World Politics

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

i thought the following article's attempt at using an objective analysis of isis was worthwhile.

How Many Fighters Does the Islamic State Really Have?
http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/how-many-fighters-does-the-islamic-state-really-have/

a personal comment.
despite the article being 9 months old, its data is still applicable. very curious was that of the numerous estimates, the lowest estimate of the isil fighters was ...by the most powerful spy agency - the cia. reading the author's reasonable arguments on the isis structure, controlled population, territory and the numeric parallels to afghanistan, it is becoming abundantly clear that the cia estimate is laughable.

why would it be ? the billions of $$ wasted ? hardly...imo, it is just another example of a govt agency tasked to objectively and competently advice the president being in fact used to protect and promote what is obvious - the failed anti-isil policy of containment via airstrikes only.

its a symbiosis.

major powers need major enemies, and the ME needs their villains (West/Israel, aka little brother West)

now, you could well assert they aint a major power, nor, are they a major existential threat. That I agree. But the manipulation of the populace and the messaging is anything but.

If it aint in the ME, the next turf war will be Africa. It wont be Asia, no one wants a hot war. America are already laying the groundwork. see Nick Turse and Jeremy Scahill's work on Africa and AfriCOM

Turf war's been going on in Africa for some time now, just doesn't involve western nations - Boko Haram for eg makes ISIS look like a bunch of amateurs, 30 people killed in another market bombing in Yola today.

We in the West just tend to largely ignore it, partially because groups like Boko Haram are geographically restricted and pose no direct threat to the West but also because a bunch of poor black Africans being targeted doesn't fit the culture-war-they-hate-us-for-our-freedom narrative that so many prefer to believe is the primary motivation rather than simple - but boring - regional geopolitics.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

We in the West just tend to largely ignore it, partially because groups like Boko Haram are geographically restricted and pose no direct threat to the West but also because a bunch of poor black Africans being targeted doesn't fit the culture-war-they-hate-us-for-our-freedom narrative that so many prefer to believe is the primary motivation rather than simple - but boring - regional geopolitics.

While of course it's true we pay little attention to them until they hit Western targets, I can't believe you really don't think ISIS is motivated by ideology to attack the West. There are clearly regional and geo-political components to what they're doing.

 

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

We in the West just tend to largely ignore it, partially because groups like Boko Haram are geographically restricted and pose no direct threat to the West but also because a bunch of poor black Africans being targeted doesn't fit the culture-war-they-hate-us-for-our-freedom narrative that so many prefer to believe is the primary motivation rather than simple - but boring - regional geopolitics.

While of course it's true we pay little attention to them until they hit Western targets, I can't believe you really don't think ISIS is motivated by ideology to attack the West. There are clearly regional and geo-political components to what they're doing.

Of course ISIS is motivated by ideology to attack the West, but the narrative is THAT is the motivation of all Muslim extremism groups, because it makes for a nice, neat little culture war perception that can be more easily understood. Muslim extremists from the ME killing a bunch of innocents in Paris fits that narrative; Muslim extremists in Nigeria killing a bunch of other Nigerians doesn't, and just confuses the simplistic us-vs-them culture-war narrative that many on the right want to believe - Muslim terrorists are supposed to be swarthy ME guys who speak Arabic and want to kill us Westerners because of our freedoms etc - when in reality most extremism is the result of local or regional geopolitics (or more accurately filling the void left by political breakdown and ensuing chaos) that usually have less to do with culture and far more to do with more mundane practical issues.

 

[frenchfry]

Re:

So many Muricans are just so awesomely, pathetically ignorant about the world outside of their backyard.

It makes a lot of people feel good to say the radicalised Islamists have nothing to do with mainstream Muslims.

I think it is much more complicated than that. Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, but there is a cultural/religous problem that can't be ignored or wished away by politically correct platitudes.

 

[python]

Re: Re:

VeloCity wrote:

Of course ISIS is motivated by ideology to attack the West, but the narrative is THAT is the motivation of all Muslim extremism groups, because it makes for a nice, neat little culture war perception that can be more easily understood. Muslim extremists from the ME killing a bunch of innocents in Paris fits that narrative; Muslim extremists in Nigeria killing a bunch of other Nigerians doesn't, and just confuses the simplistic us-vs-them culture-war narrative that many on the right want to believe - Muslim terrorists are supposed to be swarthy ME guys who speak Arabic and want to kill us Westerners because of our freedoms etc - when in reality most extremism is the result of local or regional geopolitics (or more accurately filling the void left by political breakdown and ensuing chaos) that usually have less to do with culture and far more to do with more mundane practical issues.

i think you properly captured the isis motivation (as well as other terrorists), but imo the reference to most extremism being the result of local or regional geopolotics, while true in many instances ( taliban, hamas boko haram etc), it is an over-simplification in the case of isil and some other terror orgs like al qaeda.

they are very much the product of both the regional and the international politics or geopolitics if you prefer.

the isis started 'as al qaeda in iraq'. never would become an isis the way we know it now w/o the lies-driven geopolitics of the 2nd neo con invasion of iraq. similarly, as i pointed in a recent post above, it was another set of lies - again by the cia - about the isis smallish true numbers and strength designed to justify a failed set of polices that had been the product of certain geo politics.

dont get me wrong, the us ain't the only country contributing to the mess with the messy geopolitics. france, saudis, russia, turky, iran stoked the regional terror fires whenever it suited their geopolitics.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

The Rund um Frankfurt was cancelled this very year due to a terrorist threat. I do understand where the riders (in this case Mick Rogers, who I'd prefer to just retire and clear off regardless) are coming from on this, but 'twas ever thus. We've had riders escorted by the military to the finish before in the Giro, we've had angry mobs, we've had assaults on riders. The Boston Marathon bombing took place and this didn't become any larger an issue. Bike racing on the road covers too large an area - even on circuits (in fact especially on circuits, as the fans are more concentrated and the riders pass several times) - to be able to fully police constantly effectively (as opposed to the rolling method that has served the sport for so long) like that.

Now, more immediately the larger issue is the truck bomb we're now seeing reported to have been found outside the stadium in Hannover prior to the Germany-Netherlands match. The plot continues to thicken, as this would seem to be the second time a German football match has been affected in under a week.

I'm sure that Rogers is only saying what many others are thinking. I'm surprised that sporting events have not been targeted more often.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

just in...it is now official: the russian airliner was brought down by a bomb.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/russia-plane-sinai-brought-bomb-151117081851335.html

so, in the space of several weeks, we have 3 major players in the syrian conflict - turkey, russia and france - suffer horrible terror acts all of which according to both the victims and perps were accomplished by isil.

but of course, we are told, 'assad must go first'.

just like 'saddam had to go' and then 'qaddafi had to go' to see the tyrants formally monolithic fiefdoms disintegrate into militant 'autonomies', including the isil, that fight each other but really are the proxies of the various regional and not only players...

of course, the slaughtered civilians aren't guilty of that

I predict Turkey, France and Russia will step up. First with an expanded air campaign, then perhaps their boots on the ground. In spite of the saber rattlings from the inconsequential GOP presidential field, the people in the area(Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, others) had better put boots there way before the USA.

Once defeated, as they melt into the villages, we'll see what happens when Assad goes, and another vacuum created there. Russia/Iran occupying force? Becomes a 'state', protectorate of Iran? That woud be my guess..And gee..some stability in the region.

I think France is already stretched pretty thin. Russia will be very wary after Afghanistan and they are spending a fortune in Syria. But now Putin has declared he will chase the ISIS bombers all over the world so who knows. His 99.9 % popularity rating in Russia can only increase. As for Turkey I think there is no chance. There is too much division in the country and the government not to mention the Kurdish issues. The fact that that some of the crowd was booing at an international football match in Turkey during the minute's silence for the victims in Paris sums up Turkey's allegiances quite nicely. Russia has done everything to support Assad. I can't see them supporting a replacement and the so called political solution will never work against ISIS just as it would not work for the Taliban. Cutting off the money pipeline or partially for ISIS would help but all that will do will increase terrorist acts as they go into hiding and hit more so called soft targets. They would be less of an army but still a big threat as a terrorist organization.

 

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

VeloCity wrote:

Of course ISIS is motivated by ideology to attack the West, but the narrative is THAT is the motivation of all Muslim extremism groups, because it makes for a nice, neat little culture war perception that can be more easily understood. Muslim extremists from the ME killing a bunch of innocents in Paris fits that narrative; Muslim extremists in Nigeria killing a bunch of other Nigerians doesn't, and just confuses the simplistic us-vs-them culture-war narrative that many on the right want to believe - Muslim terrorists are supposed to be swarthy ME guys who speak Arabic and want to kill us Westerners because of our freedoms etc - when in reality most extremism is the result of local or regional geopolitics (or more accurately filling the void left by political breakdown and ensuing chaos) that usually have less to do with culture and far more to do with more mundane practical issues.

i think you properly captured the isis motivation (as well as other terrorists), but imo the reference to most extremism being the result of local or regional geopolotics, while true in many instances ( taliban, hamas boko haram etc), it is an over-simplification in the case of isil and some other terror orgs like al qaeda.

they are very much the product of both the regional and the international politics or geopolitics if you prefer.

the isis started 'as al qaeda in iraq'. never would become an isis the way we know it now w/o the lies-driven geopolitics of the 2nd neo con invasion of iraq. similarly, as i pointed in a recent post above, it was another set of lies - again by the cia - about the isis smallish true numbers and strength designed to justify a failed set of polices that had been the product of certain geo politics.

dont get me wrong, the us ain't the only country contributing to the mess with the messy geopolitics. france, saudis, russia, turky, iran stoked the regional terror fires whenever it suited their geopolitics.

Coincidentally Atlantic just published an article that explains it better than I can:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/isis-boko-haram-terrorism/416673/?utm_source=SFFB

 

[bp92]

Re: Re:

I think France is already stretched pretty thin. Russia will be very wary after Afghanistan and they are spending a fortune in Syria. But now Putin has declared he will chase the ISIS bombers all over the world so who knows. His 99.9 % popularity rating in Russia can only increase. As for Turkey I think there is no chance. There is too much division in the country and the government not to mention the Kurdish issues. The fact that that some of the crowd was booing at an international football match in Turkey during the minute's silence for the victims in Paris sums up Turkey's allegiances quite nicely. Russia has done everything to support Assad. I can't see them supporting a replacement and the so called political solution will never work against ISIS just as it would not work for the Taliban. Cutting off the money pipeline or partially for ISIS would help but all that will do will increase terrorist acts as they go into hiding and hit more so called soft targets. They would be less of an army but still a big threat as a terrorist organization.

About Turkey, I saw somewhere that the bad reaction might have been because there was a big terrorist attack in Ankara this October (102 dead), and media reaction was minimal. Then there's a similarly-deadly attack in Paris one month later (136 dead so far) and everyone loses their heads. It's true that Turkey is in enough trouble as it is already, though (Kurdish issues, Syrian refugee crisis (made worse because they're pretty much the gateway out of Syria), etc.).

If the ISIS money pipeline is cut off then they'll probably get reduced to a much smaller threat. Sure, they'll still try to do terrorist attacks to stay relevant, but at least things will probably become somewhat more stable in Iraq/Syria as the iraqi government and syrian forces (both pro- and anti-Assad) take their territory back. And eventually they'll just get reduced to "just another terrorist group", incapable of waging war.
(It might just be the "ideal" version of what would happen. Maybe things will get even more unstable. I don't think it's going to happen, though; guns and troops are easier to deploy and make more publicitary noise, after all)

 

[Amsterhammer]

The Islamic State has little hope of achieving that level of disastrous success in Western Europe or North America. But what the group is seeking to accomplish nonetheless mirrors its strategy of divide-and-conquer in Iraq. Through increasingly provocative terrorist attacks, hostage executions, and videotaped threats, the Islamic State is consciously seeking to trigger a backlash by Western governments and citizens against the Muslim minorities living in their societies. By achieving this, the group hopes to polarize both sides against each other, locking them into an escalating spiral of alienation, hatred and collective retribution. In a such a scenario, the group can later attempt to pose as the only effective protector for increasingly beleaguered Western Muslims.

Following the deliberately shocking attacks in Paris, some nativist politicians in both Europe and the United States have already responded with calls to collectively punish Muslims en masse through discriminatory migration policies, restrictions on religious freedoms, and blanket surveillance by law enforcement.

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/islamic-states-goal-eliminating-the-grayzone-of-coexistence-between-muslims-and-the-west/

 

[python]

Re: Re:

just in...it is now official: the russian airliner was brought down by a bomb.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/russia-plane-sinai-brought-bomb-151117081851335.html

so, in the space of several weeks, we have 3 major players in the syrian conflict - turkey, russia and france - suffer horrible terror acts all of which according to both the victims and perps were accomplished by isil.

but of course, we are told, 'assad must go first'.

just like 'saddam had to go' and then 'qaddafi had to go' to see the tyrants formally monolithic fiefdoms disintegrate into militant 'autonomies', including the isil, that fight each other but really are the proxies of the various regional and not only players...

of course, the slaughtered civilians aren't guilty of that

I predict Turkey, France and Russia will step up. First with an expanded air campaign, then perhaps their boots on the ground. In spite of the saber rattlings from the inconsequential GOP presidential field, the people in the area(Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, others) had better put boots there way before the USA.

Once defeated, as they melt into the villages, we'll see what happens when Assad goes, and another vacuum created there. Russia/Iran occupying force? Becomes a 'state', protectorate of Iran? That woud be my guess..And gee..some stability in the region.

I think France is already stretched pretty thin. Russia will be very wary after Afghanistan and they are spending a fortune in Syria. But now Putin has declared he will chase the ISIS bombers all over the world so who knows. His 99.9 % popularity rating in Russia can only increase. As for Turkey I think there is no chance. There is too much division in the country and the government not to mention the Kurdish issues. The fact that that some of the crowd was booing at an international football match in Turkey during the minute's silence for the victims in Paris sums up Turkey's allegiances quite nicely. Russia has done everything to support Assad. I can't see them supporting a replacement and the so called political solution will never work against ISIS just as it would not work for the Taliban. Cutting off the money pipeline or partially for ISIS would help but all that will do will increase terrorist acts as they go into hiding and hit more so called soft targets. They would be less of an army but still a big threat as a terrorist organization.

i agree, turkey is a very complicated case, but at the end of the day, i believe there is a formula - i mean a political arrangement - that can bring sultan erdogan into the anti isil action more decisively. there are 2 reasons i see. one, turkey's inherently week platform to argue from (too many problems to address independently) and two, it will depend on the success of the current round of diplomatic maneuvers in vienna involving ALL major player.

this brings me to your comments about france and russia. curiously, one of my still 'trusted' sources of western msm, france 24, has been continuously showing a clip where vlad 'ordered' his seamen to treat the approaching french navy as allies. the clip is inevitably followed by the statements of french prez and fm about common with russia anti-terror stance. of course, THAT is mostly political posturing, but i expect france to be the major player in closing the gap btwn the russian and american positions on syria. the test is will be how successful russia will become in forcing its version of the un sc resolution on fighting terror. so far, the stumbling block is that neither france, nor the uk are willing to ask for assad permission for a military action in syria (which would make it legal according to the russians)

 

[Echoes]

Re:

Just asking, what do we mean by "secularism"? France and Germany are the only main secularist states in my eyes, and UK classifies itself as "Christian". USA, despite the fact the say they are Secular, is a Christian state, especially as the opposition bases 99% of their social policy on what they believe the bible says; Israel is a Jewish state (borderline apartheid). Middle Eastern states are all Muslim states, bar Lebanon. This is all my opinion ofc.

Technically Syria is a secular state, although that is up for discussion.

Secularism is the doctrine that advocate for the control of the Spiritual Power by the Temporal Power. The traditional Christian view is that the two are distinct but the Spiritual Power should always ultimately have the upper hand against the Temporal powers because only with a good moral, the poor and the weak can be protected against the mighty.

UK is Christian? Lol, I've wasted a lot of my time watching the BBC in my younger days... England was one of the first secular countries in history. When Henry VIII created the Church of England, he subjected it to his temporal rule.

The USA are Christian? Ever read the Constitution? The American common people are still very much protestant but not the American institution, far from that. The "In God We Trust" motto was created in 1956 (spuriously of course). The real American motto is "E Pluribus Unum"

Israel is the Jewish state, yes. What is Jewishness? It's an ethnic, not a religion. Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist. Israel was created by Marxist atheists. It's an apartheid regime, yes. Apartheid South-Africa was secular.

Syria is technically secularist, unfortunately (Aflaq had his communist period) but at least Islam is respected as a cultural fact and even Christian Syrian admit it peacefully. The Baas doctrine developed by Michel Aflaq - which Assad is meant to represent - says:

"Islam is the best expression of the eternity and universality of the Arab nation." So well yes, it's secular, Islam is subservient to the "Nation".

For those that are negative towards the refugees coming from Syria they should remember that for the large part they are as much the victims of Isis as anyone else and that Isis wants europe to turn against these people.

Whose fault is it if we are turned against these people? They are not victims, they were potential combat forces, most migrants were young males. I consider them deserter and my country's role should certainly not be welcoming deserters. It's plain to see that that crisis planned to empty the Middle-East of its potential forces against terrorists and, in fine, against Israel. Our Turkish NATO ally facilitated the migration, they paid buses, opened their borders for them to come and leave its country (it wouldn't be as easy for me to get to Turkey and leave it) and American-based NGO's sent ferrymen. We could all see that these people had mobile phones, most of them could pay train tickets, buses, even taxis sometimes, they could buy expensive victuals. Don't tell me that they were the unfortunate people that are regularly coming to Europe.

Turf war's been going on in Africa for some time now, just doesn't involve western nations - Boko Haram for eg makes ISIS look like a bunch of amateurs, 30 people killed in another market bombing in Yola today.

We in the West just tend to largely ignore it, partially because groups like Boko Haram are geographically restricted and pose no direct threat to the West but also because a bunch of poor black Africans being targeted doesn't fit the culture-war-they-hate-us-for-our-freedom narrative that so many prefer to believe is the primary motivation rather than simple - but boring - regional geopolitics.

Why take Boko Haram as example and not the numerous terrorist attacks by Isil that Lebanon and Gaza have endured?

These attacks also don't fit the culture-war-they-hate-us-for-our-freedom narrative. But more importantly they don't fit in anything Western media are telling us.

Anyone to explain to me why ISIL (whatever you call it) are destabilizing two of Israel's fiercest enemies (Hamas & Hezbollah) but NOT Israel. They never did. Don't tell me that it's a Sunni vs Shia conflict. Hamas is meant to be Sunni.
ISIL has never attacked Israel, why ???

Best analysis on the current situation in the Middle East I've ever heard (by Mr Gearóid Ó Colmáin). A must watch !!!

Article by the Swiss Romandian newspaper 'Le Temps' saying that the Frenchonly stroke empty buildings or targets that had already been hit by the Russians.

The Frogs will always make us laugh. As Assad said: "The French government is not serious."

 

[movingtarget]

Interesting Thoughts on Syria and ISIS

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4355874.htm

 

[blutto]

....really don't know what to make of this....maybe a copy of a NYT editorial from a parallel universe somehow jumped some time space continuum fence and landed here...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The editorial, which you should really read in its entirety, destroys most of the false, exploitative, blame-shifting claims uttered by U.S. officials about these issues. Because intelligence agencies knew of the attackers and received warnings, the NYT editors explain that “the problem in [stopping the Paris attacks] was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.” They point out that the NSA’s mass surveillance powers to be mildly curbed by post-Snowden reforms are ineffective and, in any event, have not yet stopped. And most importantly, they document that the leader of this lowly campaign, CIA chief John Brennan, has been proven to be an inveterate liar:"

....and...

"Indeed, what more powers could agencies like the CIA, NSA, MI6 and GCHQ get? They’ve been given everything they’ve demanded for years, no questions asked. They have virtually no limits. Of course it’s “not clear what extra powers Mr. Brennan is seeking.” It’s like trying to buy a Christmas gift for Paris Hilton: what do you give to an omnipotent, terrorism-exploiting agency that already has everything it could ever dream of having?"

...and...

"But there’s one vital question the NYT editors do not address: Why do the CIA and other U.S. government factions believe — accurately — that they can get away with such blatant misleading and lying? The answer is clear: because, particularly after a terror attack, large parts of the U.S. media treat U.S. intelligence and military officials with the reverence usually reserved for cult leaders, whereby their every utterance is treated as Gospel, no dissent or contradiction is aired, zero evidence is required to mindlessly swallow their decrees, anonymity is often provided to shield them from accountability, and every official assertion is equated with Truth, no matter how dubious, speculative, evidence-free, or self-serving."

...from... https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/nyt-editorial-slams-disgraceful-cia-exploitation-of-paris-attacks-but-submissive-media-role-is-key/

....and the last but most certainly not least, in fact the biggie...

"This, of course, is how propaganda is cemented: not by government officials making dubious, self-serving claims (they’ll always be motivated to do that), but by people who play the role of “journalist” on TV and in print acting as their spokespeople, literally suppressing all the reasons why the officials’ claims are so questionable if not outright false."

Cheers

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Interesting Thoughts on Syria and ISIS

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4355874.htm

i dont like Kilkullen. But a more felicitous name for a LtntColonel u wont find.

 

[blutto]

....from The Onion ( 12 years ago )....kinda speaks to the last bolded part above....and other stuff too...bottom line, ironic comedy gold of the weaponized variety...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism

By Nathan Eckert


George W. Bush may think that a war against Iraq is the solution to our problems, but the reality is, it will only serve to create far more.

This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher. It will not end the threat of weapons of mass destruction; it will make possible their further proliferation. And it will not lay the groundwork for the flourishing of democracy throughout the Mideast; it will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence.

If you thought Osama bin Laden was bad, just wait until the countless children who become orphaned by U.S. bombs in the coming weeks are all grown up. Do you think they will forget what country dropped the bombs that killed their parents? In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause. From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom.

And what exactly is our endgame here? Do we really believe that we can install Gen. Tommy Franks as the ruler of Iraq? Is our arrogance and hubris so great that we actually believe that a U.S. provisional military regime will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people? Democracy cannot possibly thrive under coercion. To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy. And it is doomed to fail.

A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...then the following "proper vetted response" from Bob Sheffer supposedly a real journalist type, a serious adult and not some long hair wanna be comedic writer like Eckert....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No It Won't


By Bob Sheffer


No it won't.

It just won't. None of that will happen.

You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.

"This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher"?

It won't.

"It will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence"?

Not really.

"A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster"?

Sorry, no, I disagree.

"To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy"?

You are completely wrong.

Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control.

Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.

Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already. Be quiet, okay? Everything's fine.

You're wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

...from.. http://www.theonion.com/multiblogpost/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mideast-regio-11534

...about the only thing missing is Sheffer invoking something along the lines of a "truther" putdown...but that might have made it too obvious...

Cheers

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Anyone to explain to me why ISIL (whatever you call it) are destabilizing two of Israel's fiercest enemies (Hamas & Hezbollah) but NOT Israel. They never did. Don't tell me that it's a Sunni vs Shia conflict. Hamas is meant to be Sunni.
ISIL has never attacked Israel, why ???

Are you kidding? ISIS has spent a lot more time and energy fighting the al-Nusra Front and other Jihadi groups than the Syrian army and Hezbollah. The rise of ISIS all but saved Assad at a time when he was at his weakest, and that benefits Iran, not Israel.

Maybe they haven't attacked Israel for the same reason they don't do much in the West, all things considered: because they're focusing on establishing themselves as THE Sunni authority on Jihad, and they can only achieve that by fighting other Sunnis that would compete for that role or oppose them. The enemy within is always more important than the enemy without, as we've seen countless times throughout history. Meanwhile, the collapse in the region has only increased the influence of Iran in Syria and especially Iraq.

But OK, let's entertain the notion that Israel is behind this. What would their goal be, geopolitically? How do they benefit from all of this?

 

[blackcat]

hrotha is right, atm, israel are incosequential, look north to turkey if you wish to start with influential players.

 

[python]

Re: Re:

Interesting Thoughts on Syria and ISIS

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4355874.htm

i dont like Kilkullen. But a more felicitous name for a LtntColonel u wont find.

..never heard of the chap but found his assessment quite incisive.

except the 1st question about the french intel failure (which he essentially swept aside) his other answers seemed the result of an objective, non-partisan assessment of the facts as they are at the moment...even such an emotional issue as the recent french tragedy, he had the presence of mind NOT to credit as the MAIN cause for giving an impulse to a negotiated solution in syria:

...And I think for the first time in really about 18 months, not so much as a result of the Paris attacks, but as a result of the Russian air campaign in Syria, we've come to a point where it's actually possible to see the outlines of how a negotiated settlement might emerge

most impartial observers of putin said the same thing, when he sent his bombers to syria. they warned that the chess move by the russians, though quite risky, was to pursue a MULTI-faceted strategy. not just the simplistic goal of propping assad as virtually all western msm screamed. among them - a distraction from ukraine, care for their naval base, instant change in the facts on the ground and of course, a long shot negotiated solution..

too early to come to any conclusions, but what we have seen since the russian syrian adventure seems to follow the scenario captured by the kilcullen quote.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

..never heard of the chap but found his assessment quite incisive.

snip...

too early to come to any conclusions, but what we have seen since the russian syrian adventure seems to follow the scenario captured by the kilcullen quote.

cos he has a semi profile for those in Aus au fait with international affairs and the levant experiment and ME adventurism by the allied anglophones <alliterationz.

 

[blutto]

....find below an article that help illuminate some of the motivations for joining ISIS....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Source: Business Insider

Despite ISIS's claims of ruling over a Islamic "caliphate" in line with Sharia law, a large number of the group's fighters joined for reasons having little to do with religion, according to a defector from the group that The Daily Beast's Michael Weiss interviewed in Istanbul, Turkey.

Instead, people are joining the organization because they are desperate for money and are struggling to find a way to survive in Syria, where four years of civil war have decimated the economy.

