whilst I agree that they must be stopped, I don’t think either ourselves or the Americans should have any military involvement.

Where I think we could help is diplomatically: the neighbouring countries are all in danger too because ISIS ****ing hates everyone.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc. need to have their heads banged together to come up with a coherent strategy to defeat these zealots and as unlikely that is, I can’t see how anything else has the remotest chance of success.

[Stranraer]

I cant disagree with any of that. We need an intervention, but a better kind of intervention. Learning from our past mistakes should be easy.

Should be. I honestly can't see any possibility of intervention working which leaves me in the position of looking on in disgust as IS carry out their brutal and in my opinion, un-Islamic acts without an answer on how to stop them.

[Betty Boop]

Peter Kassig the latest hostage executed by Isis, along with a number of captured Syrian soldiers.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/isis-beheads-peter-kassig-reports

[Sir David Gray]

Peter Kassig the latest hostage executed by Isis, along with a number of captured Syrian soldiers.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/isis-beheads-peter-kassig-reports

Awful news to wake up to this morning.

He is a Muslim convert as well and even that hasn't saved him from this wicked group of people.

Where will this end?

[Big Ed]

Where will this end?

Armageddon?

[Sir David Gray]

Armageddon?

I wouldn't dismiss that.

These people have stated in this latest video that they're going to bring the murder and bloodshed to the streets of the USA in a direct threat to Barack Obama.

I think that's a serious and credible threat. These people want their wicked ideology to be practiced across the whole world, they're not going to be satisfied with just Iraq and Syria.

As I've said before on this subject, anyone who thinks that this is a problem that is thousands of miles away and is nothing for us to worry about should really think again.

[Mibbes Aye]

Where will this end?


Armageddon?

Never-ending, low-level but high-intensity conflict?

It seems to suit many interests to maintain this pattern and let's face it, we've been doing it for decades :dunno:

[Just Alf]

Wishing I had a gun..... Just in case.... :-/

[gringojoe]

Armageddon?

Armageddon out of here!

[Hibrandenburg]

I swore I'd never reach for a weapon again unless fascism raised its ugly head again. Where's my gun?