UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

Eugene Norman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

In a world without the U.S. they would be living under a secular Baathist government in either Syria or Iraq. In a world with the U.S. where the Iraqi or Syrian dictatorships were pro US that would also be the case

And other trivial answers.

By the way why are Irish right wingers so fast to defend the U.S. rather than say Europe. Where's the European nationalism?

You can even blame Barry the Muslim ( or whatever Fox News is calling him these days) for the latest rounds of insane destabilisation in Libya and Syria if you want to continue to think you are a right wing American.

So not wanting to blame America for everything wrong (or "almost" everything, gotta slip that word in) with the world is "right wing"!

Snigger!

I guess while we are doing glib generalisations, do ye all still have Che Guevara posters in your bedrooms?

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So not wanting to blame America for everything wrong (or "almost" everything, gotta slip that word in) with the world is "right wing"!

Not blaming the U.S. for the destabilisation of Iraq is right wing (actually a specific form of right wing thought). I see how you managed to twist my words. Not very well. I gave two examples of Syria and Iraq, in response to your entirely clueless question of what ISIS would be doing if the U.S. didn't exist. That's not *almost everything* or anything like it.

I guess while we are doing glib generalisations, do ye all still have Che Guevara posters in your bedrooms?

Lol. Both a whatsboutary and an strawman ad hominem. Reported.

Here's how stupid you Irish neo-cons are. The most right wing nationalist I know is a French academic who probably is a national front supporter. He hates both Islam and the U.S. He blames the U.S. for the destabilisation of the Middle East. He hates communism.

In short you don't have to be a "leftie" to hate on the U.S. All Europeans should oppose the destabilisation of the ME.

If you are worried about Europes ability to cope with refugees don't support the U.S.

Eugene Norman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Not blaming the U.S. for the destabilisation of Iraq is right wing (actually a specific form of right wing thought). I see how you managed to twist my words. Not very well.



Lol. Both a whatsboutary and an strawman ad hominem. Reported.

Here's how stupid you Irish neo-cons are. The most right nationalist I know is a French academic who probsbly is a national front supporter. He hates both Islam and the U.S. He blames the U.S. for the destabilisation of the Middle East. He hates communism.

In short you don't have to be a "leftie" to hate on the U.S. All Europeans should oppose the destabilisation of the ME.

If you are worried about Europes ability to cope with refugees don't support the U.S.

While you're running to the mods, be sure to refer to your own drooling Texans reference.

Obviously, people who are less fortunate than you and I and who may have special needs should be the yardstick for abuse. Was that before you got thin skinned about your Che poster?

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

While you're running to the mods, be sure to refer to your own drooling Texans reference.

Obviously, people who are less fortunate than you and I and who may have special needs should be the yardstick for abuse. Was that before you got thin skinned about your Che poster?

I don't think anybody can in fact answer that insanely brilliant kind of argument so I'll just boldify it.

CruelCoin

Overheal wrote: »

In a war-torn area? I know people that carry a glock just to drive down to Atlanta...unless there is a curfew or ban on the rifles in the area, it is not due cause to kill on sight.

A glock and an assault rifle are miles apart. (i know i'm being captain obvious here).
What due cause should there have been? If one nation is in a state of war with another nation/entity, then i don't think its surprising that weapons will be fired the moment you see the enemy.
I mentioned it before, but if we were invaded, do you think it would be a clever idea for me to go pheasant hunting? I wouldn't touch anything with a trigger for the entire duration of said war.
I'm not saying they deserved to die, they didn't. But they did contribute.

the_syco wrote: »

Well, IMO the operators already knew who to kill. Pretty much everyone owns a gun. Especially villagers who'd need guns to protect their livestock, women, etc.

I'm not disputing that. I have no issue with people protecting themselves, but there is a big difference between keeping a rifle in the cupboard and going all rambo with a kalashnikov at a wedding.

I don't know much about the event, other than the guns and the wedding bits, but in my own opinion, firing weapons in a warzone is a fast-track to getting shot at. Not that its not a sad event, it is/was.

The Corinthian

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I gave two examples of Syria and Iraq, in response to your entirely clueless question of what ISIS would be doing if the U.S. didn't exist. That's not *almost everything* or anything like it.

Well, US meddling in Iraq certainly has contributed to IS, and most certainly left Iraq in a very sorry and unstable position, but if one is to point to anything for IS, there are other reasons than have limited, if any, connection to the Americans.

To begin with Al-Qaeda has been losing harts and minds for a long time and it was inevitable that some other group would fill the vacuum.

The Arab Spring, that led to the environment where IS could get a foothold in Syria, had little or nothing to do with the Americans. It was a surprise to everyone that it happened and without it, IS would have had no base of operations to start from.

And finally, Assad was unable to handle the rebellion in his nation at it's inception. Had he nipped it in the bud, IS would have had no base of operations to start from.

That IS were able to spread into Iraq, is in part thanks to the US and the mess it left behind, but overall, to blame the US for IS would be exaggerated and unfair.

Here's how stupid you Irish neo-cons are. The most right wing nationalist I know is a French academic who probably is a national front supporter. He hates both Islam and the U.S. He blames the U.S. for the destabilisation of the Middle East. He hates communism.

In short you don't have to be a "leftie" to hate on the U.S. All Europeans should oppose the destabilisation of the ME.

If you are worried about Europes ability to cope with refugees don't support the U.S.

This is broadly correct. While left wingers will tend to be anti-American, being pro and anti American cannot be so simply defined as right and left wing positions. The confusion comes from the misconception that American interests are identical to our (European) interests. While they overlap a lot, they are not the same and in some cases can be diametrically opposed - we got a taste of that in 2003 when the US made it clear that they were going to invade regardless of what its allies thought, but it seems memories are short.

Anyhow it is more correct to say that those described as Irish 'neocons' (if that even exists) are Anglocentric, rather than right wing. And delusionally so, because our interests don't always overlap and what is good for the USA is not necessarily good for us.

KomradeBishop

colossus-x wrote: »

Why stop at 2003? What if Hussein never invaded Kuwait in 1991? Where would be now?

Do you really think the Iraq war singularly led to where we are today? As if the whole region were completely stable beforehand. Pfff.

Eh, yea it's well known that the Iraq war played a significant role in destabilizing Syria; saying otherwise is not really even very debatable.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, yea it's well known that the Iraq war played a significant role in destabilizing Syria; saying otherwise is not really even very debatable.

Actually, it is debatable. Please show how "the Iraq war played a significant role in destabilizing Syria". An unstable neighbour was no doubt a factor, but there's a big difference between being a factor and a "significant" one.

KomradeBishop

Manic Moran wrote: »

I believe you'll find they are in what the Geneva Conventions would term "a state of armed conflict"

I believe you'll further find that such a term covers the gamut of operations, from Irish peace enforcing in the Congo through Turkish police action in Korea to the Egyptian crossing of a canal in '73. There is no requirement for a formal declaration of war, and the laws of land warfare do not require one before they are applied.

The laws on armed conflict might help define what this conflict is, but in the case of the UK, since they are not at war with Syria, the legal grounding of their attacks in Syria are not sound - not unless you extend the definition of a battlefield to being "the whole world is a battlefield" - which is incredibly dangerous to democracy, as that can extend to the UK as well:

Who may be targeted under international humanitarian law?

In armed conflict lethal force may, under international humanitarian law, be used against combatants or fighters, and against civilians taking a direct part in hostilities.

What is much more complex is the situation that arises when a person participates directly in hostilities from the territory of a non-belligerent State, or moves to the territory of a non-belligerent State after having taken part in an armed conflict. The question is whether lethal force may lawfully be used against such a person and under what legal framework. Opinions diverge. The ICRC holds the view that international humanitarian law would not be applicable in such a situation, meaning that this person should not be considered a legitimate target under the laws of war. Advising otherwise would mean that the whole world is potentially a battlefield and that people moving around the world could be legitimate targets under international humanitarian law wherever they might be. Of course, the person described can be held accountable for his or her actions, and, in our view, human rights law would apply to any use of force that may be necessary.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2013/05-10-drone-weapons-ihl.htm

The overall definition of what the conflict with ISIS is, is also a lot more muddied and not as straight-forward as you make out - as described well here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/is-it-a-war-an-armed-conflict-why-words-matter-in-the-us-fight-vs-the-islamic-state/2014/10/06/f4528a6c-49a1-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html

The entire narrow interpretation of my posts, as if they only relate to a 'formal declaration' of war, is a straw-man/red-herring as well - any mention by me of 'declaring war' can be considered as taking any legal means of legitimizing the fight with ISIS - and currently no legally legitimate framework has been put in place.


We are also only covering the definition of what these attacks are, what you are saying does not cover whether those attacks are legitimate/legally-justified - and that also is a key question, in determining whether it is legitimate to label anyone an 'enemy combatant' against the UK.

The 'self defence' argument is extraordinarily weak, as the conditions for that under international law are not met - and Syria has not requested help in fighting ISIS, so breaching their sovereignty like this is also not supported under international law.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Back to blaming America for the decisions by ISIS to roast men in cages?

I know, I know, when the clear message in your posts, that America is to blame, was previously pointed out you objected, as if somehow you're not blaming America for the decision by ISIS to roast men in cages. I mean, in the above post you say it led to "almost everything" which I guess gives you some wriggle room!

You know that reframing my post, as 'blaming America for ISIS roasting men', is a fairly childish attempt at trying to straw-man me.

You are not ever going to dissuade me from pointing out western nations role, in creating ISIS, by destabilizing Iraq - by making the utterly thick argument, that that somehow is supposed to be saying, that the US is responsible for every single one of ISIS horrible acts.

It's such a stupid argument lacking in credibility - and so very obvious that you are fully aware of that - that I don't really have to worry much about many others taking it seriously.

asherbassad

Deleted User wrote: »

So not wanting to blame America for everything wrong (or "almost" everything, gotta slip that word in) with the world is "right wing"!

Snigger!

I guess while we are doing glib generalisations, do ye all still have Che Guevara posters in your bedrooms?

I've never had a Che Guevara poster in my bedroom, or a peace sign or anything like that. Seems a shame that I have to qualify myself to people like you who tar anyone who criticizes US warmongering as some kind of free-loading, bearded hippy who will eventually jettison their ideals and become tax-paying cynics.

You can't deny that America is responsible for millions of innocent deaths and casualties in the Middle East all based upon lies. Lies that you believed then and while you might not believe them anymore you'll be damned if you're going to admit to being fooled. Better to keep to your guns and belittle anyone who points out the painful truth rather than display a bit of moral strength and admit that you're wrong.

KomradeBishop

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You know the most annoying thing here. You know what boils my piss?

In 2003 I was arguing against americanised Irish neo-cons who refused to accept that getting rid of saddam was a de-stabilising factor, most even believed that he had WMD. Others were looking forward to a democratic Middle East.

Same idiots can't see anything that the U.S. is responsible for now. God no. Isis just appeared.

This kind of nonsense is safe enough drooling right wing crap if you are in Texas. You can believe any kind of nonsense because it's not going to threathen you. However American adventurism threatens Europe now.

So when it's gung ho against the mullahs in Iran in two years, try and think of the consequences of the destruction of Iran on where you live.

Ya what it basically is, is these posters from then and now, they don't actually believe what they are arguing - what they are arguing is so utterly and obviously stupid, that they can't miss that - the goal among those posters is to just try and justify/lend-credibility to pretty much anything/everything that established western authorities do, when it comes to foreign policy/wars, no matter how illegal or dangerous (probably nothing more sinister than knee-jerk tribalism or acting as 'useful idiots').

It's not any different to the posters that pop up, when Israel gets in the mood for another indiscriminate massacre in Gaza - except in this case it's more widely applied to justifying all NATO/western-led actions.


There appears to be a really massive push to drum up anti-migrant and anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe lately, and particularly drum up scaremongering about Russia and ISIS as a danger to Europe (causing European nations to score a lot of own-goals in foreign policy while at it...), while encouraging the promotion of right-wing extremist type views.

There seems to have been a lot of success lately in using terrorist scaremongering, to ship over from the US, a lot of quite scary/regressive attitudes to Europe (when 10 years ago Europeans used to be able to see through all of this...), and it's having a very big and noticeable effect lately...we're starting to follow in the footsteps of the US, where it comes to 'terrorist' scaremongering, and civil liberties rollbacks.

