Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Islamic state

So, broadly speaking, when given a choice between ISIS and Iran the State of Israel will choose ISIS?

its probably wrong to see this as the Israeli's picking a side, they haven't exactly been reticent about giving Al-Nusra (the sometime AQ ally, now IS ally..) on the Israeli-Syrian border a right shoeing in recent months - they see two enemies on their borders who fight each other and sometimes fight them, Israel is just happy to let them get on with it while taking advantage of any targets of opportunity that come up on either side.
 
not at all. prisoners should be taken and turned. by saying 'no prisoners' you prolong the conflict.

Debatable. If one assumes that there is a finite number of fundamentalist lunatics, you wipe them out. If however, you consider it to be a 'dragon's teeth' situation, then you don't. Any way up, removing the seasoned and experienced ones makes any 'followers on' easier to deal with.

I don't think that these people would be terribly amenable to 'turning'.

In a way it is quite sad. The causes of the conflicts go back generations, and we are now at a stage where the two choices are annihilation of the fundamentalists, or capitulation to their wishes. Capitulation is not going to happen.

What is even more sad is the willingness of these people to use children as suicide bombers. If hell exists, there will be a special corner for them. What they have done is unforgivable.
 
Last edited:
That is based on the assumption that the guy was killed deliberately, rather than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I think Israel have been pretty clear that the real problem is Assad and Iran, they really don't see IS as a threat to themselves and therefore don't really give much of a shit about them, in fact they are useful idiots because they are doing a lot of the dirty work for them.

So yes, for Israel, Iran are much more of a concern then Isil/IS/Daesh etc etc
 

That is the real problem in Syria, if there was to be armed intervention tomorrow, whose side would you fight on behalf of? It is a civil/religious war, with none of the combatants particularly 'clean'. I am not a believer in the 'enemy of your enemy being your friend'. The West armed the Afghanis in their fight against the Russians, only to have those weapons used against them.
 
I think Israel have been pretty clear that the real problem is Assad and Iran, they really don't see IS as a threat to themselves and therefore don't really give much of a shit about them, in fact they are useful idiots because they are doing a lot of the dirty work for them.

So yes, for Israel, Iran are much more of a concern then Isil/IS/Daesh etc etc

Aye, I can understand that.
 
I think Israel have been pretty clear that the real problem is Assad and Iran, they really don't see IS as a threat to themselves and therefore don't really give much of a shit about them, in fact they are useful idiots because they are doing a lot of the dirty work for them.

So yes, for Israel, Iran are much more of a concern then Isil/IS/Daesh etc etc
At the minute.
 
Debatable. If one assumes that there is a finite number of fundamentalist lunatics, you wipe them out. If however, you consider it to be a 'dragon's teeth' situation, then you don't. Any way up, removing the seasoned and experienced ones makes any 'followers on' easier to deal with.

Can you accept that the proportion of a population amenable to militant fanaticism is not a fixed quantity? "No quarter" can be (however cynically) used as a rallying point, and furthermore is not actually necessary for combating militant fanatics.
 
Oh great a bored sunday for a proddy fundie whose been in the services.

Lol. Dude, you're posting bullshit yourself. On a Sunday arvo. Sported by nobody but your missus. I'd lay off this guy and look in the fucking mirror, if you can. Th ultimate keybored warrior.

Anyway, reports on twitter that the Japanese guys are already gone. Allah u akhbar.
 
A good basic mainstream top-down backgrounder for those wanting to get to grips with what 'Turkey' is playing at and why/how:

How Turkey misread the Kurds

The AKP's Syria policy has only contributed to the outcome that it had sought to prevent: widespread support among Kurds in Turkey for the Syrian Kurdish efforts to achieve autonomy in Syria. Turkey appears to have overlooked the anger bubbling among its own Kurds towards its Syria policy.

Yet, it does so at its own peril - AKP's policy is undermining Turkey's efforts to isolate the PKK-affiliated Syrian Kurds and, most importantly, to make peace with its own Kurds.
 
The kurds are not above induluging in inter communal slaughter if nobodys shooting at them.
Old kurdish joke god got bored with other people fighting kurds so gave them a chance to fight among themselves:(
Iraq,iran and syria all armed various kurdish factions at times :(
just about anybody whose armed and can fight has very dubious history
This is the one comflict where israel has mostly clean hands:facepalm: you can tell things have gone massively wrong when the state of israel looks cleanish:confused:
 
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-scope...-after-troops-firefight-islamic-state-1484220
WTF don't just we concentrate our assistance towards the Kurds, provide UN safe havens for the innocents and let the assorted nutjobs fight it out?

because however much our sympathies are directed towards the Kurds and not towards the Iraqi government/state/whatever, if the Iraqi state is defeated by IS, or just stops resisting them, IS will be free to fight on one front instead of 2 or 3. if that happens then the Kurds - of whatever myriad group - will be in very deep shit.

air power, and certainly air power of the level that western electorates will agree to pay for and send to Iraq, will not stop IS if they were free to fight only the Kurds.
 
The kurds are not above induluging in inter communal slaughter if nobodys shooting at them.
Old kurdish joke god got bored with other people fighting kurds so gave them a chance to fight among themselves:(
Iraq,iran and syria all armed various kurdish factions at times :(
just about anybody whose armed and can fight has very dubious history

Is this because of some pre-political genetic disposition or due to being in the middle of very definite historical contexts - i.e the cold war and the regional expressions and local power moves playing out in various situations?
 
The War Nerd on sexualised reporting of the YPJ and other women fighters:

...One paragraph into the story, and already it’s gone very badly wrong. What you see in this opening paragraph is Percy’s home-world: Upper-middle class America, home of the strivers, winners of Pushcart Prizes and Capote Fellowships. This is a world where age, weight, and looks are everything — in which context, it might not be amiss to see what Percy looks like...

...It’s one of the funniest misreadings I’ve encountered since Pale Fire, though it’s more like P. G. Wodehouse than Nabokov in its playing with typecast characters. Percy—horror of horrors—is force-fed by the matriarch! Forced to eat chicken! And quite possibly, improperly cooked chicken! And then forced to lie next to the “Female Warlord,” like the vampire queen’s concubine!

http://pando.com/2015/01/19/the-war-nerd-getting-women-warriors-wrong/

(Edited to clarify it's not all about the YPJ - this was just the most obvious thread for it though)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom