ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion

Johno please? · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:16

Above&Beyond said:
Yeah I mean Saddam is still running things and the Taliban still run Afghanistan where they are a haven for Al-Qaeda right?

What do you mean? Both countries were a land of peace and tranqulity before the west showed up.... oh wait.

Harlequin · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:19

OldCoals said:
Education, but that will takes a generation at least.

for who? ISIS have stamped out any form of education that doesn't involve the koran

Harlequin · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:20

Dj_Jestar said:
If they actually show any threat of leaving the middle east we'd have a problem. As it stands, they haven't got very far out of Iraq and Syria. At this moment I don't believe them to be a credible threat on Europe. There will (and have been) attacks, but nothing on the scale of a "swamping".

arming the kurds wont work - look at the Taliban , armed by the west to fight Russia - and the same stingers supplied back then were dusted of and reused against the usa!

Danthus · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:21

Harlequin said:
for who? ISIS have stamped out any form of education that doesn't involve the koran

The populous.

KillBoY_UK · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:24

Dj_Jestar said:
And we were certainly right to remove Sad-- *ugh* petty sarcasm.

Saddam was found to not be the danger we were told he was. In fact in recent news there are allegations Blair and Bush knew all along.

IS are the result of our "help" in Iraq, Al-Qaeda are also still going strong after 12 years of conflict.

Again you've avoided answering a very simple question: What happens when we withdraw, after another invasion?

Its quite possible there would have been a uprising as part of the Arab spring like in a lot of middle eastern countries leading similar insatiability we have now (Which is replicated elsewhere post Arab spring) to say it was totally down to our "help" is stretching it a little.

Would ISIS made similar/worse or better progress if Sadam was still in power ? or in the situation I outlined? we will Never know. It would be sad (but interesting) if they ever reached Libya, unlikely and I hope it never happens.

Terminal_Boy · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:25

The Kurds are well armed already as not only did the US arm them to secure their tribal homeland in Northern Iraq during GW2, but they're very skilled in picking up what retreating Iraqi and IS forces leave behind.

The real fun is going to start should a truly independent Kurdistan appear as the Turks won't like that one bit.

Danthus · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:26

KillBoY_UK said:
Its quite possible there would have been a uprising as part of the Arab spring like in a lot of middle eastern countries leading similar insatiability we have now (Which is replicated elsewhere post Arab spring) to say it was totally down to our "help" is stretching it a little.

Would ISIS made similar/worse or better progress if Sadam was still in power ? or in the situation I outlined? we will Never know. It would be sad (but interesting) if they ever reached Libya, unlikely and I hope it never happens.

The Arab Spring sprung because we meddled.

The west meddles all over the world for its own nefarious reasons.

robgmun · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:27

Dj_Jestar said:
No, I'm saying it's a recognisably British trait to have immigration and communities of immigrants banded, which it is and always has been. So "forehead slappingly obvious" yet somehow.. unrecognisable? No?

No. not at the levels we have endured in the last 10-15 years

KillBoY_UK · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:28

OldCoals said:
The Arab Spring sprung because we meddled.

The west meddles all over the world for its own nefarious reasons.

There was me thinking it protest after a Tunisia man burned himself to death in protest at his treatment by police and it steam rolled from there...........

Dj_Jestar · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:32

Harlequin said:
arming the kurds wont work - look at the Taliban , armed by the west to fight Russia - and the same stingers supplied back then were dusted of and reused against the usa!

The Peshmerga and the Kurds are, at least on the face of it, the least-crazy force in the region. I don't think it's pertinent to tar them with the same brush as Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda brush.

Dj_Jestar · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:33

KillBoY_UK said:
Its quite possible there would have been a uprising as part of the Arab spring like in a lot of middle eastern countries leading similar insatiability we have now (Which is replicated elsewhere post Arab spring) to say it was totally down to our "help" is stretching it a little.

Would ISIS made similar/worse or better progress if Sadam was still in power ? or in the situation I outlined? we will Never know. It would be sad (but interesting) if they ever reached Libya, unlikely and I hope it never happens.

Agreed we'll never know, and also agreed they may well have "sprung" of their own accord. But would there have been less reason for them to be angry ut us if we had stayed out? Certainly.

Terminal_Boy · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:36

Dj_Jestar said:
The Peshmerga and the Kurds are, at least on the face of it, the least-crazy force in the region. I don't think it's pertinent to tar them with the same brush as Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda brush.

They've been very pro-West as they hated living under Iraqi rule. Expect them not to be our friends anymore the instant the EU/NATO/UN backs Turkey over them.

Above&Beyond · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:37

Dj_Jestar said:
It's way more difficult and complex than most give credence, is what I think. Particularly the numb-skulls who think boots on ground will just instantly fix it.

Nobody said it would be instant.

Many constantly underestimate the fighting forces of groups like IS and Al-Qaeda. The best armies in the world with the best equipment and the biggest budgets haven't beaten "goat herders hiding in the mountains" with 12 years of all out war. What the hell makes people think these guys will be any easier?

Is hiding in the mountains with goats and taking potshots or slaughtering kids in school the definition of 'winning'?

I'm of the opinion that we're on the right track already. Offering as much support, training and munitions as we can, without getting involved first-hand. It's not our fight for a start, and we need local forces to stabilise, not become dependent upon foreigners. Iraq collapsed in on itself because "the West" heavy footed in, eradicated any form of political structure they had before, and left a massive power vacuum.

Didn't we already try this training up and arming the Iraqi army and they dropped their weapons and ran away leaving ISIS to pick them up and shoot back at us?

Also are we to make them become dependent on foreign equipment and expertise and then say don't become dependent on foreigners? Why not just use our own equipment and not risk being shot at with it a few years down the line? I'd worry more about destroying ISIS first instead of what happens after, but lessons will have been learned after Iraq and Al-Maliki going is a step in the right direction in Iraq.

I also often wonder why we do nothing to help the similar (and often graver) situations in Africa. Everybody always worried about the welfare and humanitarian needs of the middle east, but lets not worry about Africa. So what's the ulterior motive there? Why all the focus on the middle east? Not that I dispute help is needed, mind.

This argument seems to always crop up from those who don't want boots on the ground. "Well if you attack X then you have to attack Y and Z too!". Do you want more war or something?

It's like the "it's about oil" argument. So what if oil was a factor? A precious resource is better to be under control of despots like Saddam than the Iraqi people?

I also hold suspicion that the same people calling for boots on the ground from the comfort of their own homes will be the first to cry "bring them back!" the moment the media starts reporting losses.

Hasn't happened in Jordan or the UK or the USA when their people were murdered. More bullets and bombs for ISIS, not appeasement.

arknor · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:38

KillBoY_UK said:
Would ISIS made similar/worse or better progress if Sadam was still in power ? or in the situation I outlined? we will Never know. It would be sad (but interesting) if they ever reached Libya, unlikely and I hope it never happens.

They probably wouldn't exist at all since the Islamic state of iraq were one of the jihad groups that appeared in Iraq to fight the west, they then seized part of Syria after becoming established in Iraq.

some of the top people in ISIS were high ranking people in saddams regime

scorza · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:44

OldCoals said:
Education, but that will takes a generation at least.

But boko (western style education) is haraam (forbidden).

Muzza1875 · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:47

John40 said:
What I don't understand is what sort of people listen to his stupid immature ranting, toddlers have more common sense.

The bloke is an utter utter ****.

Yup as for the capitalism being an ideology yea i guess its true.
However he reaps the benefits of that ideology. He is a working part of the capitalist machine. It provides him with food on the table and a bed to live in.
Yea its not perfect and a lot of people live in poverty.

I guess he would like some sort of communist government, or Sharia law to be implemented instead and that will solve all the worlds problems.
Maybe anarchy is the key.

Dj_Jestar · 10 Feb 2015 at 17:54

Above&Beyond said:
Nobody said it would be instant.

Is hiding in the mountains with goats and taking potshots or slaughtering kids in school the definition of 'winning'?

Didn't we already try this training up and arming the Iraqi army and they dropped their weapons and ran away leaving ISIS to pick them up and shoot back at us?

Also are we to make them become dependent on foreign equipment and expertise and then say don't become dependent on foreigners? Why not just use our own equipment and not risk being shot at with it a few years down the line? I'd worry more about destroying ISIS first instead of what happens after, but lessons will have been learned after Iraq and Al-Maliki going is a step in the right direction in Iraq.

This argument seems to always crop up from those who don't want boots on the ground. "Well if you attack X then you have to attack Y and Z too!". Do you want more war or something?

It's like the "it's about oil" argument. So what if oil was a factor? A precious resource is better to be under control of despots like Saddam than the Iraqi people?

Hasn't happened in Jordan or the UK or the USA when their people were murdered. More bullets and bombs for ISIS, not appeasement.

So what happens when we withdraw, Above&Beyond?

Above&Beyond · 10 Feb 2015 at 18:01

Dj_Jestar said:
The Peshmerga and the Kurds are, at least on the face of it, the least-crazy force in the region. I don't think it's pertinent to tar them with the same brush as Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda brush.

Go and arm the Kurdistan Workers' Party and see what the Turks have to say.

Above&Beyond · 10 Feb 2015 at 18:06

Dj_Jestar said:
So what happens when we withdraw, Above&Beyond?

You can't know that any more than I can. A stable Iraqi government will help the region but if we leave a load of advanced weapons and trained soldiers with people who have old scores to settle it will be another bloodbath in a few years.

Harlequin · 10 Feb 2015 at 18:07

OldCoals said:
The populous.

see previous comment - `the populous` are the ones being taught the Koran only.

so whats your solution?