Assad and Syria as a big conspiracy

First topic message reminder :

The arab league has tepidly dealt with the syria problem. It is a big problem and a human rights violation at least, as well as terrorism! The army terrorises the people. If Obama wanted to get some votes back he would get stuck in there. There will be very little over turning of the state when they are removed from power, like the first month of the iraq war, then pull out. Let the people build it up again. Of course this might not become reality, what with the us and syria, so the people need a plan.
 
In such a corrupt world, they would need little encouragement to find illegal arms. With these arms they could fight a civil war. If the arab leauge is serious about the terrorism they could avoid, they could either intervene, or sell weapons to the civilians or defectors. Of course nurturing terrorism is not 'cool', so they would need to do something to thwart it.

Sounds like Aubrey Bailey has a sound grasp on Middle Eastern politics at present.

I suspect all the other nations ought to keep well away from the whole sorry mess - just stand by with aid for the refugees

Funnily enough I don't see it that way. Remember this is all about oil. The terrorists were funded by Saudi and Bahrain and we hurrahed when they 'secured' the oil fields in the north of Syria. The liver-eaters went on to advance bin Laden's agenda for extreme Muslim theocracy as his part of the deal, and the western democracies got cold feet about the collateral of civilian casualties. Once ti was clear the UK wasn't going to go along with the destruction of a multi-faith Syria, and displacement of all Syria's citizens Iraq and Bahrain acknowledged that in order to keep the gains they had made they would have to curb the risk to civilians.
I suppose I support the air attacks on ISIL and their caliphate agenda, because it has no room for multi-faith communities. This is still about supporting Saudi oil production and delivery for us, however, and the players are playing for high stakes.

You may have seen in the papers in August that a ship of Kurdish oil arrived in the US shortly before air strikes were authorised.

Hmm
I can't argue, because this is not an area I'm familiar with.
I just have a strong sense that Middle Eastern politics are a very messy and convoluted business, and I've seen no evidence that any of our 'Western' leaders have any very clear grasp of the nuances, so any intervention is only going to exacerbate an already intolerable situation.

Also, I do tend to be a pacifist, and it's not clear to me that there's ever been any really serious attempt to avoid violence, or for the rest of the world to act as 'honest broker' to facilitate a less or non-violent solution. It's all about keeping power and grabbing the oil

The Middle East has been "troubled" throughout recorded History, and there is no current evidence that much is likely to change any time soon. The best we can hope for is to minimise the spill-over into our own daily lives - problematic while we remain so reliant upon Oil for so much.

For a balanced look at the current dilemma this article in the Telegraph approaches the issues in a simple and clear way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/11118838/Air-strikes-play-into-the-hands-of-Saudi-inspired-jihadists.html

'The literal-minded Americans are determined to destroy Isil, and are ready to make the necessary compromises. This is why they have opened up unofficial lines of communication with President Assad through intermediaries in Damascus and elsewhere. However, Saudi Arabia (which carried on backing Isil up to the early spring of this year, almost certainly with the tacit approval of Britain and America) remains preoccupied with the destruction of Assad. Indeed, the Saudi royal family is neurotically sensitive about Isil, because it recognises that it represents a mortal threat to its system of government.

This is because Isil is not a mutation of Islam, as President Obama has asserted. It is all too faithful to the literalist Saudi interpretation of Sunni Islam as set out by its 18th-century founder Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Hence the extraordinary popularity of Isil within Saudi Arabia itself. '

The Kurds asked for help in August and sent a tanker full of oil to the US. This may have helped Obama decide.

The Saudis hold many of the cards in this advance of their ideology across the region. The thawing of relations with Iran may require them to at least appear rational about the humanitarian dimension to ISIL's attraction for would-be jihadists in the west.

Whatever our government decides we must be clear about the rights and wrongs of any action - and the place for war crimes to be judged - in the Hague - and a reckoning in hindsight of who needs to be called to account.

The day has yet to dawn upon a full and lasting agreement between any two Arab administrations of the Middle East.

Thatcher went to war with Iraq and the Falklands. No hesitation in sending in ground forces and she was praised and rewarded with anther term of office. Blair on the other hand had been castigated for going to war with Iraq even though he IMO had to act upon the intelligence information at that time.

Now we bomb Islamic State, with little or no effect, which means they become stronger by the day and the threat to us here in the UK grows. I wrote to P Hammond (knowing I would not receive a reply) asking him why all the nations at threat could not collectivly send ground troops in from all sides. This would mean IS would be wiped out in a matter of days.

Instead and for political reasons-- the iminent election, the Tory Party will refrain from sending in troops at the risk of a huge threat to the people of the UK, and the opportunity for IS to grow stronger. This shows me that they will stoop at doing anything or perhaps nothing that might affect their desire for yet another 5yrs of office.

No reply from our dear man Hammond of course.

Well the Tories are cutting the armed forces down Mel, but if they are going to attack properly and also put our people at risk they will not do so until at least three months after the election.

'The Corbyn effect' - and that's even before his election as leader is confirmed!  

"Cameron has indicated he will abandon plans to extend military air strikes against Islamic State targets from Iraq to Syria if Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader of the Labour Party."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/04/david-cameron-abandon-syria-airstrikes-vote-jeremy-corbyn-wins

Russia will presumably have a lot to say about any extension of NATO military action within Syria.

Nuclear row hits shadow cabinet after Jeremy Corbyn says he would never 'press the button'

on weapons Mirror

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nuclear-row-hits-shadow-cabinet-after-jeremy-corbyn-

says-he-would-never-press-the-button-on-weapons/ar-AAeXToG?li=AA59G2


"Storm in a teacup" or massive folly? As a vice-president of CND it would be surprising to

hear Jeremy Corbyn say anything else. The cumulative cost of "Trident" and the whole

apparatus of Nuclear Deterrent since 1945 would incidentally have allowed Britain to build

a free home for every one of its families plus free Care Homes for the elderly. There's

also the moral aspect of obliterating large bits of the world together with its human

beings.

Defence is an unavoidable expense for any sovereign nation, but the extraordinary nature of

nuclear weapons imposes long and open debate. Many people believe that the result of a

World War Three would be the end of the human race. Mutually Assured Destruction. Useful.

It's reasonable to ask whether nuclear weapons can ever be used. They certainly weren't

employed in the Korean War, just six years after Hiroshima, nor during the Cuba crisis, nor

during the Vietnam conflict, nor the Desert Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan. No function in Kosovo

when Yugoslavia splintered, and no deterrent to 9/11 or any of the "terrorist" flare-ups.

There is of course a case to be made for being a "Nuclear Power" if you are a politician.

Strutting the World Stage becomes more credible when you can remind people, "We're on the

UN Security Council, you know".

Priceless!

Frankie Boyle writes:-

"A government that doesn’t believe it should have any responsibility for regulating our banks or even delivering our post thinks it needs to be a key player in, of all things, the Syrian civil war. Somehow, the plight of this strategically significant state has touched their hearts. Britain is so concerned about refugees that it will do anything – except take in refugees – to try to kill its way to a peaceful solution."

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/20/britain-clings-bombing-addiction-weary-rationale-junkie-frankie-boyle

Frankie Boyle so often hits the nail solidly on the head - always has something interesting to say

France appears to have gained the UN support that eluded Tony Blair.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/un-back-call-to-tackle-is-threat-by-all-means/ar-BBngecA?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=U219DHP

boatlady wrote:Frankie Boyle so often hits the nail solidly on the head

It would be better if he hit the nail into his head.

Interesting opinion

I am glad you liked it, boatlady. Boyle is homonymically well named.

often wrong wrote:Whatever you got ............ I'm against it!

Sounds rebellious enough. Would "bottom" put a hole in this aphorism?

The Weaver?

I was employing a CHEEKY pun, often wrong. Your play will do if you choose another character - the ass.

Please stick to the topic of this thread:-

Assad and Syria as a big conspiracy

Many thanks.

In a region where beheadings are a peaceful activity and God loves nothing better than a lashing for heresy it may be that Assad is closer to saint than villain. He's well educated enough to know not to eat human flesh, unlike his opponents. Perhaps it is not too late to join with Mother Russia in opposing rebels and ISIS, then working with Assad - not to establish democracy, which doesn't suit the geography of the region - but to get him to act with more humanity.

Something about "leopard" and "spots" keeps intruding upon that particular debate.  

As does "chip off the old block"

A couple of thoughts on this difficult issue…….  

Firstly, from Simon Jenkins:-

“Bombing Syria has nothing to do with terrorism, except possibly to increase the likelihood of it in Britain. It has nothing positive to contribute to Britain’s national security, which is not currently under threat. The idea that ISIS might undermine British values is an insult to those values. That it might attain a caliphate in the Mile End Road is a fantasy of men shut up too long in a Cobra bunker.

The one remotely sensible objective of a resumed British engagement in the Middle East would be to restore a modicum of order to Syria and Iraq. But as long as the governments of neither state, nor of other states in the region, are willing to offer troops to this end, the chances of the west succeeding on its own are minimal – or at best likely to be temporary. There are some conflicts even Great Britain might be powerless to resolve.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/david-cameron-syria-macho-foolish-labour-jeremy-corbyn

Secondly, from Dennis Skinner:-


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CU0AUxSWUAE_qyy.jpg

The Beast of Bolsover has spotted the Elephant in this Middle Eastern room - Erdogan (the "g" is silent as in "devious") who is busily erasing the Westernising intentions of Kemal Attaturk, founder of the modern secular Turkey.

Before you know it they'll be sporting the Fez again.  

Just like that!  
©weblo.com

Well, I grant you we'll not turn a leopard into a nightingale, oftenwrong, but we have in the past supped well with the devil. With so many devils around now it is hardly avoidable. For my own part, I prefer an educated devil to a religious idiot.

Skinner is simply enunciating what must be obvious to a ten-year old. We should never have gone to bed with Turkey in the first place.

Bombing Syria is dealing with terrorism if it wipes out the stronghold of ISIS. The Arab states get their disproportionate pull because of their oil wealth. In the past we would impolitely have removed them from their oil. Today we are too busy apologising for the numerous misdeeds of our successful past. We are best seen in our threats not in our actions. We even imprison our soldiers for killing the enemy in disregard of the Marquis of Queensberry rules. And we laud cowards who are now called "whistle-blowers." Such a mess. Yet we presume to iron out Syria's problems.

Whose side are we on?

If only it were that simple. Everybody has a dog in that fight: Britain, France, USA, Russia, Turkey, Iran, various Muslim factions all suspicious of each other, Israel, Saudi Arabia ....

On the other hand it could all be settled within the UN since most of its members seem to have an opinion on the matter.

On the other hand it could all be settled within the UN

Yes, the UN has an excellent record of settling disputes and acting as peace-keepers.

oftenwrong wrote:

On the other hand it could all be settled within the UN since most of its members seem to have an opinion on the matter.

That's precisely why it cannot be settled at the UN. There are differing opinions on the security council, all of whom are armed with a veto.

21 November 2015

The UN Security Council unanimously approved a French-sponsored resolution calling on all nations to redouble and coordinate action to prevent further attacks by Islamic State terrorists and other extremist groups.

The resolution says the Islamic State group "constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security" and expresses the council's determination "to combat by all means this unprecedented threat."

The resolution "unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms" these and earlier "horrifying terrorist attacks" carried out by the Islamic State this year in Sousse, Tunisia and Ankara, Turkey.

The resolution calls on UN member states "that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures" against the Islamic State group and all other violent extremist groups "to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria."

Thats a statement of intent, but it hardly settles the matter, anyone in their right mind would agree with it. It doesn't deal with any of the intricacies of the different alliances, it doesn't prevent attacks on groups fighting daesh continuing, it does nothing to stem the inflow of oil cash and arms either, and it does not deal with the thorny issue of how to fill the power vacuum removing daesh creates - because there is no agreement on many of those points.

A significant percentage of Turkey's population sympathise with ISIS. Turkey deliberately and/ or stupidly shot down a Russian plane. Europe's response to this is not only to back Turkey's action, given she is in NATO, but to move towards admitting her into the European Union, a plan favoured by Merkel, who seems to be losing her grip on reality as well as on Germany.
It is going to be hard for us to regard Assad's opponents as enemies. Putin long ago warned us that we were wrong to support them. It will feel strange to bomb former friends but that looks like the way things have to go.

"What we have to do is to engage the local people."