It's no coincidence, that the actions of the US - destabilizing Ukraine by helping to fund revolutionary groups there, destabilizing the middle east close to Europe's doorstep - lead to trouble for Europe, and Europe gets left to deal with the fallout.
That is serving to slowly radicalize Europe, and drum-up a lot of right-wing support - which is very useful politically, for maintaining the 'status quo' and pushing Europe in the direction of US-style craziness.

Europe is still gradually being moulded into a unified nation - which may or may not still hold together yet - and all of this is going to have a significant effect on shaping what Europe will ultimately become politically; almost nobody is cognizant of this though, and you rarely see it written-about/discussed.

seamus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Same idiots can't see anything that the U.S. is responsible for now. God no. Isis just appeared.

Cal Thomas on The Last Word yesterday blamed Obama (of course he did).

That if Obama hadn't withdrawn from Iraq too soon and America had been more aggressive with Assad, ISIS would never have existed.

It's this bizarre alternate reality thinking where if you oppress people enough and use enough violence, people will magically just become peaceful and compliant.

asherbassad

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, US meddling in Iraq certainly has contributed to IS, and most certainly left Iraq in a very sorry and unstable position, but if one is to point to anything for IS, there are other reasons than have limited, if any, connection to the Americans.

To begin with Al-Qaeda has been losing harts and minds for a long time and it was inevitable that some other group would fill the vacuum.

The Arab Spring, that led to the environment where IS could get a foothold in Syria, had little or nothing to do with the Americans. It was a surprise to everyone that it happened and without it, IS would have had no base of operations to start from.

And finally, Assad was unable to handle the rebellion in his nation at it's inception. Had he nipped it in the bud, IS would have had no base of operations to start from.

That IS were able to spread into Iraq, is in part thanks to the US and the mess it left behind, but overall, to blame the US for IS would be exaggerated and unfair.

This is broadly correct. While left wingers will tend to be anti-American, being pro and anti American cannot be so simply defined as right and left wing positions. The confusion comes from the misconception that American interests are identical to our (European) interests. While they overlap a lot, they are not the same and in some cases can be diametrically opposed - we got a taste of that in 2003 when the US made it clear that they were going to invade regardless of what its allies thought, but it seems memories are short.

Anyhow it is more correct to say that those described as Irish 'neocons' (if that even exists) are Anglocentric, rather than right wing. And delusionally so, because our interests don't always overlap and what is good for the USA is not necessarily good for us.

"Meddling" ???

Is that the euphemism-du-jour now for 10 years of sanctions that killed 500,000 kids (and before you chime in with the "it was righteous, reluctant punishment" ...it was collective punishment to destroy a civilian population. Everything was banned...even pencils to wreck a population before the planned invasion), an invasion that killed 1.5 million Iraqis, maimed/crippled/wounded/disfigured 3 times that amount, displaced 5 million, wrecked every water/power/sewage plant in the country, turned half the country into a radioactive slag heap thanks to depleted uranium munitions so that now women are afraid to get pregnant because of the prevalence of sickening birth defects and deformities, ethnically cleansed large swaths of the country and turned a land that was once grounded along tribal lines, not religious ones, into a sectarian nightmare.

You call that "meddling" ??

You compare the horrors deliberately visited upon the people of Iraq to a kid interfering with his little brother's jigsaw puzzle or lego?

What's your wishy-washy term for the butchery of the My-Lai Massacre? A "firm liaison"?

Gatling

asherbassad wrote: »

"Meddling" ???

Is that the euphemism-du-jour now for 10 years of sanctions that killed 500,000 kids (and before you chime in with the "it was righteous, reluctant punishment" ...it was collective punishment to destroy a civilian population. Everything was banned...even pencils to wreck a population before the planned invasion), an invasion that killed 1.5 million Iraqis, maimed/crippled/wounded/disfigured 3 times that amount, displaced 5 million, wrecked every water/power/sewage plant in the country, turned half the country into a radioactive slag heap thanks to depleted uranium munitions so that now women are afraid to get pregnant because of the prevalence of sickening birth defects and deformities, ethnically cleansed large swaths of the country and turned a land that was once grounded along tribal lines, not religious ones, into a sectarian nightmare.

Is this the same poster who made a post a few pages back lauding assad the humanitarian,
Yet he's used chemical weapons on his people and regularly has barrel bombs dropped on people queing for bread .
Nothing to do with America at all so while you can blame America for adding the petrol to the flame in Iraq the second time around ,
Syria was caused by the people having enough of a another dictator

captbarnacles

I have no problem if any country wants to wipe out any or all of ISIS but there is a huge problem here. Once a state decides it can execute anyone it deems a threat with no legal oversight where does this stop? Yes, it's ISIS and most people don't mind them being killed. What happens when the state targets a group you don't hate but who they perceive as a threat?

Giving that sort of power to a government and expecting them to always use it responsibly does not have a good history.

asherbassad

Gatling wrote: »

Is this the same poster who made a post a few pages back lauding assad the humanitarian,
Yet he's used chemical weapons on his people and regularly has barrel bombs dropped on people queing for bread .
Nothing to do with America at all so while you can blame America for adding the petrol to the flame in Iraq the second time around ,
Syria was caused by the people having enough of a another dictator

Right! You blathered previously about knowing all about the 12 "opposition" groups operating in Syria. When asked to back it up your silence was deafening. You come on here, make completely false claims and lie through your teeth, are routinely caught out in your lies yet you either go silent or resurface a day or two or a page or two later and repeat your lies for someone else. Another lie is your stating that I lauded Assad as a humanitarian. I never said such a thing but I guess if he authorised the provision of refuge to millions of Iraqi civlians fleeing the Iraq War then that probably counts for something.

And your claim of Assad using chemical weapons on his own people is another lie that has been admitted by the US, so stop repeating it, Goebbels, it won't make it true.

Gatling

asherbassad wrote: »

Right! You blathered previously about knowing all about the 12 "opposition" groups operating in Syria. When asked to back it up your silence was deafening. You come on here, make completely false claims and lie through your teeth, are routinely caught out in your lies yet you either go silent or resurface a day or two or a page or two later and repeat your lies for someone else. Another lie is your stating that I lauded Assad as a humanitarian. I never said such a thing but I guess if he authorised the provision of refuge to millions of Iraqi civlians fleeing the Iraq War then that probably counts for something.

And your claim of Assad using chemical weapons on his own people is another lie that has been admitted by the US, so stop repeating it, Goebbels, it won't make it true.

Is that the best you can offer .

Rant spouting a load of nonsense .

Hi Elmer

The Corinthian

asherbassad wrote: »

"Meddling" ???

Is that the euphemism-du-jour now for 10 years of sanctions that killed 500,000 kids (and before you chime in with the "it was righteous, reluctant punishment" ...it was collective punishment to destroy a civilian population. Everything was banned...even pencils to wreck a population before the planned invasion), an invasion that killed 1.5 million Iraqis, maimed/crippled/wounded/disfigured 3 times that amount, displaced 5 million, wrecked every water/power/sewage plant in the country, turned half the country into a radioactive slag heap thanks to depleted uranium munitions so that now women are afraid to get pregnant because of the prevalence of sickening birth defects and deformities, ethnically cleansed large swaths of the country and turned a land that was once grounded along tribal lines, not religious ones, into a sectarian nightmare.

You call that "meddling" ??

Oh, I think I'm going to cry... yeah, meddling, as ultimately the question is was their 'meddling' principally involved in the creation of IS or not - how many kids (there's those tears again...) died as a result is irrelevant to that question unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Or were you even trying to respond to the point or just taking offence at the apparent lack of severity implied in the word 'meddling'?

asherbassad

Great article about how things have changed completely and Cameron's admission of murder being just another milestone along the way. The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions. You can almost hear the craveness and smell the hypocrisy of the "kill 'em all" gang on this forum thread within the article itself.

http://off-guardian.org/2015/09/08/death-by-droning-the-world-isnt-changing-it-is-changed/

Gatling, I'll await your galactically vacuous comment but the rest might take something from it.

Lemming

For those of you who care to know; the primary cause of IS influence in Iraq has been little to do with the US, or UK, or anyone else save the Iraqi prime minister Al-Maliki, who besides ear-wigging tete-a-tete with the Iranians, implemented & encouraged domestic policies & practices that were discriminatory towards Sunni Iraqis. This has driven deep resentment in Sunni areas, and all it took was IS rocking up and whispering sweet-nothings (or maybe waving guns in faces) to get Sunni tribal folk to turn on the Shia majority.

Again; little to do with anyone else save the Iraqis themselves.

KomradeBishop

Lemming wrote: »

For those of you who care to know; the primary cause of IS influence in Iraq has been little to do with the US, or UK, or anyone else save the Iraqi prime minister Al-Maliki, who besides ear-wigging tete-a-tete with the Iranians, implemented & encouraged domestic policies & practices that were discriminatory towards Sunni Iraqis. This has driven deep resentment in Sunni areas, and all it took was IS rocking up and whispering sweet-nothings (or maybe waving guns in faces) to get Sunni tribal folk to turn on the Shia majority.

Again; little to do with anyone else save the Iraqis themselves.

Yea and Al-Maliki would still be prime minister today, if the war in Iraq hadn't happened...

Sorry guys, pretty much nobody is going to let you get away, with trying to ignore the Iraq war as being the one of the key required events, for having caused this mess.

The Corinthian

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea and Al-Maliki would still be prime minister today, if the war in Iraq hadn't happened...

WTF? Al-Maliki would never have been prime minister were it not for the war in Iraq, in the first place.

And I note you've still not supplied any evidence whatsoever that "the Iraq war played a significant role in destabilizing Syria". Let's just presume you're waffling BS as usual, shall we?

Lemming

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea and Al-Maliki would still be prime minister today, if the war in Iraq hadn't happened...

Ummmm, it was Saddam Hussein who was in power before the invasion of Iraq. It was Al-Maliki who was democratically elected by the Iraqis themselves. Unfortunately he chose to abandon efforts to involve and gather together the various Iraqi demographics in favour of aligning himself closely to the Iranians whilst simultaneously becoming increasingly belligerent towards the Americans despite repeated warnings on the path he was taking.

He finally stood down after trying to cling to power in the face of increasing calls both from within and without to step aside after having both driven & fanned Sectarian flames of division in Iraq.

Sorry guys, pretty much nobody is going to let you get away, with trying to ignore the Iraq war as being the one of the key required events, for having caused this mess.

We're not ignoring it; we're saying you're wrong - Very wrong - regards your analysis. You're not analysing anything, simply trying to fit square-shaped events into your round-hole ideological slant.

The only thing that you can pin on the US invasion of Iraq towards the current crisis is the demobilisation of the Iraqi army - specifically its officer corps - making it a long haul to rebuild the institution. In the face of IS invasion, the numerically, technologically, and logistically superior newly reconstituted Iraqi army fell apart due to a lack of co-ordination and simple ability to enforce morale and discipline.

KomradeBishop

Lemming wrote: »

Ummmm, it was Saddam Hussein who was in power before the invasion of Iraq. It was Al-Maliki who was democratically elected by the Iraqis themselves. Unfortunately he chose to abandon efforts to involve and gather together the various Iraqi demographics in favour of aligning himself closely to the Iranians whilst simultaneously becoming increasingly belligerent towards the Americans despite repeated warnings on the path he was taking.

He finally stood down after trying to cling to power in the face of increasing calls both from within and without to step aside after having both driven & fanned Sectarian flames of division in Iraq.

It was exactly my point - made sarcastically (though that must not have been obvious enough) - that without the Iraq war, Al-Maliki would not have been in power, showing that your claims regarding ISIS influence directly depend upon the Iraq war.

Lemming wrote: »

We're not ignoring it; we're saying you're wrong - Very wrong - regards your analysis. You're not analysing anything, simply trying to fit square-shaped events into your round-hole ideological slant.

The only thing that you can pin on the US invasion of Iraq towards the current crisis is the demobilisation of the Iraqi army - specifically its officer corps - making it a long haul to rebuild the institution. In the face of IS invasion, the numerically, technologically, and logistically superior newly reconstituted Iraqi army fell apart due to a co-ordination and simple ability to enforce morale and discipline.

Are you forgetting the entire civil war in Iraq and continuous conflict from there - pursued by groups which make up a large part of ISIS today, including tons of Syrians?

No, there was just this long-lasting, growing civil war right over Syria's border with Iraq, involving many Syrians - many of which who are active in Syria today - and it had absolutely nothing to do with the destabilization of Syria...(sarcasm, if it's not obvious...)

CruelCoin

asherbassad wrote: »

Great article about how things have changed completely and Cameron's admission of murder being just another milestone along the way. The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions. You can almost hear the craveness and smell the hypocrisy of the "kill 'em all" gang on this forum thread within the article itself.

http://off-guardian.org/2015/09/08/death-by-droning-the-world-isnt-changing-it-is-changed/

Gatling, I'll await your galactically vacuous comment but the rest might take something from it.

I'm craven because i want a terrorist dead? Your logic is undeniable.

CruelCoin

Lemming wrote: »

The only thing that you can pin on the US invasion of Iraq towards the current crisis is the demobilisation of the Iraqi army - specifically its officer corps - making it a long haul to rebuild the institution. In the face of IS invasion, the numerically, technologically, and logistically superior newly reconstituted Iraqi army fell apart due to a co-ordination and simple ability to enforce morale and discipline.

On that note, i find it ludicrous that the Iraqi army in Mosul with tanks and ten times the troops of ISIS with ford pick-ups ran away....Sheer unbridled cowardice/collusion.

Whats actually even more bizarre, is that they jumped out of these tanks and ran away....Why didn't they, you know, drive them?

Lemming

CruelCoin wrote: »

On that note, i find it ludicrous that the Iraqi army in Mosul with tanks and ten times the troops of ISIS with ford pick-ups ran away....Sheer unbridled cowardice/collusion.

Whats actually even more bizarre, is that they jumped out of these tanks and ran away....Why didn't they, you know, drive them?

IS have shown themselves to be incredibly adept at using social media to spread fear. The Iraqi units, lacking experience & discipline (courtesy of not having experienced officers & senior NCOs) fell apart as the fear spread like rot & morale collapsed.

As for not driving tanks away, people tend to not think or do sensible things when in the grip of panic. This is in part why officers carried pistols historically; namely to shoot deserters to stiffen the spines of those left - i.e. come to your senses or else fear me more than the enemy in front of you if you wont regain your senses.

acb121

Isis "members" are racist, genocidal, paedophiles.

They have a particular enthusiasm for kidnapping 9 year old girls and selling them to their fellow paedophiles for the express purposes of child rape.

In fact, when selling females for the express purposes of paedophile rape, 9 year old girls sold for rape are the most valuable in monetary terms.

( This has to do with the " prophet " of Islam, Muhammed, marrying a 6 year old girl at the age of 50, then vaginally penetrating the child with when she reached the age of 9, but had not yet reached puberty, while he was aged 53. Interestingly she was only one of 11 wives Muhammed kept simultaneously, whilst also amassing a collection of women he abducted for the express purposes of serial rape, some of whose husbands/fathers/brothers his men had murdered on his instructions. )

On the balance of probability, Reyaad Khan, 21 and Ruhul Amin were supporters and enthusiasts of paedophilia and rape as legitimate activity, likely rapists, probably paedophiles and certainly accomplices, facilitators, and supporters of associates engaged in paedophillia, rape and all manner of sexual violence against women.

There could be no talking to these men.

Every day they lived, they were responsible for the rape of children and young women on a massive scale.

I am wondering if dhimmis/islamophilacs like end of the road and playboy believe that 9 year old girls should be raped on a daily basis until such time as these "men" could be aprehended by the British Police, which could take years.

I am wondering how dhimmis/islamophiliacs like end of the road and playboy would feel if their 9 year old daughters were being raped by a gang of paedophiles. Would they consider the wait for due process reasonable and fair ?

Overheal

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If they'd stayed out of Iraq in 2003, we wouldn't be seeing this mess. That directly led to almost everything that is occurring there today.

That was the pivotal war that destabilized that part of the entire region.

"I ate part of the entire cake"