Elsewhere in the Middle East

[LouiseBrooks]

I defy anyone to watch this Iraqi MP without weeping.

Claig ….. every one of the thousand quotes you use according to you “knows a lot about it”, but please correct me if I’m wrong, it was/is THE SYRIAN PEOPLE that are rebelling, not Jihadists that joined later that wanted 'Arab Spring' change, and the west provided little help.

So is his point that IF Cameron would have been allowed by parliament TO TAKE OUT Syrian planes, helicopter gun ships, tanks and artillery pounding Syrian towns to bits – there would have been MORE than 191,000 deaths and over 9 million Syrians displaced????

As to a logical mind, if you take out a dictator MEANS to kill and displace Syrian people, that dictator either looks for peace/democracy, or leaves town. Don’t forget the ‘reason’ Blair/Bush invaded Iraq was the Alastair Campbell department Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier, made up from the internet – and if Saddam had given the west unrestricted access to find WHAT WAS NOT THERE, there would not, nay could not, have been an invasion of Iraq.

Syria’s Assad is still there as he CONTINUE’S to have historic Russian support, via Mr Putin your Mr Farage so admired – so no doubt in my mind, any Ukip MP

under Farage would be urging any P.M. to surrender to Russia, or any of their regional playmates.

Re my last post you selectively address, do you NOW understand that:

If a P.M. or President is on holiday, his government, army or their prep plans, do not stand still without him being there?

If a military operation is well planned before hand, rather than AGAIN send our troops in like Lemmings against a radical and well armed guerrilla/mobile army on their turf e.g. Afghanistan, it needlessly costs BRITISH lives?

If for financial reasons our army HAD to be reduced, whether it was possible for the Pope (with his own Vatican army), the media, or the people to ‘snap their fingers’ and expect thousands of boots on a ground they are yet to be invited onto, logistically it aint going to happen for many weeks – hence the need for the 270,000 Iraqi army + Kurdish army, do their very best for now, to protect their OWN country/people?

"it was/is THE SYRIAN PEOPLE that are rebelling"

No, most of them are living in refugee camps or sheltering from bombs from Assad's side or from rockets from the Jihadis and all the rest of them who are taking over their towns.

Regime change has been started against Assad. Someone in a plush chair in a warm office decided that Assad's position was untenable and that no "process of change" would leave him intact. It wasn't Blair, he is just a marionette.

"His position is untenable. There is no process of change that leaves him intact"

As the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia said

"he doubted that the liberal interventionists and neoconservatives who had pursued regime change in Syria were capable of reversing course.To do so would require them to admit that they bore considerable responsibility for legitimising pointless violence that has resulted in the deaths of 190,000 Syrians"

"So is his point that IF Cameron would have been allowed by parliament TO TAKE OUT Syrian planes, helicopter gun ships, tanks and artillery pounding Syrian towns to bits – there would have been MORE than 191,000 deaths and over 9 million Syrians displaced????"

No because an attack on Syria risked WWIII which is why the British public stopped it in its tracks in spite of the arguments for it by the modernisers.

'if Saddam had given the west unrestricted access to find WHAT WAS NOT THERE, there would not, nay could not, have been an invasion of Iraq'

It was about regime change just like it is with Assad

"His position is untenable. There is no process of change that leaves him intact"

Any old excuse would have been found to carry it out if weapons of mass destruction could not be used.

'If a P.M. or President is on holiday, his government, army or their prep plans, do not stand still without him being there?'

Of course everything doesn't stop because Cameron uses a surfboard to surf the waves, but it is about PR, about image, about sending a message about what is considered important.

As our highest paid and one of our leading political commentators, Richard Littlejohn, wrote in our leading newspaper, the Daily Mail

"Crisis over. Everyone back on the beach!"

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2731338/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Crisis-everybody-beach.html

Remember this report in the Independent about Bush and Blair. When regime change is decided upon, when someone's position becomes untenable, then there is no "process of change" that will leave him intact.

"Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane'

George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.

The two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

He added: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated." The memo damningly suggests the decision to invade Iraq had already been made when Mr Blair and the US President met in Washington on 31 January 2003 ­ when the British Government was still working on obtaining a second UN resolution to legitimise the conflict.

The leaders discussed the prospects for a second resolution, but Mr Bush said: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway." He added that he had a date, 10 March, pencilled in for the start of military action. The war actually began on 20 March."

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-plotted-to-lure-saddam-into-war-with-fake-un-plane-465436.html

Claig ….. I realise that when you get an opinion, you don’t let facts get in the way, but Assad’s position IS untenable, as when a regimes tanks fire on protesters or he uses nerve gas, Assad will never be able to re-unite his country – so why can’t you understand the FACTS , and stop hiding between other people’s quotes, often equally as selective or mis informed as yourself???

“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.”

Re Cameron’s holiday and ‘message’ you and other’s like Littlejohn, searching for a headline, thinks he needs to send, but to whom, ISIS?

Frankly I don’t care if Robin Hood himself thinks a PM will all the domestic, foreign and EU shit he has had to sort out in 4-5 years don’t deserve a holiday - and needs to pose in a ‘do something, anything’ kinda way and give press conferences in London saying ‘no new news’ – he will still be very busy now sorting ‘stuff’ out right up to the General Election next May, so deserves No.10 ‘away time’ with his family. IMO.

Clearly if you and others realised the other points I’ve made of what any British P.M. can do at this moment in time, as militarily and logistically unable to ‘finger snap’ a solution and teleport it to Iraq, they might find something more interesting/productive to write.

Sky News reported that the Turkmen Shia have been besieged for two months by the funded gang of Jihadis called Isis.

Also Maliki asked the US for air strikes aginst the jihadists over 2 months ago.

So, all of this has been going on for quite some time now.

"Baghdad requests US air strikes against Sunni militants.

Iraq has formally called on the US to launch air strikes against jihadist militants who have seized several key cities over the past week.

"We have a request from the Iraqi government for air power," confirmed top US military commander Gen Martin Dempsey in front of US senators."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27905849

Did you see the same Sky report as me that said the Iraqi airforce had tried air power to help relieve the Turkman Shia Amerli, and the Iraqi army had tried to to get to it my ground, but the surrounding Sunni villages 'wouldn't let them'.

'Would not let them', w-hat????

If you've got a 270,000 standing army and similar reserves, you send enough of your own troops to 'kin make them let you through - or would you rather we have British casualties, doing what 270,000 can't?

The American already did numerous bombing runs to help the Kurds AGAINST the ISIS Jihadists, they can't be all over the country with the resources they have, as REMBER the Iraqi's asked them to leave - what is your point????

P.S. If you're gonna use links re events today, please find one more up to date then June 2014.

P.P.S. Don't feel the need to respond within minutes, feel free to take your time.

''Would not let them', w-hat????'

Yes the Sunni villages said they would attack anyone going through their villages to aid the Turkmen. The Iraqi state has no real airforce, just helicopters etc. Apparently they paid for US aircraft but they have not yet been delivered and the Iraqis had to buy some Russian planes from Putin at the last minute.

'or would you rather we have British casualties, doing what 270,000 can't?'

Not sure why the Iraqi Shia are not reacting but it may possibly be that they are wary of starting a civil war with the Sunnis in Sunni areas when they know that Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and some of the rich Sunni funders of Isis are in general anti-Shia and pro-Sunni.

I don't think we need British forces. As Pat Buchanan, a real conservative not a moderniser, said, the Turks could sort out Isis. Also all their backing and funding could be terminated and Sunni chiefs could be brought back on side and paid (as they have often been paid off before) to do what the West wants. All it needs is the will and a green light and Turkey can do the job. But will they and do they want to? After all

"the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has kept Turkey’s 550-mile border with Syria open, giving the jihadists, including Isis, a safe haven over the last three years. The Turks are now saying Isis is no longer welcome, but Ankara has not moved seriously to close the border by deploying troops in large numbers."

'P.S. If you're gonna use links re events today, please find one more up to date then June 2014.'

I used the June 2014 link to show that Maliki, now removed from government, had asked the US for air strikes against the assorted crew of Jihadists two months ago, in June.

The Iraqi airforce helicopters, if the gunship type, can be more effective in a tight battlefield situation that planes – and remember, even when Iraq get planes (that had the possibility of falling into Iranian hands), there will be a lot of training of pilots/ground crew to be done.

BTW this was the Turkish response on the 8th August, pre stepping down of Shia Iraqi PM Malilki; and now he has stepped down and the Sunnis happier bunnies, it appears that Turkey like everyone else, expects more from the Iraqi army.

“Turkey boosts aid to north Iraq, unlikely to use force against militants"
www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/08/us-iraq-security-turkey-idUSKBN0G81KH20140808

Clearly Turkey COULD now become part of an international effort to get rid of ISIS, but their main contribution could be as a NATO allie allowing others to use their air bases etc.

Re your link, we KNOW Maliki asked for all sorts to prop up his divisive 8-year time in office, but as Shia Maliki was a major part of the Iraqi Sunni gripes, Obama would have been right not to act as Malikis ‘Joey’ – providing air muscle on demand, against Sunnis sporting black, which would have stirred religious and nationalist feelings in more moderate Sunnis, to join ISIS.

It just makes you think that if Al-Maliki would have done the right thing and step down sooner, the situation wouldn't have got so bad.

'the situation wouldn't have got so bad'

You don't get it. It's the same old script - regime change. Maliki's position was untenable. There was no "process of change" that could leave him intact.

"The saga of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, currently approaching its denouement in Iraq, is a recurring theme in American foreign policy. Eight years ago, the United States worked to install Mr. Maliki as prime minister of Iraq in place of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who was said to favor fellow Shiites over Sunnis or Kurds in the government. Today, Mr. Maliki is blamed for the same thing, and the resulting disunity is believed to be partly responsible for the ease with which jihadists are romping through Iraq ."

www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/opinion/maliki-and-the-futility-of-regime-change.html?_r=0

The governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are very loudly blaming the “sectarian and exclusionary policies” of Nouri al-Maliki for the violence in Iraq. They’re not wrong, but this also deflects from an issue they’d rather not discuss—the role of wealthy funders in the Gulf in helping ISIS rise to prominence.

Qatar has officially stopped giving aid to more radical groups under U.S. pressure, and Saudi Arabia has also backed off its support of the rebels, a process the culminated in the removal of spy chief and Syria point man Prince Bandar bin Sultan earlier this year, but private donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states—notably Kuwait—have likely continued."

www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/06/16/the_saudis_helped_create_a_monster_they_can_t_control_in_iraq.html

Isis have been funded and backed by rich Sunni backers.

Claig ….. I DO get it, remember we supported Saddam’s Iraq versus Iran, it’s called a big Sunni –Shia picture, I suggest that you are not seeing it, assuming Saudi Arabia and Qatar have an option NOT to fund A Sunni military force, of sorts.

Shia Iran is stirring Shia problems in Bahrain, with a Causeway Bridge to Sunni Saudi Arabia.

Shia Iran were getting too close to a Shia Al-Maliki in Iraq, with the probability of Iraqi Sunni’s getting further marginalized/killed.

Shia (Alawite) Syria with a Sunni majority contolled Shia Hezbollah, controlling Lebanon, with the help of Shia Iran.

Sunni Saudi Arabia & others are seeing a Shia wall of influence getting ever stronger, over an ever wider area, and DIRECTLY threatening them via Bahrain etc - and the west, refusing to help the mainly Sunni people’s uprising in Syria, where Sunni people in peaceful protests and in Sunni towns, get massacred via Shia offshoot Assad/Syria, but do NOTHING.

So clearly they (the Sunnis) needed to do something about it, but never directly for fears of domestic repercussions, but in doing so, have created an ISIS monster, but it is still THEIR monster as the Syrian and Iran pair in the ‘axis of evil’ (which also includes North Korea, helping Shia Hezbollah and Sunni Hamas) remain strong, but at least Iraq look to be coming back from ‘the Dark Side’.

Now tell me WHAT in this complete political horrox called the Middle East I haven’t got, and that you understand that allowing Shia aggression, that could soon have a nuclear bomb in Iran, (for the Sunnis) cannot go unchecked.

So if the west HAD been allowed to take out Syria's war machine and help protect the Sunni people in Syria 3-4 years ago, and Iraq's Shia Maliki had been more inclusive to the Iraqi Sunnis - they'd have been no need for a Sunni ISIS, needing to form a safe Sunni Caliphate, which appears to have morphed into religious fundamentalist nuts. IMO.

P.S. Add to above web Shia Iran, that ALSO supports Sunni Hamas, has the attention of Israel.

”Iran shoots down ‘Israeli drone’ at nuclear site”
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-shoots-down-israeli-drone-at-nuclear-site-9688359.html

'Now tell me WHAT in this complete political horrox called the Middle East I haven’t got'

The whole lot.

The whole thing is aimed to weaken both sides - Sunni and Shia - to destabilise the countries which have oil so that national governments lose control and influence of it due to clashes between competing Jihadist movements who carry out barbaric acts which necessarily lead to conflict in the region.

It is the same old script - divide and conquer.

There is no "process of change" that leaves the region intact.

Iraq is untenable. There is no "process of change" that leaves Iraq intact.

The Sykes-Picot borders will be scrapped, but politicians will claim otherwise.
"De facto" independent Sunni, Kurdish and Shia regions will be created and the national Iraqi government will not be able to exert power in Sunni or Kurdish areas. If they try , then their position will become untenable and there will be no "process of change" that will leave them intact. Everyone will be played off against each other and rich backers will fund Jihadis who make sure that unity national government is impossible.

Libya will be destroyed, Syria will be destroyed and the whole region will be controlled.

It's called regime change.

Yanukovych's position was untenable. There was no process of change that could leave him intact.

And of course, the big one is next

Putin's position is untenable. There is no process of change that can leave him intact.

Claig ….. re your following;
”The whole thing is aimed to weaken both sides - Sunni and Shia - to destabilise the countries which have oil so that national governments lose control and influence of it due to clashes between competing Jihadist movements who carry out barbaric acts which necessarily lead to conflict in the region.”

The “whole thing” IS Shia versus Sunni, as whether the west was still very fragile coming out of the worst recession in 100-years or not, no one needs oil up at $147 a barrel again - and in case you haven’t noticed – countries with governments split by (un)civil or any other war, are NOT effective oil producers.

The negative influences of Iran remains constant, the Syrian conflict left alone by the west has festered into a Shia vs Sunni creation of ISIS. and the west have ‘encouraged’ the Iraqi government to be more Shia/Sunni/Kurd inclusive for the first time since god knows when, certainly before the Sunni minority regime of Saddam.

The political improvement in Iraq is just weeks old so far too early to assume Iraq will split, the destroying of ISIS will leave your, Farage’s and Putin’s mate Assad STILL in control in Syria killing Sunnis – so the current medium term outlook is looking stability brighter for several years.

So after all that, you still don't get it!

Very good interview on BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning where the BBC gave some time for a Syrian government representative to express some points. Good to see the BBC beginning to show the other side of the story as opposed to the usual cast of Jihadis that are so often interviewed.

She said it is not about removing Assad, it is about destruction, just as it was not about removing Saddam and not about removing Gaddafi, but was about destruction in those cases too.

Principle is untenable. There is no process of change that can leave principle intact.

But one statesman said "No"

Here he is explaining the issues to a room full of assorted apparatchiks, socialists, progressives and modernisers.

Claig ..... I give you FACTS, you give me OPINIONS of people that MAYBE don't understand the facts, or as we find, are anti western no matter WHAT we do - hence a new invasion of a western army in Northern has to be thought out, as we know some duffus will say now or being interviewed by the BBC at a later date, 'it was a western plot', if it don't go to plan.

For you to say that the FACT virtually every conflict boils down to Sunni versus Shia, often bubbling up resentment for decades where dictators, often running minority sect regimes, was all the wests fault is crazy - these people would have died oneday and the majorities would have risen, hence called 'The Arab Spring'.

*Most of these dictators (past and present) living with multi ethnic populations need to find BALANCE, alternatively they rule by fear that will ONE DAY bite them on the ass.

Do you at least now understand Syria's uprising was popular, by the people of a majority being oppressed by a very sizeible minority, but in putting it down with tanks and nerve gas, it escalated?

Did you listen to the statesman, did you read what a real conservative like Pat Buchanan said?

Did you not read what Blair said about the "process of change" that his bosses informed him about and what the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia said about the "neocons and the liberal interventionists"?

Don't you understand that all the puppets in the EU Parliament do as they are told and only Farage is independent?

Don't you get it?

"Mr Freeman says that he doubted that the liberal interventionists and neoconservatives who had pursued regime change in Syria were capable of reversing course. To do so would require them to admit that they bore considerable responsibility for legitimising pointless violence that has resulted in the deaths of 190,000 Syrians"

Don't you care about pointless violence , destruction, unnecessary suffering and death?

Don't you understand that it wasn't the Syrian people who rose against Assad but it was a policy of regime change by outside interventionists

"the liberal interventionists and neoconservatives who had pursued regime change in Syria"

who stoked the flames, trained the fighters and provided the arms and funding.

Didn't you listen to BBC Radio 4 Today's programme today where a BBC reporter on the ground in Raqaa actually spelt it out that he has been told by the rebels that they now actually prefer the regime to Isis and the rest of the butchers because the regime is the lesser evil.

Have you not seen the depravity and barbarity of this funded gang of mercenaries that destabilise the entire Middle East for the advantage of the rich backers who fund, supply and sustain them?

Don't you understand that Isis and the London rapper DJs have nothing to do with Islam and have been funded by rich backers to tarnish the image of Islam across the world in order to undermine the countries and peoples of the region?

"The top Islamic authority in Egypt, revered by many Muslims worldwide, launched an Internet-based campaign Sunday challenging an extremist group in Syria and Iraq by saying it should not be called an “Islamic State.”

The campaign by the Dar el-Ifta, the top authority that advises Muslims on spiritual and life issues, adds to the war of words by Muslim leaders across the world targeting the Islamic State group, which controls wide swaths of Iraq and Syria. Its violent attacks, including mass shootings, destroying Shiite shrines, targeting minorities and beheadings including American journalist James Foley, have shocked Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shawki Allam, previously said the extremists violate all Islamic principles and laws and described the group as a danger to Islam as a whole. Now, the Dar el-Ifta he oversees will suggest foreign media drop using “Islamic State” in favor of the “al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria,” or the acronym “QSIS,” said Ibrahim Negm, an adviser to the mufti.

This is part of a campaign that “aims to correct the image of Islam that has been tarnished in the West because of these criminal acts, and to exonerate humanity from such crimes that defy natural instincts and spreads hate between people,” Negm said according to Egypt’s state news agency MENA. “We also want to reaffirm that all Muslims are against these practices which violate the tolerant principles of Islam.”

www.theepochtimes.com/n3/907145-islamic-authority-in-egypt-launched-campaign-challenging-isis/?sidebar=todaysheadline

Don't you even understand that the term "Islamic State" for these butchers and mercenaries is a total joke and that those who have come up with it are laughing up their sleeves as they denigrate Islam and Muslims worldwide in order to undermine the religion and the region.

After all you have seen, don't you get it yet?

Claig ... you had the same 'kin quotes/opinions on the PREVIOUS page, I'm sure I might have answered, and while big terms like 'neoconservatives' might impress you, THE FACTS speak for themselves.

And even if Sunni/Shia 'strings' are being pulled by other Sunnis or Shiites, with Saudi Arabia and Iran in the frame, that is their affair as Islam is stateless, the two main branches are stateless - so once ISIS is tackled/weakened, it won't go away and the west has no power to STOP the Islamic divisions, so it will 're-balance'.

Meanwhile Iran and the Shia (including Syria) will still look to expand their influence against Sunnis.

'that is their affair'

Don't you understand that it is not their affair and that if it was just their affair then there would not be this destruction?

They did not topple Saddam, it was Bush and Blair who did it. They did not topple Gaddafi, the West did and Hilary said "we came, we saw, he died"

If it was their affair then why did the marionette say about Assad

"His position is untenable. There is no process of change that leaves him intact."

If it was just their affair, then there would not be this destruction, death and suffering.