No one interested? This looks phenomenally nasty to me and a massive cock up by US/UK which is irresolvable.
Yes, plenty of young British men and women have gone to kep against the regime in Syria and the UK is against that regime in Syria so in a sense they are doing Cameron's work for him and then are criticised for it. Many of the insurgents in the Arab spring are feminists and moderates. It is not a simple situation of current regimes wonderful and those who are revolting bad fundamentalists.
The only "sense" suggesting that a few hundred British fighters going to Syria "is doing Cameron's work for him", is lame nonsense. IMO.
As previously mentioned, no P.M. wants religious radicals trained in the terrorist arts and capable of attacking a State - especially if getting that training (maybe) pretending to help Syrians - and a few hundred against Assad in so many areas, will not make a jot of difference to the big scheme of things.
Maybe Cameron is banning Syrian Jihadist groups in the UK to GET TO Syrian’s Assad as well?
"MPs ban five Syria-linked jihadist groups in UK"
"Five Syria-linked jihadist groups - including the The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) - have been banned in the UK by MPs."
"Security minister James Brokenshire set out the motion, which was passed unopposed in the House of Commons on Thursday."
"It will now be an offence to be a member of any of the groups in the UK."
What about white working class UK mercenaries who are trained and then work in Africa for hire? Why are they not just as bad as Muslim black young men from the UK who go abroad to fight? We don't ban the former.
Maybe because if they are working as bodyguards/mercenaries/hired guns - in it for the money really - they aren't being brainwashed into an ideology of the west being a vile cesspit of prostitutes/paedophiles/general infadels who are less than human and deserve death? Of course the ISIS lot are also gunning for the shia muslims too (under the same 'they are imfadels, sub humans, need to be slaughtered...'). They won't be very likely to become suicide bombers in Westfield or Anfield or wherever, for the glory of god.
And why specify 'black' muslims? I don't think they have a colour card of fundamental/crackpot barmyness. Or is anyone not 'white'therefore 'black"? There have been some particularly nutty white converts who have gone on to commit atrocities in the name of religion.
And how many white working class bodyguards/mercenaries, are ex British soldiers, making a living doing the only thing they know.
I agree on the Islamist race/colour point, a radical is a radical, treat them all the same if for nothing else, to keep the Human Rights people happy bunnies.
And mercenaris get caught abroad and when they return and jailed.
Actually, I'd kick the arses harder of convets who turn to attack their 'home' society.
Thank you wanttoride for explaining the relationship of the various sects in this situation. Very interesting to understand the history of the infighting. Similar to religious infighting everywhere (sunni/shia, catholic/protestant, etc) from the beginnings of time.
To me there are 2 parts of this, the religious infighting being just part of it. The other part is the effect of it on the wider world, specifically; those radicals who feel the whole world must be converted or at least bow to universal sharia law. I'd say let them settle it amongst themselves if it weren't for that.
Unfortunately, we (US) seem to pick a side to aid based on our own interests (cheap oil or a political agenda) rather than what is truly best for the people involved. And inevitably we end up having picked the 'wrong' side for the 'wrong' reasons & then 'have' to return to 'oust' those we put in power to begin with.
I'm afraid history is going to repeat itself in this situation.
'We' of course, meaning our politicians, not 'We' as in 'We, the People".
The West wants oil security for obvious economic reasons and generally likes to see/promote power balances across the globe, so unfortunately the West’s foreign policy dictates, in the pursuit of that ‘balance’, that it isn’t too important if a country has a bastard of a dictator, as long as he is OUR bastard of a dictator.
In the Middle East decades ago under the Shah of Iran, Iran was a friend of the U.S,, once the fundamentalist Ayatollahs took over Iran, Iraq (with Israel and later Egypt) was our counterbalance to Iran and Syria.
Of course in Middle East politics, Shia versus Sunni is the main ‘political’ line.
In current Iraq, the democratically Shia President (whatever) has ignored the wellbeing of the Sunni and Kurds and snuggled up a bit too much to Shia Iran - so the domestic Sunni’s and Kurds already wary of their own Shia government - now have Iranian Shiites in as guests of their government, invited in to kill (Jihadi) Sunni’s.
So now the Iraqi Sunni’s (and Kurds) have to be concerned about Iraqi, and worse Iranian Shiites, declaring ‘open season’ on EVERY Sunni within Iraq they find, in the legitimate aim to purge Iraq of ISIS.
Somewhere, Iraq has just under 300,000 soldiers, to fight the ISIS hard nuts numbering no more than 10 to 20,000, but it seems beyond them to sort out an Iraqi force of Shiite soldiers, that will not sympathise with the disenfranchisement of Iraqi Sunni’s by their own government by deserting their posts, and fight for their own country.
Join the discussion
Please login first.