The ISIS defector, who goes by the pseudonym Abu Khaled, spoke with Weiss about the group's internal dynamics, and what it was like to live under ISIS's rule.

According to Abu Khaled, a large number of people are joining ISIS because they need money. After joining the militants, people are paid in US dollars instead of Syrian liras. Abu Khaled said that ISIS also runs its own currency exchanges.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-defector-explains-why-people-continue-joining-group-2015-11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

....so cut off the money and some of the wind will be taken out of the ISIS sails...?....

Cheers

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

UK is Christian? Lol, I've wasted a lot of my time watching the BBC in my younger days... England was one of the first secular countries in history. When Henry VIII created the Church of England, he subjected it to his temporal rule.

The USA are Christian? Ever read the Constitution? The American common people are still very much protestant but not the American institution, far from that. The "In God We Trust" motto was created in 1956 (spuriously of course). The real American motto is "E Pluribus Unum"

Israel is the Jewish state, yes. What is Jewishness? It's an ethnic, not a religion. Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist. Israel was created by Marxist atheists. It's an apartheid regime, yes. Apartheid South-Africa was secular.

For those that are negative towards the refugees coming from Syria they should remember that for the large part they are as much the victims of Isis as anyone else and that Isis wants europe to turn against these people.

Whose fault is it if we are turned against these people? They are not victims, they were potential combat forces, most migrants were young males.

1) UK is Christian not secular officially. Among the people, it is a secular society.

2) I said 'technically secular' for the USA. In reality it is Protestant.

3) Jewishness is a religion. Not an ethnicity. It is older than most other large religions too. I think it's quite insulting you think Judaism (to use the correct term) is an ethnicity. Not offensive, just slightly insulting. Difference between SA and ans Isreal is that one is religion-based apartheid, the other race-based. Is SA they were all one form of Christianity or another.

4) Migrants, first of all, are humans. It's depressing you think that you believe humans are potential combat forces.

....find below an article that help illuminate some of the motivations for joining ISIS....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Source: Business Insider

Despite ISIS's claims of ruling over a Islamic "caliphate" in line with Sharia law, a large number of the group's fighters joined for reasons having little to do with religion, according to a defector from the group that The Daily Beast's Michael Weiss interviewed in Istanbul, Turkey.

Instead, people are joining the organization because they are desperate for money and are struggling to find a way to survive in Syria, where four years of civil war have decimated the economy.

The ISIS defector, who goes by the pseudonym Abu Khaled, spoke with Weiss about the group's internal dynamics, and what it was like to live under ISIS's rule.

According to Abu Khaled, a large number of people are joining ISIS because they need money. After joining the militants, people are paid in US dollars instead of Syrian liras. Abu Khaled said that ISIS also runs its own currency exchanges.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-defector-explains-why-people-continue-joining-group-2015-11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

....so cut off the money and some of the wind will be taken out of the ISIS sails...?....

Cheers

Ofc, but isn't bombing so much easier...

hrotha is right, atm, israel are incosequential, look north to turkey if you wish to start with influential players.

I think tbh ISIS are acting pretty alone. Turkey have been victims of a couple of bombings recently so any support for them via the government has probably gone; ofc, the PKK are still the biggest threat for Turkey rn, so maybe discreet support is possible, but very unlikely.

The Middle East countries are all worried by them as they might ruin their regimes, so no money from there.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

UK is Christian? Lol, I've wasted a lot of my time watching the BBC in my younger days... England was one of the first secular countries in history. When Henry VIII created the Church of England, he subjected it to his temporal rule.

The USA are Christian? Ever read the Constitution? The American common people are still very much protestant but not the American institution, far from that. The "In God We Trust" motto was created in 1956 (spuriously of course). The real American motto is "E Pluribus Unum"

Israel is the Jewish state, yes. What is Jewishness? It's an ethnic, not a religion. Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist. Israel was created by Marxist atheists. It's an apartheid regime, yes. Apartheid South-Africa was secular.

For those that are negative towards the refugees coming from Syria they should remember that for the large part they are as much the victims of Isis as anyone else and that Isis wants europe to turn against these people.

Whose fault is it if we are turned against these people? They are not victims, they were potential combat forces, most migrants were young males.

1) UK is Christian not secular officially. Among the people, it is a secular society.

2) I said 'technically secular' for the USA. In reality it is Protestant.

3) Jewishness is a religion. Not an ethnicity. It is older than most other large religions too. I think it's quite insulting you think Judaism (to use the correct term) is an ethnicity. Not offensive, just slightly insulting. Difference between SA and ans Isreal is that one is religion-based apartheid, the other race-based. Is SA they were all one form of Christianity or another.

4) Migrants, first of all, are humans. It's depressing you think that you believe humans are potential combat forces.

....find below an article that help illuminate some of the motivations for joining ISIS....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Source: Business Insider

Despite ISIS's claims of ruling over a Islamic "caliphate" in line with Sharia law, a large number of the group's fighters joined for reasons having little to do with religion, according to a defector from the group that The Daily Beast's Michael Weiss interviewed in Istanbul, Turkey.

Instead, people are joining the organization because they are desperate for money and are struggling to find a way to survive in Syria, where four years of civil war have decimated the economy.

The ISIS defector, who goes by the pseudonym Abu Khaled, spoke with Weiss about the group's internal dynamics, and what it was like to live under ISIS's rule.

According to Abu Khaled, a large number of people are joining ISIS because they need money. After joining the militants, people are paid in US dollars instead of Syrian liras. Abu Khaled said that ISIS also runs its own currency exchanges.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-defector-explains-why-people-continue-joining-group-2015-11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

....so cut off the money and some of the wind will be taken out of the ISIS sails...?....

Cheers

Ofc, but isn't bombing so much easier...

hrotha is right, atm, israel are incosequential, look north to turkey if you wish to start with influential players.

I think tbh ISIS are acting pretty alone. Turkey have been victims of a couple of bombings recently so any support for them via the government has probably gone; ofc, the PKK are still the biggest threat for Turkey rn, so maybe discreet support is possible, but very unlikely.

The Middle East countries are all worried by them as they might ruin their regimes, so no money from there.

....and more better profit margins....

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

Regarding so many comments in the media that "it's just a few fanatics who are perverting our religion", I wanted to post this story.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/world/paris-soccer-fans-turkey/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obinsite

Apparently during a moment of silence for the victims in Paris at a match in Istanbul between Greece and Turkey, there wasn't silence. There were chants of "Allahu akbar" during the moment.

So I get that the vast majority of muslims are decent people, as are the vast majority of any large group. I'm not asking for Syrian refugees to be barred from the US (for reasons unrelated to religion). But what I do see with some disturbing regularity is what appears to be support for acts of terrorism among many, many muslims. Cheering in the streets of some cities after 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo, this kind of thing we see in the story above. I understand that the reasons for the support are complex and have as much to do with global power as they do with religion. But what I don't see is muslims marching in protest against the attacks, I don't see muslim countries lining up to take the front lines agains the threat of Islamic terrorists. I do see and read about condemnation from many quarters, but I don't see any action.

I assume this is because there isn't great political support for it. Why not? More muslims are being killed than westerners by these cretins. Where is the outrage? Instead we get people shouting in support during a moment of silence.

It's not as simple as "they're all bad" and it's not as simple as "it's just a few extremists". Just more people talking past one another IMO.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Regarding so many comments in the media that "it's just a few fanatics who are perverting our religion", I wanted to post this story.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/world/paris-soccer-fans-turkey/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obinsite

Apparently during a moment of silence for the victims in Paris at a match in Istanbul between Greece and Turkey, there wasn't silence. There were chants of "Allahu akbar" during the moment.

So I get that the vast majority of muslims are decent people, as are the vast majority of any large group. I'm not asking for Syrian refugees to be barred from the US (for reasons unrelated to religion). But what I do see with some disturbing regularity is what appears to be support for acts of terrorism among many, many muslims. Cheering in the streets of some cities after 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo, this kind of thing we see in the story above. I understand that the reasons for the support are complex and have as much to do with global power as they do with religion. But what I don't see is muslims marching in protest against the attacks, I don't see muslim countries lining up to take the front lines agains the threat of Islamic terrorists. I do see and read about condemnation from many quarters, but I don't see any action.

I assume this is because there isn't great political support for it. Why not? More muslims are being killed than westerners by these cretins. Where is the outrage? Instead we get people shouting in support during a moment of silence.

It's not as simple as "they're all bad" and it's not as simple as "it's just a few extremists". Just more people talking past one another IMO.

I saw this story yesterday somewhere else but I was a bit surprised but I guess I should not be.

Anyhow Watch out with this because some of the folks here are going to call you a the islam a phobe name. They might even post up propagaDA in the form of youtube video's telling you that you are all wrong and probably them chanting alahakbaraahahahara during the game never happened. The CIA probably started that chant and the other could not help themselves.