ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

The Turks fight against the only effective ground troops in Syria, the Kurds, for their own reasons then they shoot down a plane bombing IS. The Saudi's and some other Gulf states are one of IS's main backers but the UK Govt will not say anything because of economic reasons. Meanwhile Dave wants to destroy IS and wants to destroy Assad at the same time.
Syria is a mess, the only thing the UK will get out of it is a Paris style attack if it intervenes. Best left alone.
 
SU-24 is normally crewed by 2 people and looks like we already know the fate of one of them going by that video circulating online. Would be pretty ironic if they got shot down in Turkish airspace and happen to land in the hands of what look like armed rebels/insurgents/freedom fighters (;)) who may just possibly be of ISIS/Daesh origin.

Pretty morally ambiguous territory in this incident, Russian plane may have violated that space but now Turkey have brought itself into light even more and all the reports of its links with ISIS along with possibly aiding them and turning a blind eye on them operating through their borders with impunity because they do a good job of killing Kurds.

Also, no this won't start WWIII but as said Turkey have now put a spotlight on themselves.
 
do_ron_ron said:
Syria is a mess, the only thing the UK will get out of it is a Paris style attack if it intervenes. Best left alone.
Click to expand...
Why should we stand aside and let France, the US and Russia deal with a global threat? Yes, it's dangerous, but what is more dangerous, allowing them to get away with it or standing with our global - even European - brethren and dealing with this problem?

We didn't have to intervene when Germany invaded Poland, but we and France declared war all the same.
 
do_ron_ron said:
then they shoot down a plane bombing IS. The Saudi's and some other.
Click to expand...

I've heard that there aren't any IS forces in that area, and Russia has spent most of it's time bombing non IS rebels in Syria, IIRC it only started going after IS targets (as opposed to Assad's other enemies) once Is blew up their passenger jet.
 
wow:

Moments ago Putin delivered a brief statement following the downing of the Russian jet by Turkish forces during a press conference with the King of Jordan. Here are the highlights:

PUTIN SAYS LOSS OF RUSSIAN WARPLANE TODAY DUE TO BACKSTABBING
PUTIN: DOWNED WARPLANE INCIDENT GOES BEYOND FIGHT VS TERROR
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN SAYS TURKEY BEHAVING AS IF RUSSIA SHOT DOWN ITS OWN PLANE
PUTIN SAYS INCIDENT TO HAVE SERIOUS CONSQUENCES FOR TURKEY TIES
PUTIN SAYS RUSSIAN WARPLANE IN NO WAY THREATENED TURKEY
PUTIN SAYS RUSSIA HAS SIGNED AN ACCORD WITH THE US TO AVOID AIR INCIDENTS
Putin makes it quite clear that Turkey, a NATO state, is responsible for ISIS funding:

PUTIN: OIL FROM ISLAMIC STATE IS BEING SHIPPED TO TURKEY
PUTIN: ISLAMIC STATE GETS MILITARY SUPPORT FROM MANY STATES
And the first official diplomatic escalation:

TURKISH DEFENCE ATTACHE IN MOSCOW SUMMONED TO RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY - TASS
Click to expand...
 
Gilly said:
Why should we stand aside and let France, the US and Russia deal with a global threat? Yes, it's dangerous, but what is more dangerous, allowing them to get away with it or standing with our global - even European - brethren and dealing with this problem?

We didn't have to intervene when Germany invaded Poland, but we and France declared war all the same.
Click to expand...

I get your point but the two situations seem quite different. France, the US and Russia aren't dealing with the threat. They have competing interests and that is making an already dangerous situation worse. If there was some sort of agreement on a strategy or even a common goal (other than the current "get the poorly defined terrorist group/s" then I would agree the UK should be involved. I fear all the external involvement is doing at the moment is causing conflict between the countries you mention.

The WW2 analogy doesn't really work as in this case the country we are 'going in to save' doesn't want us there and we have the end goal of deposing its head of state.

I would support UK involvement in a coordinated international effort to destroy IS but at the moment without that it's just a complete nightmare no-win situation.
 
Executive Beef said:
I get your point but the two situations seem quite different. France, the US and Russia aren't dealing with the threat. They have competing interests and that is making an already dangerous situation worse. If there was some sort of agreement on a strategy or even a common goal (other than the current "get the poorly defined terrorist group/s" then I would agree the UK should be involved. I fear all the external involvement is doing at the moment is causing conflict between the countries you mention.

The WW2 analogy doesn't really work as in this case the country we are 'going in to save' doesn't want us there and we have the end goal of deposing its head of state.

I would support UK involvement in a coordinated international effort to destroy IS but at the moment without that it's just a complete nightmare no-win situation.
Click to expand...

True. Just waiting for a russian war ship to arrive and sit in the channel between the two halves of Istanbul.

Daesh will claim victory (including high ground) over political wheeling and dealing.

The problem is that people equate all action in the region to battling Daesh. Turkey vs the Kurds have been going on for years.. both claiming the ownership right to land without compromise.
 
Summon the diplomat and insert a Quran into his backside and send him back to Turkey strapped on the back of a donkey. Quite the painful long haul i would imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom