Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
ISIS militias committing atrocities
Options
-
24-05-2015 10:24pm#1Saudi backed Sunnis are succeeding in fighting back the forces loyal to the Syrian government. As the Shia Sunni conflict continues to rage on in the east Mediterranean it looks like a bloodbath will come out of all this. When will the EU act on this? European countries have to get involved and call on the US to change their tactics by persuading them not to invest in Saudi Arabia and pull out of that country for supporting such Barbaric militias. When South Africa practised Apartheid the US stopped supporting the government and it quickly caved in. We should end our complicity in this tragic war.0
Comments
-
Unfortunately given the multi-layer issues that are swirling around the conflict there are no easy solutions. The West would not have the will or public support to re-engage in the region and the economic balance would rather favour the Saudi regime in any tussle with the western powers: that is assuming any in-concert action can be assembled. It might be in the interests of near major powers such as China, India or Russia to pressurise various actors, but they are in also in no position to project beyond their regional base any permanent settlement. Only positive thing to do might be contribute to Churches, NGOs, UN charities that are aiding the dispossessed.0
-
KingBrian2 wrote: »When will the EU act on this?
It has though, to the limits of what it can do.
The EU recognises the 'National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces' as the legitimate government of Syria instead of the Assad regime.
That would be quite hypocritical seeing as EU nations supply more armaments to the KSA than the US does.European countries have to get involved and call on the US to change their tactics by persuading them not to invest in Saudi Arabia
Already done.and pull out of that country for supporting such Barbaric militias.
There are no US offensive military capabilities left in the KSA, they left some time ago for redeployment in Qatar.
Remaining capabilities involve a handfull of civilian military offices, a training mission & the
"64th Air Expeditionary Group", about 300 service prersonel involved in support services.
The EU's complicity extends only to supporting a people trying to overthrow a dictator.... That's it.We should end our complicity in this tragic war.
I thought this was about ISIS, rather than another 'why the US is evil' thread? (The same US who are the only ones fighting ISIS btw).
Thread title change needed.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »I (The same US who are the only ones fighting ISIS btw).
And the same US who through their policy of arming "Moderate" factions have helped create IS, AQ etc.0 -
TommyKnocker wrote: »And the same US who through their policy of arming "Moderate" factions have helped create IS, AQ etc.
The vast.... vast bulk of the arsenal of the FSA was/is Russian equipment, that was either captured, looted or purchased on the black market from corrupt Syrian forces.
In June 13, some small amounts of US supplied rifles & ATGMs started to trickle into Syria, but not much as the FSA territory wasnt contiguous which made logistics difficult.
Small arms shipments ceased in December 13 when a FSA depot fell to Islamic Front (an opponent of ISIS).
What has continued unabated throughout the 4 year civil war is Russian arms imports.
Accordingly the vast bulk of ISIS weaponry is Russian/Soviet in origin, again largely captured or purchased illicitly.
Looking at the ISIS arsenal & vehicles used, the limited no's of US weaponry & armour was captured by fleeing Iraqi soldiers.
As I said, the thread title is wrong, Tis just another 'bash America' thread.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »It has though, to the limits of what it can do.
The EU recognises the 'National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces' as the legitimate government of Syria instead of the Assad regime.
That would be quite hypocritical seeing as EU nations supply more armaments to the KSA than the US does.
Already done.
There are no US offensive military capabilities left in the KSA, they left some time ago for redeployment in Qatar.
Remaining capabilities involve a handfull of civilian military offices, a training mission & the
"64th Air Expeditionary Group", about 300 service prersonel involved in support services.
The EU's complicity extends only to supporting a people trying to overthrow a dictator.... That's it.
I thought this was about ISIS, rather than another 'why the US is evil' thread? (The same US who are the only ones fighting ISIS btw).
Thread title change needed.
Im not sure thats accurate the US are not the only ones fighting ISIS. and right now theres a blame game going on between the US and Iraq as to who is responsible for losing Ramadi. the shadow has had a few choice words. I dont believe its up to the US to fight ISIS but to say they are the only ones fighting them well I dont think thats true myself.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iraq-iran-critical-of-u-s-comments-after-fall-of-ramadi-to-isis-1.3085977Iraq and Iran pushed back Monday against U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter's criticisms over the fall of Ramadi to the militant group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), with an Iranian general going as far as saying America had "no will" to fight the extremists.
In Baghdad, a spokesman to Iraq's prime minister suggested Carter had "incorrect information," while Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds forces in Iran's Revolutionary Guard, offered his own assessment of American forces.
The war of words over the loss of Ramadi, amid other gains by ISIS in recent days, lay bare the fissures among countries that have become allies of convenience against the militants. And as Iraqi troops continue to flee their advance, governments across the world are questioning whether relying on Iraqi troops and militiamen on the ground alone will be enough to stop them.
The criticism began Sunday, when Carter told CNN's State of the Union news show that Iraqi forces "vastly outnumbered" ISIS, but still "showed no will to fight" and fled their advance on Ramadi.
In Iran, the daily newspaper Javan, which is seen as close to the Revolutionary Guard, quoted Soleimani as saying the U.S. didn't do a "damn thing" to stop the extremists' advance on Ramadi.
Mideast Iran Islamic State
The commander of Iran's Quds force, Qassem Soleimani, is seen in this March 2015 photo. The chief of an elite unit in Iran's Revolutionary Guard has accused the U.S. of having "no will" to stop ISIS. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via Associated Press)
"Does it mean anything else than being an accomplice in the plot?" he reportedly asked, later saying the U.S. showed "no will" in fighting ISIS.
Soleimani said Iran and its allies are the only forces that can deal with the threat.
"Today, there is nobody in confrontation with (the Islamic State group) except the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as nations who are next to Iran or supported by Iran," he said.
U.S. officials, including Carter, have said Iraqi forces fled ISIS advance on Ramadi without fighting back, leaving behind weapons and vehicles for the extremists. So far, the American approach to the conflict has been to launch airstrikes as part of an international coalition it leads, as well as equipping and training Iraqi forces.
Iran has offered advisers, including Soleimani, to direct Shia militias fighting against the extremists. Iran has said it does not have combat troops fighting in Iraq, though some Revolutionary Guard members have been killed there.0 -
Advertisement
-
Im not sure thats accurate the US are not the only ones fighting ISIS.
No, I know that.
It was glib of me.
The coalition is numerous in name, but in terms of combat effectiveness, its only the US & perhaps Iran (vis-a-vis vehicles etc) who are stepping up in sufficient capacities to make a difference.0 -
Some misleading information from the start. First of all this is not an Anti American thread. I wanted to highlight Europe's disastrous policy of supporting America in its continuous partnership with the Gulf states. If people think that is anti Americanism then good luck to you and farewell. For those who see the real problem than I put it to you guys that Europe must side with the authorities in the region that actually are doing the best part of the fighting against the militias instead of cheerleading for the fighter pilots.0
-
KingBrian2 wrote: »Europe must side with the authorities in the region that actually are doing the best part of the fighting
So you think Europe should switch its support to the Assad regime?0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »So you think Europe should switch its support to the Assad regime?
We should never have recognised the Syrian National Coalition. I am not going to get into backing one regime over the other since various Muslim states have appalling human rights records. However the International Community as in European Capitals are very quick to recognise illegitimate rulers. The Republic of China (now Taiwan) instead of the People Republic of China. Kosovo. South Vietnam and post reconstruction Iraq. We condemn the Russians for backing the Ossetians yet we pick and chose which countries to validate like some sort of rating agency. Europe's imperial days are long over and I feel it is very necessary that we reposition ourselves as standing for a truly inclusive UN that recognised all states instead of trying to undermine governments.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »Europe must side with the authorities in the region that actually are doing the best part of the fighting against the militiasKingBrian2 wrote: »We should never have recognised the Syrian National Coalition.
So, its the Assad regime then.
Fine, it would have been easier to say that from the get-go.
I doubt the EU or its component nations will be in the mood to throw their (very modest) weight behind the Syrian dictatorship & I doubt Assad would care once Russia keeps shipping in the weapons.0 -
Advertisement
-
BoJack Horseman wrote: »So you think Europe should switch its support to the Assad regime?
I actually do. Assad was quite calm so long as you didn't threaten his position, and he didn't harbour delusions of grandeur (ISIS want a world caliphate). He is a spent force, and Iran's support for him is ebbing as they can't prop him up with thousands of troops while their economy is in the crapper and they are breaking ice with the US. Heck, even the Russians are starting to open up to the idea of Assad's removal from power as a pillar of a peace agreement.
I think Europe should provide him with non-lethal equipment and lessen or lift sanctions placed on Syria. If the EU can turn Assad into a European-ally (or at least drive a wedge between Syria and Russia), it could allow us an end to ISIS' brutality in a much quicker way, and it would provide us with leverage to stabilize and moderate Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.
I'm aware that this is sort of a double-edged sword, however, so I believe we need small nudges to make sure he wins, but not outright arming. If we were to carry out airstrikes in Syria against ISIS, and promise we wouldn't target Kurdish or Syrian-State forces, I believe this could be a boon to the EU.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »It has though, to the limits of what it can do.
The EU recognises the 'National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces' as the legitimate government of Syria instead of the Assad regime.
That would be quite hypocritical seeing as EU nations supply more armaments to the KSA than the US does.
Already done.
There are no US offensive military capabilities left in the KSA, they left some time ago for redeployment in Qatar.
Remaining capabilities involve a handfull of civilian military offices, a training mission & the
"64th Air Expeditionary Group", about 300 service prersonel involved in support services.
The EU's complicity extends only to supporting a people trying to overthrow a dictator.... That's it.
I thought this was about ISIS, rather than another 'why the US is evil' thread? (The same US who are the only ones fighting ISIS btw).
Thread title change needed.
I think if most Irish people posting here actually lived in Syria, they would choose the Assad regime over any other unknown future. The rise of ISIL and other crazies, and the failure of any western-backed "moderates" has bourne this out. Not a nice choice to have to make maybe, but real people living in Syria are in that situation.
I was listening to an RTE radio documentary about the Armenian Genocide recently. The lady narrating it had completed a cycling trip across Syria, similar to the one in this link
http://travellingtwo.com/resources/syria/the-desert-to-the-euphrates-damascus-to-deir-ez-zor-and-halabiayh
She spoke of a relatively peaceful, and compared with the Arabia penisula, a secular country. She finished her journey in Deir Zor, where many Armenians had been herded in 1915 from various parts of Turkey to waste away. There was an Amernian Church and monument there to the victims. The narrator noted that now, this journey is no longer possible due to ISIL who have also destroyed the church and the memorials.
People in the Europe can laugh at Assad's attempts at "reforms" http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704832704576114340735033236,
but they're still preferable to having factional groups supported by foreign countries destroying the country, and a flood of jihadists from around the world.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »If we were to carry out airstrikes in Syria against ISIS, and promise we wouldn't target Kurdish or Syrian-State forces, I believe this could be a boon to the EU.
Folks, I think you need to understand that the EU is not a military alliance.
It cannot & will not go invading/bombing other nations willy-nilly
There is no "we" doing anything.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »Folks, I think you need to understand that the EU is not a military alliance.
It cannot & will not go invading/bombing other nations willy-nilly
There is no "we" doing anything.
Correct, but that does not mean the EU can not deploy its European Battle Groups (they could utilize the Jas 39 or the F16s of the Nordic Battle Group) as a theatre force to provide for air strikes.
The EU can do more to help bring a speedy end to this war than just sit on its hands and hope the lesser of two evils prevail. The sale of non-lethal equipment, the lifting or lessening of sanctions, the sale of small arms, providing air support, providing economic assistance... There's a plethora of things the EU can do that would help in bringing this war to a close, with a more EU-friendly Assad in power.0 -
EU+rest of the world should invade the area controlled by IS and eradicate these beasts. There is no other way.0
-
EU+rest of the world should invade the area controlled by IS and eradicate these beasts. There is no other way.
Absolutely not. Not a single European soldier should be deployed on the ground. There is sufficient force within the Kurds and Syrian Government to act as the ground troops. If Europeans are deployed, we'd become the target of every group there, much like the Americans were the target of Shia and Sunni alike in Iraq.
We should provide logistical support and carry out airstrikes, but we should not put a boot on the ground.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »Absolutely not. Not a single European soldier should be deployed on the ground. There is sufficient force within the Kurds and Syrian Government to act as the ground troops. If Europeans are deployed, we'd become the target of every group there, much like the Americans were the target of Shia and Sunni alike in Iraq.
We should provide logistical support and carry out airstrikes, but we should not put a boot on the ground.
I don't think this should be looked at as if it was a local conflict. And I think the peace loving european community will find out the full scale and reach of IS in years to come. This is something that is bound to happen.
For a short moment I had a strong hope that Turkey will solve their PKK-related issues with their Kurdish population by aiding the Peshmerga fighters during their fight for the Aleppo (I think it was). But sadly the Turkish government decided that they prefer let the Kurdish fighter bleed and turn blind eye on the situation apart from occasional retaliatory shelling. I think it would have been a very wise move that would allow Kurds to have their own independent teritory and be able to defend it and in the same time make the Kurdish Turks happy.
I don't think ISIL will be easily defeated by the local forces. The whole area is a mess. We can continue ignore it but we will pay the price in few years time. The refugees crossing to Italy already pay the price. These who make it will be marginalised by the citizens of countries they eventually end up in. A lot of them will be frustrated by their prospects for future and some of them will be radicalised. This all will lead to more attacks in europe.
The local forces are split into too many factions they're not effective enough and nowhere near motivated to fight and die as the ISIL fighters are (excluding Peshmerga fighters which I think show real spirit - something they have developed during many years of hardship).
Europe and US have enough firepower and would be able to find reliable allies on the ground to deal with these savages.0 -
No, no they can't.IrishTrajan wrote: »but that does not mean the EU can not deploy its European Battle Groups
The EU battle groups (such as they are), are specifically intended for humanitarian, peacekeeping & support missions, usually under UN mandate.
They are not capable or allowed by treaty to engage in expeditionary/attack missions.
(Otherwise Ireland, Sweden & Finland would have never signed up).
Again, no.they could utilize the Jas 39 or the F16s of the Nordic Battle Group) as a theatre force to provide for air strikes.
The Battle groups are based around infantry batallions & armoured regiments.
EU battle groups do not comprise either strike air or naval capabilities.
(Besides Sweden & Finland being constitutionally neutral to begin with!!)
The EU doesn't sell such things & has no capability to prevent member states from doing so.The sale of non-lethal equipment,
Unlocking bank accounts will help the regime & I'm sure Asma Al-Assad will appreciate having her credit cards unlocked.... I'm unsure how it helps the army... Theyve not wanted for cash.the lifting or lessening of sanctions
As an entity, the EU doesn't do this.the sale of small arms, providing air support
You guys are giving the EU a lot of credit for abilities that don't exist.
All of the above can be done by individual member states.
One wonders why it hasn't been?0 -
EU+rest of the world should invade the area controlled by IS and eradicate these beasts. There is no other way.
Cos that worked out great in the past.
Its an impossible position for the west, and ISIS knows it. The coalition countries can only enable Iraq militarily, but then you end up on the same side as Iran and Assad. You also run the risk of any weaponry being captured by ISIS once the shambolic Iraqis turn tail when the heat gets too much.
Airstrikes in support of local efforts on the ground should be the limit of western activity. How intense those airstrikes get is another matter. ISIS needs the sh1ts put up them by some intensive bombardment and some hearts and minds displays by the big transcontinental bombers or the Carrier based F/As0 -
I don't think this should be looked at as if it was a local conflict. And I think the peace loving european community will find out the full scale and reach of IS in years to come. This is something that is bound to happen.
When or if that happens is the time to deal with it imo (though can anything useful or effective really be done even then - I don't know).
EU and its member states should stay very well out of this mainly US mess in the Middle east other than dealing with the refugee problems and stopping their so called "citizens" from travelling abroad to create mayhem and commit atrocities (or if they do get out, they can stay away for good if they have any other citizenship available to them). If they can't be "disowned" then good tracking/intelligence is needed to welcome them back to prison for a nice stretch when they get tired of the jihad.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cos that worked out great in the past.
Its an impossible position for the west, and ISIS knows it. The coalition countries can only enable Iraq militarily, but then you end up on the same side as Iran and Assad. You also run the risk of any weaponry being captured by ISIS once the shambolic Iraqis turn tail when the heat gets too much.
Airstrikes in support of local efforts on the ground should be the limit of western activity. How intense those airstrikes get is another matter. ISIS needs the sh1ts put up them by some intensive bombardment and some hearts and minds displays by the big transcontinental bombers or the Carrier based F/As
It sounds as though you have caught the anti Shiite bug that is going around. The US military command, European heads of states and neighbouring countries have all falling ill from it.
The notion that Shiite states are to be untrustworthy while the Kingdom of Arabia goes un reprimanded is ridiculous. Lets not forget we are intimately involved in this as the EU supports the state of Palestine. No deal can be reached until and unless the Syrians come on board. At present we are taken liberties as to who are terrorists Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS while the PKK, SNC and PLO are supposed to be our friends. Only the Shiites in Tehran and Damascus have proven trustworthy in waging battle against these milita fighters. We stand back make accusations against those doing the actual fighting against the enemy.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »It sounds as though you have caught the anti Shiite bug that is going around. The US military command, European heads of states and neighbouring countries have all falling ill from it.
The notion that Shiite states are to be untrustworthy while the Kingdom of Arabia goes un reprimanded is ridiculous. Lets not forget we are intimately involved in this as the EU supports the state of Palestine. No deal can be reached until and unless the Syrians come on board. At present we are taken liberties as to who are terrorists Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS while the PKK, SNC and PLO are supposed to be our friends. Only the Shiites in Tehran and Damascus have proven trustworthy in waging battle against these milita fighters. We stand back make accusations against those doing the actual fighting against the enemy.
Only because they're going to be hunted down and exterminated if ISIS win. It has nothing to do with the greater good.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »Only because they're going to be hunted down and exterminated if ISIS win. It has nothing to do with the greater good.
How many good officers have been killed or injured by enemy forces? We are talking about on a scale similar to Afghanistan. Lets be clear Iraqi troops are fighting the same enemy as their Syrian counterparts. Once these states fall then on to Jerusalem down to Mecca and Medina where they will be greeted with celebrations and adoring followers who despise the Saudi Royal Family.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »No, no they can't.
The EU battle groups (such as they are), are specifically intended for humanitarian, peacekeeping & support missions, usually under UN mandate.
They are not capable or allowed by treaty to engage in expeditionary/attack missions.
(Otherwise Ireland, Sweden & Finland would have never signed up).
Then why have an air complement and armoured forces? You hardly need Gripens for peace-keeping.BoJack Horseman wrote: »Again, no.
The Battle groups are based around infantry batallions & armoured regiments.
EU battle groups do not comprise either strike air or naval capabilities.
(Besides Sweden & Finland being constitutionally neutral to begin with!!)
That's not correct. The Nordic Battlegroup has its own air power. According to the wikipedia, there are also F16s, but I can't find any source on how many of them there are.The Expeditionary Air Wing consists of a fighter unit of eight JAS-39C Gripen fighter-bombers, an air tactical transport unit of two C 130 Hercules aircraft, along with two helicopter units for troop transport and medical evacuation.
Yes, it's not exactly a heavy-hitting force, but 8 JAS39s (each with 5300kg payloads) is not exactly a feather duster. The JAS 39 can be used for air reconnaissance (they flew in Libya, I believe), or for ground-attack.
The 8 x 5300 is nothing to scoff at. Canada's commitment to air strikes consisted of 6 CF18s (6200kg payloads), for example.BoJack Horseman wrote: »The EU doesn't sell such things & has no capability to prevent member states from doing so.BoJack Horseman wrote: »As an entity, the EU doesn't do this.
You guys are giving the EU a lot of credit for abilities that don't exist.
All of the above can be done by individual member states.
One wonders why it hasn't been?
So then give the EU the ability to do these things.BoJack Horseman wrote: »Unlocking bank accounts will help the regime & I'm sure Asma Al-Assad will appreciate having her credit cards unlocked.... I'm unsure how it helps the army... Theyve not wanted for cash.
Of course not, but the problem is that you can't use the money as a weapon. There are arms sanctions on Syria, which is why the Government hasn't been able to buy up more and more arms that easily. No doubt they are buying weapons from the Iranians and probably the Chinese/Russians, but if we want this war to end quickly, it's probably best if the EU tries to leverage the lessening of an arms embargo.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »The notion that Shiite states are to be untrustworthy while the Kingdom of Arabia goes un reprimanded is ridiculous.
There's little or no evidence that the Saudi government is currently involved in funding ISIS, which means the US/EU would be foolish to take any action on the country. However, it's evident that financiers in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and other nations have directly and indirectly helped ISIS and similar groups (mainly earlier in the conflict)
Whether officials in those countries turned a blind eye to such directed funding and equipping is the question, but it is strenuously denied. The Saudi's also have a very real fear of those militants returning - the recent bombing of the mosque over there being ominous0 -
There's little or no evidence that the Saudi government is currently involved in funding ISIS, which means the US/EU would be foolish to take any action on the country. However, it's evident that financiers in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and other nations have directly and indirectly helped ISIS and similar groups (mainly earlier in the conflict)
Whether officials in those countries turned a blind eye to such directed funding and equipping is the question, but it is strenuously denied. The Saudi's also have a very real fear of those militants returning - the recent bombing of the mosque over there being ominous
It all goes back to choosing who your friends are and who can be reasoned with. Saudi Arabia and the others are Theocracies and cause all this indoctrination in Nigeria, Pakistan and so on. Cut off links to these people.0 -
There's little or no evidence that the Saudi government is currently involved in funding ISIS, which means the US/EU would be foolish to take any action on the country. However, it's evident that financiers in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and other nations have directly and indirectly helped ISIS and similar groups (mainly earlier in the conflict)
And there's no evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons, or that the Saudis funded Pakistan's nuclear program, or that Turkey is buying oil from ISIS and other groups... It's an open secret.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »And there's no evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons, or that the Saudis funded Pakistan's nuclear program, or that Turkey is buying oil from ISIS and other groups... It's an open secret.
ISIS is pretty much self-funding at this stage. There's no evidence or open secret of direct Saudi leadership funding. Of wealthy gulf state financiers yes, but that's dried up fast in the last year or two.
The conflict economy is so bizarre that ISIS are selling black market oil to Assad and receiving arms in return.. while they are both fighting for control of territory.0 -
ISIS is pretty much self-funding at this stage. There's no evidence or open secret of direct Saudi leadership funding. Of wealthy gulf state financiers yes, but that's dried up fast in the last year or two.
The conflict economy is so bizarre that ISIS are selling black market oil to Assad and receiving arms in return.. while they are both fighting for control of territory.
ISIS has Saudi clerics actually on the ground directly assisting them plus the Saudi's have expressly stated their main objective is to remove Assad and not fight the militants.0 -
Advertisement
-
KingBrian2 wrote: »It all goes back to choosing who your friends are and who can be reasoned with. Saudi Arabia and the others are Theocracies and cause all this indoctrination in Nigeria, Pakistan and so on. Cut off links to these people.
Hate to be a pedant but the only theocracy in the region is Iran. The gulf states are monarchies. Were the religious running them, they'd be far far worse than they are now.0
Advertisement