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.

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)

I broadly agree with Snowbells. However, I think the above is a very telling remark. People generally seem to believe that all of Africa (especially black Africa) is like this, that it is normal and inevitable. It is a convenient view, because it means that intervention is essentially wasted effort, right?

It isn't true though. Nigeria-last at war 1973, improving economically. Botswana- not at war at all in modern times, so far as I know. South Africa-intervened in 1970s-1980s wars in Namibia and Angola through the auspices of the minority government. No wars under majority government, I don't think. Ghana-no wars since they finally lost to the British in 1883 and were made a colony. A functioning democracy, making rapid strides economically. Mozambique-civil war ended in 1980s, has made great strides since then.

Senegal, Burkina, Benin, Togo: political instability but no wars.

And notice how many of the wars that have occurred have been against colonising forces, or come out of problems left by colonialism.

I'm the last person to deny the dreadful and brutal wars that have taken place in Africa, or to place all the blame at the door of the West, but please let us not suggest or accept that all of Africa is a mess or that war in Africa is normal or inevitable.

P.S. Remember under the Sunni-Shia sectarian struggle going back many centuries, if Sunni, you don't have to have been barrel bombed or shot at to date, to ever feel secure in Syria - under a Alawite (Shia) government with a main supporter Shia Iran now given Sunni 'open season' rights by the West - fighting ISIS.

Ooops killed the wrong Sunnis, my bad.

claig, I'm not sure we need to ask, since the support/resistance breaks down very largely on sectarian lines (Shia for, Sunni against).

My guess is that if Germany ends the funded and backed Jihadist war and if the UN rebuilds Syria, then most Syrians will return to Syria under Assad or his regime.

'It is a convenient view, because it means that intervention is essentially wasted effort, right?'

I think it really has the patronising colonial self-interest view that the West needs to intervene to sort it out, which of course it doesn't but it suits the self-interest of the money men.

................and Germany as the largest country within an EU trying to get away from the reliance on Russian oil/gas has WHAT power over the Gulf States individuals that initially funded ISIS, but now with oil it sits on and having looted everything from the Iraqi central bank gold/cash to every citizen it finds, is financially self sufficient?

The main PROBLEM is an Assad government 'the people' cannot trust to turn against them now, or at any time in the future.

Germany doesn't care where it gets its oil/gas from. Germany is being set up.

'WHAT power over the Gulf States individuals that initially funded ISIS'

Germany has power over the entire EU. If Germany says "enough is enough", then the friends of the backers of teh Jihadists will tell them to stop backing them and it will all be over. Merkel is now under pressure politically and some European countries are not helping the Germans and not doing their fair share. The German people won't accept this for long and then Merkel will have to tell everyone that the war must stop and then it will.

'The main PROBLEM is an Assad government 'the people' cannot trust to turn against them '

That is what the BBC might say, but let's see what they say when a deal is done.

'Germany controls the Gulf States and their rich individuals', what hubbly bubbly are you on??

The BBC have not been on the end of the Assad forces for 4-years, which is why a deal cannot be done that INVOLVES 'the people' within Syria, which is rather key to them STAYING PUT, and/or GOING BACK.

''Germany controls the Gulf States and their rich individuals', what hubbly bubbly are you on??'

Those people do as they are told. Germany has enough influence to get its way if it decides to and when the German people start to have enough then their politicians will act quickly to end the war or they will lose their seats in government.

Very good article by MP, and former military man, Crispin Blunt in the Telegraph. If anyone listens to Blunt, then it looks like our policy on Syria may change at last. Fredrick Forsyth said that Assad won back in 2013. Better late than never to change policy and do a deal and stop the suffering of millions of people. Shameful that it is partially to do with the self interest of European politicians worried about the European public due to what looks like total incompetence in trying to handle the refugee crisis, but that is what they are like.

!Removing Assad is not the solution to Syria crisis, senior Tory says
...
We need Ankara, Riyadh, and Tehran, with the support of both Washington and Moscow, to come to an agreement on the future of Syria that is rooted in the realities on the ground and the essential interests of all stakeholders.

Therefore, before we engage in multilateral diplomacy, Britain??s Parliament and Government must find the courage to have a frank conversation about the future of Bashar al-Assad. We developed our stance on Assad??s removal at the height of the Arab Spring in 2011 and the seeming strength of the popular movement to unseat him.

Our stance encouraged the defiance and the formation of the Free Syrian Army, which failed to topple a regime stronger and more implacable than we had allowed for. Uncomfortably, the regime also enjoyed support from Syria??s minorities as well as the more secular Sunni establishment, all of whom look to the regime for protection from the more fundamentalist forces of revolutionary Islam.
...
We now face the late 2015 reality that neither the force of our will nor the military insurgency has been enough to dictate terms on the Ba??thist regime. As the Foreign Secretary recently acknowledged, training and equipping Free Syrian forces is proving a painstaking process. With the numbers trained so pitifully low, this hardly constitutes a policy certain of success.

The regime may be bleeding to death, but this is still highly uncertain, and it has bled very slowly and at vast cost to the people of Syria. Demanding his removal is not the only way to conduct a values-based foreign policy. We already have to confront the accusations of having abandoned morality with our wholly compromised position over Egypt.

Demanding Assad??s removal, without recognising the complexities, is not the best way to conduct foreign policy. Assad has so far survived the challenge of both the Free Syrian Army supported by the liberal democracies, and the Islamist based movements, such as the Nusra Front.

It is time to acknowledge that among our priorities and values is the protection of human security through a political solution that ends the violence, even if it creates some difficult moral dilemmas."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11846742/Removing-Assad-is-not-the-solution-to-Syria-crisis-senior-Tory-says.html

They are not all useless, they are not all metropolitan. There are some good ones among them - not as good as Corbyn or Farage, but one can't have everything.

You can see that the BBC are now changing their reporting on Syria. Radio 4 reporting from within Assad's area of Syria, talking about secular Syria, women with bathing suits and children on the beach etc. The elite have probably told them to change the record because the elite will now have to do a deal and they need to explain to the public why they are about to do it with Assad.

Claig ??.. I reiterate my view so agree with Conservative MP Crispin Blunt in that the West should not DEPOSE President Assad, but the ??moral dilemma?? Mr Blunt mentions, is a typical western superpower style quick fix solution ?? and feck ??the people?? within.

And maybe it would have helped if some of his army career would have been stationed in the Middle East, as it is very clear spending time there, their ??logic?? does not revolve around western interests and will speak out in no uncertain terms ?? often mentioning things a casual outsider had no knowledge off.

So I repeat my earlier point, that President Assad has let a Syrian Sunni citizen genie out of the bottle that CANNOT go back in again, as whether Assad??s own forces are STILL murdering his own Sunni citizens in their homes, or the 130,000 ??dogs of war?? bought by Iran are killing on Assad??s behalf ?? the problem in Syria for its citizens goes way back further than early 2011 when they were murdered by Assad when peacefully protesting.

??Iran Pays Afghans to Fight for Assad??
www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304908304579564161508613846

The current President Assad, Bashar (or ??basher?? to his 75% Sunni Syrian population) has ruled from 2000, and his father Hafez Assad, from 1970 before him.

So ??Lets Meet the Assads??.

Human Rights in Syria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

"The situation for human rights in Syria is considered exceptionally poor among international observers.[1][2] A state of emergency was in effect from 1963 until April 2011, giving security forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention.[2]??

"Syria is a multi-party state. The authorities has been accused of harassing and imprisoning human rights activists and other critics of the government.[3] Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.[2][3]"

"According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria??s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011 uprising.[6]??

With Syria??s Human Rights record pre 2011 under TWO Assad??s over 45-years (with no change from 2000 under the current one), a Syrian President supported by Iran and Russia to this day still trying to murder/displace his own citizens, is it any wonder that the Syrian people ??genie?? are flocking to another continent??s ??bottle??, for a better life?

The west, Russia and Iran are deluding themselves if they believe trying to get those 12 million displaced Syrian citizens, 4 million of which are outside Syria, to permanently trust and settle again UNDER President Assad, is possible ?? UNLESS under the iron grip of a dictator ?? which won??t matter a jot to Iran and Russia as that??s how their leaders roll, but will those with the prospects of a new life outside, why should Syrian citizens risk it with their lives???

claig .. so tell me, for someone posting on British politics, believing passionately that the UK establishment should be 'rocked' by a UKIP under Farage cheekie chappy that would like to destroy the EU, or a Labour Party under a dour vested Corbyn who would take us back to 1970/80s when many thought that the Kremlin not Westminster was the social answer for the UK - what first attracted you to President Assad, his openness to change and families Human Rights record?

Or does Assad have a PR voting system you champion here rather than the FPTP that you see as undemocratic and HAS to change?

I'm not seeing the consistency here - unless your real name was (anti UK, anti EU, pro Syrian) Putin.

'I'm not seeing the consistency here'

That doesn't surprise me. You need to do a basic Politics 101 course at a Sixth Form College before trying to understand the complexities of politics and the words and wisdom of Farage.

Of course, that is only if the Sixth Form College will admit you as a student. It depends if you meet their basic educational standards and pass their entrance thresholds, and from the evidence on these boards, that does appear very doubtful indeed.

Claig ... Well I'd rather be a political dumb-shite with MY views, than be a self proclaimed democracy warrior (hypocrite), with yours.

The fact is Syria cannot remain as a country with enough of a semblance of internal security and human rights to KEEP those remaining citizens in, never mind have any Syrians return, until Assad has gone - based on his own actions and inactions.

There is a huge difference between deposing a dictator with the blood of tens of thousands on his hands getting weaker each month, and SUPPORTING a dictator with his families record in power.

'Well I'd rather be a political dumb-shite with MY views'

Have you not heard of "aspiration", can you not aspire to understand what is going on and what Farage is saying?

Claig ... don't try to deflect with a Farage debate, I just listened to Farage talking in the European Parliament on encouraging those in Syria's to travel and clearly agree with him (and Cameron who says the same) - the problem is to expect ANY Syrian to feel safe in their own country under Assad that YOU believe can be the ongoing solution - what has Farage said on that?

'what has Farage said on that?'

I don't know. I haven't heard anything that he has said about it.

'and Cameron who says the same'

Cameron is always trying to catch up with Farage. What's new?

Cameron as PM has to have an opinion/policy on everything, Farage just 'pick 'n mixes' for headlines - there is a difference - and Cameron has not changed his mind on Assad, ISIS, or the acceptance of more refugees than we can settle that have already travelled to Europe.

So, I repeat, what does Farage say about Assad staying in power, or is he waiting for Syrian developments to criticise, an election, or just a place to grandstand?

Claig ... then explain why YOU believe Syrians should trust Assad based on his families record?

'explain why YOU believe Syrians should trust Assad based on his families record?'

I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood will like Assad but I believe that if a deal is done and Europe and the United Nations provide finance to rebuild Syria after the funded and backed Jihadist war against Assad, then the majority of Syrian refugees will be able to return and live as they did before the 2011 uprising started and Syria can return to growth and prosperity in a secular society where all faiths are protected and Isis and Jihadi fanatics no longer threaten people or humanity's historical monuments and artifacts.

Guardian article from just over 3 years ago.

"Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media

Jonathan Steele

Suppose a respectable opinion poll found that most Syrians are in favour of Bashar al-Assad remaining as president, would that not be major news? Especially as the finding would go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis, and the media considers the unexpected more newsworthy than the obvious.

Alas, not in every case. When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad ?? the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene ?? so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda