Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Islamic state

frogwoman said:
So would you just leave ISIS to it? And if/when you do, how far would you take it? I've asked that question several times and you haven't answered?
Click to expand...

I haven't been able to answer because your question is unclear. If you're asking what I personally would do, or what I think the British government should do, the answer is nothing. It's none of my business, none of my government's business, and any intervention on our part can only strengthen ISIS.

If you're asking what I hope will happen, I hope ISIS will be defeated. It is precisely for that reason that I do not think the British government should intervene.

Does that answer your question? If not, ask another one by all means, I'm certainly not trying to be evasive.
 
teqniq said:
I have heard of 'public interest' I just don't see how it has anything to do with UK nationals going to fight in foreign wars unless you mean it should in the public interest to have a test case so that there is a clearly defined legal framework about what is acceptable for UK nationals to be engaged in with regards to foreign adventures, is this what you mean? We are already seeing double standards being applied inasmuch as people going to fight for ISIS and then returning here are likely to be imprisoned (tbh I have zero sympathy for them), other UK nationals fighting in support of the Kurds who have had atrocities perpetrated against them by ISIS (fair enough imo). Then there's UK nationals (who possibly have dual nationality) going to fight with the IDF on behalf of the Zionist entity (something which is anything but ok imo).
Click to expand...

I was just pointing it out in a factual way rather than a judgemental/political stance way.

In that I just mean that's an argument I expect the State to use when justifying lack of prosecutions for UK citizens joining the IDF (if indeed it is illegal, which I'm yet to be convinced by) so as not to complicate the friendly relationship the UK State has with the Israeli State.
 
Last edited:
phildwyer said:
I haven't been able to answer because your question is unclear. If you're asking what I personally would do, or what I think the British government should do, the answer is nothing. It's none of my business, none of my government's business, and any intervention on our part can only strengthen ISIS.

If you're asking what I hope will happen, I hope ISIS will be defeated. It is precisely for that reason that I do not think the British government should intervene.

Does that answer your question? If not, ask another one by all means, I'm certainly not trying to be evasive.
Click to expand...
Defeated by who?
But you've said you think the YPG are terrorists? And presumably you dont support assad, who in my opinion is just as bad?
 
phildwyer could you answer this post?

me said:
I guess phildwyer the question is this:

Should ISIS be integrated into the international system?

Should everyone just give up and accept that those are the borders of the caliphate and the caliphate is here to stay? (Until they want to expand again obviously) and fuck any shias, yezidis, christians or anyone who just doesnt want anything to do with al-Baghdadi's dictatorship? And anyone who takes up arms against them is a 'terrorist'? Should everyone just put down their weapons and let them get on with it?

And after everyone has stopped fighting them then what? How far do you go? Give caliph ibrahim a seat at the UN? let them sit at the human rights commission? Sell them loads of weapons to fight any YPG remnants and provide 'stability' and 'order' in the name of thinking that if we just don't do ISIS any more 'damage' (by treating them unequally to other states) then the problem will just go away and you can just forget that all the dead and beheaded people exist and ISIS won't be a threat as the situation is now 'normal'? Should cameron take a trip to Raqqa and shake his hand?

If you advocate that nobody does anything you're essentially saying that ISIS is no big deal and should just be allowed to murder people in peace.
Click to expand...
 
frogwoman said:
OK.

So what do you think should happen with ISIS?

Doing nothing (which would eventually lead to their acceptance within and integration to global financial markets etc) is also a form of 'intervention' btw
Click to expand...
Which would bring democracy and civilisation all by its own.
phildwyer said:
By whom?

What I really object to is this neo-colonialist attitude that leads the British to assume that, whenever a crisis arises in the world, it is their job to do something about it. It is precisely that attitude, and the disastrously stupid interventions to which it led, that brought about the success of ISIS in the first place.
Click to expand...
The British? Who are they? It has very little to do with some humanitarian instinct. The last big example of what you're talking is arguably the Iraq War. What crisis were they solving? If there was a crisis independent of the one the British and others fat from the region had created solving it was not an objective. Exploiting it may have been. What was it you called ISIS the other day? Some dialectical wots it you nicked from Hegel. It could be stretched to your views on "the British". You seem to be the opposite but you've swallowed whole the imperial justifications and even view whole peoples as simply a list of attributes.
 
Well exactly, do we want DecapCorp Inc. on the stock exchange? Cage burnings being outsourced to G4S? 'im glad those terrorists in the YPG arent making trouble again'
 
CNT36 said:
Yes, we should wash our hands of it. What should everyone else do? The Kurds for example.
Click to expand...

Like it or not IS are a major faction in the Syrian insurgency . It's the insurgency which empowered them and brought them to life . That insurgency publicly declared them heroes and brothers , fought alongside them on the battlefeild and also issued the call for foreign jihadis to descend on Syria . The insurgency is what gives them the freedom to operate . Any support state actors give to the insurgency is going to be of direct benefit to IS , one way or another .
IS don't just threaten the Kurds , they're a threat to everyone in Syria . Everyone from non sectarian Sunni to the Druze and palestinians is fighting them . Yet it's that very resistance that the western states and their saudi , qatari , jordanian and turkish allies seek to smash through their support for a wider terrorist assault on Syria of which IS play a major role in .

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Le...ration-drives-arsals-fsa-into-isis-ranks.ashx

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/3000-fsa-fighters-defect-isis-qalamoun-mountains/

http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/senior-member-of-smc-defects-to-isis_2.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ghting-us-now-we-just-finished-training-them/

These rats are all pouring out of the one sewer . To talk of defeating Islamic state while actively supporting the wider terrorist onslaught against Syria is an absurdity . If states like Britain actually did absolutely nothing it'd be a major Improvement on what they're doing now
 
frogwoman said:
phildwyer could you answer this post?
Click to expand...

You seem to be asking me to solve the problems of the Middle East. I can't do that. Nor do I find it incumbent upon me to pick a side, as in a football match, and cheer for it while booing the opposition. Geo-politics doesn't work that way. This is a situation with no good options--and most certainly with no good guys.

The real question is: why has this dreadful situation arisen? And the answer is that it has arisen because of British and American neo-colonialist meddling. The one thing absolutely guaranteed to make this dreadful situation even worse is more British and American neo-colonialist meddling. We need to stay well out of it, and that very much includes the kind of psychopathic "volunteers" who will always be attracted to such situations, and their yet-more pathetic cheerleaders on boards such as this one.
 
If Daesh marched into your town and declared that it was now under sharia law, started beheading people and keeping girls as slaves, saying you have to pay a special tax, etc, wouldnt you want to fight back? Or would you say, 'whatever, they're not going to be defeated anyway and all their opponents are terrorists so whats the point'?
 
'DecapCorp (headquarters in Mosul) to take over the contract for managing the database at the Ministry of Defence, while ATOS are now going to manage appeals against Sharia court decisions in Raqqa'
 
frogwoman said:
If Daesh marched into your town and declared that it was now under sharia law, started beheading people and keeping girls as slaves, saying you have to pay a special tax, etc, wouldnt you want to fight back? Or would you say, 'whatever, they're not going to be defeated anyway and all their opponents are terrorists so whats the point'?
Click to expand...
i think he'd take the third position.
 
not only has my enjoyment of this forum increased enormously since i put phil dywer on ignore, but now i have the somewhat entertaining spectacle of people who'se posts i enjoy reading yelling at nothing at all - its like watching a friend have a conversation with an invisible friend, or, in this case, and invisible arsehole...
 
Casually Red said:
Like it or not IS are a major faction in the Syrian insurgency . It's the insurgency which empowered them and brought them to life . That insurgency publicly declared them heroes and brothers , fought alongside them on the battlefeild and also issued the call for foreign jihadis to descend on Syria . The insurgency is what gives them the freedom to operate . Any support state actors give to the insurgency is going to be of direct benefit to IS , one way or another .
IS don't just threaten the Kurds , they're a threat to everyone in Syria . Everyone from non sectarian Sunni to the Druze and palestinians is fighting them . Yet it's that very resistance that the western states and their saudi , qatari , jordanian and turkish allies seek to smash through their support for a wider terrorist assault on Syria of which IS play a major role in .

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Le...ration-drives-arsals-fsa-into-isis-ranks.ashx

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/3000-fsa-fighters-defect-isis-qalamoun-mountains/

http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/senior-member-of-smc-defects-to-isis_2.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ghting-us-now-we-just-finished-training-them/

These rats are all pouring out of the one sewer . To talk of defeating Islamic state while actively supporting the wider terrorist onslaught against Syria is an absurdity . If states like Britain actually did absolutely nothing it'd be a major Improvement on what they're doing now
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of official British military intervention in this conflict and never have been. I asked what everyone else should do including the Kurds (the example I used), the Yazidis, the Sunni's, the Shia and everybody else in Syria, Iraq and other areas most effected. People who really have very little choice in the matter. They can't all flee to Turkey or drown in the Med. Should they consign themselves to being part of a humanitarian crisis, living in camps or just hope to be airlifted from some mountain? Should the British state interfere to prevent people going there to fight on any side? What about those who went to fight on the side of the Assad government (I know of Americans not Britains)? Should they put pressure on other nations who are providing far more support to ISIS than they are to stop or leave them to it? Does that count as intervention to you? Should the people who have lived under threat of barrel bombs(and those fucking vacuum things) for years and lived with the threat of torture for even longer or been discriminated against by a sectarian government and suffered under state and foreign linked militias, in Iraq and Syria respectively, give their allegiance to either those governments or their successors? Who is allowed to fight? If a group of people are fighting off an aggressor with a genocidal bent is it unreasonable for individuals (not states) to fight to help resist the aggressor? If that aggressor is receiving foreign assistance as you've argued does that not make the efforts of volunteers justifiable?
 
CNT36 said:
I'm not a fan of official British military intervention in this conflict and never have been. I asked what everyone else should do including the Kurds (the example I used), the Yazidis, the Sunni's, the Shia and everybody else in Syria, Iraq and other areas most effected. People who really have very little choice in the matter. They can't all flee to Turkey or drown in the Med. Should they consign themselves to being part of a humanitarian crisis, living in camps or just hope to be airlifted from some mountain? Should the British state interfere to prevent people going there to fight on any side? What about those who went to fight on the side of the Assad government (I know of Americans not Britains)? Should they put pressure on other nations who are providing far more support to ISIS than they are to stop or leave them to it? Does that count as intervention to you? Should the people who have lived under threat of barrel bombs(and those fucking vacuum things) for years and lived with the threat of torture for even longer or been discriminated against by a sectarian government and suffered under state and foreign linked militias, in Iraq and Syria respectively, give their allegiance to either those governments or their successors? Who is allowed to fight? If a group of people are fighting off an aggressor with a genocidal bent is it unreasonable for individuals (not states) to fight to help resist the aggressor? If that aggressor is receiving foreign assistance as you've argued does that not make the efforts of volunteers justifiable?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you that if Britain is supporting , cheer leading , arming and training the terrorist campaign then it's completely hypocritical to be prosecuting the terrorists who participate in it . My point is they shouldn't be helping the terrorists in Syria at all . If they weren't then this largely foreign funded and armed madness would be over a lot sooner .

The Syrian government is a legitimate governmental entity of a legitimate state with a seat at the united nations , fully funcional international relations and embassies worldwide . Anyone fighting on its behalf is acting in a perfectly lawful manner as regards fighting for it . I fail to see any grounds on which they could be prosecuted . any more than Gurkhas could be prosecuted for fighting for Britain . Or anyone joining the French foreign legion .

My main point is the majority of Syrians of all faiths and ethnicities are fighting terrorism in Syria within the ranks of the Syrian armed forces...predominantly Sunni..and it's various state supported militias , such as the NDF , etc . The states supporting the insurgency are very simply breaking their own laws . They know they're sponsoring terrorism . They should stop doing that . That would be of immeasurable help to the Syrian people .

Eta


However if they believe it's a humanitarian necessity to intervene against IS then the logical way to go about this is in partnership with the Syrian government . The main body standing in the way of IS on the ground .That is only impossible because Britain is a supporter of terrorism in Syria , and shares the common aim of all the terrorist groups . Ergo , it's Britains support of terrorism in the first place which renders its opposition to IS hypocritical , impractible and redundant . Interfering militarily in Syria without the partnership of the Syrian government would undoubtedly be an act of colonial meddling . As well as a quite useless gesture to begin with . The refusal of states like Britain to respect Syrian sovereignty is what led to this terrorist nightmare in the first place . A continuation of the same policy will only continue to make matters worse .
 
Last edited:
One other thing, if i wanted to have the ego-ist demands of an oxbridge type dominating discussion there's plenty of other places i can get that. Isn't all of society enough for you phil?
 
"We see the al Nusrah as a syrian front against the regime . We do not see it as radical ."

" Degrading IS will strengthen the regime "

Thats the Islamic scholar western states are lavishing with funds , arms and international praise .
 
Casually Red said:
Nice interview here with an FSA top dog . Opposes attacks on IS because he sees that as strengthening the Syrian government . Quite chummy with the other Al Qaeda faction too . And he's one of the moderates at the very top of the chain .

http://rudaw.net/english/interview/12122014

Oh dear , oh dear , oh dear . Dearie me sideways .
Click to expand...
i suppose this would be one of the times rudaw's accurate despite the caveats we heard about the other day. not got an axe to grind about the soi-disant moderates, just not sure about the source.
 
Pickman's model said:
i suppose this would be one of the times rudaw's accurate despite the caveats we heard about the other day. not got an axe to grind about the soi-disant moderates, just not sure about the source.
Click to expand...

Yeah , I'm aware there's issues with the source . However it claims to be a direct interview so it's not some unnamed witness or security source . And as well as that there's enough evidence already of other senior FSA figures saying exactly the same thing . So there wouldn't be much point in making it up .

As well as that we simply have the irrefutable evidence of FSA and Al nusra embedded together on the ground all over Syria and to this very day engaged in joint assaults and operations . So I've little reason to doubt the interviews genuine on that score .

And the thing that really struck me about what that scumbag was saying about Al nusra...it's almost identical to what that other FSA commander was saying about IS in the vid I posted .
 
This report commissioned by IHS janes was back in 2013 . Things have gotten immeasurably worse since then .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html

It seems backed up by this from a few months later

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/31/the-islamist-enemy-of-our-islamist-enemy/

And here we have yet another very senior FSA commander admitting the FSA routinely supply western supplied weapons to Al Qaeda , among other things . Makes clear neither he nor his men have any problem with them .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...em-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html

And then there's this guy , Zahran alloush . He was a member of the Syrian military council when the American weapons were coming in. Here's videos of this moderate praising al Qaeda and all sorts . He's also called for the Alawites to be exterminated . He apologised to the western media later when they pulled him up on it . Explained he'd been a bit stressed .



And here he is saying pretty much what that statue smashing FSA cleric was saying to the BBC earlier .



So that's now 4 current or previous members of the Syrian Military council , the moderates , the FSAs top of the tree on the record as supporting , arming , praising and fighting alongside Al Qaeda groups . In the case of Okaidi it was Islamic state . Alloush , Farooud and Al Dalati with Al Nusra . That's the military body western arms are going directly to . Including sophisticated ATGMs and night vision that both Al Nusra and IS are now literally bristling with .

Anyone claiming the FSA aren't up to their necks with jihadists and hard line bigotry is either a complete mug or a liar taking everyone else for complete mugs .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
Bizarre acts of terrorism - statue of Lenin and Mao blown up in Texas.
Replies
3
Views
386
belboid
belboid
Bingoman
Turkish terror attack 23rd October 2024
Replies
4
Views
738
_Russ_
_Russ_
tim
State murder in Singapore.
Replies
21
Views
846
A380
A380
JimW
Indian state implicated in murder of Sikh activist in Canada
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Pickman's model
fascist republican state legislators (usa)
Replies
0
Views
378
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom