Forum menu
ISIS were our friends when Assad was the bad guy, remember that?
you're not remembering things right. once upon a time there were moderate revolutionaries but they got stomped by the islamists
That article I posted earlier in the thread suggests grum may have a point...
Whether that has any bearing on Jihadi John not being apprehended by MI5 remains to be seen
Somebody is funding and supplying ISIS.
you're not remembering things right. once upon a time there were moderate revolutionaries but they got stomped by the islamists
Well I was being slightly facetious, but we were funding/arming the revolutionaries allied to ISIS.
aaaaaaaaaam - Member
you're not remembering things right. once upon a time there were moderate revolutionaries but they got stomped by the islamists
they didnt all get stomped on, a lot have moved over to ISIS
[i]Why haven't ISIS seen fit to attack Israel?
To quote Yamamoto "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Israel don't mess about and Isis don't have the capacity to fight them.[/i]
And here's me thinking it was because their American paymasters had told them not to.
Isn't Saudi Arabia the paymaster for ISIS? Isn't it the usual Sunni/Shia merry go round?
What this needs is conciliation by way of a charity single, like "I got you babe" by Sunni and Shia....
Somebody is funding and supplying ISIS.
They are self funding now. When they took Mosul they raided the bank there to the tune of a few billion and they have been selling oil on the black market including to Turkey. Plus the western Jihadists are encouraged to be self financing, ie to make their own way to Syria and to bring enough money to buy weapons.
Despite funding the promotion of a lot of the more extreme versions of Islam that ISIS support, I'm not sure the Saudis are too keen on ISIS. Think they are afraid it could all get out of hand and destabilise their country.
I heard recently that the key architects of IS are not religious fanatics at all by the way. Will try and find links tomorrow.
I think some people might be under the impression that ISIS are just a bunch of terrorists who don't do much beyond just murdering people. They are the rulers in about a quarter of Syria and Iraq. The area they control is more or less a functioning state. They receive revenue in much the same way as other rulers/governments do, eg, through taxation.
This is the legacy of failed Western foreign policy :
[img] 
[/img]
It represents a sizable country.
This is the legacy of failed Western foreign policy
I agree, but it's not clear to me that we deserve [u]quite[/u] as much of the credit for this shambles as we're taking.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-who-is-bombing-whom-in-the-middle-east-10222938.html ]Robert Fisk[/url]'s summary of the current war:
The Saudis are bombing Yemen because they fear the Shia Houthis are working for the Iranians. The Saudis are also bombing Isis in Iraq and the Isis in Syria. So are the United Arab Emirates. The Syrian government is bombing its enemies in Syria and the Iraqi government is also bombing its enemies in Iraq. America, France, Britain, Denmark, Holland, Australia and – believe it or not – Canada are bombing Isis in Syria and Isis in Iraq, partly on behalf of the Iraqi government (for which read Shia militias) but absolutely not on behalf of the Syrian government.The Jordanians and Saudis and Bahrainis are also bombing Isis in Syria and Iraq because they don’t like them, but the Jordanians are bombing Isis even more than the Saudis after their pilot-prisoner was burned to death in a cage. The Egyptians are bombing parts of Libya because a group of Christian Egyptians had their heads chopped off by what might – notionally – be the same so-called Islamic State, as Isis refers to itself. The Iranians have acknowledged bombing Isis in Iraq – of which the Americans (but not the Iraqi government) take a rather dim view. And of course the Israelis have several times bombed Syrian government forces in Syria but not Isis (an interesting choice, we’d all agree).
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and UAE especially seem to have been spending huge amounts of public and private money on lots and lots of war. Presumably there would have come a point when these very wealthy countries with substantial militaries would have started to be more influential, even without the disastrous attempt to re-shape the region that the US kicked off in 2003.
[i]Israel would smash them with conventional forces.[/i]
There's scant evidence that the IDF is any better than any other army at fighting non conventional forces.
besides, IS is controlled by ex Iraqi military commanders, why would they bother with Israel?
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and UAE especially seem to have been spending huge amounts of public and private money on lots and lots of war. Presumably there would have come a point when these very wealthy countries with substantial militaries would have started to be more influential, even without the disastrous attempt to re-shape the region that the US kicked off in 2003.
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and UAE, all have regimes dependent on the West for their survival, the situation in the whole region has been shaped by Western foreign policy.
The West can indeed take credit for the mess.
A mess created through greed and self-interest with scant regard for the people affected.
This:
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and UAE, all have regimes dependent on the West for their survival, the situation in the whole region has been shaped by Western foreign policy.The West can indeed take credit for the mess.
A mess created through greed and self-interest with scant regard for the people affected.
To expand slightly, we have to take into account that Saudi Arabia is consistently among the top customers for the UK Arms industry, with Prince Charles and Prince Andrew often involved in negotiations and brokering deals (similarly for Bahrain and UAE)
They have been long time collaborators with MI5/6 and the CIA in covert operations such as Operation Cyclone and many others besides.
Their role in 9/11 and ties to The Carlyle Group and the Bush Family are the subject of continued investigation.
The area they control is more or less a functioning state. They receive revenue in much the same way as other rulers/governments do, eg, through taxation.
That being the case, we have to ask who is continuing to supply weapons and ammunition and why embargos on weapons supply are lacking.
Furthermore, we have to ask who is continuing to trade with ISIS in the commodities they provide...
downshep - Member
What this needs is conciliation by way of a charity single, like "I got you babe" by Sunni and Shia....
OUTSTANDING!! 😆
@ernie - most of the land on your map is desert, it's not controlled by anyone. What ISIS controls are a few key cities and the roads between them. The West did fail in Iraq in some regards mainly as a result of pulling out too soon, the Iraqis where not ready to take over.
There's scant evidence that the IDF is any better than any other army at fighting non conventional forces.besides, IS is controlled by ex Iraqi military commanders, why would they bother with Israel?
Surprising statement, the IDF are one of the most effective anti-terrorist military forces in the world.
IS is bothered by Israel in that the country is full of Jews who they would very much like to eradicate. Look at all the examples of returning IS fighters and sympathizers who attack Jews in Europe (eg Denmark, France, Belgium)
Here is a map of their long term goal - note no Israel or Spain;
[img] 
[/img]
All that black would look a bit dour and rubbish on an atlas or a globe so I'm dead against it.
They're going to run into serious trouble if they try to ban jamón in Spain.
That being the case, we have to ask who is continuing to supply weapons and ammunition and why embargos on weapons supply are lacking.Furthermore, we have to ask who is continuing to trade with ISIS in the commodities they provide...
As always, there seems to be a reasonably straightforward answer: US-led airstrikes have heavily targeted their ability to produce oil, with some success. However, much of their export is smuggled across the desert and mixed with legit supplies. No-one has a contract to buy islamic state oil.
Weapons sales are embargo'ed, obviously. However, (i) they overran so many units of the (US-supplied) Iraqi army that they did pretty nicely for themselves gun-wise, (ii) some arms were clearly provided to groups in Syria who were hoped to be less insane and have ended up with the very insane people and (iii) arms move fairly freely around the middle east anyway. At one stage every household in Iraq had an AK47 - there are probably enough basic assault rifles and ammunition available to keep up light mayhem for years without needing any very sophisticated re-supply.
[url= http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-mideast-crisis-sanctions-idUSKCN0IC1P620141023 ]"We have no silver bullet, no secret weapon to empty ISIL’s coffers overnight,"[/url]
Of all of the things to assume is a conspiracy, this mess is way out there. There was a conspiracy already, as we all recall: the US and UK greatly over-egged the case for invading Iraq in 2003 and tried to instal a reasonably sympathetic client government. They failed utterly and Iraq is now collapsing in a war between a largely Iranian-sympathetic government and an out-of-control islamic fundamentalist horror-show. No-one planned this, and it's very far from clear that anyone is benefitting.
No-one has a contract to buy islamic state oil.
Oil companies don't give a crap, they keep a few dodgy tankers off the coast of Africa to buy back the crude the locals/ pirates steal from pipelines and tankers
As for arms sales, we sold over £1m of arms to the Libyan government after gafaffi fell, I imagine a lot of that is now in IS hands
And Cameron was in the middle east when the Arab Spring started, was he promoting peace, democracy and goodwill, was he fk, he was there with a brigade of UK arms dealers pumping ever more weapons into the hands of our preferred dictators
All that black would look a bit dour and rubbish on an atlas or a globe so I'm dead against it.
too right. British Empire red was much better...
[img] 
/revision/latest?cb=20081130003125[/img]
too right. British Empire red was much better...
Red is preferable to black! It would look like a big hole (which might actually be quite accurate).
The mess the coalition made in Iraq and the missed opportunities where touched on in these excellent interviews with Emma Sky on Newsnight (episode also contains an interview with Sharon on a two state solution in Israel) and on LBC yesterday and some excellent insight into Sunni / Shia issues in Iraq. She was a special advisor to the US military in Iraq. I've just bought her book
[url= http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2015/05/19/watch-emma-sky-on-iraq-syria-why-we-ve-got-it-so-wrong ]LBC Radio Interview[/url]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05w96jz/newsnight-18052015 ]Newsnight inc Emma Sky interview[/url]
She is quite critical of Obama's single minded desire "just to get out" also of the way in which the war/invasion was waged. She points out the Iraqi military outnumbered ISIS by 100:1 but endemic corruption meant they had no desire to actually fight anyone.
[img] 
[/img]
According to that map they want Austria, a country that lives entirely on pork.
According to that map they want Austria, a country that lives entirely on pork.
Trying to show them the error of their ways?
@ernie - most of the land on your map is desert, it's not controlled by anyone.
I suggest you read this article about life in ISIS controlled territory :
[url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2c6b5ca-9427-11e4-82c7-00144feabdc0.html ]The Isis economy: Meet the new boss[/url]
[i]"Signs of discontent are evident across the ‘caliphate’ as people tire of its taxes, price caps and shoddy services" [/i]
As for the claim that ISIS controls mostly desert and nothing much more according to the chief of staff of the Kurdish President ISIS rules over [i]"a population of between 10 and 12 million"[/i]
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-islamic-militants-have-army-of-200000-claims-kurdish-leader-9863418.htm ]War with Isis: Islamic militants have army of 200,000, claims senior Kurdish leader[/url]
Even if you take this as a gross exaggeration and half the figure it still represents many millions. Just the combined populations of Aleppo, Mosul, and Falluja, amounts to several millions.
The great IDF. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/04/israeli-soldiers-cast-doubt-on-legality-of-gaza-military-operation
I'm not disputing numbers @ernie, we are both speaking of the same thing. The people live in the cities.
You were claiming that the area is mostly desert not controlled by anyone. It's clear that ISIS controls a vast area and rules over a population of several millions.
Yes people live in cities, including in the UK.
This sort of map is more representative. You take one or two major cities and your map changes dramatically. Nobody controls the desert, you could land a helicopter there and do as you please.
[img] 
[/img]
The great IDF. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/04/israeli-soldiers-cast-doubt-on-legality-of-gaza-military-operation
I'm not sure I believe that report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Iraq_War
However, overall, figures by the Iraq Body Count from 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013 indicate that of 174,000 casualties only 39,900 were combatants, resulting in a civilian casualty rate of 77%
Now lets look up the statistics for the Gaza war.
Gaza Health Ministry: 2,310 killed[22] (70% civilians),[23] 10,626 wounded[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict
Le shock horror, we and just about everyone else that takes part in modern conflicts are as evil as the Iraelis.
So what's your point Tom that had Israel actually cared less civilians would have died ?
My points would be
1) Take the article with a pinch of salt.
2) Forgetting the whole settler issue for a moment. Why do the IDF get roundly shitted on by westerners for blowing civilians up, when we're just as bad. Stones, glass houses etc.
Fair enough Tom but I don't see anyone blowing the trumpet for The British Or American forces. In fact ime sure some people are saying their too soft.
We've been round this argument before on other threads.
Israel did far more to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza than the coalition did in Iraq.
In prior conflicts in Israel in the years after them the Palestinians admit the portion of civilian casualties is much lower than they originally claimed. Something like 65% of the casualties in Gaza where men of fighting age, Israel claims more than 50% of the overall total where militants/terrorists vs figure of approx 25% claimed by Hamas.
In the D-Day landings allied "friendly fire" killed 15,000 French civilians
Fair enough Tom but I don't see anyone blowing the trumpet for The British Or American forces. In fact ime sure some people are saying their too soft.
Our problem is that we cannot use legitimate force anymore after the Iraq debacle. We overthrew Saddam illegally at the behest of our own population, however this is not the greatest tragedy. What was is that we failed to rebuild the country and then we failed in our duty to stay long enough to secure the country. All those civilians and soldiers died for nothing, hundreds of thousands of lives pissed up the wall.
We're too soft in that we don't see objectives through to the end, changing ROI so we could cluster bomb people wouldn't have helped us in Iraq. Commitment would have done.
I think the general consensus is that the Iraq War was an unjustified war which resulted in horrific and totally unacceptable lose of life, why you think this justifies Israel's behavour isn't clear.
And of course the big difference between Gaza and Iraq is that there is overwhelming evidence that the Israeli attack on Gaza was a turkey shoot against essentially an unarmed people in which civilians were very deliberately targeted, the evidence that the strategy in Iraq was to similarly deliberately target unarmed civilians is somewhat thinner.
Gaza was a turkey shoot against essentially an unarmed people in which civilians were very deliberately targeted, the evidence that the strategy in Iraq was to similarly deliberately target unarmed civilians is somewhat thinner.
Numbers speak, rhetoric doesn't. We were just as careless in Iraq.
The civilian casualty ratio comes from a Gazan health ministry - unlikely to underestimate the civilian ratio.
nothing to do with me. I thought it was a political stunt. Now you mention it I seem to recall tony saying it was the will of god or something.We overthrew Saddam illegally at the behest of our own population,
Tom does have a valid point as regards lives lost in both Iraq and Gaza...
However, as always there is a bigger picture and aside from the indoctrinated military culture which the Israeli government tries to impose on its citizens, part of the reason Israel faces such criticism is the conditions Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank are forced to live in.
That said, we should also be mindful of the polluting legacy of war in Iraq and resulting birth defects, which will only stir further resentment and tension against the west.
10 seconds on Iraq body count shows that the 'coalition' forces contribution about 10% of total civilian casualties, with the bulk either being anti gov forces or unknown. So yeah, they are a bit more careful than the IDF.
Agreed Tom but you can't honestly say Saddam was overthrown at the behest of the population of this country.