Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
Indeed, but who starts the cycle? History has shown it is the West in it's desire for cheap oil. Iran is an obvious example.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Indeed, but who starts the cycle? History has shown it is the West in it's desire for cheap oil. Iran is an obvious example.
It was funny - someone on Facebook shared a picture post from "imlfeed" that asked "Who benefits from bombing Syria?" The picture showed the long range cruise missile for bunker penetration at £800K each and stating that's the price of keeping UK homeless in temporary shelter for the week of christmas.
I wrote back providing a balancing statement asking who gets rich from all the aid payments? Then provided a post to a report that shows it costs £700,000 A DAY for refugees - the missile also helps to prevent displacement, to reduce the murder and rape by ISIS, after all All Syrians want is to have their country and not be killed over attempting to lead a normal life. Plus that the missile in question - there are cheaper options hence what is being peddled is a load of baloney.
Now imlfeed seem to be heavily muslim focused - no bad thing, but it seems to be suggesting that action to help Syrians should not take place by attempting to shame into helping the homeless here.
Now the homeless here already have aid and assistance, many choose not to use it and be "housed" for various reasons.
So who's propaganda is that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,214
Trouble is we're dealing with an idealogy and they're talking about a patch of turf, the turf we can blow to kingdom come but you can't destroy an ideology the same way. The bombers in paris: they were French and Belgium citizens. The ones who bombed London were home grown too, they even had Yorkshire accents. The bombers who brought down the russian plane did so precisely because Russia involved itself in Syria.
Infact it only increases resentment and alienation in those who feel the West is bludgeoning their fellow muslims with a sledgehammer and lets not kid ourselves here there will be civilian casualties, which Cameron was so blase about sweeping under the carpet in his speeches. The cities in Syria have already been pummeled into rubble, how is adding to adding to this supposed to make anyone feel better other than ourselves, whose politicians feel they have to do "something" but havn't given a second thought as to the consequences or what to do afterwards.
Trouble is everytime this happens everyone has just enough collective amnesia to forget exactly what went so badly wrong last time to repeat the same mistakes all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
those syrian kids wouldn't think twice before blowing you up, so I say go for it and turn the entire area to glass.
That's right they're simply a group that just hates anything the English have a role in so had Cameron said no bombing they would have voted to bomb.
Hearing them speak in the commons also underlines how incredibly immature they are.
It's a mess but dunno what the solution would be? Need some sort of alliance on the ground which needs the Syrian government. But for the West to be able to make that work Assad will have to step down. Pack him off to Russia or something. If that lovely excuse for a human being had done just that 5 years ago and given his people a democratic vote then things would not have spiralled so badly out of control.
Oil is at the centre of a lot of our governments interests in the area but the sad truth is it's rather important to how our economies work. Quicker we can get sustainable cheap energies as the norm the better the whole world will be in so many ways.
I don't think it's just about oil now though. ISIS is a threat to us. However the mess was caused is largely irrelevant at this point. Unfortunately dropping care bears on them to shower them with love isn't an option. Although it would be funny.
Friendship pipeline
Nabucco pipeline
Golan heights
They are the real reasons for operation "Assad takedown", now you see how twisted our governments really are.
Terrorism is created to justify a war.
it's a tough situation. i would not like to be the one making the call thats for sure.
i do believe something has to be done. but bombing ISIS is a very small idea which will not be a long term solution. give it a year after we have squashed them and another warmongering tribe will suddenly be flavour of the moment and start blowing themselves up and murdering.
but not doing anything will lead somewhat down the same path.
i don't have the answer, i wish i did. but one thing is for sure, something has to be done.
i do believe something has to be done. but bombing ISIS is a very small idea which will not be a long term solution. give it a year after we have squashed them and another warmongering tribe will suddenly be flavour of the moment and start blowing themselves up and murdering.
but not doing anything will lead somewhat down the same path.
i don't have the answer, i wish i did. but one thing is for sure, something has to be done.
Very true - so if someone (individually) can change their agenda at will then they are not fighting a cause.. but fighting for money and the chance of assets giving them a better life after.
Also if one group is seen to be weaker, often people will migrate to the strong group hoping that their input will make a bigger difference. It means personal security (less chance of dying) and a better chance of being on the winning side (see point about dying and financial assets).
Systemically removing the wealth from the groups is difficult but the idea is you do this based on if their crazed notion is to kill everyone (ISIS).
It also means that ISIS is not as strong as they project, if people think ISIS are loosing it will collapse. If ISIS have financial trouble, it will appear weak (lack of arms and pay to soldiers) therefore they will abandon the cause to the next strongest group (which may be "pro-ISIS" but only share the fact to remove Assad in that "pro" statement rather than kill everyone).
Also one aspect is interesting, as group members migrate they have two aspects - change the tactics and focus of the recipient group but also the group's own internal tactics/focus rubs off on them.. so ISIS ideology gets watered down.
The point if stability is simply the point where the external nations (i.e. including ME nations) are happy with the group, the country (majority) are happy with the group and the group have a focus on working together to create a country rather than attempting to export extremism.
Erm Russia were bombing the rebels to support Assad and indirectly help IS so whats your point?
You are aware politics and the world is a dynamic place that changes over time?
Erm Russia were bombing the rebels to support Assad and indirectly help IS so whats your point?
Its already been pointed out on multiple occasions that Cameron was talking about the fact that the Russians were dropping 90% of their bombs on the rebels and not on ISIS.
Unsurprisingly, does not seem to have sunk in with him, its like tourettes.
lol.
There are many players - and not just the western states (incl russia). The ME arab nations are in the political loop.
There are resources.
There are contracts to extract resources
There are contracts to defend those resources
There are external entities that compete in the market of those same resources
There are consumers of those resources that look for beneficial terms
There are other trade aspects with Syria where some or all of the above are part of the negotiations
There are other trade aspects (some or all of the above) in relation to neighbouring states
There are other trade aspects (some or all of the above) in relation to global states in terms of production of consumed resources.
Add organisations like OPEC with member producers
Add religion
Add megalomania
Add no compromise
I think that pretty much sums up the situation.
A lot of people say this, but oppose bombing, as though its the opposite of 'something being done'.
Simple fact is bombing is what is being done to hold ISIS in place and make their life difficult, along with the Vienna peace talks, engaging Russia to sort out Assad and stop the civil war.
Its a hypocritical mess over there. ISIS have only grown in power.
If the past 10 years of 'fighting terror/seeking revenge' in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't taught the leaders of the UK about their epic fails, nothing ever will.
If the past 10 years of 'fighting terror/seeking revenge' in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't taught the leaders of the UK about their epic fails, nothing ever will.
How do we know that the rebels are not ISIS?
In a big picture I can see your point.
However that picture also bypasses the fact that ISIS want to kill everyone. An answer by turning the entire area to glass - civilians and fighting factions alike - then looking at it in 1000 years time and noting no violence because the level of fear and shock would be so high.
However humans only live for a short period and we often need to prove something within a 5-10 year time scale.
In 1000 years, accelerated by technology - humanity, islam, jews, christians and atheists probably will have come to a binary state - all or nothing.
I think the epic failure is a result of every leader - political and religious.
It always takes more than one person to have a fight - if your proposition is true then no group would fight back if attacked, including those in the middle east.
Edit - lol just re-read your post. If you cannot tell the difference between ISIS and the rebels that really is Syria 101. You can't just go lumping all muslims as ISIS. How can we be sure the Syrian Army aren't ISIS??? dun de duhhhhhh!
Last edited: