US journalist beheaded by ISIS...

[Magog]

Channel 4 News reporting that Kabir Ahmed's family are asking why the security services didn't stop him travelling to Syria and joining IS and becoming a suicide bomber, as if it's somehow their responsibility!

[TheRealFingers99]

KareemK said:

Who's blaming this on western measures?!?!

I'm saying that the outcome will have to be decided by the people of the region. Our interference or bombing will only lead to more instability ultimately. You'd have thought we'd have learnt that lesson.

Ignoring this obvious outcome is rather short sighted if not out and out war mongering.

See wot I did there

Strangely, I would see this as -- in part -- the result of western measures (but prior to the present campaign).

Still, given the disintegration of Iraq and Syria, I don't see any option (assuming we want to prevent a real bloodbath or [cynicism]access to oil[/cynicism]) to the continuing support of the Kurds (especially the Syrian Kurds) and the FSA (reformed wing).

But no boots on the ground, please. I don't think anyone really wants that and, to be honest, we're pretty good at the war bit, but crap at the peace part.

[Jimbeaux]

toppstuff said:

Apparently the Americans are in the process of establishing A10's in the region.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-much-ma...

I dont understand why this hasn't happened earlier.

Dropping expensive bombs and missiles from 10,000ft is simply not as effective as having a taxi rank of A10's over IS, taking turns to dash down and take out any rat that pops its head up.

Truly, if this was Europe or US homeland IS were threatening, this whole charade would be over in one day. The US and the West has the firepower. We have helicopter gunships and stuff. Hell, send a C130 Spector down there. That would tilt the balance of conflict in a nicely overwhelming way.

Why oh why does the West and US choose to adopt such weak-willed rules of engagement?

The commanders are unhappy, this is no secret. It appears that escalation would be contrary to the narrative that Obama has been pushing that the terrorists are defeated, nothing to see here. I fear he wants to just to tip toe around and leave things for the next POTUS to deal with.
The word is that slowly but surely, "the lights are coming on" over Iraq. This is to say that intel nodes and ground direction, along with firepower are starting to settle in. Perhaps by letting things build up slowly as opposed to sending it all over at once, he thinks we just won't notice as much. Who knows?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 10th November 20:25

[Mermaid]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Mermaid said:

Just imagine the GDP impact on countries if Muslims burnt their silly book & behaved themselves.

You could say much the same for all the silly books (and not just of the descendants of Abraham).

But I'd remind you, again, that the Muslims are doing most of the fighting against the Daesh (along with some Christians and Yazidis).

The past is the past. May I remind you that Islam is without doubt the most reviled religion - and why is that?

And Muslims are killing each other because their leader did not leave succession plans. And that is the only reason. Living in the past - a windscreen the size of a rear view mirror (if that) and a rear view mirror the size of a windscreen.

[TheRealFingers99]

Jimbeaux said:

The word is that slowly but surely, "the lights are coming on" over Iraq. This is to say that intel nodes and ground direction, along with firepower are starting to settle in.

Dunno about Obama, but it does look at though things are starting to gel, at least in Iraq. Some form of fragmentation is inevitable, but Mosul is slowly being encircled, Bagdad looks to be secure enough (expect suicide bombings, insurgent actions inside).

Seems that the Iranians were very heavily involved behind the scenes. Major General Qassem Soleimani who leads the Quods force -- the overseas arm of the National Guard -- has been seen chatting to Peshmerga commanders and is said to have masterminded the plan for the defence of Baghdad.

Of course, the Iranians back Hezbollah, currently involved against ISIS with Assad's army in Syria.

[TheRealFingers99]

eddharris said:

I have a British muslim friend here in Canada that is desperate to go back home (to the UK) but is too embarrassed and also afraid that his kids will get picked on.

This st storm is causing problems for everyone. Such a shame as things used to be normal.

A lot will depend on where the kids go to school. My 9 year old friend (a Czech Romani) tells me (she's a Catholic) that there are no Muslim teachers at her school, but most of her new mates are Muslim. In parts of Liverpool, I'd guess that Muslims account for 1 in 5 of the population and are pretty much accepted.

Of course, if your mate is a Kurd, then his kids will be invited to all the best parties!

[Muntu]

[eddharris]

TheRealFingers99 said:

eddharris said:

I have a British muslim friend here in Canada that is desperate to go back home (to the UK) but is too embarrassed and also afraid that his kids will get picked on.

This st storm is causing problems for everyone. Such a shame as things used to be normal.

A lot will depend on where the kids go to school. My 9 year old friend (a Czech Romani) tells me (she's a Catholic) that there are no Muslim teachers at her school, but most of her new mates are Muslim. In parts of Liverpool, I'd guess that Muslims account for 1 in 5 of the population and are pretty much accepted.

Of course, if your mate is a Kurd, then his kids will be invited to all the best parties!

Defo not kurds but he and his eldest have fantastic perms so Liverpool may work.

Cheers.

[TheRealFingers99]

Mermaid said:

The past is the past. May I remind you that Islam is without doubt the most reviled religion - and why is that?

And Muslims are killing each other because their leader did not leave succession plans. And that is the only reason. Living in the past - a windscreen the size of a rear view mirror (if that) and a rear view mirror the size of a windscreen.

Some would argue that Judaism is the most reviled religion (and could probably also show that the Yazidi, Druze and Zoroastrians have a pretty hard time of it, too).

There are fanatical followers of most religions: there are the crazy Jews who try to break your camera if you take a photo of them and take pot shots at Arabs, crazy Christians who kill doctors, crazy folk who will let their children die for the want of a blood transfusion, and so on and on.

Most of the Muslims who are fighting Daesh are only doing so because the Daesh are trying to wipe them from the face of the earth. Doesn't really have a lot to do with which branch of Islam you happen to be born into (which, after all, is something no-one has any control over).

[Mermaid]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Mermaid said:

The past is the past. May I remind you that Islam is without doubt the most reviled religion - and why is that?

And Muslims are killing each other because their leader did not leave succession plans. And that is the only reason. Living in the past - a windscreen the size of a rear view mirror (if that) and a rear view mirror the size of a windscreen.

Some would argue that Judaism is the most reviled religion (and could probably also show that the Yazidi, Druze and Zoroastrians have a pretty hard time of it, too).

There are fanatical followers of most religions: there are the crazy Jews who try to break your camera if you take a photo of them and take pot shots at Arabs, crazy Christians who kill doctors, crazy folk who will let their children die for the want of a blood transfusion, and so on and on.

Most of the Muslims who are fighting Daesh are only doing so because the Daesh are trying to wipe them from the face of the earth. Doesn't really have a lot to do with which branch of Islam you happen to be born into (which, after all, is something no-one has any control over).

Muslims/terrorists - words together well, care to tell me why? Jews - they do have too much money & Jehovah chappies bore you to tears.

IS, mainly Sunnis, (funded by Saudis) to get rid of Syria's Alawites & quell Iraq's Shias & supported by Iraq's Sunnis. And oh the Sunni IS also hate Christians, Yazidi, Kurds etc

& why are the Shia Iranians defending an Iraq that could be controlled yet again by he Sunnis.

[durbster]

toppstuff said:

Truly, if this was Europe or US homeland IS were threatening, this whole charade would be over in one day. The US and the West has the firepower. We have helicopter gunships and stuff. Hell, send a C130 Spector down there. That would tilt the balance of conflict in a nicely overwhelming way.

Why oh why does the West and US choose to adopt such weak-willed rules of engagement?

You mean like the huge successes that an overwhelming military force had in Vietnam? Or Afghanistan? Or Iraq?

Perhaps those at the top have realised that simply having the biggest guns isn't enough in this modern era of conflict.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the further from the front line our modern military technology has taken us, the less effective our forces have become.

[TheRealFingers99]

Mermaid said:

Muslims/terrorists - words together well, care to tell me why? Jews - they do have too much money & Jehovah chappies bore you to tears.

But a few years ago you could point to Orthodox Christian terrorists (Serbs) and Catholic terrorists (IRA). A bit further back and you could point to Jewish terrorists (Irgun, Stern Gang, Haganah, etc.). Had you been in the ME in Saladin's time you could have pointed to Christian (Crusader) terrorists. It comes around, goes around, comes back again.

Fundamentally, we're inclined to brand those we don't like -- for whatever reason -- as terrorists.

