And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
The majority of migrants who have entered the EU are not from Syria and are economic migrants from places such as the Balkans so how will millions be deported back to Syria? It is people like you who have attempted to shut down and muddy the debate by repeating complete untruths.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
Indeed.
There's a lot of complacency about the "they've lost" comments we will read and hear so much.
Indeed. As MD said earlier, who won in the battle between Rome and the barbarians in the end? Or, for that matter, between the New Rome and the Caliphate?
I do sometimes wonder if Western Europeans today are in a similar position to Western Europeans in about 400 AD.
Exactly what I said last night at 1.05am:
"There's nothing to say that Western democracy will inevitably triumph worldwide, nor that what we have at the moment is permanent either.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm experiencing the equivalent of the Fall of Rome - of the modern age - in slow motion."
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
This would an understandable (if misguided) utterance were it made 25 years ago. But you've already got your wish. It's happened. Saddam has gone. Gadaffi has gone. Half of Assad's country is overrun with Islamist terrorists of various stripes. The result has been chaos, lawlessness, the rise of militant wahhabism, carnage in the region, and terrorist blowback outside of it. Your argument is moribund. You have been proved wrong by events.
And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
The majority of migrants who have entered the EU are not from Syria so how will millions be deported back to Syria? It is people like you who have attempted to shut down and muddy the debate by repeating complete untruths.
Please. If not millions already, there are at least hundreds of thousands of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, et cetera. (Afghanistan is east of Syria, by the way.)
Accusation of "shutting down debate" is the new version of McCarthyism and anti-Communist hysteria. It is a way to shut down your brain rather than reasoning.
No I didn't drop him from the conversation. I never included him in my very first response because I didn't disagree with you over him. Go back and look rather than rewriting history.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
I hope you're not claiming that Assad Snr was fine and dandy because he shut down the camps he allowed to open so that people could train to kill our citizens ...
The point remains: the strongmen you want to take over either directly sponsored terrorism against us, or acted as massive destabilising forces against the region and, by extension, us. Whether it was Assad with the terrorist training camps, Gadaffi providing weaponry to terrorist organisations and blowing PanAm 800 and UTA 772 out of the air along with the Berlin disco bombing, or Hussein declaring war and invading neighbouring nations, and Assad Jr and Hussein using chemical weapons, or Libya and Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Etc, etc.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
Nope. I was pointing out you can't blame Assad Jnr for something that ended a decade before he came to power and when he was in no way involved in politics in his country. Kind of ruins your argument don't you think?
And then for the rest of your post you just repeat the same false claims and straw man arguments you just had comprehensively trashed.
I repeat. Please back up your claims that Hussain or Assad encouraged or sponsored terrorist acts against the UK.
Urrrm, it doesn't ruin the argument. My argument is that the strongmen you would like to take over the country often - if not mostly - work directly against our interests, and in many costs foster terrorism that directly haunts us.
And I've proved Assad Snr did. The son is very much a chip of his old man's block.
This is getting a little ridiculous. It's a sad day when you defend the likes of both Assads and Hussein.
I'm not going to mention what I thought of Corbyns interview just now on Sky News
I will
He failed to condemn terrorists again. He cautioned against jumping to conclusions regarding ISIL and Syria
And he praised multiculturalism and multi-faith society
Meanwhile, his fellow travellers...
@Jake_Wilde: I think, if you're going to tell people that their death is their own fault, you should wait until after the funeral https://t.co/yylPOL7NPQ
He is not fit to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Agreed
Love the first response which clearly gets the guys point across
" Are you fucking serious?"
What the F have Labour done?
Unless they stop them now, the 'Stop the War Coalition' will be the Labour Party in 18 months. It's defacto chairman is after all the leader of the labour party right now.
These sort of comments really really irritate me. I wish someone would challenge them and ask them to explain how Islamist groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabaab in Kenya, AQIM in Mali or Moro Islamic Front in the Phillipines have anything to do with western foreign policy
There had been before, but the shadows of the Iraq conflict loomed large. The scheme was progressively watered down. But a bombing in response to the use of chemical weapons would have been a good course of action.
I'm not ''re-writing history' - that's impossible, as history did not take that course. It's a projected alternate history, albeit a likely one IMO.
A stable Government was on the cards, and was possible. ISTR there were reports that some senior officers in the Syrian army were talking to some of their recent colleagues who had defected to the FSA about what they wanted, and how there could be an orderly transition. Some FSA units were essentially intact from their time in the Syrian Army.
They're mostly gone now. It was a massive opportunity lost. Perhaps it was the only opportunity to come out of this with an intact Syria.
There was no opportunity. It was a mirage and you are now rewriting history and muddling the timelines to make yourself feel better about supporting the wrong move at the time. I supported the intervention in Libya, I now see that I was wrong to support it. I am man enough to admit my mistake, it seems you are content with burying your head in the sand which is a shame since I do consider you to be a logical person.
There is an opportunity today by forming a temporary alliance with Russia and Iran and ridding Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan of ISIS. We must, along with the French, do what is necessary to eradicate ISIS. That may mean getting into bed with some distasteful people but the alternative has just been demonstrated with devastating consequences in Paris.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
Indeed.
There's a lot of complacency about the "they've lost" comments we will read and hear so much.
Indeed. As MD said earlier, who won in the battle between Rome and the barbarians in the end? Or, for that matter, between the New Rome and the Caliphate?
I do sometimes wonder if Western Europeans today are in a similar position to Western Europeans in about 400 AD.
Exactly what I said last night at 1.05am:
"There's nothing to say that Western democracy will inevitably triumph worldwide, nor that what we have at the moment is permanent either.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm experiencing the equivalent of the Fall of Rome - of the modern age - in slow motion."
I wouldn't worry. The fall of Rome was the consequence of its unsustainable imperialist, colonialist, extractive, immoral policy to its outlying regions, which were only too happy to welcome the Teutons who partially restored the ancient Celtic liberties of the European periphery. In contrast, modern Western European society is intrinsically stable due to our democratic system that allows debate without threatening the existence of the government and state security. The terrorists are really stupid. As David Herdson points out, most of their M.O. yesterday was, thank goodness, executed incredibly stupidly. Probably Islamic State must be destroyed quickly for the good of the world, but it is not really a threat to Western civilisation (it may be a threat to Middle Eastern civilisation).
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
This would an understandable (if misguided) utterance were it made 25 years ago. But you've already got your wish. It's happened. Saddam has gone. Gadaffi has gone. Half of Assad's country is overrun with Islamist terrorists of various stripes. The result has been chaos, lawlessness, the rise of militant wahhabism, carnage in the region, and terrorist blowback outside of it. Your argument is moribund. You have been proved wrong by events.
No, I've been proved right by events. Gadaffi went because his madness came back and he threatened to wipe out a city. Hussein's went as a consequence of his many sordid actions. Assad became beyond PNG when he used chemical weapons on his own people.
You're also seemingly blind to the atrocities these men performed whilst in power in order to keep that power.
It's quite simple. They are not the alternative we should be looking for. They're too unstable, both inside their own countries and outside.
As I've said below,possibly the only answer is a fundamental reshaping of the region along tribal, religious and ethnic lines. That will be massively painful in the short term for the populations, but might stop the internal strife that the strongmen tried to keep in check.
Mr. Jessop, indeed, we could've made things a lot better.
I don't think so. Look at our intervention in Libya, we went in with the best of intentions, toppled Gadaffi (someone who was worse than Assad) and oversaw a new "secular" government take control. Fast forwards a few years and we now have a militant Islamic government threatening to export ISIS terrorists to Europe if we don't recognise them as a legitimate government.
No I didn't drop him from the conversation. I never included him in my very first response because I didn't disagree with you over him. Go back and look rather than rewriting history.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
I hope you're not claiming that Assad Snr was fine and dandy because he shut down the camps he allowed to open so that people could train to kill our citizens ...
The point remains: the strongmen you want to take over either directly sponsored terrorism against us, or acted as massive destabilising forces against the region and, by extension, us. Whether it was Assad with the terrorist training camps, Gadaffi providing weaponry to terrorist organisations and blowing PanAm 800 and UTA 772 out of the air along with the Berlin disco bombing, or Hussein declaring war and invading neighbouring nations, and Assad Jr and Hussein using chemical weapons, or Libya and Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Etc, etc.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
Nope. I was pointing out you can't blame Assad Jnr for something that ended a decade before he came to power and when he was in no way involved in politics in his country. Kind of ruins your argument don't you think?
And then for the rest of your post you just repeat the same false claims and straw man arguments you just had comprehensively trashed.
I repeat. Please back up your claims that Hussain or Assad encouraged or sponsored terrorist acts against the UK.
Urrrm, it doesn't ruin the argument. My argument is that the strongmen you would like to take over the country often - if not mostly - work directly against our interests, and in many costs foster terrorism that directly haunts us.
And I've proved Assad Snr did. The son is very much a chip of his old man's block.
This is getting a little ridiculous. It's a sad day when you defend the likes of both Assads and Hussein.
Just accept you are misguided and move on, people are merely stating fact that they are the best of a bad bunch and no worse than any of the puppets UK/US have installed.
“For the past 14 years, Britain has been at the centre of a succession of disastrous wars that have brought devastation to large parts of the wider Middle East. They have increased, not diminished, the threats to our own national security in the process.”
And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
The majority of migrants who have entered the EU are not from Syria so how will millions be deported back to Syria? It is people like you who have attempted to shut down and muddy the debate by repeating complete untruths.
Please. If not millions already, there are at least hundreds of thousands of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, et cetera. (Afghanistan is east of Syria, by the way.)
Accusation of "shutting down debate" is the new version of McCarthyism and anti-Communist hysteria. It is a way to shut down your brain rather than reasoning.
Deal in facts. Millions of Syrians, Afghanis and Iraqis have not entered the EU. The number is far more likely to be in the very low hundreds of thousands.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
This would an understandable (if misguided) utterance were it made 25 years ago. But you've already got your wish. It's happened. Saddam has gone. Gadaffi has gone. Half of Assad's country is overrun with Islamist terrorists of various stripes. The result has been chaos, lawlessness, the rise of militant wahhabism, carnage in the region, and terrorist blowback outside of it. Your argument is moribund. You have been proved wrong by events.
No, I've been proved right by events. Gadaffi went because his madness came back and he threatened to wipe out a city. Hussein's went as a consequence of his many sordid actions. Assad became beyond PNG when he used chemical weapons on his own people.
You're also seemingly blind to the atrocities these men performed whilst in power in order to keep that power.
It's quite simple. They are not the alternative we should be looking for. They're too unstable, both inside their own countries and outside.
As I've said below,possibly the only answer is a fundamental reshaping of the region along tribal, religious and ethnic lines. That will be massively painful in the short term for the populations, but might stop the internal strife that the strongmen tried to keep in check.
Do you really think that our allies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey) will allow for a the creation of new Shia, Kurdish and Alawite nations with western backing? Deluded. The only way we could go ahead with that is to disown our current Sunni allies and align ourselves with Russia and Iran, something you have said is undesirable.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
How do Saudis deal with Christians in their country?
Do you think we should treat Islam the same way Islamic countries treat other religions?
I once read an interesting book by an ex British Ambassador to Saudi - lets just say it was clear he was not a fan of the place and their practices.
Might it not be a fair starting place for debate at least?
Oh I agree.
I am at turns amused and revolted by Muslims complaining about life in non muslim countries (very tolerant non muslim nations) whilst ignoring the rather huge Elephant in the room that is Islam's treatment of other religions.
No I didn't drop him from the conversation. I never included him in my very first response because I didn't disagree with you over him. Go back and look rather than rewriting history.
And in case you missed it Assad's father shut down all the IRA training camps back in the early 1990s - a decade before the current Assad even came to power. Indeed when the camps were shut down the current Assad was in doing postgrad medical studies.
I hope you're not claiming that Assad Snr was fine and dandy because he shut down the camps he allowed to open so that people could train to kill our citizens ...
The point remains: the strongmen you want to take over either directly sponsored terrorism against us, or acted as massive destabilising forces against the region and, by extension, us. Whether it was Assad with the terrorist training camps, Gadaffi providing weaponry to terrorist organisations and blowing PanAm 800 and UTA 772 out of the air along with the Berlin disco bombing, or Hussein declaring war and invading neighbouring nations, and Assad Jr and Hussein using chemical weapons, or Libya and Iraq's nuclear weapons programs.
Etc, etc.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
Nope. I was pointing out you can't blame Assad Jnr for something that ended a decade before he came to power and when he was in no way involved in politics in his country. Kind of ruins your argument don't you think?
And then for the rest of your post you just repeat the same false claims and straw man arguments you just had comprehensively trashed.
I repeat. Please back up your claims that Hussain or Assad encouraged or sponsored terrorist acts against the UK.
Urrrm, it doesn't ruin the argument. My argument is that the strongmen you would like to take over the country often - if not mostly - work directly against our interests, and in many costs foster terrorism that directly haunts us.
And I've proved Assad Snr did. The son is very much a chip of his old man's block.
This is getting a little ridiculous. It's a sad day when you defend the likes of both Assads and Hussein.
I am defending neither of them just trying to correct the factual inaccuracies you are trying to use to support an idiotic policy.
The fact you persist in using strawman arguments and twisting facts to try and support your view shows how fanciful and false it is.
We need less of these people in the region, not more.
This would an understandable (if misguided) utterance were it made 25 years ago. But you've already got your wish. It's happened. Saddam has gone. Gadaffi has gone. Half of Assad's country is overrun with Islamist terrorists of various stripes. The result has been chaos, lawlessness, the rise of militant wahhabism, carnage in the region, and terrorist blowback outside of it. Your argument is moribund. You have been proved wrong by events.
No, I've been proved right by events. Gadaffi went because his madness came back and he threatened to wipe out a city. Hussein's went as a consequence of his many sordid actions. Assad became beyond PNG when he used chemical weapons on his own people.
You're also seemingly blind to the atrocities these men performed whilst in power in order to keep that power.
It's quite simple. They are not the alternative we should be looking for. They're too unstable, both inside their own countries and outside.
As I've said below,possibly the only answer is a fundamental reshaping of the region along tribal, religious and ethnic lines. That will be massively painful in the short term for the populations, but might stop the internal strife that the strongmen tried to keep in check.
How you can have the cheek to say you've been 'proved right' in the face of the charnel house that is the post arab-nationalist Middle East frankly beggars belief.
Did keep in check. That's the whole point. Your 'alternative' being a Western-imposed balkanisation of the region, along lines of ethnic and religious strife. Yeah, I'm sure that'll work out - it's been such a success elsewhere.
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
So to be honest the short answer to my question is that neither Hussain nor Assad have been involved in sponsoring or encouraging terrorism against us. The answers you gave here clearly show they are not nice people but do not include a single example of what you claimed.
Like I said, they might not be nice people but that is no reason not to continue the policy we had in the past of doing business with them as long as they are not threatening us directly. It may not be very palatable but it is often the only way to protect ourselves.
Are you saying Hussein was not threatening us or our interests when he invaded Kuwait? Their actions and campaigns via proxies against Israel were not against our interests?
And I forgot to mention the IRA training camps in the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley.
Lets also consider where the IRA got its weapons from.
Indeed. Though the irony of that may be lost on Josias in his present mood. .
What 'mood'? You think because I'm disagreeing with you I'm in a 'mood' ?
I'm pointing out that these strongmen who you would support have a rather nasty tendency of turning against us.
Guns going from the US to the IRA are not the same, reprehensible as it was: the US state was not actively supplying them. Instead they were being bought or stolen, and smuggled in. That is an important distinction.
Oh, and Libya provided them with plenty of arms and semtex, whilst Syria trained them in the Bekaa Valley.
I don't expect you, in your 'mood', to comprehend that.
I was actually referring to the arms from the Middle East.
There had been before, but the shadows of the Iraq conflict loomed large. The scheme was progressively watered down. But a bombing in response to the use of chemical weapons would have been a good course of action.
I'm not ''re-writing history' - that's impossible, as history did not take that course. It's a projected alternate history, albeit a likely one IMO.
A stable Government was on the cards, and was possible. ISTR there were reports that some senior officers in the Syrian army were talking to some of their recent colleagues who had defected to the FSA about what they wanted, and how there could be an orderly transition. Some FSA units were essentially intact from their time in the Syrian Army.
They're mostly gone now. It was a massive opportunity lost. Perhaps it was the only opportunity to come out of this with an intact Syria.
There was no opportunity. It was a mirage and you are now rewriting history and muddling the timelines to make yourself feel better about supporting the wrong move at the time. I supported the intervention in Libya, I now see that I was wrong to support it. I am man enough to admit my mistake, it seems you are content with burying your head in the sand which is a shame since I do consider you to be a logical person.
There is an opportunity today by forming a temporary alliance with Russia and Iran and ridding Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan of ISIS. We must, along with the French, do what is necessary to eradicate ISIS. That may mean getting into bed with some distasteful people but the alternative has just been demonstrated with devastating consequences in Paris.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
People keep dying of lung cancer, how can we keep smoking cigarettes but eliminate the lung cancer deaths?
Do you think Muslims should not be allowed in Europe? Or just extremists? If you have a litmus test to discern between the two, our security services would be keen for your help
How do Saudis deal with Christians in their country?
Do you think we should treat Islam the same way Islamic countries treat other religions?
I once read an interesting book by an ex British Ambassador to Saudi - lets just say it was clear he was not a fan of the place and their practices.
Might it not be a fair starting place for debate at least?
Oh I agree.
I am at turns amused and revolted by Muslims complaining about life in non muslim countries (very tolerant non muslim nations) whilst ignoring the rather huge Elephant in the room that is Islam's treatment of other religions.
Blaming all Muslims for Islamic State atrocities against Christians is like blaming all men for domestic abuse of battered women, or blaming all Americans for the worst parts of US foreign policy. It's not something to be amused by or revolted by, but a logical fallacy to skip over. The West should, in fact, help Muslims by destroying the biggest threat to Muslims in the world today, namely the Daesh.
Seems Stop The War have deleted their 'reap the whirlwind' tweet.
Edited extra bit: Mr. T, indeed, as per migration. Chattering class wibbling about mean old Cameron, polls showing people either agree with him or think he should be tougher.
We supposedly honour those who died, by holding up candles and talking about our determination that the life we love will go on as normal in a few days time.
I’m sorry, it is not good enough, this modern Western response to such disasters. Everywhere you look on social media the Twitter police are on patrol, highlighting insensitive or provocative tweets, warning people not to make any political points at such a time. Don’t mention the insecurity of Western Europe’s borders. Don’t mention the connection with Islam, or the rise of a perverted Islamist creed. Don’t mention Syria.
But if our response is not political at a time like this, when terrorists are on our doorsteps trying to kill us, when should it be? What is a suitable gap between the Paris attack and the time when we can in a free society say what we think it meant? Did Londoners have a similar cooling off period after the first and then the worst nights of the Blitz? No.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
They hate us because our system is the antithesis of theirs, yet ours has generally succeeded where theirs has failed. Everything else is an excuse for that jealousy.
They learn that our 'western' way of life is decadent, sacrilegious and evil. Yet our way of life has overtaken much of the world. They cannot explain this. They are right, yet they have lost.
They hate that. They want that power. They want a Caliphate.
Islam was spread by violence, its not surprising they see violence as the best way now.
I'm not at all certain that they've lost. They're poorer than us, but they have the will to win.
And that's precisely what it boils down to.
So far, judging by my social media feed today people are (1) posting CND badges with the Eiffel Tower (2) tentatively signalling that we must all ensure we police (what they perceive) as early warning signs of racism.
That's as far as it goes.
Social media is not society. Watch the polls. The British public were already way more hawkish than Twitter and the Jezbollah on this and related subjects.
''Social media is not society. Watch the polls. The British public were already way more hawkish than Twitter and the Jezbollah on this and related subjects.''
The good citizens of Oldham and Royton. From some meaningless by-election in a forgotten part of rainy Britain, to the eyes of Europe, and maybe the world, watching.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
Ignoring your abysmal apologia and tortured fact-twisting in the first part of this post, you ask how does ISIS get 'defeated'. The point about ISIS is that they are the first such organisation to invade and hold territory, and aspire to be a 'state'. So whilst we can't obliterate their ideology from the mind, any more than we can obliterate Al Qaeda, or neo-Nazism, we can at least defeat them militarily, which: -denies them a huge base of operations in which they can plot terror with impunity -means there is no 'destination' that their converts can travel to in order to join up -Saves innocent victims from having to live (and die) under ISIS rule Are these not to be aspired to?
Have to say I agree with MaxPB and Mr Herdson on this one: we in the West need to grow up and recognise Assad is the lesser of two evils (however unpleasant he is) and give him all the support he needs to defeat the greater evil. Any idea of "moderate" rebels coming through is a pipe dream.
"... modern Western European society is intrinsically stable due to our democratic system that allows debate without threatening the existence of the government and state security."
I suppose that depends on what you mean by modern. However, I would suggest that democracy is not by itself a guarantee of stability - Germany between the wars was a democracy and Hitler came to power through an election.
The idea that the "tyranny of the majority" (actually in a lot of countries such as the UK, the "tyranny of the minority") as expressed through some voting system is somehow a superior system is a comparatively new idea and not one that, in my view, stands scrutiny. There are many examples of countries in which great progress for the ordinary people has been made but which were or are not democracies.
''We supposedly honour those who died, by holding up candles and talking about our determination that the life we love will go on as normal in a few days time.''
I think the world is now wise to the empty gesture responses like tricolouring monuments, when on the important stuff, we are retreating.
No if we'd removed Assad and helped another opposition leader take control then the situation could be controlled with them supported rather than ISIL taking control of the opposition (which it wasn't at the time of the vote).
Yes it was. I am not sure where this myth came from but I debunked it last time it was raised. Look at the dates for the vote and the dates for growing Isil activity inside Syria and the growth of Isil predates our Parliamentary decision by many months if not a year.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
The Parliamentary vote was August 2013 when the Free Syrian Army was still a major player, which it is not anymore. ISIL was growing yes and had been around in one form or another since the 20th century but it made great progress in 2014 which is after the Parliamentary Vote. The FSA fell apart in late 2014 too.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
We do what we should have done at least a year ago. We stop trying to find a pure white side to back and support the only forces that are actually opposing Isil on the ground. That means the Kurds in the North and the combined Syrian/Iranian forces in the rest of the country. Assad is the only viable opponent to Isil in Syria. And you were not proved right at all. Your oath would have made things worse not better.
"... modern Western European society is intrinsically stable due to our democratic system that allows debate without threatening the existence of the government and state security."
I suppose that depends on what you mean by modern. However, I would suggest that democracy is not by itself a guarantee of stability - Germany between the wars was a democracy and Hitler came to power through an election.
The idea that the "tyranny of the majority" (actually in a lot of countries such as the UK, the "tyranny of the minority") as expressed through some voting system is somehow a superior system is a comparatively new idea and not one that, in my view, stands scrutiny. There are many examples of countries in which great progress for the ordinary people has been made but which were or are not democracies.
You are right. Prosperity and modern institutions make it less likely that our democracies will fall than Weimar Germany, not the democratic system itself (and I'd add that we have now tried fascism/communism and that inoculates us to an extent). Still, when it comes down to it, I think ordinary people also recognise that democratic systems themselves give them a fairer share. I think Tocqueville put it best when he said that the demos appreciates liberty but what they really want is equality - which non-democracy will definitely not deliver. Unfortunately rhetoric that focuses on liberty while excluding equality will sound a bit self-satisfied and ivory-tower if it ever comes down to a war for hearts and minds.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
Ignoring your abysmal apologia and tortured fact-twisting in the first part of this post, you ask how does ISIS get 'defeated'. The point about ISIS is that they are the first such organisation to invade and hold territory, and aspire to be a 'state'. So whilst we can't obliterate their ideology from the mind, any more than we can obliterate Al Qaeda, or neo-Nazism, we can at least defeat them militarily, which: -denies them a huge base of operations in which they can plot terror with impunity -means there is no 'destination' that their converts can travel to in order to join up -Saves innocent victims from having to live (and die) under ISIS rule Are these not to be aspired to?
What abysmal apologia and tortured fact-twisting? Or are you talking about your own posts?
The point is that at times the Russians thought they had won in Afghanistan, and they were defeated. The coalition would send troops into a few villages in Afghanistan, drive the militants out, and they would come back the moment we left. This meant that we would continually take and retake the same villages.
Yes, it would be superb to defeat IS militarily. But we tried them in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we failed. If we did utterly banish the IS from Iraq and Syria, then they'd pop up in Yemen. Or Eritrea. Or elsewhere.
The genie of a new Caliphate, an Islamic State, is out of the bottle. Getting it back in again is going to be exceptionally difficult as it sadly appeals to so many people.
Yet that is what we need to do. Destroy not just their army, but the sick ideology that feeds new recruits and money into their hands.
The first domino? Poland says cannot accept migrants under EU quotas after Paris attacks http://bit.ly/1SPMo4r
I doubt they wanted to take them anyway.
Current events let them stand up to Germany more easily.
Good for the Poles. Why should they be forced to accommodate people who's back story and histories are completely unknown, purely because the Germans tell them to?
Many thousands of immigrants from non-Syrian nations are wilfully destroying their passports and papers. Anyone not in possession of documents should be interned.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
Ignoring your abysmal apologia and tortured fact-twisting in the first part of this post, you ask how does ISIS get 'defeated'. The point about ISIS is that they are the first such organisation to invade and hold territory, and aspire to be a 'state'. So whilst we can't obliterate their ideology from the mind, any more than we can obliterate Al Qaeda, or neo-Nazism, we can at least defeat them militarily, which: -denies them a huge base of operations in which they can plot terror with impunity -means there is no 'destination' that their converts can travel to in order to join up -Saves innocent victims from having to live (and die) under ISIS rule Are these not to be aspired to?
What abysmal apologia and tortured fact-twisting? Or are you talking about your own posts?
The point is that at times the Russians thought they had won in Afghanistan, and they were defeated. The coalition would send troops into a few villages in Afghanistan, drive the militants out, and they would come back the moment we left. This meant that we would continually take and retake the same villages.
Yes, it would be superb to defeat IS militarily. But we tried them in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we failed. If we did utterly banish the IS from Iraq and Syria, then they'd pop up in Yemen. Or Eritrea. Or elsewhere.
The genie of a new Caliphate, an Islamic State, is out of the bottle. Getting it back in again is going to be exceptionally difficult as it sadly appeals to so many people.
Yet that is what we need to do. Destroy not just their army, but the sick ideology that feeds new recruits and money into their hands.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
We do what we should have done at least a year ago. We stop trying to find a pure white side to back and support the only forces that are actually opposing Isil on the ground. That means the Kurds in the North and the combined Syrian/Iranian forces in the rest of the country. Assad is the only viable opponent to Isil in Syria. And you were not proved right at all. Your oath would have made things worse not better.
You cannot say that, and you cannot know it. You say it is impossible that pressure might not have forced Assad or senior members of his regime to cut a deal with the FSA, who were his main opponents in 2013.
I say you are wrong.
We went through all this at the time: sadly, the passing of time has muddied the waters further.
All I can say is thank goodness David Cameron is the Prime Minister at this time.
Indeed. Imagine PM Corbyn in Downing Street today.
'People of the UK, you brought this upon yourselves. I now invite our friends, the representatives of ISIS to join me to negotiate our surrender'. (Masked figures enter Downing Street, door closes, muffled sound of explosions as backpack bombs are detonated).
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
I think that this is a classic "post hoc, propter hoc" argument - "because we didn't drop some bombs on Syria in 2013, the conflict would spread, Assad would continue and the entire region has been stabilised". You overestimate our importance. And in general I'm wary of anyone on this subject who goes on about always being right - if we're honest, it is not clear what the best course of action is, and there are risks whatever we do or don't do.
It seems to me that the only reasonably successful suppression of ISIS-like groups has been by local strongmen, often using deplorable methods. It's worth remembering that Russia was also quite successful in Afghanistan until we actively worked to arm and assist the mujaheddin, and even then their puppet government fought on for a year after their withdrawal before being defeated. In Europe, we saw the releative success of Tito and the catastrophe when he left.
Does this mean that we should start being naive about Assad, Gaddafi, and their spiritual predecessors? No, they're oppressive rulers with unpleasant methods, sometimes illegal under international law. But is it in our interest actively to intervene in their overthrow, with no clear alternative except groups who are much worse? Probably not. In fact it seems to me in retrospect mistaken that we have been trying to undermine Assad for years. Sometimes we need to learn from mistakes.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
Yes you are, you said we should bomb Syria to clear the way for secular forces to remove Assad, just as we did in Libya, just weeks after Parliament voted it down ISIS rolled through northern Syria and destroyed the weak FSA with relative ease. We would have cleared the way for ISIS to take over the whole country if we had intervened in Syria back then. However we got there, it was the right decision to leave Syria well alone.
As for removing ISIS, we can start by putting sanctions on those who fund ISIS and buy their oil, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar for a start. We can put assets on the ground to destroy their oil infrastructure (special forces) and rescue their oil engineer slaves/labourers. It would at least slow them down while we get a longer term solution figured out. While we treat with the allies of ISIS and have Merkel et al trying to make deals with Erdogan or even contemplating EU membership for Turkey we are going in the absolute wrong direction.
Fundamentally, we are on the wrong side. We are supporting hard line Islamist governments and the terrorists they fund in Syria and Iraq who are fighting to topple nominally secular governments/dictators.
Mr. F, thanks for that answer, and I entirely agree with your sentiment.
Hating a religion should not be anything like a crime. It's as stupid as making it illegal to hate a football club or a political belief or a philosophy.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
snip ... Sometimes we need to learn from mistakes.
Yes, the war in Iraq that your government engineered.
What would the world look like today if Campbell, Blair and Co hadn't cooked up that dossier, and rigged the vote?
Blaming all Muslims for Islamic State atrocities against Christians is like blaming all men for domestic abuse of battered women, or blaming all Americans for the worst parts of US foreign policy. It's not something to be amused by or revolted by, but a logical fallacy to skip over. The West should, in fact, help Muslims by destroying the biggest threat to Muslims in the world today, namely the Daesh.
Trying to cleverly extricate only the baddies isn't necessarily possible though.
Back in the 1980s, this country had a problem with football hooliganism. The eventual solution required that ordinary football supporters had to change their customs and habits in wider society so that the Radical Hooliganists could be dealt with.
The core culture needs to be challenged here and it's up to the wider muslim community to adapt to Britain, not the other way round.
Women as baby making machines and men's property along with the hostility towards 'otherness', be it by religion or sexuality, are a couple of obvious areas.
It seems massively problematic for the equalities warriors who've spent so much of their time campaigning for gay rights, women's rights etc, that they have landed on the same side as the most homophobic and misogynistic culture on the planet.
It's always seemed to me that these people should be repulsed by Islam in Britain because it does everything it has fought against in terms of equality.
Instead, there has been an uneasy coalition of minorities and the dwindling support of the WWC has ultimately led to middle class liberals compromising the ideals they espoused twenty years ago because they are some of the only votes that remain on offer.
Frankly, any government which support the Saudis are on the wrong side. But as Sean F reminded me a month or so back, what is our option ?
That is the problem. We cannot see beyond the £20bn arms sale and what would happen to sterling. Even the nice Emiratis and Qataris are not that nice. I am referring to the governments.
BFMTV, a French TV channel, reports that police have identified one of the suicide bomber via his fingerprints, but he has not yet been named.
He was a French man, known to security services.
L'un des terroristes morts au #bataclan identifié par adn. Jeune homme français connu des services pour sa radicalisation. — olivier boy (@olivierboy) November 14, 2015
Eiffel Tower will also be closed indefinitely following the attacks.
No if we'd removed Assad and helped another opposition leader take control then the situation could be controlled with them supported rather than ISIL taking control of the opposition (which it wasn't at the time of the vote).
Yes it was. I am not sure where this myth came from but I debunked it last time it was raised. Look at the dates for the vote and the dates for growing Isil activity inside Syria and the growth of Isil predates our Parliamentary decision by many months if not a year.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
The Parliamentary vote was August 2013 when the Free Syrian Army was still a major player, which it is not anymore. ISIL was growing yes and had been around in one form or another since the 20th century but it made great progress in 2014 which is after the Parliamentary Vote. The FSA fell apart in late 2014 too.
No, ISIS was formed in March 2013, and rolled through Syria from November 2013 onwards and utterly decimated the FSA in early 2014. If we had cleared the way for the FSA it would have cleared the way for ISIS just weeks later.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
snip ... Sometimes we need to learn from mistakes.
Yes, the war in Iraq that your government engineered.
What would the world look like today if Campbell, Blair and Co hadn't cooked up that dossier, and rigged the vote?
Not all Labour supporters supported that war. There were more Labour MPs voting against than Tory MPs.
Bliar was a warmonger , we all know that as Chilcot will, no doubt, confirm. But these atrocities allow Bliar to come out and spread his gospel.
Frankly, any government which support the Saudis are on the wrong side. But as Sean F reminded me a month or so back, what is our option ?
That is the problem. We cannot see beyond the £20bn arms sale and what would happen to sterling. Even the nice Emiratis and Qataris are not that nice. I am referring to the governments.
Sod the arms sales. BAE can go find other people to sell weapons to.
"... modern Western European society is intrinsically stable due to our democratic system that allows debate without threatening the existence of the government and state security."
I suppose that depends on what you mean by modern. However, I would suggest that democracy is not by itself a guarantee of stability - Germany between the wars was a democracy and Hitler came to power through an election.
The idea that the "tyranny of the majority" (actually in a lot of countries such as the UK, the "tyranny of the minority") as expressed through some voting system is somehow a superior system is a comparatively new idea and not one that, in my view, stands scrutiny. There are many examples of countries in which great progress for the ordinary people has been made but which were or are not democracies.
You are right. Prosperity and modern institutions make it less likely that our democracies will fall than Weimar Germany, not the democratic system itself (and I'd add that we have now tried fascism/communism and that inoculates us to an extent). Still, when it comes down to it, I think ordinary people also recognise that democratic systems themselves give them a fairer share. I think Tocqueville put it best when he said that the demos appreciates liberty but what they really want is equality - which non-democracy will definitely not deliver. Unfortunately rhetoric that focuses on liberty while excluding equality will sound a bit self-satisfied and ivory-tower if it ever comes down to a war for hearts and minds.
Ah, equality - the great mirage, promised by so many politicians greedy for power but never actually delivered under any system. Equality is impossible. The best a political system can do, I suggest, is to provide the framework that gives freedom for people to achieve what they want to achieve if they have the skill and talent to do so whilst providing a safety net for those who fall by the wayside or, for reasons beyond their control are incapable.
Universal franchise democracy is not a necessary let alone sufficient factor in pursuit of human happiness.
I find the conscious nonsense here just appalling. These people know that they're sucking up to the most vile misogynists, gay bashers and anti-Semites - yet choose to ignore it all for some twisted minority votes fodder.
Blaming all Muslims for Islamic State atrocities against Christians is like blaming all men for domestic abuse of battered women, or blaming all Americans for the worst parts of US foreign policy. It's not something to be amused by or revolted by, but a logical fallacy to skip over. The West should, in fact, help Muslims by destroying the biggest threat to Muslims in the world today, namely the Daesh.
Trying to cleverly extricate only the baddies isn't necessarily possible though.
Back in the 1980s, this country had a problem with football hooliganism. The eventual solution required that ordinary football supporters had to change their customs and habits in wider society so that the Radical Hooliganists could be dealt with.
The core culture needs to be challenged here and it's up to the wider muslim community to adapt to Britain, not the other way round.
Women as baby making machines and men's property along with the hostility towards 'otherness', be it by religion or sexuality, are a couple of obvious areas.
It seems massively problematic for the equalities warriors who've spent so much of their time campaigning for gay rights, women's rights etc, that they have landed on the same side as the most homophobic and misogynistic culture on the planet.
It's always seemed to me that these people should be repulsed by Islam in Britain because it does everything it has fought against in terms of equality.
Instead, there has been an uneasy coalition of minorities and the dwindling support of the WWC has ultimately led to middle class liberals compromising the ideals they espoused twenty years ago because they are some of the only votes that remain on offer.
And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
The majority of migrants who have entered the EU are not from Syria so how will millions be deported back to Syria? It is people like you who have attempted to shut down and muddy the debate by repeating complete untruths.
Please. If not millions already, there are at least hundreds of thousands of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, et cetera. (Afghanistan is east of Syria, by the way.)
Accusation of "shutting down debate" is the new version of McCarthyism and anti-Communist hysteria. It is a way to shut down your brain rather than reasoning.
Deal in facts. Millions of Syrians, Afghanis and Iraqis have not entered the EU. The number is far more likely to be in the very low hundreds of thousands.
Hundreds of thousands or millions, they need to be taken back. They are too big a security risk.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
Yes you are, you said we should bomb Syria to clear the way for secular forces to remove Assad, just as we did in Libya, just weeks after Parliament voted it down ISIS rolled through northern Syria and destroyed the weak FSA with relative ease. We would have cleared the way for ISIS to take over the whole country if we had intervened in Syria back then. However we got there, it was the right decision to leave Syria well alone.
As for removing ISIS, we can start by putting sanctions on those who fund ISIS and buy their oil, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar for a start. We can put assets on the ground to destroy their oil infrastructure (special forces) and rescue their oil engineer slaves/labourers. It would at least slow them down while we get a longer term solution figured out. While we treat with the allies of ISIS and have Merkel et al trying to make deals with Erdogan or even contemplating EU membership for Turkey we are going in the absolute wrong direction.
Fundamentally, we are on the wrong side. We are supporting hard line Islamist governments and the terrorists they fund in Syria and Iraq who are fighting to topple nominally secular governments/dictators.
I believe your timeline is utterly wrong, especially in the 'just weeks' comment. You also ignore the pressure the regime was under from the FSA at the time, and big-up IS's size.
And again, you show you anti-Turkish bias which, if I remember correctly, is based on a ludicrous conspiracy theory.
I find the conscious nonsense here just appalling. These people know that they're sucking up to the most vile misogynists, gay bashers and anti-Semites - yet choose to ignore it all for some twisted minority votes fodder.
I've ZERO respect for any of them.
I can't understand how any one who has fought vociferously for female emancipation, the rights of homosexuals, equality in all spheres etc can square the circle with Islam.
Good article from David, as we have come to expect. A few points:
1) David says " A brutal dictatorship is better than either chaos or a militant and crusading theocracy". Well, yes, but sometimes (as perhaps in Iran under the Shah, benign though he now seems in comparison to others), repression by the dictatorship ends up merely postponing the chaos and making the eventual reaction worse.
2) ISIS will be destroyed. They have made enemies of the US (albeit rather luke-warmedly so far), the UK, France, Europe generally, Turkey, Iran, and Russia. (The bombing of the Russian airliner was a massive blunder). Faltering and incoherent as the response of the West and its friends in the region has been so far, in the end ISIS cannot survive against such a range of enemies.
3) Of course, destroying ISIS won't solve the problem of Islamic terrorism. But it will help a lot in the fight.
4) Europe's, or more especially Germany's, insane open-borders policy is dead. That still leaves an awfully big political, humanitarian, and practical mess to clear up.
5) It's hard to see Schengen surviving, though no doubt its demise will be presented as a temporary 'suspension' - one of those temporary suspensions which goes on for ever.
What a pity our continental European friends didn't listen to Maggie's warning in her Bruges speech of 1988:
“it is a matter of plain common sense that we cannot totally abolish frontier controls if we are also to protect our citizens from crime and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists and of illegal immigrants.”
And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
The majority of migrants who have entered the EU are not from Syria so how will millions be deported back to Syria? It is people like you who have attempted to shut down and muddy the debate by repeating complete untruths.
Please. If not millions already, there are at least hundreds of thousands of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, et cetera. (Afghanistan is east of Syria, by the way.)
Accusation of "shutting down debate" is the new version of McCarthyism and anti-Communist hysteria. It is a way to shut down your brain rather than reasoning.
Deal in facts. Millions of Syrians, Afghanis and Iraqis have not entered the EU. The number is far more likely to be in the very low hundreds of thousands.
Hundreds of thousands or millions, they need to be taken back. They are too big a security risk.
I'm barely old enough to remember this but back when the IRA was blowing up Margaret Thatcher and the Arndale Centre did people used to demand deporting all the Irish?
I believe your timeline is utterly wrong, especially in the 'just weeks' comment. You also ignore the pressure the regime was under from the FSA at the time, and big-up IS's size.
And again, you show you anti-Turkish bias which, if I remember correctly, is based on a ludicrous conspiracy theory.
ISIS was formed in Syria in March of 2013, by November their call to arms was being answered and foreign fighters were pouring into Syria from Turkey and they rolled through Syria. Your timeline is wrong. Just because the British media weren't reporting the ISIS/Assad conflict until 2014 it doesn't mean they weren't there and utterly decimating the FSA in late 2013, 6-8 weeks after we would have started a bombing campaign.
I have no bias against Turkey, I have cold hard realism that Erdogan is a Sunni Islamist who supports ISIS and their goal of bringing down Assad. You are blind to it, but that's not my problem.
No if we'd removed Assad and helped another opposition leader take control then the situation could be controlled with them supported rather than ISIL taking control of the opposition (which it wasn't at the time of the vote).
Yes it was. I am not sure where this myth came from but I debunked it last time it was raised. Look at the dates for the vote and the dates for growing Isil activity inside Syria and the growth of Isil predates our Parliamentary decision by many months if not a year.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
The Parliamentary vote was August 2013 when the Free Syrian Army was still a major player, which it is not anymore. ISIL was growing yes and had been around in one form or another since the 20th century but it made great progress in 2014 which is after the Parliamentary Vote. The FSA fell apart in late 2014 too.
No, ISIS was formed in March 2013, and rolled through Syria from November 2013 onwards and utterly decimated the FSA in early 2014. If we had cleared the way for the FSA it would have cleared the way for ISIS just weeks later.
November 2013 is after August 2013. Early 2014 is after August 2013. By any definition the Parliamentary vote was earlier.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
We do what we should have done at least a year ago. We stop trying to find a pure white side to back and support the only forces that are actually opposing Isil on the ground. That means the Kurds in the North and the combined Syrian/Iranian forces in the rest of the country. Assad is the only viable opponent to Isil in Syria. And you were not proved right at all. Your oath would have made things worse not better.
You cannot say that, and you cannot know it. You say it is impossible that pressure might not have forced Assad or senior members of his regime to cut a deal with the FSA, who were his main opponents in 2013.
I say you are wrong.
We went through all this at the time: sadly, the passing of time has muddied the waters further.
The FSA were steady effectively done for by then many of their factions had already defected to more militant Islamic groups, the it leaders were being assassinated and they gad already ceased to provide an effective or even recognisable opposition.
And this is not hindsight. I and many others were using exactly this argument then. Bombing Assad would simply have mad the job easier for Isil.
You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong now.
I believe your timeline is utterly wrong, especially in the 'just weeks' comment. You also ignore the pressure the regime was under from the FSA at the time, and big-up IS's size.
And again, you show you anti-Turkish bias which, if I remember correctly, is based on a ludicrous conspiracy theory.
ISIS was formed in Syria in March of 2013, by November their call to arms was being answered and foreign fighters were pouring into Syria from Turkey and they rolled through Syria. Your timeline is wrong. Just because the British media weren't reporting the ISIS/Assad conflict until 2014 it doesn't mean they weren't there and utterly decimating the FSA in late 2013, 6-8 weeks after we would have started a bombing campaign.
I have no bias against Turkey, I have cold hard realism that Erdogan is a Sunni Islamist who supports ISIS and their goal of bringing down Assad. You are blind to it, but that's not my problem.
After is after, it is not before. FSA being left to drown and disband because Assad could use chemical weapons with impunity and we weren't supporting allies we'd promised support to can not be used as a counterfactual to what would happen had we not abandoned them and honoured our pledges as to what would happen if Assad used chemical weapons.
I think that this is a classic "post hoc, propter hoc" argument - "because we didn't drop some bombs on Syria in 2013, the conflict would spread, Assad would continue and the entire region has been stabilised". You overestimate our importance. And in general I'm wary of anyone on this subject who goes on about always being right - if we're honest, it is not clear what the best course of action is, and there are risks whatever we do or don't do.
It seems to me that the only reasonably successful suppression of ISIS-like groups has been by local strongmen, often using deplorable methods. It's worth remembering that Russia was also quite successful in Afghanistan until we actively worked to arm and assist the mujaheddin, and even then their puppet government fought on for a year after their withdrawal before being defeated. In Europe, we saw the releative success of Tito and the catastrophe when he left.
Does this mean that we should start being naive about Assad, Gaddafi, and their spiritual predecessors? No, they're oppressive rulers with unpleasant methods, sometimes illegal under international law. But is it in our interest actively to intervene in their overthrow, with no clear alternative except groups who are much worse? Probably not. In fact it seems to me in retrospect mistaken that we have been trying to undermine Assad for years. Sometimes we need to learn from mistakes.
Nick, I don't always go on about being right: and I'm honest enough on here to say when I believe I'm wrong. But on this the people such as yourself who were against intervention have big questions to answer about the current mess.
'with no clear alternative except groups who are much worse?'
There was the FSA. And if you look into the crimes of Assad's regime (both father and son), it becomes hard to differentiate much between them and IS.
I do not overestimate our importance. Far from. But neither are we powerless, as Russia is keen to show.
But there is another issue here that gets hidden. I do not underestimate - as you seemingly do - the line that was crossed when Assad used chemical weapons. We ignored their use by Saddam in the 80's, much to our cost. Ignoring their use by the regime (and now IS/AlN) in Syria is reprehensible.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
But they wouldn't've taken over. Even in mid-2013, the FSA were only a very small part of the Syrian opposition; radical Islamists were already the dominant factions of the opposition then (even if they weren't quite as despicable as ISIL).
I'm barely old enough to remember this but back when the IRA was blowing up Margaret Thatcher and the Arndale Centre did people used to demand deporting all the Irish?''
If you dont see that this is a threat of an entirely different nature you really are a fool. The IRA wanted one part of a small rainy island. The islamists want the world under their yoke. And what a dreadful yoke it is.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
We do what we should have done at least a year ago. We stop trying to find a pure white side to back and support the only forces that are actually opposing Isil on the ground. That means the Kurds in the North and the combined Syrian/Iranian forces in the rest of the country. Assad is the only viable opponent to Isil in Syria. And you were not proved right at all. Your oath would have made things worse not better.
You cannot say that, and you cannot know it. You say it is impossible that pressure might not have forced Assad or senior members of his regime to cut a deal with the FSA, who were his main opponents in 2013.
I say you are wrong.
We went through all this at the time: sadly, the passing of time has muddied the waters further.
The FSA were steady effectively done for by then many of their factions had already defected to more militant Islamic groups, the it leaders were being assassinated and they gad already ceased to provide an effective or even recognisable opposition.
And this is not hindsight. I and many others were using exactly this argument then. Bombing Assad would simply have mad the job easier for Isil.
You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong now.
The FSA still existed then, we could always bomb ISIL and Assad both.
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
We do what we should have done at least a year ago. We stop trying to find a pure white side to back and support the only forces that are actually opposing Isil on the ground. That means the Kurds in the North and the combined Syrian/Iranian forces in the rest of the country. Assad is the only viable opponent to Isil in Syria. And you were not proved right at all. Your oath would have made things worse not better.
You cannot say that, and you cannot know it. You say it is impossible that pressure might not have forced Assad or senior members of his regime to cut a deal with the FSA, who were his main opponents in 2013.
I say you are wrong.
We went through all this at the time: sadly, the passing of time has muddied the waters further.
The FSA were steady effectively done for by then many of their factions had already defected to more militant Islamic groups, the it leaders were being assassinated and they gad already ceased to provide an effective or even recognisable opposition.
And this is not hindsight. I and many others were using exactly this argument then. Bombing Assad would simply have mad the job easier for Isil.
You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong now.
I think you've got your timelines really mucked up with that.
No if we'd removed Assad and helped another opposition leader take control then the situation could be controlled with them supported rather than ISIL taking control of the opposition (which it wasn't at the time of the vote).
Yes it was. I am not sure where this myth came from but I debunked it last time it was raised. Look at the dates for the vote and the dates for growing Isil activity inside Syria and the growth of Isil predates our Parliamentary decision by many months if not a year.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
The Parliamentary vote was August 2013 when the Free Syrian Army was still a major player, which it is not anymore. ISIL was growing yes and had been around in one form or another since the 20th century but it made great progress in 2014 which is after the Parliamentary Vote. The FSA fell apart in late 2014 too.
No, ISIS was formed in March 2013, and rolled through Syria from November 2013 onwards and utterly decimated the FSA in early 2014. If we had cleared the way for the FSA it would have cleared the way for ISIS just weeks later.
November 2013 is after August 2013. Early 2014 is after August 2013. By any definition the Parliamentary vote was earlier.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
Rubbish, are you really saying that the FSA would have completed a full military victory over Assad in less than 8 weeks and consolidated their power in that time. If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
The FSA support "disappeared" because they were all killed by ISIS.
I'm barely old enough to remember this but back when the IRA was blowing up Margaret Thatcher and the Arndale Centre did people used to demand deporting all the Irish?
I am old enough to remember (!): the answer is emphatically no, in fact the most striking thing was how little anti-Irish sentiment there was.
And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
The majority of migrants who have entered the EU are not from Syria so how will millions be deported back to Syria? It is people like you who have attempted to shut down and muddy the debate by repeating complete untruths.
Please. If not millions already, there are at least hundreds of thousands of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, et cetera. (Afghanistan is east of Syria, by the way.)
Accusation of "shutting down debate" is the new version of McCarthyism and anti-Communist hysteria. It is a way to shut down your brain rather than reasoning.
Deal in facts. Millions of Syrians, Afghanis and Iraqis have not entered the EU. The number is far more likely to be in the very low hundreds of thousands.
Hundreds of thousands or millions, they need to be taken back. They are too big a security risk.
I'm barely old enough to remember this but back when the IRA was blowing up Margaret Thatcher and the Arndale Centre did people used to demand deporting all the Irish?
No. I have an Irish surname. I did have a couple of fights with muppets who chose me as their whipping boy for the Troubles. Other than that, we just got on with things - I was around during the Birmingham pub bombings and it didn't really make much difference. Bouncers were slightly more obnoxious than usual, is all.
We can't conflate the IRA with the Salafists though. The former had much more limited objectives.
Calling Salafism a 'sick ideology' doesn't work either. It's a very pure, quite seductive call for a return to Islamic roots. It's not going to go away, it's not interested in negotiation, nor can it be corrupted by Western consumerism and it doesn't necessarily have to have a leader. I don't know what we're to do to tackle it.
"... ISIS will be destroyed. They have made enemies of the US (albeit rather luke-warmedly so far), the UK, France, Europe generally, Turkey, Iran, and Russia. (The bombing of the Russian airliner was a massive blunder). Faltering and incoherent as the response of the West and its friends in the region has been so far, in the end ISIS cannot survive against such a range of enemies."
A remarkable conclusion there, Sir, and might I suggest based more on hope than experience. Look at the list of the enemies the Taliban made and they are still there.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
But they wouldn't've taken over. Even in mid-2013, the FSA were only a very small part of the Syrian opposition; radical Islamists were already the dominant factions of the opposition then (even if they weren't quite as despicable as ISIL).
The FSA were still a part then and by any means it was better then than now. We had people to support then, we don't now. The FSA with our support would have been a hell of a lot stronger than the FSA without it.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
But they wouldn't've taken over. Even in mid-2013, the FSA were only a very small part of the Syrian opposition; radical Islamists were already the dominant factions of the opposition then (even if they weren't quite as despicable as ISIL).
It's worse than that. We didn't even know about the ISIL then. WE would have simply bombed Assad to bring ISIL in , effectively what we have done in Western Libya.
How come, some organisation emerges and occupies half of two countries is beyond belief. Even today after a year of aerial bombing they cannot be dislodged. The second largest Iraqi city is under them.
They have obviously tapped the dissatisfaction of poor Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
But they wouldn't've taken over. Even in mid-2013, the FSA were only a very small part of the Syrian opposition; radical Islamists were already the dominant factions of the opposition then (even if they weren't quite as despicable as ISIL).
The "Army of Islamic Conquest" were one such group who were then subsumed into al-Nusra, an al-Qaida affiliate. They were arguably stronger than the "secular" FSA when our bombing campaign would have started.
It's pretty obvious that some Tories on here can't deal with the fact that Ed stumbled onto the right answer. He voted down Syrian action for the wrong reasons but it was still the right result. They can't stand that Cameron was wrong and Ed, somehow, was right.
A remarkable conclusion there, Sir, and might I suggest based more on hope than experience. Look at the list of the enemies the Taliban made and they are still there.
The Taliban's operations are local. ISIS is actively spoiling for a fight outside the borders of Syria and Iraq. Big difference.
I think that this is a classic "post hoc, propter hoc" argument - "because we didn't drop some bombs on Syria in 2013, the conflict would spread, Assad would continue and the entire region has been stabilised". You overestimate our importance. And in general I'm wary of anyone on this subject who goes on about always being right - if we're honest, it is not clear what the best course of action is, and there are risks whatever we do or don't do.
It seems to me that the only reasonably successful suppression of ISIS-like groups has been by local strongmen, often using deplorable methods. It's worth remembering that Russia was also quite successful in Afghanistan until we actively worked to arm and assist the mujaheddin, and even then their puppet government fought on for a year after their withdrawal before being defeated. In Europe, we saw the releative success of Tito and the catastrophe when he left.
Does this mean that we should start being naive about Assad, Gaddafi, and their spiritual predecessors? No, they're oppressive rulers with unpleasant methods, sometimes illegal under international law. But is it in our interest actively to intervene in their overthrow, with no clear alternative except groups who are much worse? Probably not. In fact it seems to me in retrospect mistaken that we have been trying to undermine Assad for years. Sometimes we need to learn from mistakes.
Nick, I don't always go on about being right: and I'm honest enough on here to say when I believe I'm wrong. But on this the people such as yourself who were against intervention have big questions to answer about the current mess.
'with no clear alternative except groups who are much worse?'
There was the FSA. And if you look into the crimes of Assad's regime (both father and son), it becomes hard to differentiate much between them and IS.
I do not overestimate our importance. Far from. But neither are we powerless, as Russia is keen to show.
But there is another issue here that gets hidden. I do not underestimate - as you seemingly do - the line that was crossed when Assad used chemical weapons. We ignored their use by Saddam in the 80's, much to our cost. Ignoring their use by the regime (and now IS/AlN) in Syria is reprehensible.
The FSA were and still are jokers. The only place they occupy are some floors in 5 star hotels in Istanbul.
Think Chalabi [ in Iraq ], think FSA. These are money making machines. Didn't the Americans spend $500m on them and 34 graduates came out. Some even joined ISIL.
And if someone can explain the practicalities of how a million deportations to Syria and points east by gunpoint will happen nicely, you are doing better than I, but in any case I would rather not re-enact the darkest hour of when all Europe refused European values to the children of the 1930s Ghettos.
IS are not like the children of the ghettos. They are more like their persecutors.
No if we'd removed Assad and helped another opposition leader take control then the situation could be controlled with them supported rather than ISIL taking control of the opposition (which it wasn't at the time of the vote).
Yes it was. I am not sure where this myth came from but I debunked it last time it was raised. Look at the dates for the vote and the dates for growing Isil activity inside Syria and the growth of Isil predates our Parliamentary decision by many months if not a year.
The alternatives you mention were already being ripped apart by internecine fighting well before we decided to get involved and the idea there was anyone else than Isil who would have been able to take advantage of our bombing Assad is ridiculous
The Parliamentary vote was August 2013 when the Free Syrian Army was still a major player, which it is not anymore. ISIL was growing yes and had been around in one form or another since the 20th century but it made great progress in 2014 which is after the Parliamentary Vote. The FSA fell apart in late 2014 too.
No, ISIS was formed in March 2013, and rolled through Syria from November 2013 onwards and utterly decimated the FSA in early 2014. If we had cleared the way for the FSA it would have cleared the way for ISIS just weeks later.
November 2013 is after August 2013. Early 2014 is after August 2013. By any definition the Parliamentary vote was earlier.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
Rubbish, are you really saying that the FSA would have completed a full military victory over Assad in less than 8 weeks and consolidated their power in that time. If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
The FSA support "disappeared" because they were all killed by ISIS.
It took six weeks for Germany to invade France. More recently it took six weeks for the US to topple Saddam in Iraq. 8 weeks is a very long time. Had the FSA had the armaments and full support of the west they would not have all been killed.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
But they wouldn't've taken over. Even in mid-2013, the FSA were only a very small part of the Syrian opposition; radical Islamists were already the dominant factions of the opposition then (even if they weren't quite as despicable as ISIL).
The FSA were still a part then and by any means it was better then than now. We had people to support then, we don't now. The FSA with our support would have been a hell of a lot stronger than the FSA without it.
How, we weren't going to put boots on the ground and ISIS had a massive call to arms to Muslims around the world who were pouring in via the Turkish border inflating their numbers to the tens of thousands in a short time. The FSA were sitting ducks for the well funded and manned ISIS.
They can't stand that Cameron was wrong and Ed, somehow, was right.
Ed cannot have been right because he didn't have a position. He promised to support the government position, and then reneged at the last moment for internal party political reasons, in the expectation that the government would win the vote anyway so he could have his cake and criticise the government for eating it. It was contemptible, however you look at it.
Of course there were serious and principled opponents to the intervention, and they might have been right. But Ed wasn't one of them.
A remarkable conclusion there, Sir, and might I suggest based more on hope than experience. Look at the list of the enemies the Taliban made and they are still there.
The Taliban's operations are local. ISIS is actively spoiling for a fight outside the borders of Syria and Iraq. Big difference.
Ok, I see the difference but I do not see how the range of enemies you mention are going to bring about the destruction of ISIS. How do you think it will happen?
No, I'm not rewriting history or muddling timelines. You'd like to think that, but I believe you're wrong.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
We do what we should have done at least a year ago. We stop trying to find a pure white side to back and support the only forces that are actually opposing Isil on the ground. That means the Kurds in the North and the combined Syrian/Iranian forces in the rest of the country. Assad is the only viable opponent to Isil in Syria. And you were not proved right at all. Your oath would have made things worse not better.
You cannot say that, and you cannot know it. You say it is impossible that pressure might not have forced Assad or senior members of his regime to cut a deal with the FSA, who were his main opponents in 2013.
I say you are wrong.
We went through all this at the time: sadly, the passing of time has muddied the waters further.
The FSA were steady effectively done for by then many of their factions had already defected to more militant Islamic groups, the it leaders were being assassinated and they gad already ceased to provide an effective or even recognisable opposition.
And this is not hindsight. I and many others were using exactly this argument then. Bombing Assad would simply have mad the job easier for Isil.
You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong now.
I think you've got your timelines really mucked up with that.
Having worked on archaeological sites in Northern Syria and being intimately involved with a lot of what was happening in the country in the early 2000s I have followed events closely. Hence the reason I know your time line us so warped.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
But they wouldn't've taken over. Even in mid-2013, the FSA were only a very small part of the Syrian opposition; radical Islamists were already the dominant factions of the opposition then (even if they weren't quite as despicable as ISIL).
The FSA were still a part then and by any means it was better then than now. We had people to support then, we don't now. The FSA with our support would have been a hell of a lot stronger than the FSA without it.
How, we weren't going to put boots on the ground and ISIS had a massive call to arms to Muslims around the world who were pouring in via the Turkish border inflating their numbers to the tens of thousands in a short time. The FSA were sitting ducks for the well funded and manned ISIS.
The FSA were trapped between a rock and a hard place fighting on two fronts with Assad using chemical weapons on one side and the nascent ISIL on the other. But they were still fighting at this stage and would be for a couple more months. Had we been providing military support the situation would be very different.
Attackers had Syrian, Egyptian and French passports
A journalist from Liberation reports that the attackers had Syrian and Egyptian passports on them, and that at least one of the attackers was a Frenchman known to authorities an on what is called a 'Fiche S', a watchlist of the security services. Ayoub El-Khazzani, the foiled attacker on the TGV, was also on one.
Police sources have also confirmed that one of the attackers at the Bataclan was a Frenchman.
Ok, I see the difference but I do not see how the range of enemies you mention are going to bring about the destruction of ISIS. How do you think it will happen?
Comments
"There's nothing to say that Western democracy will inevitably triumph worldwide, nor that what we have at the moment is permanent either.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm experiencing the equivalent of the Fall of Rome - of the modern age - in slow motion."
I've laid Lab @ 1.11 for a large amount. Am I a fool?
Accusation of "shutting down debate" is the new version of McCarthyism and anti-Communist hysteria. It is a way to shut down your brain rather than reasoning.
And I've proved Assad Snr did. The son is very much a chip of his old man's block.
This is getting a little ridiculous. It's a sad day when you defend the likes of both Assads and Hussein.
There is an opportunity today by forming a temporary alliance with Russia and Iran and ridding Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan of ISIS. We must, along with the French, do what is necessary to eradicate ISIS. That may mean getting into bed with some distasteful people but the alternative has just been demonstrated with devastating consequences in Paris.
"Fancy bringing religious war to Glasgow. We are 300 years ahead of you lot. you lot haven't even got a football team."
It sounded funny at the time....... not really now. This is beyond any joking.
You're also seemingly blind to the atrocities these men performed whilst in power in order to keep that power.
It's quite simple. They are not the alternative we should be looking for. They're too unstable, both inside their own countries and outside.
As I've said below,possibly the only answer is a fundamental reshaping of the region along tribal, religious and ethnic lines. That will be massively painful in the short term for the populations, but might stop the internal strife that the strongmen tried to keep in check.
This is what Corbyn was going to have said today:
“For the past 14 years, Britain has been at the centre of a succession of disastrous wars that have brought devastation to large parts of the wider Middle East. They have increased, not diminished, the threats to our own national security in the process.”
Just as well he cancelled it really.
Edited extra bit: P3 underway.
I am at turns amused and revolted by Muslims complaining about life in non muslim countries (very tolerant non muslim nations) whilst ignoring the rather huge Elephant in the room that is Islam's treatment of other religions.
The fact you persist in using strawman arguments and twisting facts to try and support your view shows how fanciful and false it is.
Did keep in check. That's the whole point. Your 'alternative' being a Western-imposed balkanisation of the region, along lines of ethnic and religious strife. Yeah, I'm sure that'll work out - it's been such a success elsewhere.
Of course I am also aware of the USA aspect too.
I was proved right when I said back in 2013 that if we did not bomb, the conflict would spread to neighbouring countries. I was yelled at by some on here back then, but I was right. I also said that the whole region would be destabilised if Assad continued. Again, I was right.
Not for the first time on here, I ask how we 'rid' those countries of ISIS, which is something people blithely throw about. It ignores the nature of ISIS, and the utter failure of Russia and America to rid similar elements from Afghanistan (twice), Iraq itself, and Chechnya (although the Russians have had partial success there, although hundreds are still dying each year).
It is very hard to rid countries of such elements, as it is set in belief. Supply pressure and they'll hide in the woodwork, and then come scurrying out when the pressure is reduced. They're cockroaches, and are about as hard to destroy.
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/665513534797819904
Edited extra bit: Mr. T, indeed, as per migration. Chattering class wibbling about mean old Cameron, polls showing people either agree with him or think he should be tougher.
https://twitter.com/igeldard/status/665521243844644864
The good citizens of Oldham and Royton. From some meaningless by-election in a forgotten part of rainy Britain, to the eyes of Europe, and maybe the world, watching.
-denies them a huge base of operations in which they can plot terror with impunity
-means there is no 'destination' that their converts can travel to in order to join up
-Saves innocent victims from having to live (and die) under ISIS rule
Are these not to be aspired to?
"... modern Western European society is intrinsically stable due to our democratic system that allows debate without threatening the existence of the government and state security."
I suppose that depends on what you mean by modern. However, I would suggest that democracy is not by itself a guarantee of stability - Germany between the wars was a democracy and Hitler came to power through an election.
The idea that the "tyranny of the majority" (actually in a lot of countries such as the UK, the "tyranny of the minority") as expressed through some voting system is somehow a superior system is a comparatively new idea and not one that, in my view, stands scrutiny. There are many examples of countries in which great progress for the ordinary people has been made but which were or are not democracies.
I think its a decent lay after last nights attack.
Current events let them stand up to Germany more easily.
I think the world is now wise to the empty gesture responses like tricolouring monuments, when on the important stuff, we are retreating.
Remember 'bring back our girls?'
complete boll8cks.
The point is that at times the Russians thought they had won in Afghanistan, and they were defeated. The coalition would send troops into a few villages in Afghanistan, drive the militants out, and they would come back the moment we left. This meant that we would continually take and retake the same villages.
Yes, it would be superb to defeat IS militarily. But we tried them in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we failed. If we did utterly banish the IS from Iraq and Syria, then they'd pop up in Yemen. Or Eritrea. Or elsewhere.
The genie of a new Caliphate, an Islamic State, is out of the bottle. Getting it back in again is going to be exceptionally difficult as it sadly appeals to so many people.
Yet that is what we need to do. Destroy not just their army, but the sick ideology that feeds new recruits and money into their hands.
Many thousands of immigrants from non-Syrian nations are wilfully destroying their passports and papers. Anyone not in possession of documents should be interned.
I say you are wrong.
We went through all this at the time: sadly, the passing of time has muddied the waters further.
It seems to me that the only reasonably successful suppression of ISIS-like groups has been by local strongmen, often using deplorable methods. It's worth remembering that Russia was also quite successful in Afghanistan until we actively worked to arm and assist the mujaheddin, and even then their puppet government fought on for a year after their withdrawal before being defeated. In Europe, we saw the releative success of Tito and the catastrophe when he left.
Does this mean that we should start being naive about Assad, Gaddafi, and their spiritual predecessors? No, they're oppressive rulers with unpleasant methods, sometimes illegal under international law. But is it in our interest actively to intervene in their overthrow, with no clear alternative except groups who are much worse? Probably not. In fact it seems to me in retrospect mistaken that we have been trying to undermine Assad for years. Sometimes we need to learn from mistakes.
As for removing ISIS, we can start by putting sanctions on those who fund ISIS and buy their oil, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar for a start. We can put assets on the ground to destroy their oil infrastructure (special forces) and rescue their oil engineer slaves/labourers. It would at least slow them down while we get a longer term solution figured out. While we treat with the allies of ISIS and have Merkel et al trying to make deals with Erdogan or even contemplating EU membership for Turkey we are going in the absolute wrong direction.
Fundamentally, we are on the wrong side. We are supporting hard line Islamist governments and the terrorists they fund in Syria and Iraq who are fighting to topple nominally secular governments/dictators.
What would the world look like today if Campbell, Blair and Co hadn't cooked up that dossier, and rigged the vote?
Back in the 1980s, this country had a problem with football hooliganism. The eventual solution required that ordinary football supporters had to change their customs and habits in wider society so that the Radical Hooliganists could be dealt with.
The core culture needs to be challenged here and it's up to the wider muslim community to adapt to Britain, not the other way round.
Women as baby making machines and men's property along with the hostility towards 'otherness', be it by religion or sexuality, are a couple of obvious areas.
It seems massively problematic for the equalities warriors who've spent so much of their time campaigning for gay rights, women's rights etc, that they have landed on the same side as the most homophobic and misogynistic culture on the planet.
It's always seemed to me that these people should be repulsed by Islam in Britain because it does everything it has fought against in terms of equality.
Instead, there has been an uneasy coalition of minorities and the dwindling support of the WWC has ultimately led to middle class liberals compromising the ideals they espoused twenty years ago because they are some of the only votes that remain on offer.
That is the problem. We cannot see beyond the £20bn arms sale and what would happen to sterling. Even the nice Emiratis and Qataris are not that nice. I am referring to the governments.
Bliar was a warmonger , we all know that as Chilcot will, no doubt, confirm. But these atrocities allow Bliar to come out and spread his gospel.
F1: practice is done. Will set about writing the pre-qualifying piece. If I have a tip, may take a while to post as the markets can be a bit sleepy.
Universal franchise democracy is not a necessary let alone sufficient factor in pursuit of human happiness.
I've ZERO respect for any of them.
"Actively practicing Muslims, what goes through your mind on a day like today?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3sqh0u/serious_actively_practicing_muslims_what_goes/
And again, you show you anti-Turkish bias which, if I remember correctly, is based on a ludicrous conspiracy theory.
Shades of Life of Brian...
1) David says " A brutal dictatorship is better than either chaos or a militant and crusading theocracy". Well, yes, but sometimes (as perhaps in Iran under the Shah, benign though he now seems in comparison to others), repression by the dictatorship ends up merely postponing the chaos and making the eventual reaction worse.
2) ISIS will be destroyed. They have made enemies of the US (albeit rather luke-warmedly so far), the UK, France, Europe generally, Turkey, Iran, and Russia. (The bombing of the Russian airliner was a massive blunder). Faltering and incoherent as the response of the West and its friends in the region has been so far, in the end ISIS cannot survive against such a range of enemies.
3) Of course, destroying ISIS won't solve the problem of Islamic terrorism. But it will help a lot in the fight.
4) Europe's, or more especially Germany's, insane open-borders policy is dead. That still leaves an awfully big political, humanitarian, and practical mess to clear up.
5) It's hard to see Schengen surviving, though no doubt its demise will be presented as a temporary 'suspension' - one of those temporary suspensions which goes on for ever.
What a pity our continental European friends didn't listen to Maggie's warning in her Bruges speech of 1988:
“it is a matter of plain common sense that we cannot totally abolish frontier controls if we are also to protect our citizens from crime and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists and of illegal immigrants.”
I have no bias against Turkey, I have cold hard realism that Erdogan is a Sunni Islamist who supports ISIS and their goal of bringing down Assad. You are blind to it, but that's not my problem.
Had FSA taken over they could be supported with the full apparatus of the Syrian state to defeat ISIL; besides in one way FSA support disappeared and went to ISIL once we decided to abandon the FSA in the face of Assad using chemical weapons on his people.
And this is not hindsight. I and many others were using exactly this argument then. Bombing Assad would simply have mad the job easier for Isil.
You were wrong then and you continue to be wrong now.
'with no clear alternative except groups who are much worse?'
There was the FSA. And if you look into the crimes of Assad's regime (both father and son), it becomes hard to differentiate much between them and IS.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/images-syrian-torture-shock-new-yorkers-united-nations
I do not overestimate our importance. Far from. But neither are we powerless, as Russia is keen to show.
But there is another issue here that gets hidden. I do not underestimate - as you seemingly do - the line that was crossed when Assad used chemical weapons. We ignored their use by Saddam in the 80's, much to our cost. Ignoring their use by the regime (and now IS/AlN) in Syria is reprehensible.
If you dont see that this is a threat of an entirely different nature you really are a fool. The IRA wanted one part of a small rainy island. The islamists want the world under their yoke. And what a dreadful yoke it is.
The FSA support "disappeared" because they were all killed by ISIS.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/brazil-pre-qualifying.html
Edited extra bit: shade sleepy/off-colour, so off for a lie down before qualifying.
We can't conflate the IRA with the Salafists though. The former had much more limited objectives.
Calling Salafism a 'sick ideology' doesn't work either. It's a very pure, quite seductive call for a return to Islamic roots. It's not going to go away, it's not interested in negotiation, nor can it be corrupted by Western consumerism and it doesn't necessarily have to have a leader. I don't know what we're to do to tackle it.
"... ISIS will be destroyed. They have made enemies of the US (albeit rather luke-warmedly so far), the UK, France, Europe generally, Turkey, Iran, and Russia. (The bombing of the Russian airliner was a massive blunder). Faltering and incoherent as the response of the West and its friends in the region has been so far, in the end ISIS cannot survive against such a range of enemies."
A remarkable conclusion there, Sir, and might I suggest based more on hope than experience. Look at the list of the enemies the Taliban made and they are still there.
How come, some organisation emerges and occupies half of two countries is beyond belief. Even today after a year of aerial bombing they cannot be dislodged. The second largest Iraqi city is under them.
They have obviously tapped the dissatisfaction of poor Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis.
It's pretty obvious that some Tories on here can't deal with the fact that Ed stumbled onto the right answer. He voted down Syrian action for the wrong reasons but it was still the right result. They can't stand that Cameron was wrong and Ed, somehow, was right.
Think Chalabi [ in Iraq ], think FSA. These are money making machines. Didn't the Americans spend $500m on them and 34 graduates came out. Some even joined ISIL.
Thankfully, the US has abandoned this programme.
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/3ljk1x/qdoes_the_fsa_army_actually_exist_or_is_it_just_a/
Of course there were serious and principled opponents to the intervention, and they might have been right. But Ed wasn't one of them.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/12/free-syrian-army-officer-killed
Having worked on archaeological sites in Northern Syria and being intimately involved with a lot of what was happening in the country in the early 2000s I have followed events closely. Hence the reason I know your time line us so warped.