Do you think now the world has it's eyes opened to the true horror unfolding in Syria, they will now actually do something about ISIS?

[Whoknewitcouldbeso]

I know efforts are being made by some nations to try and counteract ISIS with the aid of drones and counter intelligence but I wonder if the refugee crisis may serve to instigate some direct action by more of the World's heavyweights?

I have just read the story of how Aylan's father has traveled back to Kobane to bury his family and has no intention of leaving the country again. It is his home and he was only leaving to try and save his family after 11 of his extended family were murdered by ISIS. There has been so much talk about migrants and asylum seekers and trying to help those who are fleeing, but most of these people would not be fleeing if it wasn't for the fact that they fear for their lives.

Surely we should be doing more to make their own country safe or do you think that's not possible and the only solution is to allow the ethnic cleansing to carry on taking place.

I hope that something will be done about ISIS.

But as bad as it is that a Syrian child had to drown in the sea, captured by cameras, let's not forget there are wars elsewhere, too.

In Africa, children die in war ALL THE TIME. In fact, there have been downright massacres. But no one cares. No one offers asylum whatsoever. It hardly even gets a column in the newspaper. The UN now calls for the EU to take in refugees, but did nothing whatsoever about Zimbabwe.

I wonder why people suddenly care about this one event. Very likely because they saw a picture of a dead child dressed in normal clothes that could have been worn by one of their own.

When people see the pictures of African children dead in their war-torn countries, in tattered clothes their own children would never be seen in, they might give some money to charity. But is there ever an outcry? Do people ever say, open the gates and let them in?

Despite there being unspeakable violence in those countries - more so than the stories we hear from Syria - the answer is 'No'.

Because those children are so, so different from their own children. They're so used to see the suffering of those children on TV every year on Red Nose Day that they turn a blind eye.

I am pretty sure that a lot of the people commenting on this thread that are shattered by what happened have never given thought to those kids. Sad that this hypocrisy exist.

And now, I would like to ask people. If we offer asylum to Syrians in the EU. Will we do so for those affected in Africa? There would be millions.

I'd really like to know the answer.

Snowbells I have a slightly different theory. Wars are (usually) or can be made to be self-limiting. Africa is truly a mess but one that has been going on for such a long time that it's now the norm (you mention that). Certain individuals and organisations prosper from war; no-one prospers from poverty. Reducing poverty means taking away from someone else. The problem about this is that no matter how much people scream that "the rich have enough and should share", this undermines the basic principle of humanity, that of being rewarded for hard work. Is it a correct principle to live by? I don't know - but it suggests a meritocracy, which is a principle undermined by socialism/communism. One of the unfortunate things about humanity is that material wealth trumps everything, and guides all of our lives. The racism that you allude to is undeniably ever-present but is not the primary reason for anything - money is.

We all know that we can't move the whole world here - we've tried aid (doesn't work, taking change over there (doesn't work but there's clearly a moral element to this too), nothing works.

What has worked in the past? The spread of ideas, to be taken up by people themselves when ready, so globalisation is and will play a key role in that. Linked to that - social media/internet, resulting in mass education; world countries ARE getting richer - slowly. People will be more likely to stay as their quality of life (materially, not necessarily in other ways, but that's a different argument anyway) improves. Appetite for war is reducing (hard to believe, I know) globally.

I am hopeful.

IS are terrible but it is President Assad who is responsible for the majority of the deaths in Syria. Any action has to be coordinated with this in mind, escpecially as who is the legitimate head of state is very much in doubt.

Marking place to learn from the discussion.

The awful truth is that we need much of the world to stay in poverty to maintain our standard of living in the West.

Not entirely convinced by the 'we keep Africa poor' argument. Some truth to that but not the whole explanation. Will be back later but internal reasons such as religion, etc. also explanations.

Me too cheesecake

It was intervening in the Middle East that triggered this mess in the first place. I'm not sure why you think it would have a different outcome if we went in again.

Im marking my place. Personally I feel that we should be helping these people more to stay in their own countries by making it a safe and stable place. ISIS are not going to go away and appear to be getting stronger all the time. I agree if we start opening the doors to those fleeing Syria how can we turn others away from other worn torn countries. We simply cannot accommodate them all.

As you said in the title, you want someone to "do something"

So the next question has to be "who" and "what"

What options do you think the international community (particularly UN, and the coalition already engaged in military operations) have given insufficient weight to? Or have simply not considered at all?

Saw this on a facebook thread this morning. Never a truer word said..

It was intervening in the Middle East that triggered this mess in the first place. I'm not sure why you think it would have a different outcome if we went in again.

This.

I really don't know what can be done. It's a sorry bloody mess that reinforces my belief that religion really is the root of all evil and conflict in the world.

It was intervening in the Middle East that triggered this mess in the first place. I'm not sure why you think it would have a different outcome if we went in again.

With the Syrian conflict, really, it all started with the drought. It wasn't the West intervening or so... unless you're talking about climate change.

If we look at the FACTS, BOTH ISIS and Syria’s President Assad have to go before we can guarantee any on the 23 million citizens of Syria will REMAIN in Syria, never mind go back – with currently around 12 million ‘displaced’ from their homes, around 4 million of which are now outside Syria.

When looking at the ‘causes’ let us remember that in within a region mainly split by two Muslim religious factions (Sunni and Shia/Shiites) with President Assad as an Alawite (a branch of Shia) ONLY religiously represents around 18% of Syria’s population, which tends to equate to more life chances.

This is key as from March 2011 when then the oppressed majority Syrian Sunnis (about 75% of the population) protested and were murdered in the streets of Syria by their own President but continued to protest, there has been no way back for Assad - as every Syrian Sunni man, woman and child, has been classed as a ‘rebel’ – and as many tens of thousands have been killed by President Assad’s forces since, HOW can Assad be seen as legitimate by that oppressed majority?

“Arab uprising: Country by country – Syria”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12482309

“The wave of popular unrest that swept the Arab world came late to Syria, but its once peaceful uprising has evolved into a brutal and increasingly sectarian armed conflict.”

“Protests demanding greater freedom and an end to corruption began in the southern city of Deraa in March 2011. After security forces opened fire on demonstrators, more took to the streets. By July 2011, hundreds of thousands of people across the country were attending protests demanding President Bashar al-Assad's resignation.”

August 2014; “UN Says Syria May Have Used Chemical Weapons”
news.sky.com/story/1325488/un-says-syria-may-have-used-chemical-weapons

“The United Nations has said it believes the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in civilian areas eight times in April (2014).”

"Reasonable grounds exist to believe that chemical agents, likely chlorine, were used on (northern Syrian villages) Kafr Zeita, al Tamana and Tal Minnis in eight incidents within a 10-day period in April," it said.”

"Witnesses saw helicopters drop barrel bombs and smelled a scent akin to domestic chlorine immediately following impact," it pointed out.”

“Victims, it said, had suffered "symptoms compatible with exposure to chemical agents, namely vomiting, eye and skin irritation, choking and other respiratory problems".

Contd….

More…..

When two-years later in August 2013 when Cameron asked parliament for permission (with America) to stop President Assad of Syria killing his own people using airplanes, helicopters, tanks and long range field guns pounding Syrian (Sunni) citizens in their then surrounded towns/cities with everything from shells to nerve gas – too many halfwits in the UK parliament saw some similarity in humanitarian acts of taking out Assads weapons – with the Iraq war, that MADE UP a dodgy dossier of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction

30 August 2013; ”David Cameron's plans for military action in Syria shot down in dramatic Commons vote”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-plans-for-military-action-in-syria-shot-down-in-dramatic-commons-vote-8788612.html

So 4-years after the problem beganas the U.S. took the UK’s lead, NOTHING was done to stop the now never-to-be-legitimate Syrian President (who only now controls less than 20% of Syria’s land) killing/displacing his own people.

Now ISIS’s self proclaimed caliphate straddles huge areas across Syria and Iraq, with its headquarters across the Syria, and has only an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 fighters, up from 10,000 to 25,000 when they took all this land – opposed in Iraq by a standing/reserve army of 200,000 to 300,000 who have been next to useless.

In a Syria under Assad, the people will never rally behind him, even though they obviously fear the Sunni ISIS who will kill anyone, of any religion, not adopting their obsessive Islamist ways.

In reality NO ONE within the original 23 million Syrian population is safe UNLESS they follow ISIS, as even the 18% Alawite (Shia) bums must be squeaking as Assad’s army, fighting both the Syrian ‘rebels’ and ISIS, falls back further to new defensive lines, conceding ever more territory.

The answer IMO is get rid of ISIS by whatever means, and banish Assad & his regime, allowing the Syrian citizen ‘rebels’ currently fighting him, who unfortunately are represented by different factions, to form the next Syrian government under firm western guidance to work together.

Clearly President Assad historically supported by Iran and Russia will not ‘go’ while he believes he still has their support; Iran being similar Shia Muslims, Russia who have always seen Syria as their foot hold in the Middle East region.

Isitme The answer IMO is get rid of ISIS by whatever means, and banish Assad & his regime, allowing the Syrian citizen ‘rebels’ currently fighting him, who unfortunately are represented by different factions, to form the next Syrian government under firm western guidance to work together.

Here's another brilliant quote from a Guardian poster today commenting on the UN response (thank you for elucidating the issues):

Here's two options. Which do you think will work more effectively to stop ISIS and return Syria to as safe a place to live - with homes and infrastructure - as it was before the conflict?

1. Create a no-fly zone to proscribe ISIS's non-existent air force and then drop a load of bombs on Syrian cities. Remove Assad and allow the Gulf State's foreign jihadists, aligned in a lot of ways with ISIS, who have co-opted the anti-government movement, to take Damascus.

1. Stop arming and funding jihadists. Support, however unpalatable it may be, Assad, Iran and Hezbollah in driving out and extinguishing ISIS and the US's client state ran Jihadists from the area.

fourmummy ..... from my little rant, clearly 'none of the above'.lol

Firstly the time for 'no fly zones' to stop Assad forcing our his Sunni population he calls 'rebels' out of the likes of Aleppo, was MORE than 2-years ago when parliament was asked to vote on it.

Next Assad, I reiterate, with the best will in the world, if you have targeted many of the 75% of you population, who will NEVER trust you, despite Russian and Iranian support, Assad already fighting for his existence, is not really an option.

ISIS on one hand MAY still be funded by wealthy people within rich Arab countries, but their governments are bombing them within this international coalition of planes that might surprise you when see the depth of countries involved.

ISIS is a relatively well trained but small army, well dug in now, and self financing via the oil and other 'stuff' they have within their grasp - so until dislodged, they will remain self sufficient and a 'new world' others are drawn to.

But as to the ALTERNATIVE, while I have no idea how 'moderate' the moderate Syrians the international coalition are arming to fight both Assad and ISIS actually are, based on the proven M.O. of the Assad/ISIS alternative, surely they can't be any worse - as in theory, war lord personalities aside, as Sunnis they represent at least 75% of the Syrian population.

The prettiest of a fugly contest? Hmmm.

It seems though that to oust Assad, unless done internally, is to heap more problems upon the situation. I agree with the poster above, namely, negotiate/support Assad. Then, see what happens.

Assad IS stupid for thinking that he could continue to oppress 75% of the Sunni population (and probably the Christians later) once he fired upon their peaceful demonstrations over 4-years ago.

I cannot see how supporting an anti Sunni Assad, currently being ‘removed’ by the moderate Sunni Syrian citizen ‘rebels’ and Sunni ISIS, can ever bring peace to Syria or stop those within leaving – in fact there is evidence that the Alawite (Shia) population Assad represents is starting to leave Syria as Assad continues to lose his grip.

And let me repeat a small paragraph of a wider explanation within the ‘Russia getting more involved in Syria’ thread;

ISIS only exists as Sunnis within Syria and Iraq swallowed the ISIS ‘vision’ of a safe haven for Sunnis and either joined, supported, or just didn’t OPPOSE them.

President Assad of Syria currently with NO control of Syria if left to his own devises will soon be ‘toast’ - the ‘threat’ to Sunnis within Syria from their own government on several hundred year old sectarian grounds will have gone – leaving a clearer good guys, bad guys, scenario in Syria for the Western led coalition to support.

Supporting Assad can only increase ISIS numbers from Sunnis inside Syria, Iraq and from the rest of the world – as it is worth remembering, there are far more Sunnis on Dave’s big green earth, than Shia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

Isit, you don't seem to understand the complexities of what it is all about, you have lateched onto one of your simplistic conceptions - that it is a Sunni-Shia thing, it isn't, it is Assad and Sunnis versus outside backed forces of Sunni jihadists, funded and backd by foreign regimes and individuals. They tried to topple Assad because he signed up for an Iranian/Iraqi/Syrian gas pipeline and the backers of the Jihadis weren't happy about it, so they started the uprising and poured money into their Jihadis. They thought they would topple Assad, but after 5 years of trying and hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees, they have failed, so they either escalate it against Assad or they now have to come to a political solution. What Germany has to say about it all will decide how this ends.

"Sunnis fill rebel ranks, but also prop up Assad regime

Many Sunnis are backing the dictatorship to preserve their livelihoods, or believe the uprising is doomed or ruthless.

Sunni Muslims make up 70% of Syria's 25 million people
Dictator Bashar Assad belongs to the minority sect of Shiite Muslim Alawites
Assad on Thursday said he is "sure of victory" over the rebels following recent success in battles

AMMAN, Jordan — One explanation of the Syrian civil war is that it is at its heart a conflict of the two strains of Islam that have warred for centuries: Sunni Muslims against the minority Shiite Muslim Alawites, the sect of dictator Bashar Assad.

But the reality is more complex and helps explain why more than two years into the fighting that has killed more than 100,000 people Syrian President Assad has defied predictions of his demise"

www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/01/syria-sunnis-assad/2599927/

This is what political commentator and author, Frederick Forsyth, said in 2013

"The war in Syria is over bar the shouting and President Assad has won"

www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/frederick-forsyth/430820/The-war-in-Syria-is-over-bar-the-shouting-and-President-Assad-has-won

Everyone has known this for years and yet they still refuse to come to a political solution with Assad that will end the suffering.

"Britain must talk to dictator Assad to defeat Isil, says former head of the Army

General Lord Dannatt, former head of British Army, says West must co-operate with Syrian dictator to defeat Isil"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11050367/Britain-must-talk-to-dictator-Assad-to-defeat-Isil-says-former-head-of-the-Army.html

This is from the US Armed Forces Journal and explains what it is all about. The Jihadis have been funded and backed to try and overthrow Assad so that the money men can do their deals.

"You can’t understand the conflict without talking about natural gas

By Maj. Rob Taylor

Much of the media coverage suggests that the conflict in Syria is a civil war, in which the Alawite (Shia) Bashar al Assad regime is defending itself (and committing atrocities) against Sunni rebel factions (who are also committing atrocities). The real explanation is simpler: it is about money.

In 2009, Qatar proposed to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Instead, Assad forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward, allowing those Shia-dominated countries access to the European natural gas market while denying access to Sunni Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter states, it appears, are now attempting to remove Assad so they can control Syria and run their own pipeline through Turkey."

www.armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria/

I don't think its possible. Assad doesn't want any help. Look where interfering has got us in the past? Assad can't be bumped off or ignored in order to wipe out IS. Even if IS was wiped out some Taliban, Al Quaeda type group would spring up in their place.

Claig ..... why is it that your 'explanations' on anti Russian global events always seem to have the 'clarity' and expectations of not being challenged, of Russian propaganda?

Re your "They tried to topple Assad because he signed up for an Iranian/Iraqi/Syrian gas pipeline and the backers of the Jihadis weren't happy about it, so they started the uprising and poured money into their Jihadis.

Please explain with qualified links, WHEN this pipeline was announced and WHY the worlds "Jihadists weren't happy about it" and by definition, deciding that a holy war was the only answer???

• The Sunni vs Shia historical backdrop influences EVERY Middle East country that has a Sunni/Shia mix of roughly similar numbers, every day of the week, whether there is war or not - as one or the other always believes that they are being treated as second class citizens by the other sect government e.g. Bahrain.

• Are you saying that the Sunnis (and Kurds) within Iraq felt they were being represented by the Western installed Shia government, that replaced Saddams Sunni administration????

• Are you saying that in Syria, that the 'Arab Spring' that had nothing to do with any pipeline, or the grievances of the vastly larger Sunnis, did NOT happen - and that Assad did NOT fire on his own people??????

“Arab uprising: Country by country – Syria”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12482309

“The wave of popular unrest that swept the Arab world came late to Syria, but its once peaceful uprising has evolved into a brutal and increasingly sectarian armed conflict.”

“Protests demanding greater freedom and an end to corruption began in the southern city of Deraa in March 2011. After security forces opened fire on demonstrators, more took to the streets. By July 2011, hundreds of thousands of people across the country were attending protests demanding President Bashar al-Assad's resignation.”

Claig ..... I don't understand WHY you are posting comments in 2013 saying that Assad 'has won', when 2-years later it is clear that he hasn't - and if DOES want to talk after 4-years it is because he now knows that he CANNOT WIN.