Elsewhere in the Middle East

[LouiseBrooks]

I defy anyone to watch this Iraqi MP without weeping.

ISIS have allegedly beheaded American journalist James Wright Foley who was kidnapped in Syria a couple of years ago. They have posted photos and video purporting to show this and I'm afraid indications are that it's true.

Truly horrific. They are utter savages.

According to Twitter, the murderer has a British accent (I've not watched the video and have no intention of doing so either.)

I actually cannot comprehend fully what is happening. How have things gone so wrong in the world? We should be becoming more civilised. ISIS are terrifying but they clearly have support from some very wealthy backers.

'I actually cannot comprehend fully what is happening'

Read globalresearch. Also lots of articles by Western commentators, bloggers and journalists on Russia Today have explained it.
Understand the intended "clash of civilizations" wished for by the elite.

Assad is fighting Isis, Al Qaeda and all the rest in Syria, and rich backers from Western allies funded Isis and there were calls to bomb Syria to help bring about the defeat of Assad.

Galloway had a guest on his show last week who talked about a plan for a de facto independent Kurdish entity etc. The Kurds will be armed in order to combat the threat from Isis, which has been created with the help of rich backers from states that are our allies.

Isis are destabilising the Middle East and are being funded by some rich backers.

Starts at 12:48 into the stream

Whereas the British and US public were against an attack on Syria, while many political leaders were in favour, now it seems that the public is in favour of attacking Isis and finishing off these volunteers and mercenaries and assorted Jihadists and funded fighters, but will the politicians be in favour of it?

"YouGov over the last few days have been tracking how the British public feel about military action against ISIS, the trend is in favour of those who approve of the RAF partaking in action against ISIS."

www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/08/17/will-the-polling-on-intervention-persuade-dave-to-intervene-against-isis/

"Surveys show more Americans believe the US has a responsibility to take action in Iraq than those who supported US intervention in Libya or military action in Syria"

www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-public-offers-support-obamas-iraq-intervention-1452685737#sthash.mNhD9sZn.dpuf

Maliki has been removed and he was backing Assad. Isis will probably begin to move back into Syria in large numbers so that they can continue trying to defeat Assad, which is probably what their rich backers want. Assad has been beating them up to now. But now they have equipped themselves with lots of state of the art weapons so they will probably try to topple Assad once again.

They will also probably be sent into Lebanon in order to try and defeat Shia Hezbollah, which is what their rich backers probably want.

The long game is to weaken the Shia in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon in order to then pressurise Iran.

Everything is linked and Ukraine is linked too. Russia helped prevent Al Qaeda, Isis and all the rest from toppling Assad. So now a coup has been organised in Ukraine and Putin has his hands full there, possibly with the hope that he won't be able to help Assad defeat the mercenaries, Jihadis and assorted beheaders of the funded Isis.

And of course Isis contains Chechen terrorists, the same crowd that was funded by rich backers to take on Russia in Chechnya.

www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/rising-star-isis-has-chechen-background-fierce-reputation-n146466

All events are linked.

Claig …… when ‘the public’ didn’t want Syria’s Assad bombed, shelling ‘rebel’ towns and their innocent people to a pulp, were they also aware how much more misery/lives the Syrian regime had put on their own citizens and outside e.g. the Lebanon, for many years?

If the ISIS objection is a ‘head count’ (no pun intended) than Assad’s Syria has killed and displaced hundreds of thousands more innocent people, so what do you think the ‘people’ want a UK Middle East policy based on, the quantity or barbarity of the innocent deaths?

Do ‘the people’ have a time frame of how many years we will commit our soldiers lives to killing Sunni ISIS members in Sunni lands where western troops boots on ground shooting Muslims becomes an effect recruitment sergeant to the ISIS cause – remembering in Afghanistan, Labour’s Dr Reid said on deployment that our troops could go in and out of Helmand Province WITHOUT firing a shot?

The UK is helping those on the ground a great deal by their humanitarian efforts and technical assistance by providing military intelligence to help Kurds and the regular Iraqi army fight ISIS as per the thanks they just gave enabling them to retake the dam.

Are you aware of any county, or people within that area of the Middle East, that has REQUESTED UK soldiers boots fighting in the region with them, as I’m not.

According to Twitter, the murderer has a British accent (I've not watched the video and have no intention of doing so either.)

Other sources are also saying a 'London' accent.

It's horrific. Awful. I have no words. Not just this beheading, but everything that is happening in the world at the moment. It's terrifying and I'm worried about the future.

'Claig …… when ‘the public’ didn’t want Syria’s Assad bombed, shelling ‘rebel’ towns and their innocent people to a pulp, were they also aware how much more misery/lives the Syrian regime had put on their own citizens and outside e.g. the Lebanon, for many years?'

They heard the BBC news reports but they were against a strike on Syria, just like they were against the war on Iraq by Blair and chums. But nearly everybody wants this ragtag funded group of Jihadists and beheaders called Isis to be finished off. Whether the politicians will be as keen to do that as they were to bomb Syria remains to be seen.

A lot of our military want to intervene and sort out Isis. Even Assad was sorting them out, but there were calls to bomb Assad which would have had the effect of easing up the pressure on Al Qaeda, Isis and all the rest of them.

Isis are nothing like the Taliban, who had lots of support in Afghanistan. The Sunni tribes in Iraq had already chased Al Qaeda and all that lot out once before. They were in Syria with funding, but Assad was beating them. The Sunni tribes can be brought on side to deal with Isis once again and it would not need many Western troops to arm and aid the Iraqi government, the Kurds etc in order to eliminate these volunteers from the UK and funded terrorists from Chechnya and elsewhere, most of whom are not professional fighters.

Everybody knows that the real reason Isis are having success in Iraq is because some of the Sunni generals from Saddam's regime are helping them. There are lots of analysts saying that the Iraqi army stood down and left all their equipment, even though they were better armed and outnumbered the Isis volunteers and beheaders by far.

www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-crisis-saddam-husseins-generals-fighting-jihadist-isis-insurgency-1452365

That would all change if a political agreement was made with the Sunni generals and tribes etc. Humanitarian aid is not enough, the Isis butchers are carrying out atrocities and expelling Christian and Yazidi populations and destabilising the whole region.

If ever there was a case to intervene and put down these volunteers and mercenaries and terrorists, then surely this is it rather than trying to overthrow established governments and leaders like Saddam and Assad, which just ends up creating instability, chaos and catastrophe for the people living in those countries as Jihadis, Al Qaeda etc gain ground among the chaos and destruction as has happened in Libya.

Claig .... so WHY were they and the church against helping the Syrian people, but for others being killed by ISIS it's 'different', because there are reports of shed loads of Christians being killed - is that the foreign policy you want our leaders to follow when putting our soldiers lives at risk?

Re ISIS being 'finished off', since when has any war been won from aircraft whizzing by at several hundred knots an hour? What happens when ISIS wises up and stops flying a black flag on every vehicle and blends into the local population better, do we start risking innocent lives to 'finish off' those doing the same?

Assad was NOT sorting ISIS out recently, as ISIS were killing rebels as well, and knew that when ISIS finished them off, he could plead with the west to help him saying 'who is better running Syria, me or them'.

ISIS have been getting a lot of Sunni support as they hated the Iragi Shia President Maliki who was leaving them and the Kurds to rot - but now they have a unifying geezer called Al-Baddy (or something like that, which don't bode well for the future) as President, that MIGHT change.

Iraq has a huge standing army but the unity issue meant that the president dare not send troops in in case they sympathized or ran, leaving another $1.5 billion of U.S. military hardwear to ISIS.

It is too early to commit British soldiers lives to those who HAVE NOT REQUESTED IT, and before recent political changes at the Iraqi top, filters the 'unity' message to all the people/soldiers in Iraq. IMO.

' so WHY were they and the church against helping the Syrian people, but for others being killed by ISIS it's 'different''

Because the people are not stupid. They wanted the war in Syria and Iraq to end. They didn't want it funded, they didn't want rebels armed and trained in Jordan etc. They didn't want bombing of Syria. They wanted us not to intervene and get involved so that the war would have ended near enough straight away and would not have lasted 3 years with over 170,000 now dead, Syria destroyed and set back economically decades, as the rich Isis backers probably intended, and Isis being strengthened.

'and knew that when ISIS finished them off, he could plead with the west to help him saying 'who is better running Syria, me or them'.

Wise up. What do you think the West would have said? Assad is not that stupid.

"As the Prime Minister began his third holiday of the year, the former head of the Army, Lord Dannatt, said ‘the nation would expect’ Parliament to be recalled.

Lord Dannatt, a former defence adviser to Mr Cameron, said the potential implications of the conflict – which Mr Cameron warned this week could bring ‘mayhem to our streets’ – meant that Britain’s response should be fully debated."

He added: ‘I think MPs and members of the House of Lords will get very frustrated if they stay in recess.

‘People need to have a full debate about it and express their point of view. I think the nation would expect that.’ Mr Cameron has already approved the use of special forces troops in northern Iraq, and British warplanes are conducting reconnaissance missions over large swathes of Iraq as part of an intervention that is expected to last for months.

...

Tory MP Conor Burns said this move alone required parliamentary approval.

He said: ‘We are tiptoeing towards having a policy.

‘We are seeing people be-headed, some people buried alive and even, extraordinarily, crucifixions carried out in Iraq, by ISIS, a group that want to wage a holocaust on those who don’t share their evil and craven outlook on the world.

‘I want Parliament to come back and I want us to hold the Government to account. Why are we not arming the Kurds? Why are we only providing humanitarian aid?’

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729337/Cameron-recall-MPs-Iraq-crisis-says-ex-head-Army-Lord-Dannatt-earlier-warned-returning-Jihadists-bring-mayhem-streets.html

Genral Sir Michael Rose writing in today's Daily Mail. If only we had political leaders like General Sir Michael Rose.

"Amid the rising tide of horror stories coming from Iraq, there seems to be little constructive thought emerging from Western politicians on how to solve the political and humanitarian issues that confront the country.

Like panic-stricken rabbits caught in the headlights, our political leaders do not appear to know which way to go.

The only thing that they do know is that something must be done. But developing a viable, effective strategy against the brutal campaign of the Islamic State has, so far, clearly been beyond their competence.

Although I strongly believe that military intervention must be instigated only as a matter of last resort and I firmly opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I am convinced that there is a powerful moral — and practical — case for intervening now against the Islamic State.

For what we are witnessing is the terrible consequences of the so-called Arab Spring, so naively celebrated by our leaders just a few months ago.

As I have watched and read news reports from this embattled and disintegrating region, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we must intervene to protect the lives of Iraqis and hold back the rising tide of the Islamic State."

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2729438/I-fear-panic-stricken-politicians-leading-bloody-shambles-Iraq-GENERAL-SIR-MICHAEL-ROSE.html

Claig ….. could you please ease up on the ISIS hysteria for one moment, and take in the points I have mentioned in my previous post, that just for a change, you have selectively answered?

WHAT would be our final objective by putting UK troops with their lives at risk , currently not requested by the Iraq government or Kurds - and will AGAIN be seen by some in Iraq and elsewhere as ‘a foreign army from the west of occupation’ – is it to “finish off” ISIS by chasing them from Iraq into where ever else they go e.g. Syria?

If so, as western government/troops thinking they have a mandate to cross any border and potentially kill innocent civilians in their pursuit of a gorilla army that can melt into the Sunni towns whether sympathisers or not, which accounts for up to 40% of the Iraqi population - WILL be a serious recruitment sergeant FOR ISIS as it stirs nationalism, re protecting THEIR home land.

If not, and the objective is to rid Iraq of ISIS, then why deploy the UK and/or U.S. army in force, when there has been SIGNIFICANT changes/developments in the region recent, that are yet to show results?

• Iraq, facing 10,15, 20,000 well drilled ISIS fighters, has a standing army of over 270,000 troops, and similar again in reservists who need to fight for THEIR OWN country – but was seriously weakened by 8-years under Prime Minister Maliki through his non inclusive Shia regime and replacing experienced generals with loyalists to protect his own rear end – but now Maliki has been thrown out, the Sunni’s and Kurds are re-franchised within their own country again.

• The Kurds with an army WITHOUT Shia/Sunni loyalty issues ARE ONLY NOW BEING ARMED with weapons comparable to ISIS, and helped by western intelligence and air power – are already making a difference, without the weapons upgrade.

So believe it or not, THERE IS A POLICY, to greatly help on humanitarian issues and help the Iraqi people who possesses an army (including the Kurds) over three times the size of ours, TO HELP THEMSELVES against up to 15,000 ISIS fighters.

Maybe any trigger happy generals, past and present, should be concentrating on the worlds humanitarian help those displaced and hungry, rather than want show off their military prowess in foreign lands – who in the past always complained about politicians, that there was NOT a final objective that was either given to them early enough, or was ever achievable.

As for the re-call of parliament, based on the recent events and policies in Iraq YET to feed through to results, and our current use of our military that COULD form more of an offensive role if required – do we REALLY needing grandstanding politicians trying to look good, with nothing to really add to the facts on the Iraq ground, producing all that hot air and destroying the ice caps – starting 2-weeks earlier???

Assad is not fighting ISIS, he helped create them as they discourage anti-Assad intervention. See here:
m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/assad-and-the-art-of-the-devils-gambit/374501/

Claig - as someone with family who've had to flee Syria, I find your categorisation of the situation there and your cherry-picking of facts, absolutely obscene.

IpityThePontipines ..... further to my post re clarifying any achievable western military objectives before deployment, do you have any thoughts IF the joint Iraqi and western objective was 'just' to reduce the ISIS numbers in Iraq and force them back into Syria e.g. the people of Syria would appreciate (or not) western troops/helicopter gun ships fighting ISIS on Syrian soil?

I find the war in Syria obscene - the fact that 170,000 people are already dead and tens of thousands injured and millions displaced and teh fact that rich backers in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia etc fund butchers like Isis to help try and overthrow Assad who prevents Syrian Christians and others being massacred by a bunch of funded mercenaries.

I find Isis obscene and wonder why the rich backers and funders have not been stopped from destabilising the entire Middle East to suit the interests of some rich backers who stand to gain by the Shia being weakened and bya planned Sunni/Shia clash which is intended to weaken and destroy many Arab nations.

'Assad is not fighting ISIS, he helped create them as they discourage anti-Assad intervention'

Assad did not help create Isis. He didn't fund them, he didn't train them. They are opposed to him and the rest of the Shia Muslims. The funders and backers created them.

The only thing that stopped anti-Assad intervention is the public - the British and American public and many of our leading military who were against bombing Syria while many of our politicians argued that we should do it.

Claig .... again iffy on the facts, Miliband was the only thing that stopped UK and U.S. military action in Syria, as Cameron had requested parliamentary permission to be allowed to take out Assad's war machine as easily identified when pounding Syrian opposition villages into the ground - which Miliband gave verbally, but then changed his mind in parliament.

The 'democratic' refusal in the UK parliament, gave Obama an excuse not to act, so Syrian people, so close to reaching Assad and ending the war, were let down by Miliband listening to very fickle UK public opinion on which war we get involved in - from which the government is meant to derive a Middle East Policy from.

How many more Syrians were killed and displaced by Assad, with a well proven record of murdering innocents, since that parliamentary vote???

The public are not stupid. They are starting to ask why Isis is not being stopped - people who behead opponents and displace tens of thousands of Yazidis and Christians and burn down churches and homes etc. Why is Assad seen as such an enemy that we were about to bomb Syria, but Isis, who are trying to overthrow Assad, is not seen as such a threat?

Even our top former military leaders are saying that we should intervene to stop the spread of Isis. Many of them are the same ones who opposed the politicians' proposed strike on Syria.

People are starting to ask who is funding Isis, who funded and created them and for what purpose.

"If the West is serious about defeating Isil, a deal with Assad is unavoidable

by Atul Hatwal

I recall speaking to Syrian friend last summer about the impending parliamentary vote on military intervention.

He had been one of his country’s leading surgeons, and a classical musician, appearing regularly on national TV. Until his dissent against President Assad had become a little too public. Imprisonment and torture by Assad’s secret police were followed by a lucky escape, both from Assad’s jail and a country degenerating into civil war, to seek asylum in Britain.

I’d expected him to be supportive of action against the regime. After all, it had taken everything from him and his family.

But all I found was despondency and, on balance, opposition to military action.

By this time last year, the primary threat to Syria was no longer President Assad. It was the rise of the Islamist militias and the collapse of secular centre in the opposition. We could bomb Assad. We could send him a bouquet of flowers. Both would have been equally relevant to the suffering of the Syrian people.

In summer 2013, the reality of life in Syria was that it was more dangerous to live in territory controlled by the Islamist militias than Assad.

The discussion that my friend saw unfolding in this country was facile and pointless. The knee-jerk opposition of much of the left to any intervention that involved the Americans – who, by coincidence are also the only country that can mount any meaningful humanitarian or military intervention – was borderline offensive.

Yet the position of the interventionists, although motivated by good intentions, was barely better informed.

Targeting President Assad’s military infrastructure with some limited bombing might have made the hawks in London and Washington feel happier, but it wouldn’t have helped Syrians living under Isil, the Al Nusra Front, the Syrian Islamic Front or any one of the other dozen or so, hardcore jihadi groups.

And if this potential action had materially degraded the Syrian regime’s military capability, the threat of advances by the Islamist militias would have been all the greater."

labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/08/19/if-the-west-is-serious-about-defeating-isil-a-deal-with-assad-is-unavoidable/

Claig …. The Syrian people can clearly thank Mr Miliband and the British public for their ‘selective’ decisions on where we bomb in the Middle East – hence the need to think what we are trying to achieve now with ISIS, rather than get charge around (or not) due to public opinion when arguably THIS TIME, the people within Iraq, when better organised after recent events, can better help themselves than the Syrian rebels we abandoned thanks to politicking.

UN: 9 million Syrians now displaced as conflict ticks into fourth year

america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/14/syriaa-s-forciblydisplacedtop9million.html

The west woke up too late on ISIS atrocities probably because of Hamas demanding the worlds attention for their long term aims, but ranting about stopping ISIS backers (how?) and throwing UK troops into an area like Afghanistan, where they could be shot where they slept, as who is to know which Sunni is an allie and which is an enemy, serves no current purpose – when Iraqi’s have 270,000 troops and the U.S. and America have stopped the ISIS rot in its tracks.

'which Miliband gave verbally, but then changed his mind in parliament'

Why do you think Miliband changed his mind ?

The public and military voices have an an influence over the hawks.

'The west woke up too late on ISIS atrocities'

Of course they didn't. Isis are stuffed full of Al Qaeda types. Everybody knew what they were all about while the rich backers funded them. Those backers could have been stopped because they are from countries that are our allies.

'but ranting about stopping ISIS backers (how?)'

By imposing sanctions on any government which turns a blind eye to the funding of these butchers and terrorists.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html