I.S.

[HOLYMOLY]

Shocking news again.

Time to nuke em?

[bowes]

Sounds like Jordan are preparing a mass execution of IS militants in their prisons. The risk is a domestic backlash as there's widespread support for the Islamic State in the south of the country. Nuclear strike would be tempting if there were somewhere in the desert that would avoid civilian casualties but send a message.

[GeordieSaint]

Nuclear strike would be tempting if there were somewhere in the desert that would avoid civilian casualties but send a message.

 

???? You are off your rocker if you genuinely think that is an option...

[Guest]

Shocking news again.

Time to nuke em?

And where would you drop this nuke/nukes?

[Guest]

I've said it before and I'll say it again we(the west) need to be working with the people who are taking the fight to IS right now on the battlefield namely the Syrian government, Iran, YPG, the peshmerga, Shiite militias, Hezbollah and the Iraqi army.

[Derwent]

I've said it before and I'll say it again we(the west) need to be working with the people who are taking the fight to IS right now on the battlefield namely the Syrian government, Iran, YPG, the peshmerga, Shiite militias, Hezbollah and the Iraqi army.

Why should we (the west) do anything at all ?

[tallsnow]

Why should we (the west) do anything at all ?

Because, whether we like it or not, they will target western interests.

Actually, that reads like a typical argument from any western government.

If we go in, in any way, it will probably prolong this whole mess that is to a certain extent, the fault of certain western powers.

[Guest]

Why should we (the west) do anything at all ?

Im talking about sending weapons to the people who are actually fighting these monsters on the ground in both Iraq and Syria like the peshmerga, YPG, Iraqi government etc and battlefield intel. In no way should the "west" be putting boots on the ground and even bombing the jihadists but it's in both our the middle east's and the "west" best interest to defeat these crazed evil barbarians.

[GeordieSaint]

Im talking about sending weapons to the people who are actually fighting these monsters on the ground in both Iraq and Syria like the peshmerga, YPG, Iraqi government etc and battlefield intel.

 

They've been doing that and British troops are in places like Irbil and Baghdad training various Peshmerga and Iraqi forces. Arming the likes of Hezbollah and Assad is not an option. Whilst there is no doubt IS are monsters and pose a threat to the UK, arming the likes of Hezbollah would be in direct conflict with Britian's strategic interests. I'd be very surprised if it ever happened.

[Martyn Sadler]

Im talking about sending weapons to the people who are actually fighting these monsters on the ground in both Iraq and Syria like the peshmerga, YPG, Iraqi government etc and battlefield intel. In no way should the "west" be putting boots on the ground and even bombing the jihadists but it's in both our the middle east's and the "west" best interest to defeat these crazed evil barbarians.

I'm afraid the evil barbarians are preaching within the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, unfortunately to receptive audiences.

 

See http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4657.htm

[Marauder]

Why should we (the west) do anything at all ?

"Behind you"

[ckn]

Fight them there and the fight is there. Don't fight them there and the fight comes here.

More powerful countries have been doing this for a long long time, pitching their fights abroad and through proxies while keeping a relatively peaceful home situation.

[Guest]

Fight them there and the fight is there. Don't fight them there and the fight comes here.

More powerful countries have been doing this for a long long time, pitching their fights abroad and through proxies while keeping a relatively peaceful home situation.

The only problem I have with that is that IS and al Qaeda weren't in Iraq prior to the US/UK invasion and occupation of Iraq and the Syrian civil war which the "west" and it's gulf "allies" are helping to fuel.

[Jerry the Berry]

They are not there by accident though but by design. Muslims believe that the sign of the end of the world involves 'something' (which I forget right now, was told by a Muslim guy) happening in Syria yadda yadda...so it seems that they are trying to fulfill the prophecy.

This is what concerns me at the moment. I've heard something similar, and I think ISIS are playing on the 'fact' that all this is the beginning of the end as predicted somewhere by someone (or in the Koran, I'm not sure).

 

Lots of young, disillusioned and highly excitable muslims are flocking to the area to join ISIS and it's in danger of very quickly becoming some kind of horrible self-fulfilling 'phrophesy'.

 

For all the ISIS losses in the recent battles with the Kurds, their numbers are still swelling (both inside and outside of their so called caliphate) and that's a major concern I think.

[ckn]

Moderating note: 7 posts deleted.

[GeordieSaint]

For all the ISIS losses in the recent battles with the Kurds, their numbers are still swelling (both inside and outside of their so called caliphate) and that's a major concern I think.

 

A slightly less known issue is that IS have managed to expand further than just Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Only small movements presently but they have a presence in Libya, Afghanistan and the Sinai in Egypt.

[bowes]

Yeah the Islamic State control Derna in Libya. It's unclear if they control any territory in Northern Sinai due to the media blackout but they're very active

[Guest]

Yeah the Islamic State control Derna in Libya. It's unclear if they control any territory in Northern Sinai due to the media blackout but they're very active

Another example of ill thought out and blundering "western" intervention, there was no IS in Libya and no IS control of derna under gaddafi but thanks to the US and NATO there is now. Likewise in Iraq and Syria.

[GeordieSaint]

Another example of ill thought out and blundering "western" intervention, there was no IS in Libya and no IS control of derna under gaddafi but thanks to the US and NATO there is now. Likewise in Iraq and Syria.

 

Do you think Gaddafi would have been able to prevent an insurrection as seen in Syria? He would have butchered many people outside (and in) Benghazi and then seen his country explode even further than it already had. I'd agree the West blundered the aftermath of the intervention but to suggest the current situation is our fault completely misses the reality of what has happening in Libya.

[Guest]

Do you think Gaddafi would have been able to prevent an insurrection as seen in Syria? He would have butchered many people outside (and in) Benghazi and then seen his country explode even further than it already had. I'd agree the West blundered the aftermath of the intervention but to suggest the current situation is our fault completely misses the reality of what has happening in Libya.

Gaddafi's forces were about to crush the rebels in Benghazi before the US and NATO intervened and help overthrow the regime and now we are living with the blowback!! Just like in Iraq and just like in Afghanistan in the late 70's and throughout the 80's.

[gingerjon]

I see there has been quite a robust bombing campaign by Jordan against IS. Is this OK? By that I mean had it been 'the west' would it have been 'unacceptable' or 'imperialist' ? Almost certainly.

 

Quite the strawman argument.

 

My issue with bombing from on high has nothing to do who's doing it - although I'd rather Brits stayed out as much as possible because I don't want British forces dying - as to how effective it is.  Jordan's latest seems to have a lot of 'something must be done, look we're doing something' about it.

[Guest]

I see there has been quite a robust bombing campaign by Jordan against IS. Is this OK? By that I mean had it been 'the west' would it have been 'unacceptable' or 'imperialist' ? Almost certainly.

Jordan shares a border with both Iraq and Syria in which the so called "Islamic state" straddles therefore Jordan's national security is threatened.

[Guest]

Quite the strawman argument.

 

My issue with bombing from on high has nothing to do who's doing it - although I'd rather Brits stayed out as much as possible because I don't want British forces dying - as to how effective it is.  Jordan's latest seems to have a lot of 'something must be done, look we're doing something' about it.

Only the regional actors can destroy "IS", the likes of the Iranian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Syrian, Turkish governments etc. western bombs and western boots on the ground will only swell the ranks of the jihadists which is actually what these monsters want.

[GeordieSaint]

Gaddafi's forces were about to crush the rebels in Benghazi before the US and NATO intervened and help overthrow the regime and now we are living with the blowback!!

 

Crush is a very apt word. Yep, I'd agree that Gaddafi's forces would have rolled into Benghazi and butchered many of the locals but that would not have stopped the revolution that was taking place in Libya. Look across into Syria and see what Assad's brutal attempts to put down the revolution there to see what the outcome would have been. I will not disagree that the West overstepped the mandate of UNSCR 1973 and a lack of engagement post-Gaddafi has allowed extremist elements to take control in many areas. But to suggest the situation would have been rosy if there hadn't been any intervention doesn't reflect the reality of what was going on in Libya at the time.

 

Only the regional actors can destroy "IS", the likes of the Iranian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Syrian, Turkish governments etc. western bombs and western boots on the ground will only swell the ranks of the jihadists which is actually what these monsters want.

 

I'd agree with that. However, Syria doesn't exist as country anymore in reality and it could be argued Iraq doesn't either. Turkey are actively allowing IS and other groups to continue (oil is shipped across the border from IS-held territory through Turkey) as Assad and Iran are seen as a bigger threat to them. The same can be said of other Sunni nations in the rest of the Middle East North Africa region. There is a bigger strategic conflict taking place between Sunni and Shia Islam for control of the region and whilst to us, IS is the threat as a few lunatics from our country may come back here to set a few bombs off, to the countries in the region, they actually aren't the biggest threat.

 

 

Syria is right on the fault line and IS are a fundamentalist tool for Sunni Islam to fight against the Shia. It does sound absolutely crazy to us that countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia can allow these groups to thrive but it isn't anything new. Look at Pakistan's support to the Taliban and Kashmir Islamist groups to counter India's influence in the sub-continent despite the internal threat they create. We simply do not understand what is going on in the Middle East. We tend to think the Israel-Palestine conflict is the cause of all evils in the region but it isn't. It is the Sunni-Shia conflict that is the real issue and it has been going on for over a thousand years. We see the State as the primary actor in the international community but I don't think the Middle East and North African map is going to look the same in the future.

[GeordieSaint]

But nothing on how we funded ISIS in the first place.

 

Same as when we were fighting in Afghanistan when, after saying that we were going in to stop Al Qaeda flooding the west with drugs, poppy growing was not  stopped at all.

 

Hope you don't mind but taken this off the General Election thread as I don't want to go off topic.

 

What makes you think we have funded ISIS? They have nothing to do with Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels the West have backed. ISIS have evolved from the survivors of Al Qaeda in Iraq (or Islamic Army of Iraq as another term). They sloped across the border in 2011 taking advantage of the instability in the country having been defeated by SF operations in Iraq. The instability has allowed them to flourish harnessing the disenfranchisement of Sunni youth in the region at the actions of Assad (see use of chemical weapons for example) and the Maliki-led government in Iraq. We have directed minimal support to the FSA in Syria (usually in the form of non-lethal aid similar to support given to Ukraine presently) whilst the Yanks have done a bit of training and helped facilitate purchase of old eastern European weaponry to the FSA but that is about as far as it goes. I have no doubt that some of those supplies have probably fallen into ISIS hands after they have butchered elements of the FSA or coerced some of them to join their ranks (any wonder when chemical weapons are getting dropped on your families and supposedly allies aren't doing anything?). I have no doubt money sent to help the refugee crisis in Syria has been stolen by ISIS and its supporters. However, I think you are being very disingenuous to suggest we have actively been supporting and financing ISIS for the simple reason we have actually been fighting them since 2006 and we don't have a strategy in Levant/Iraq; our support to the FSA has fallen apart as it has been half-hearted and weak. If you want to point the finger, go no further than Turkey who have allowed fighters to flock across its border into Syria/Iraq and allowed ISIS/Al-Nusra to export roughly about 3m barrels of oil across its borders everyday. I'd chest poke some of the other key Gulf States like Qatar and Saudi Arabia to cut of finance from extreme elements within their own societies as well. But as I mentioned in the previous post, there are far wider reaching reasons why this is happening than we can hope to understand.

 

As for the point about Afghanistan, yep poppy growing was not stopped at all in reality (wasn't Al Qaeda though - tended to be local drug lords and elements of insurgent groups like the Taliban). However, the fundamental reason behind this was when you delved into the local dynamics, it is was the primary crop of many of the locals in communities like Helmand, Kandahar and other provinces around the country. Cut off that income and the insurgency would have exploded. It didn't make sense to try and disrupt this area and was a blatant miscalculation from a political elite in the West who had absolutely no idea what they were talking about or attempting to achieve.