People who were against stopping Islamic State?

Richard Hillman

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

super_furry

Who were these people?

Espousing a point of view on how to approach foreign policy is hardly grounds for someone to be arrested, unless they were giving material support to ISIS.

Atoms for Peace

The Kurds got stabbed in the back by the West again, the're back to being terrorists again once the threat from ISIS has receded mostly due to their efforts.

TerrorFirmer

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

The Kurds got stabbed in the back by the West again, the're back to being terrorists again once the threat from ISIS has receded mostly due to their efforts.

The PM didn't even mention them in his victory speech. It's unreal.

Richard Hillman

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

The Kurds got stabbed in the back by the West again, the're back to being terrorists again once the threat from ISIS has receded mostly due to their efforts.

Who cares? They are communists

Richard Hillman

super_furry wrote: »

Who were these people?

Espousing a point of view on how to approach foreign policy is hardly grounds for someone to be arrested, unless they were giving material support to ISIS.

The material support was undermining the campaign to stop ISIS. There were many people who were against intervention in Iraq and Syria. They were part of the ISIS machine.

super_furry

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The material support was undermining the campaign to stop ISIS. There were many people who were against intervention in Iraq and Syria. They were part of the ISIS machine.

Again, who were these people?

And again, being against military intervention in a foreign country is not an arrestable offence.

Zebra3

Still waiting for Bush and Blair to be rounded up for war crimes trial.

Maybe we should arrest all those who spoke out in favour of their criminal actions.

Richard Hillman

super_furry wrote: »

Again, who were these people?

And again, being against military intervention in a foreign country is not an arrestable offence.

The SNP seemed to be against it


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html


And you know full well there were plenty of people on board's who were arguing against stopping them. Why?

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

And you know full well there were plenty of people on board's who were arguing against stopping them. Why?

It's the internet, there will be hordes of people willing to support a variety of causes that they would never publicly support in RL with the RL associations.

Alf Veedersane

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The SNP seemed to be against it


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html

They wanted a stronger case for it.

There's a difference.

super_furry

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The SNP seemed to be against it


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html

Brilliant, so we're finally getting somewhere. So you want the Scottish National Party rounded up and sent to jail because they voted against sending the UK Airforce to Syria to bomb people.

Now is that all members of the Scottish National Party you want locked up or just those who voted against military intervention from the UK in Syria?

And meanwhile, you're happy to see the Kurds, the people who were actually fighting against ISIS in Syria, to be attacked again because "They are communists".

Did you start a facebook page OP?

ISIS will become irrelevant soon, probably. Hamas will likely become the new threat after all the **** with Trump and Jerusalem. Not to mention the air strikes in which children were allegedly injured.

That's how you breed terrorism.

Ralf and Florian

This clown opposed a motion to condemn ISIS because to do so was "islamaphobic". Thankfully she's been since replaced.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/introducing-the-new-nus-president-who-wouldnt-condemn-isis/

FTA69

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

NATO my hole. The people who did the heavy lifting against ISIS were Assad's Syrian Army (backed by Hezbollah) and the YPJ - people designated a terrorist organisation in Europe and America. In fact while the Kurds were fighting ISIS in Rojava, NATO member Turkey began bombing the sh*t out of them as well as actively collaborating with ISIS.

If you honestly think ISIS's defeat is some poster advertisement for western intervention you're off your nut. The only reason they came about in the first place is because America destroyed Iraq and turned it into a lawless sh*thole.

A Little Pony

Deleted User wrote: »

ISIS will become irrelevant soon, probably. Hamas will likely become the new threat after all the **** with Trump and Jerusalem. Not to mention the air strikes in which children were allegedly injured.

That's how you breed terrorism.

Fantastic tactics to win Westerners over, that will really help the cause they espouse.

bnt

FTA69 wrote: »

If you honestly think ISIS's defeat is some poster advertisement for western intervention you're off your nut. The only reason they came about in the first place is because America destroyed Iraq and turned it into a lawless sh*thole.

The theory was that removing dictators would free up "the people" to democratically elect the governments they wanted. I think the confusion among some Western pundits is related to this: the West got it wrong, so does that mean ISIS was some kind of democratic grass-roots movement that represented "the people"? It's a false dichotomy: West bad, anything else good?

Any time I hear about conflict involving Muslim countries, my first question about the belligerents is: Sunni or Shi'a? I keep getting told that I'm being too simplistic when I do that, but it seems to work every time. ISIS = Sunni, supported by Saudi Arabia. Opposition to ISIS = Shi'a, Syria and Iran (through Hezbollah). The Iran/Iraq war: Shi'a/Sunni. Yemen today is a Sunni/Shi'a proxy war (Saudi Arabia vs Iran). Palestine: the Hamas/Hezbollah rivalry explains a lot. And so on, and every time the West intervenes, they are taking one side against the other. Usually the Sunni side, because Saudi Arabia.

FTA69

bnt wrote: »

The theory was that removing dictators would free up "the people" to democratically elect the governments they wanted. I think the confusion among some Western pundits is related to this: the West got it wrong, so does that mean ISIS was some kind of democratic grass-roots movement that represented "the people"? It's a false dichotomy: West bad, anything else good?

Any time I hear about conflict involving Muslim countries, my first question about the belligerents is: Sunni or Shi'a? I keep getting told that I'm being too simplistic when I do that, but it seems to work every time. ISIS = Sunni, supported by Saudi Arabia. Opposition to ISIS = Shi'a, Syria and Iran (through Hezbollah). The Iran/Iraq war: Shi'a/Sunni. Yemen today is a Sunni/Shi'a proxy war (Saudi Arabia vs Iran). Palestine: the Hamas/Hezbollah rivalry explains a lot. And so on, and every time the West intervenes, they are taking one side against the other. Usually the Sunni side, because Saudi Arabia.

I don't believe in the dichotomy you're talking about, that's not my position anyway. However one part of your contention is way off and that's the notion that dictators were removed in order to facilitate 'freedom of the people.' Saddam wasn't removed for that purpose, rather as a result of America trying to project its influence into a strategic and oil-rich state. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed and the country fractured beyond repair in order to facilitate the imperial designs of an American establishment. A similar argument can be made about Libya.

The Americans, Brits and French couldn't give two squirts of p*ss about the ordinary Libyan or Iraqi, they're far more concerned with what's under them. In short none of these countries have a right to invade or bomb anywhere else to begin with and the likes of Iraq would be a lot better off if they hadn't in the first place.

bobbysands81

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

From our point of view

.


Just wondering who you mean when you say this?

Hande hoche!

ISIS still have some territory in Syria. Imagine it will be 2018 before they are defeated there.

RustyNut

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The material support was undermining the campaign to stop ISIS. There were many people who were against intervention in Iraq and Syria. They were part of the ISIS machine.

Nothing like a little extremism of a sunday morning.

server down

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

Isis grew in Syria because of the nato led no fly zone. Getting rid of Assad would have continued their ascendancy.

Collie D

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Who cares? They are communists

Yeah, nobody likes adherents to an ideology that would arrest you or accuse you of collaboration or conspiracy for having a different opinion.

pitifulgod

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The SNP seemed to be against it


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html


And you know full well there were plenty of people on board's who were arguing against stopping them. Why?

How's your life of Mccarthyism going?

bnt

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't believe in the dichotomy you're talking about, that's not my position anyway. However one part of your contention is way off and that's the notion that dictators were removed in order to facilitate 'freedom of the people.' Saddam wasn't removed for that purpose, rather as a result of America trying to project its influence into a strategic and oil-rich state.

There's a reason why I put "the people" in quotes and talked about "the theory". That was how it was sold via the media, and I think some Americans in particular wanted to believe that they were doing it for democracy. George W Bush talked about "a strong will for democracy" in Iraq in 2006, when asked if Iraq was on the verge of civil war.

But as we've seen, "the people" of the region did not actually get their countries back. Even the notion of "country" is a Western imposition: it's fundamentally tribal and religious warfare, not patriotic. ISIS was trying to establish a caliphate, not a country in the sense we understand.

user2011

server down wrote: »

Isis grew in Syria because of the nato led no fly zone. Getting rid of Assad would have continued their ascendancy.

There wasn't a no fly in Syria. Could be thinking of Libya?

Greentopia

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Who cares? They are communists

Kurdish Democratic Confederalism -i.e Libertarian Socialism, and state communism are not the same. :rolleyes:

arayess

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

The main supporters of IS were the americans ,saudis and israell. The Syrian army are finding Israeli and US army weapons in IS bases they have captured.
Why is that now?


Some blowhard condemning airstrikes has F all to do with IS or any of their initial successes.
The support from the Saudi / Qatari / Zionist alliance did it all. All backed in the shadows by the US.

700,000 dead is the estimate of the Syrian war - all because of a gas pipe and the desire to give Iran a bloody nose. And the US goal of "regime change" in the region to suit their own ends.

Putin and Assad are the real heroes who stopped IS.
Hezbollah too.
Hezbollah get bad press in the west but who risked their necks on the battlefield against IS , who saved 1000s of middle eastern Christians from IS? The "evil" Hezbollah...that's who.

Ralf and Florian

arayess wrote: »

The main supporters of IS were the americans ,saudis and israell. The Syrian army are finding Israeli and US army weapons in IS bases they have captured.
Why is that now?


Some blowhard condemning airstrikes has F all to do with IS or any of their initial successes.
The support from the Saudi / Qatari / Zionist alliance did it all. All backed in the shadows by the US.

700,000 dead is the estimate of the Syrian war - all because of a gas pipe and the desire to give Iran a bloody nose. And the US goal of "regime change" in the region to suit their own ends.

Putin and Assad are the real heroes who stopped IS.
Hezbollah too.
Hezbollah get bad press in the west but who risked their necks on the battlefield against IS , who saved 1000s of middle eastern Christians from IS? The "evil" Hezbollah...that's who.

server down

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

Do you don’t think that Saudi Arabia funds Islamic radicalism and ISIS and other radicals?

Interesting. And well put.

TerrorFirmer

I hardly think that qualifies as tinfoil hat stuff.

The US attempts to train a 'moderate' rebel army was a total disaster. Tons of weapons earmarked for 'moderate' groups ended up in the hands of Islamic State.

Russian air power was the game changer. I'm no fan of Putin but without that intervention the whole region would be in an unimaginably worse mess right now.

Odhinn

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

2/10 for effort. Am unimpressed.

Ralf and Florian

server down wrote: »

Do you don’t think that Saudi Arabia funds Islamic radicalism and ISIS and other radicals?

Interesting. And well put.

I didn't say I didn't. Among the laughable aspects of your post was the labeling of Assad and Putin as "heroes".

bodice ripper

pitifulgod wrote: »

How's your life of Mccarthyism going?

Good, but it needs more Mccarthy...

server down

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I hardly think that qualifies as tinfoil hat stuff.

The US attempts to train a 'moderate' rebel army was a total disaster. Tons of weapons earmarked for 'moderate' groups ended up in the hands of Islamic State.

Some say that the moderate army itself was a myth. I’m unsure.

Russian air power was the game changer. I'm no fan of Putin but without that intervention the whole region would be in an unimaginably worse mess right now.

Definitely.

server down

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

I didn't say I didn't. Among the laughable aspects of your post was the labeling of Assad and Putin as "heroes".

It wasn’t my post and I wouldn’t 100% agree with it either. However a picture of a tin foil hat is no kind of argument fir an adult.

If you can’t keep up with names on an internet discussion board it’s no wonder the details of complex wars elude you.


Maybe we should move this from AH?

archer22

Ordinary people in Europe owe a debt of gratitude to the Syrian Arab army, Hezbollah and the Russian Air force.

They stiffed a hell of a lot of savages that otherwise would have ended up rampaging on the streets and airports of Europe

Irish Praetorian

I'm fascinated to see people talking with such confidence about the wartime logistics of both the Coalition and Russian forces in Syria (and Iraq) these days - so far some intense searching has revealed to only broad generalities to me, so if anyone wants to hook me up with some more concrete statistics by all means feel free to do so.

As for the efficacy of the various sides, I suspect this is more down to peoples political affiliations rather than any detailed understanding of the progress of the war. I can't help but notice that there seems to be a cohort fawning over every explosion arising from a Russian bomb with the casualties invariably dubbed terrorists, whereas the victims of NATO bombs are painted as civilians or innocent bystanders. The same rule appears to apply to weapons; a terrorist packing an AKM or an RPK is just a terrorist, whereas if they have a looted M4 Carbine they are an 'American backed' terrorist. Honestly the swirling of disinformation and bias in these debates is shocking.

Dohnjoe

FTA69 wrote: »

NATO my hole. The people who did the heavy lifting against ISIS were Assad's Syrian Army (backed by Hezbollah)... people designated a terrorist organisation in Europe and America.

Assad's army had also been doing "heavy lifting" against his own people.

If you honestly think ISIS's defeat is some poster advertisement for western intervention you're off your nut. The only reason they came about in the first place is because America destroyed Iraq and turned it into a lawless sh*thole.

Indeed the war in Iraq was a precursor, but the Syrian conflict was the main factor.

endacl

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Who cares? They are communists

Communists with big balls. Fair play to the big-balled Kurds.

Zebra3

America rejoices at the defeat of Islamic extremists who were armed to the teeth with American weapons and vehicles.

Dohnjoe

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Russian air power was the game changer. I'm no fan of Putin but without that intervention the whole region would be in an unimaginably worse mess right now.

A large coalition of countries have been bombing ISIS for years.

Russian joined fairly late in the conflict, with a far more limited aerial campaign and they targeted other groups, not just ISIS (in a bid to support Assad). They often used unguided munitions and had limited effect

On a side note, Assad was overwhelmingly isolated and on very weak footing (this was before ISIS arrived on the scene) however the Russians are credited with throwing him a crucial lifeline, supporting him militarily and logistically as well as consistently obstructing multiple UN resolutions

Dohnjoe

Zebra3 wrote: »

America rejoices at the defeat of Islamic extremists who were armed to the teeth with American weapons and vehicles.

ISIS took Iraqi armaments and vehicles (e.g. US supplied Humvees) when they invaded large swathes of the country. They also helped themselves to other captured weaponry or sourced it from defectors from the (hundreds) of other groups

They also equip AK47's it doesn't mean they were "armed by the Russians"

end of the road

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Who cares? They are communists

have you got evidence for that claim? or is it more of your usual "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a" "communist" nonsense?
i would suggest that you have a lot more in common with "communists" then you would think.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The SNP seemed to be against it


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html

And you know full well there were plenty of people on board's who were arguing against stopping them. Why?

there were no people on boards arguing against stopping isis. this is made up nonsense.

arayess

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Assad's army had also been doing "heavy lifting" against his own people.



Indeed the war in Iraq was a precursor, but the Syrian conflict was the main factor.

his own people...???
the vast majority of syrians are with assad..
he mighnt be the "best" leader but they chose to stand with him instead of what was on offer or the choice of foreign puppets.
that is telling as fcuk.

I'm Lebanese...and i've family and friends in Lebanon and Syria....the crap you are fed in the media is lies or at best A lazy synopsis ....

Dohnjoe

arayess wrote: »

his own people...???
the vast majority of syrians are with assad..