Mermaid said:

IS, mainly Sunnis, (funded by Saudis) to get rid of Syria's Alawites & quell Iraq's Shias & supported by Iraq's Sunnis. And oh the Sunni IS also hate Christians, Yazidi, Kurds etc

All the more fundamentalist branches of Islam hate the Kurds and the Druze and the Alawites and so on.

Mermaid said:

& why are the Shia Iranians defending an Iraq that could be controlled yet again by he Sunnis.

It's unlikely to be. But I think Iran's main deal here is to preserve a pathway into Syria and Lebanon.

To my mind, when the dust settles, the Kurds and Iran will be the winners. The Sunni will get something, but not a lot. Syria and Iraq will be fragmented, but they were an artificial Franco-British creation in the first place.

[TheJimi]

durbster said:

toppstuff said:

Truly, if this was Europe or US homeland IS were threatening, this whole charade would be over in one day. The US and the West has the firepower. We have helicopter gunships and stuff. Hell, send a C130 Spector down there. That would tilt the balance of conflict in a nicely overwhelming way.

Why oh why does the West and US choose to adopt such weak-willed rules of engagement?

You mean like the huge successes that an overwhelming military force had in Vietnam? Or Afghanistan? Or Iraq?

In every conflict you listed above, many would argue that the ROE's hampered progress.

Interesting piece here - http://www.au.af.mil/au/aupress/digital/pdf/paper/...

[EtcEtc]

Magog said:

Channel 4 News reporting that Kabir Ahmed's family are asking why the security services didn't stop him travelling to Syria and joining IS and becoming a suicide bomber, as if it's somehow their responsibility!

Tell them i said to fk off, would you?

[TheRealFingers99]

It's difficult to follow this struggle: where's Kobani, why can't I find Aleppo on my map of Iraq, is Mosul near Mosley, is Rojava in Yugoslavia? etc.

This interactive map helps quite a lot: http://isis.liveuamap.com/en/2014/10-november-iraq...

Seems to be updated at least twice a day.

[flyingvisit]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Some would argue that Judaism is the most reviled religion ...

You would argue that. I think we all know your feelings about Jews from your pronouncements on the Israel thread (not that I've read that for some time).

[Lost soul]

Magog said:

Channel 4 News reporting that Kabir Ahmed's family are asking why the security services didn't stop him travelling to Syria and joining IS and becoming a suicide bomber, as if it's somehow their responsibility!

With that lot its always someone else's fault

[TheRealFingers99]

flyingvisit said:

You would argue that. I think we all know your feelings about Jews from your pronouncements on the Israel thread (not that I've read that for some time).

Actually, I'd not argue that (which -- duh -- might be why I didn't) -- I'd leave it to Grumfutock.

If you read the thread, you'll see I praise several Jews on it, and I'm completely opposed to rascism. But I'm utterly opposed to Zionism, mainly because it is rascist.

If you equate Zionism with Judaism with being Jewish, then you're just a muddle headed simpleton.

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Tuesday 11th November 09:02

[KareemK]

Lost soul said:

Magog said:

Channel 4 News reporting that Kabir Ahmed's family are asking why the security services didn't stop him travelling to Syria and joining IS and becoming a suicide bomber, as if it's somehow their responsibility!

With that lot its always someone else's fault

I find this view point a bit puzzling to be honest.

If we're going to actually bomb ISIS (killing both them and innocent civilians as we do so) then we clearly feel that it's our 'responsibility' to do this right?

If that stands then how is it not our 'responsibility' to stop them going out there in the first place?

Joined-up-thinking surely demands that you try to stop them getting out there in the first place before dropping ordnance on their heads and indeed this what they are doing.

[irocfan]

KareemK said:

Lost soul said:

Magog said:

Channel 4 News reporting that Kabir Ahmed's family are asking why the security services didn't stop him travelling to Syria and joining IS and becoming a suicide bomber, as if it's somehow their responsibility!

With that lot its always someone else's fault

I find this view point a bit puzzling to be honest.

If we're going to actually bomb ISIS (killing both them and innocent civilians as we do so) then we clearly feel that it's our 'responsibility' to do this right?

If that stands then how is it not our 'responsibility' to stop them going out there in the first place?

Joined-up-thinking surely demands that you try to stop them getting out there in the first place before dropping ordnance on their heads and indeed this what they are doing.

but surely stopping various people from leaving the country is racial profiling....