I don't know how true this is, but can you tell us how many civilians the Turkish military have killed in this time?
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/08/2011831135154436928.html
O fuck. Sorry, no idea. Read the article anyway.
I don't know how true this is, but can you tell us how many civilians the Turkish military have killed in this time?
Seven. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/08/2011831135154436928.html
O fuck. Sorry, no idea. Read the article anyway.
In one day.Around a dozen kurdish protestors have been killed in turkey in recent days.
But that's the wrong question. Does Blair enjoy being in his shoes? That's the only relevant question.
I'll give that a read, and I'm not suggesting the PKK deserve support. Often in conflicts, both sides are wrong - a plague on both their houses is the correct response. But often also, only one side's terrible acts are concentrated on, and often it is those nominally fighting in the name of the powerless who are demonised - Chechnya is a prime example. In such cases, supporting the Kurdish people against oppression by the Turkish state, or the Chechen people against oppression by the Russian state, is the best position to take, imo.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/08/2011831135154436928.html
O fuck. Sorry, no idea. Read the article anyway.
...That's one problem we don't need.
That is an interesting question, but of course we are not the only nation in the world with military capabilities, there are nations a lot closer to the conflict than we are that have forces they could deploy.
He's a hot favourite to win the nobel peace prize, so he's probably happy as larry
In such cases, supporting the Kurdish people against oppression by the Turkish state
No, just as the IRA did not represent the Nationalist community in NI. That doesn't mean that the cause does not have some merit.The PKK does not represent the Kurdish people.
Western intervention will make it worse.
Western intervention will make it worse.
Western intervention will make it worse.
What is the history of Western military intervention in the past, say, 50 years? How many times has it succeeded in not making an already bad situation even worse?How much worse can it get?
How much worse can it get?
The West has already intervened, and worse for who exactly?
No, just as the IRA did not represent the Nationalist community in NI. That doesn't mean that the cause does not have some merit.
It can spread to Saudi Arabia.
In this case (IMO)we have the responsibility to help people affected by the mess,we, largely made. I can't for the life of me figure out how leaving IS to wreck havoc and ethnic cleansing is somehow preferable to targeted assistance.What is the history of Western military intervention in the past, say, 50 years? How many times has it succeeded in not making an already bad situation even worse?
Only if IS is left to prosperIt can spread to Saudi Arabia.
I agree that the UK is responsible for the mess. I'm not at all sure that more bombs will do anything but just mess things up even more.In this case (IMO)we have the responsibility to help people affected by the mess,we, largely made. I can't for the life of me figure out how leaving IS to wreck havoc and ethnic cleansing is somehow preferable to targeted assistance.
I think their 'madness' is a given.They'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to invade Saudi Arabia.
They'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to invade Saudi Arabia.
Kobane is proof that bombing can help, boots on the ground would just inflame the situation.I agree that the UK is responsible for the mess. I'm not at all sure that more bombs will do anything but just mess things up even more.
Only if IS is left to prosper
Kobane is proof that bombing can help,
Not yet it's not.
Yes, I think this is right. Specifically, they prosper best in war with infidels. Ie 'us'.They prosper best in war.
They prosper best in war.