He has never been elected in a free/fair election, he was handed power by his father

He represents the Alawite sect, Sunni's are the majority in the country

Despite all that, he was "relatively" popular for a dictator (even though the country has some of the worst human rights records in the world)

It was his actions in response to the uprising that drew the response it did from the region and the world

he mighnt be the "best" leader but they chose to stand with him

They literally had no choice. It's not like they could vote for someone else (opposition parties outlawed) or hold popular protest (we know what happened with that)

I'm Lebanese...and i've family and friends in Lebanon and Syria....the crap you are fed in the media is lies or at best A lazy synopsis ....

Assad is supported by Iran, Lebanon and Russia. Am very familiar with propaganda on the issue

I've family and friends who have biased views - which is why I get my news from a variety of proper sources, freelance journalists, multiple outlets, reporters on the ground and so on

The counter-story is always the same - "it's a conspiracy by the Western media" - no, it's just a very, very complex brutal situation. The responsibility of it starts with the country's leader. He was no victim in any of this.

arayess

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He has never been elected in a free/fair election, he was handed power by his father

it doesn;'t matter
yes he was handed power by his father.
and he wasn't the chosen one - the chosen one died .
but he stepped up when he was challenged ..like a true leader.
he has won the respect of most Syrians and others for that
and he mighnt be elected in the way people in the west view democracy but he is the most popular leader in this battle
and I stand for him ...he offers a muslim state that is still secular and free for all.
all that standing for womens rights etc... assad stands for that.

people in the west are lead astray by their media.
some of the "enemies" in the middle east are more liberal and free than the west allies...

but people are stupid and believe the narrative...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He represents the Alawite sect, Sunni's are the majority in the country

does that matter...he is alawite...the world knows this.. it is not new
we have known it decades ago...it matters sweet fcuk all

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Despite all that, he was "relatively" popular for a dictator (even though the country has some of the worst human rights records in the world)

It was his actions in response to the uprising that drew the response it did from the region and the world

fcuk that,.., he has a secret police...big deal ...who doesn't. he did a lot of the Americans dirty work post 9/11.....cos they couldn't...who cares..

there was a rebellion financed by foreign actors and he defended himself
please tell me how Assad should have reacted....? how would you react?
please tell me...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Assad is supported by Iran, Lebanon and Russia. Am very familiar with propaganda on the issue

are you familiar with propaganda...as an irish citizen with one foot in ireland and one foot in the middle east..
I can say that if you read irish or uk media you are being fed a load of ****e.
let me say this...Putin is a god among men..
I salute him.
as an irish person - how do you free about Christians being slaughtered in the middle east???..Hezbollah and the Syrians saved them as best they could....where were the so called christian west???....fcuk that

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've family and friends who have biased views - which is why I get my news from a variety of proper sources, freelance journalists, multiple outlets, reporters on the ground and so on

well i am in the region at least once a year./...family , friends , relatives...
you believe what you want.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The counter-story is always the same - "it's a conspiracy by the Western media" - no, it's just a very, very complex brutal situation. The responsibility of it starts with the country's leader. He was no victim in any of this.

**** that ****. I've been in Syria - it was fine.
this was a foreign funded uprising but a minority
funded by the Saudis for a pipelines

as conor would say "you know nothing"...

FTA69

arayess wrote: »

fcuk that,.., he has a secret police...big deal ...who doesn't. he did a lot of the Americans dirty work post 9/11.....cos they couldn't...who cares..

You might find them a "big deal" if they were calling around to your gaff to beat the f*ck out of you or worse for fairly innocuous political activity.

Assad is probably the least worst option in Syria but let's not cod ourselves that he's a decent chap.

Richard Hillman

end of the road wrote: »

have you got evidence for that claim? or is it more of your usual "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a" "communist" nonsense?
i would suggest that you have a lot more in common with "communists" then you would think.



there were no people on boards arguing against stopping isis. this is made up nonsense.

There were many people who were against intervention by Russia and the U.S, knowing full well that no intervention would have led to the fall of the regime and an I.S victory.

circadian

Kurds are commies now?