Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh) Discussion

[spooky lynx 73]

If IS positions are on Turkish soil its Turkish jurisdiction. And stop with that bullshit because we know that IS claims territory in Syrian an Iraq. Do you think that politicians in Russia don't know that any attack inside NATO members territory would imply a response from other NATO members? 

I'd correct myself: what if IS positions in Syria were just close to Turkish border? So it's quite possible that some warplane may enter Turkish airspace a bit while performing combat sorties.

[sudayev 27]

Both Russian pilots have been shot dead. Gunshot wounds on their bodies. FSA coastal brigade admitted to killing them.

[pulstar 55]

Both Russian pilots have been shot dead. Gunshot wounds on their bodies. FSA coastal brigade admitted to killing them.

 

They'd have been more valuable alive.

[St. Jimmy 272]

They'd have been more valuable alive.

They couldn't resist the chance. You can hear how much they enjoy the situation and are shouting Allahu Akbar more than Trailer Park Boys say fuck between seasons 1-9.

[vilas 473]

journalist in my country wrote that Russia said on G20 about ISIS oil business and that son of Erdogan is in that business, can anyone confirm it ? and that Guardian wrote about son of Erdogan in ISIS oil business too ? 

[carlostex 38]

I'd correct myself: what if IS positions in Syria were just close to Turkish border? So it's quite possible that some warplane may enter Turkish airspace a bit while performing combat sorties.

 

One more reason to not act like assholes and doing all these silly provocations that happened days before. 

 

With such a condensed airspace where Syrian and Russian Air Forces flying around and also the western coalition it would be good to everybody coordinate and cooperate, this would avoid such accidents and even fracticides which we know are common during wartime operations. And since apparently Russian planes had already violated Turkish airspace it would be wise to be more careful to avoid these violations instead of "we can fly over your territory and buzz your aircraft carriers and you can't do anything about it" policy.

 

I don't doubt that the Turks were trigger happy, but again the Russians are saying it was shot down from the ground, so i can also speculate that the Russian politicians don't mind losing 2 pilots to get an alibi to now bomb the FSA relentlessly.

 

To be honest i just want IS to be destroyed, i think the FSA isn't what it was anymore and it wa probably better to keep Assad in power. So this just turned into a big clusterfuck.

 

Our thoughts should be with the pilots (confirmed dead?) and their families, and i hope these stupid politics changed so that lives that fight for the better are not lost.

[sudayev 27]

Russian rescue helicopter 'shot down by Syrian rebels' while searching for pilots of plane downed by Turkey. (alleged)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IschF-ihjS0&feature=youtu.be

 

Turkmen mujahedin of FSA claim to shot with two Su24 pilots while they were falling on parachutes. Barbarians.

[pulstar 55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

 

Can someone find the wiki if it exists about fighter violation of airspace and subsequent downing of said planes?

[sudayev 27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

 

Can someone find the wiki if it exists about fighter violation of airspace and subsequent downing of said planes?

 

There were examples from the past when the world was on the verge of nuclear war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_combat_losses_between_the_USSR_and_US

[pulstar 55]

I don't doubt that the Turks were trigger happy, but again the Russians are saying it was shot down from the ground, so i can also speculate that the Russian politicians don't mind losing 2 pilots to get an alibi to now bomb the FSA relentlessly.

 

People already forgot about Kursk. She sank and the sailors could have been saved, but Putin was playing a high-level espionage game and they were expendable.

 

Another issue is that things are already a FUBAR'd clusterfeck, how bad removing these Allawite mafiose from power is going to make matters? The majority population has already become refugees, so it's going to be bad for the minorities too that's a given. Sykes picot is coming home to roost.

[semiconductor 309]

how bad removing these Allawite mafiose from power is going to make matters?

Sigh, it's been 35 years already and some well-meaning middle-class people still can't embrace the idea that the Middle East is different from West and you can't just remove the dictator without condemning the country into the decades of chaos and civil strife. But hey, it worked so well in the Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, let's try it again folks! ^_^

[pulstar 55]

Sigh, it's been 35 years already and some well-meaning middle-class people still can't embrace the idea the Middle East is different form West and you can't just remove the dictator without condemning the country into the decades of chaos and civil strife. But hey, it worked so well in the Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, let's try it again folks! ^_^

 

I get what you're saying.. This isn't the Syria thread, but if we got in a time machine and showed Assad what the protests were going to turn into, would he and his cabal implement serious democratic reforms? Was all this avoidable, and how much of the upheaval was caused by climate change? Remember the story when they cut off the tongue of one of the key protest chanters way back? I never believed Assad was going to change things in his country.

[spooky lynx 73]

Do you think serious democratic reforms in clan-based society can bring anything good?

[semiconductor 309]

implement serious democratic reforms?

Well, the democracy literally means "rule of the people" and the problem with ME is that They The People actually don't have a problem with beheadings, religious crusades, extreme violence and radical branches of certain religions. Best case scenario, the democratic reforms would result in a helpless state with constant inner fight for power between various groups (Iraq), in the worst case the ISIL-alike organization would have took the power over the entire county without firing a bullet (like Muslim Brotherhood tried in Egypt but was stopped by military).

 

It seems that democracy is not a universal solution and the Middle Eastern countries cannot exist without an strong, authoritarian leader, at least for the time being. I'm afraid that removal of Assad will only result in a civil war that will eventually (after decades of fighting and thousands of dead) give birth to - if we're very lucky - yet another Assad.

[pulstar 55]

Do you think serious democratic reforms in clan-based society can bring anything good?

 

I guess historians will look back upon this era as a correction to an anthropological anomaly. One that cost countless lives, mind. The country has to be divided along ethnic lines but the minorities will get shafted in the process.

[sudayev 27]

 

!!!

 

An explosion has hit a bus carrying presidential guards in Tunisia's capital, Tunis, officials say.

At least 12 people have been killed in the blast, the interior ministry said.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34915253

[dontknowhow 33]

Sigh, it's been 35 years already and some well-meaning middle-class people still can't embrace the idea that the Middle East is different from West and you can't just remove the dictator without condemning the country into the decades of chaos and civil strife. But hey, it worked so well in the Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, let's try it again folks! ^_^

Morocco is not doing too bad. Tunisia is starting. Yes, there will likely be many years of chaos. Does that mean we should not do it?

What's your alternative? Leaving them with a dictatorship?

[pulstar 55]

Morocco is not doing too bad. Tunisia is starting. Yes, there will likely be many years of chaos. Does that mean we should not do it?

What's your alternative? Leaving them with a dictatorship?

 

I'm of the opinion that foreign intervention in Syria has been very bad, because A) nobody understands the middle east and B) nobody intervenes in foreign affairs unless it benefits them. Chivalry is a myth.

[semiconductor 309]

Yes, there will likely be many years of chaos. Does that mean we should not do it?

So, to help people in Somecountrystan we need to enforce on them a system of government that will inevitably fail and thus condemn millions of the people we're helping, almost entire Somecountrystan population, to decades of civil war, massacre, extremism, crime, abuse, slavery, lost generations and no hope for the future? Well, if we truly want to help them, not murder them and steal their country resources, then yes, I think that means we should not do it. As long as they're not a direct threat to us, we probably should give them a chance to be masters of their own country and their own fate.

 

What's your alternative? Leaving them with a dictatorship?

Exactly. It's time to understand that West is not a universal model for all societies to follow and that there is no point in forcefully imposing on a country a model of government that wasn't a product of its continuous and natural evolution because the problems each society faces during its development and answers to those problems are unique to it. Maybe in time Syria will became a democracy but now it's simply not ready to it and we should not intervene. Today's mess is a direct result of western attempts to fix the Middle East and if after 50 years of "repairs" it still can't stand on it's own then we're pretty bad mechanicians and it's time to allow Middle Eastern nations to find a solution to their problems by themselves.

[dontknowhow 33]

I'm of the opinion that foreign intervention in Syria has been very bad, because A) nobody understands the middle east and B) nobody intervenes in foreign affairs unless it benefits them. Chivalry is a myth.

I'm not sure chivalry is a complete myth, but stability is in everyone's interest, especially when it's in the Middle East and it's causing millions of people to come to Europe

I'm not sure I agree completely on point A, but I would say in general it's an issue

 

So, to help people in Somecountrystan we need to enforce on them a system of government that will inevitably fail and thus condemn millions of the people we're helping, almost entire Somecountrystan population, to decades of civil war, massacre, extremism, crime, abuse, slavery, lost generations and no hope for the future? Well, if we truly want to help them, not murder them and steal their country resources, then yes, I think that means we should not do it. As long as they're not a direct threat to us, we probably should give them a chance to be masters of their own country and their own fate.

No, not enforce, if they don't want it. But if they all want to come to Europe they will have to take at least a few things from Europe. I honestly think it's more their choice, what they need is help to keep order.

I obviously want to give them a chance to be masters of their own country and their own fate, but when they say they want democracy and never get it, or even worse when I find millions of them at my doorstep, maybe I can guess that it's the case to help them

 

Exactly. It's time to understand that West is not a universal model for all societies to follow and that there is no point in forcefully imposing on a country a model of government that wasn't a product of its continuous and natural evolution because the problems each society faces during its development and answers to those problems are unique to it. Maybe in time Syria will became a democracy but now it's simply not ready to it and we should not intervene. Today's mess is a direct result of western attempts to fix the Middle East and if after 50 years of "repairs" it still can't stand on it's own then we're pretty bad mechanicians and it's time to allow Middle Eastern nations to find a solution to their problems by themselves.

50 years?

Everyone agrees on them find a solution by themselves, but I really don't think a dictatorship imposed with weapons by few is a solution they are satisfied with.

They do that by themselves, without force.

[semiconductor 309]

but when they say they want democracy and never get it

The question is - who's "they"? The people who participated in the demonstrations? That's just a minor part of Syrian population. If everybody except Assad wanted a democracy, he would have lose his power almost instantly but that's not the case, there is many people who fight and die for him and his vision of Syria's future. The situation is not as simple as "Bad Assad vs. All Syrians" so I think it's not a good idea to join the conflict and make it even more complicated.

 

when I find millions of them at my doorstep, maybe I can guess that it's the case to help them

So instead of demanding from the politicians you personally and consciously elected to close your own country's borders for refugees you want the other country to drown itself in blood? I'm afraid that is not the most effective or humane solution. :D

 

Everyone agrees on them find a solution by themselves, but I really don't think a dictatorship imposed with weapons by few is a solution they are satisfied with.

If the majority of population will not be satisfied with the government, then the dictatorship will be eventually demolished one way or another, just like it has happened many times in western history. External intervention, however, will only cause various groups to put aside their differences and unite against the common enemy thus prolonging the existence of regime.

[dontknowhow 33]

The question is - who's "they"? The people who participated in the demonstrations? That's just a minor part of Syrian population. If everybody except Assad wanted a democracy, he would have lose his power almost instantly but that's not the case, there is many people who fight and die for him and his vision of Syria's future. The situation is not as simple as "Bad Assad vs. All Syrians" so I think it's not a good idea to join the conflict and make it even more complicated.

Maybe we should look at who's fighting because there are not many choices, who left the country, and who is doing neither but is hoping this thing will stop.

I think at the end you will find out that the really bad people are not that many, and the same goes for the people supporting Assad. They are just better armed, and they are now in such a situation that they need the Russians

 

So instead of demanding from the politicians you personally and consciously elected to close your own country's borders for refugees you want the other country to drown itself in blood? I'm afraid that is not the most effective or humane solution. :D

I don't think locking everything out and hiding under the bed is a good solution. It's always a good idea to have a good neighborhood, and I'm sure there are many people, like me, considering the fact that having all these people dying right in front of you, begging for your help, is not exactly a great show.

Besides, these people come by boat. You can't put a fence there like it's done in Melilla.

 

If the majority of population will not be satisfied with the government, then the dictatorship will be eventually demolished one way or another, just like it has happened many times in western history. External intervention, however, will only cause various groups to put aside their differences and unite against the common enemy thus prolonging the existence of regime.

that's sort of correct, but if the dictatorship is demolished you don't know what comes next, because there can always be someone who's just better armed or more aggressive.

Western history is just an endless streak of wars and massacres, so I don't think we are in the condition to lecture many people. Last century things changed, also thanks to the Marshall plan. They are not there yet; I still think we can and should help them. Besides, it's not that Western Europe was very quiet in the '70s and '80s

It's true that various groups will fight the external force, even if probably not united. I said it already: there will likely be many years of chaos. It happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that there is a sort of "we stay behind and do the training, you do it" approach coming out of it that seems to work.

The Moroccans are fine, the Tunisians seem to be on the way, the Egyptians were close. To me it's clear what they want, they just don't know how to do it. I know there are cultural issues, but there is still no reason to believe they can't do it.

[semiconductor 309]

bad people are not that many

And yet again it's the West (specifically the US) who decides who's "bad" and "good". As I said, that approach didn't do much good to the Middle East up to the present moment. Interestingly enough, Assad needs Russians because the rebels somehow got themselves a shiny western weapons, especially anti-tank ones. Makes me wonder, what if there is some another country involved in all this and involved from the very beginning?

 

I don't think locking everything out and hiding under the bed is a good solution. It's always a good idea to have a good neighborhood, and I'm sure there are many people, like me, considering the fact that having all these people dying right in front of you, begging for your help, is not exactly a great show.

But not getting involved in the conflicts that doesn't concern you is a good idea actually. Yes, brutal suppression of protests by police is not a great show but it's way better than drowning a nation in blood (not just protesters, mind you, but literally everyone, men, women, children, elderly, teachers, policemen, army, doctors, everyone). Yes, the dictator in this case kinda holds the rest of his nation as a hostages, and yes, it's "not a great show" but I think it's better than killing or destroying the lives of all of them. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have found all those refugees on your doorstep.

 

Besides, these people come by boat. You can't put a fence there like it's done in Melilla.

So, you're saying that your country is powerless against the people who come into it using certain means of transportation? Don't be funny. I'm sure shipping them back to whatever country they have come from on a ferry will be way cheaper than having them on a welfare or funding a group that bears half of the responsibility for forcing them to flee.

 

there will likely be many years of chaos.

The question is - for what purpose? To allow some foreign country to secure juicy contracts, extract resources cheaply or prove to the world its military might? Just to someone sitting in the big office could put a checkmark on his mental List of Destroyed Dictatorships (conveniently forgetting about all the terror that followed)? I believe that if we leave those countries alone they will eventually (in 20-30 yers time maybe) relatively peacefully became if not democratic, then not so authoritarian at least. Recent history has a great example - the Soviet Union. It was immune for any external agression involvement but as the time marched on people realized that CPSU's regime have long outlived its usefulness and so in 1991 it dissolved without any major conflicts and most of the new independent states were able to peacefully develop on their own. While USSR was a "western nation" in a sense that most of its population have shared European culture, I think the similar scenario is also possible for Middle Eastern nations sometime in the future.

[dontknowhow 33]

And yet again it's the West (specifically the US) who decides who's "bad" and "good".

Actually in this case it's just me, sorry. I'm aware of my greatness, nevertheless I am sure I disappointed you

We were talking about few forcing many with violence. The few that are against a more democratic process. They are the bad people

 

As I said, that approach didn't do much good to the Middle East up to the present moment.

I disagree. It didn't go well in Iraq and Libya, but I believe Afghanistan is better off now than 15 years ago, and improving. It's the reason why I think that was the best approach, even if maybe it should be tweaked a bit

 

Assad needs Russians because the rebels somehow got themselves a shiny western weapons, especially anti-tank ones.

The rebels got their anti tank weapons, and it took a while. They still don't have tanks, anti air weapons, air power with barrel bombs, good supply lines, good communications, regular troops. And yet Assad his getting his ass kicked. Not to mention that there is another major party; they had an unintentional help at the beginning, but for sure they are not getting any help now.

Besides, while the rebels were still waiting for their weapons, Assad was getting his. And those were not just a couple of firecrackers. So let's see if we can look at the whole picture, not just from one side.

 

But not getting involved in the conflicts that doesn't concern you is a good idea actually.

Maybe it's not clear: it does concern me, and a lot. It's actually my  major concern.

It starts to be my concern when I see those videos of kids crying after some bombing

It is my concern when I see this happening pretty much on the other side of my border

It is an even bigger concern when I see, on the other side of my border, the biggest supporter of global terror. That supporter also happen to be willing to destroy me

It is a serious concern when I see a huge flow of refugees I can't even control (I might actually do better if I put some more effort, but that's another story). Many of them die coming here, trying to get my help. This is when I say this thing has to stop

But it is my main concern when I see that the aforementioned supporter of global terror managed to sneak some terrorists together with the aforementioned refugees. And pretty nasty terrorists, too

So, see, by now I would already be in Syria.

 

Yes, the dictator in this case kinda holds the rest of his nation as a hostages

Ah, see, you said it yourself

 

it's "not a great show" but I think it's better than killing or destroying the lives of all of them. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have found all those refugees on your doorstep.

their lives are already destroyed, and they started coming way before any intervention. I would have those refugees at my doorstep anyway.

Where there is (civil) war there are refugees. Tunisia, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Rwanda; just out of the top of my head.

And it's not just a Syrian problem, by the way. Refugees are coming from everywhere.

 

So, you're saying that your country is powerless against the people who come into it using certain means of transportation? Don't be funny. I'm sure shipping them back to whatever country they have come from on a ferry will be way cheaper than having them on a welfare or funding a group that bears half of the responsibility for forcing them to flee.

They are not on welfare forever, and you are assuming that the Turks (or the Libyans) would allow it. If it was so easy we would have done it already 4 years ago, when this mess started. It might be me, but I don't find it so funny

Besides, why should I unload this mess on Turkey? They vote for an idiot, but this is not their fault; and they already have a couple of millions refugees. It's honestly ridiculous to think they should take more, while we keep our head in the sand.

 

Recent history has a great example - the Soviet Union. It was immune for any external agression involvement but as the time marched on people realized that CPSU's regime have long outlived its usefulness and so in 1991 it dissolved without any major conflicts and most of the new independent states were able to peacefully develop on their own.

You are deceiving yourself. There were some serious fights, even if maybe not a full blown civil war, and the Soviet Union was definitely not immune. With the economy in tatters it could not be different. The West literally extorted (or bought, to put it nicely) those countries' way to freedom.

 

I think the similar scenario is also possible for Middle Eastern nations sometime in the future.

Of course it is. The Tunisians did it. The Egyptians were so close, and they might still get it. But it's also possible that nothing happens, or that it gets worse.

Yet I'm not sure it's a good reason to wait so long, even if unfortunately I'm afraid this is more or less what will happen.

[semiconductor 309]

The few that are against a more democratic process. They are the bad people

Gee, good thing that everything is black and white in the Middle East. "Many good people" vs. "few bad people", like it's always been, uh-huh. And yeah, Assad's "badness" is not related to his anti-US position in any way. It's not related to Syria's strategic position in region and its friendship with Russia either. Sure.

Sarcasm aside, the point being that Syria is not some small, poor and generally inconsequential country, there are many powers and covert interests fighting for control over it and none of them with the obvious exception of Assad, wants Syria to be peaceful and prosperous. Assad is not an angel either, far from it, but he's the only one who will lose everything if Syria go down in flames so he is interested in actually preserving it.

 

Maybe it's not clear: it does concern me, and a lot. It's actually my  major concern.

The thing is, all of this had happened precisely because certain western countries decided to push forward their interests. Precisely because they thought that this is "their major concern". Now they reap what they sow and slowly approach to the understanding that Assad is their best bet in order to bring stability to the region, whether they like it or not. Without a strong authoritarian leader or full-scale western intervention Syria will became ISIL territory in a matter of months with with all the ensuing consequences. As the saying goes, of two evils choose the less and I think we both agree that Assad is the lesser evil compared to ISIL both to syrian people and international community.

Not to mention that if FSA would have been left without external support in the first place, Assad would have crushed it years ago and the syrian people would have been able to enjoy peaceful lives. Yeah, under an authoritarian rule but peaceful and relatively prosperous nonetheless.

 

If it was so easy we would have done it already 4 years ago, when this mess started. It might be me, but I don't find it so funny

Hold on for a second, I wasn't saying that it would be easy or even exactly humane. I assume that you live in a western, democratic country, right? Then it's completely up to you to decide who you want to see in your country. You don't want to see refugees? Then write a letter to your representative, join a rally, vote for the guy in suit that promises to kick them out, do something. That's how democracy works. The influx of the refugees in the Europe is the direct result of European policy towards them, not Assad's policy towards protesters. How come you're advocating democracy in other countries but apparently don't want to use it in your own?

 

And your country might not even need to resort to ethically questionable measures. Just cut those social benefits and welfare and see how the flow of so-called refugees shrink considerably. It might be a strong statement but in the end neither you nor your country owe anything to these people.

 

They vote for an idiot, but this is not their fault;

And that is not how democracy works. It they woted for an idiot in a democractic elections then it's completely and undeniably their fault. The ability to make decisions always comes with responsibility for them.

 

You are deceiving yourself. There were some serious fights, even if maybe not a full blown civil war, and the Soviet Union was definitely not immune.

Maybe it wasn't completely immune but the point is that external intervention never happened. Yes, the dissolution of SU and loss of an authoritarian leader caused certain old-aged frozen conflicts to activate again but all of them happened in the Middle Eastern republics, most of them entered in the phase of passive confrontation by the end of the decade and none of them are really comparable with Syrian or Iraq crysis.

 

Yet I'm not sure it's a good reason to wait so long, even if unfortunately I'm afraid this is more or less what will happen.

Well, after more than a 50 years of constant western intervention in the Middle East that resulted in non-stopping conflicts everywhere in the region I think there is a good reason to leave them alone for some time and see what happens. Because, again, western attempts to fix Middle East up and install a semi-puppet governments didn't worked very well with the exception of two small and irrelevant countries.