No one interested? This looks phenomenally nasty to me and a massive cock up by US/UK which is irresolvable.
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.
'We' of course, meaning our politicians, not 'We' as in 'We, the People".
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.
Actually, I'd kick the arses harder of convets who turn to attack their 'home' society.
And mercenaris get caught abroad and when they return and jailed.
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.
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.
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 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."
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.
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.
I don't think the parallel to the Spanish Civil War stands up as neither side in that was threatening anyone outside Spain's borders. ISIS is Al Qaeda affiliated, and they have attacked in numerous other locations, including UK.
And IIRC, there have been instances of foreign fighters in recent wars (break up of Yugoslavia?) being trained by the Muj in terrorist tactics and going on to attack elsewhere. (Or is my recollection totally off on that one?)
Unless the 450 Brits alleged to be fighting for ISIS are mentioned in the following document, I can’t see how MI6 would definitely know how many are all fighting for them – rather than be spread across other fighters e.g the less radical Free Syrian’s – but maybe any such fighting is potential domestic terrorist ‘work experience’.
Although the money to fund them came from rich Jihadi backers all around the Gulf, much of their funding now comes via what they plunder, oil from Syria (and now from Iraq?) and arms/tanks from a near 300,000 Iraq army, with too many Sunni soldiers within on the Syrian border – who ran from around a maximum 14,000 ISIS ‘army’, although only a small portion of that has done so well thus far.
”Jihadi Terror Group Plc: ISIS zealots log assassinations, suicide missions and bombings in annual report for financial backers”
• The annual publication is called al-Naba, which is Arabic for 'The News'
• Reports for 2012 and 2013 were analysed by Institute for the Study of War
• ISIS claims to have carried out 10,000 operations in Iraq last year alone
• These included assassinations, bombings and the freeing of prisoners
• Isis compiles it to attract donors and present themselves as organised
• Details emerged as new information about group's funding came to light
It appears they are as good with Powerpoint, as pointing their guns.
Yup, Tansie plus ignorant/aggressive/violent western born/bred arse who are brainwashed (assuming they have a brain) into charging off to 'jihad'. I am scared that these wankers are strolling back into the UK and can be standing next to me on the tube.
Yes, it, s scary..
Tansie says pretty much how I see it too.
"In the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the support came with the tacit nod of approval from those regimes; often, it took advantage of poor money laundering protections in those states, according to officials, experts, and leaders of the Syrian opposition, which is fighting ISIS as well as the regime.
“Everybody knows the money is going through Kuwait and that it’s coming from the Arab Gulf,” said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Kuwait’s banking system and its money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq.” The Daily Beast
Likely to be Saudi. A hell of a lot of money and scary crap comes from there.
who is funding them?
Can't remember where i read it so correct me if i am wrong, but there are questions being asked of the iraqi military, at certain points of the advance they seemed to put up little or no fight against smaller forces. they abandoned arms and equipment on the side of the road which was handy for the approaching militia.
It's such a mess. There seem to be so many people out there who want to kill each other. The sooner we rid the planet of religion the better.
Many British people travelled to fight in the Spanish civil war against fascism and were not castigated for that. I don't see why we think those who go abroad to fight for a just cause or help the wounded should be criticised for it just because they are Muslim or non white, whatever sides they fight on.
How can anyone want to side with these monsters? There is evidence of their brutality against their 'mooslim bruvers' (as the north Londoners are fond of reminding us).
Why do these fools not rise up for peace? Are lads these days so desenstised to violence that they itch to kill?
I think he said there are some 400 Britons who are believed to have travelled to Syria to fight and could well now be with ISIS.
There are also other European nationals doing the same.
If/when those people return, even more firmly radicalised and with both battlefield experience and training in terrorist tactics, then that could obvious pose a threat. Unless police/security/intelligence agencies across Europe can adequately track all of them indefinitely.
Apparently, Cameron at PMQT talking about 'the threat' to the UK, might have just been referring to the hundreds of Brits currently fighting in the Middle East, coming back. Still, if I was a senior ISIS member, I'd feel a little more ISILated (ahem), than I did earlier this week - and would look over my shoulder more often..
I disagree, conflicts in Africa are mainly about power; the Sunni - Shia spat goes back many moons and is not just driven by a Jihad against the the 'non believers' (infidels) of Islam, but against those from the other main branch of Islam.
I looked up the difference years ago, but have forgotten the detail and don't want to appear any more ignorant of other's faith than I currently exhibit - but look it up with the main pillars of Islam, it's interesting. IMHO.
But again, its not about religion but power. Those with the biggest guns/thugs want to rule with force to their own ends.
Join the discussion
Please login first.