Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nicholas

Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh) Discussion

Recommended Posts

problem of Ukraine is huge corruption (we all know about it) and oligarchy (country not being country/state but regions ruled by 1 businessmen family) in such conditions mafia/gangsters do not have any problems in illegal trade (and a lot of weapons lie on ground by the dead fighters of both sides including mapads, atgms etc)

in such conditions it is not big surprise that gangsters deal with terrorists - thats why since years in Ukrainian topic i say that corruption is worst enemy of any state cause it makes country disfunction , 

when there were battles in eastern part of Ukraine and you had even 20 killed or 50 killed soldiers from both sides, you had by them not only AK74's but also RPGs, Stelas, Iglas, Kornets 

gangsters were robbing such stuff , bribed policeman controlled by oligarch was opening road to mafia, mafia was leaving country and packing it to containers which were exported abroad , 

when weapons are produced by private industry we also do not know about "not registered" production for example (without any numbers without plates)

in case of destroyed army storage you do not know where weapons disappeared (if someone robbed military base )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem of Ukraine is huge corruption (we all know about it) and oligarchy (country not being country/state but regions ruled by 1 businessmen family) in such conditions mafia/gangsters do not have any problems in illegal trade (and a lot of weapons lie on ground by the dead fighters of both sides including mapads, atgms etc)

in such conditions it is not big surprise that gangsters deal with terrorists - thats why since years in Ukrainian topic i say that corruption is worst enemy of any state cause it makes country disfunction , 

 

Well the article isn't that clear. It says it isn't impossible that Ukrainian gangsters dealt those weapons, while there are easier ways for ISIS to get some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just said about such possibility before  from Russian officials we will hear  "haaa bad Ukraine support evil terrorism thats why we had to secure people on Crimea" ;) or about Tatars from there (Tatars are moderate muslims who are not radicals and who integrated long ago )

Russian intel if found weapons that came from Ukraine - would be happy to had such public relations bomb that they could use in media 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(BBC News) Syria conflict: Half of German Tornado jets 'not airworthy'

 

It may be time for EU to get some decent armed forces...not only relying on France or UK.

The Germans have only allowed themselves to provide recce with their Tornadoes anyway (same as they did in Afghanistan). Even more of the Luftwaffe Tonkas were airworthy it probably wouldn't significantly contribute to what that France and the UK want from their partners in action against ISIL.

 

Even the UK is still waiting on parliamentary approval to do more in Syria than provide recce (our Tornados, Reapers etc. are currently only cleared to strike targets inside Iraqi borders). Availability of aircraft is no substitute for a lack of political will to use them. The British vote on extending strikes to Syria istomorrow (It's being debated in Parliament all day today for some 10 hours) but it's already been stated by our PM that the RAPTOR pod on the RAF's Tornado fleet accounts for 60% of all our surveillance intel against ISIL in the region.

 

But even beyond that, the UK has been increasingly keen to be less reliant on aging Tornadoes by finally giving the Typhoon a more complete strike capability (keeping our Tornadoes airworthy is also an uphill battle, same as it is for the Germans and Italians) but other European partners have been reluctant to place that investment in upgrading the Typhoon's capabilities. Again, willingness to invest in such capabilities would be something that would be reflected in whether an EU armed forces was a "decent" armed forces as you put it, and how effective they'd be in a conflict like Syria rather than continuing to have member states operate independently.

 

Overall I have seen nothing from our EU partners that makes me believe we would ever have a situation where they are doing more together about ISIL than France and the UK do currently by themselves. I don't think an EU armed forces directly beholden to the EU parliament would be any more decisive in getting involved with Syria than the German national parliament is, since Germany would be the major actor in a EU parliamentary decision on it. We'd still have a situation where one major actor in the EU (France) is fully committed and willing to invest in armed forces, where others are not, and simply want to play safe and pass the burden to the members that are willing to act alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed, i don't think there would be any political will to create a real EU army, but it's time for main European countries to build up to date armies able to fight abroad. France armed forces have reached an all time low this year (something like 100 000 men with not more than 15 000 who can be sent abroad, and who are already abroad AFAIK).

 

Another point is that nobody really thinks that those strikes against IS are really able to get rid or it, even with the massive help of Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be time for EU to get some decent armed forces...not only relying on France or UK.

damn right.

But it's not going to happen; defense, together with intelligence and economy, is part of the core business that countries don't want to give up. Not to mention gigantic communication problems. Go figure a Finn and a Greek in battle.

But there is something, and under direct control of the council:

 

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

 

Overall I have seen nothing from our EU partners that makes me believe we would ever have a situation where they are doing more together about ISIL than France and the UK do currently by themselves.

Europe has been a spectator since 1945, and I don't think this is changing any time soon. But, to be fair, there are legitimate doubts about this: what happens after ISIS is gone? Is there a point in doing this if we don't know what to do after that?

 

Another point is that nobody really thinks that those strikes against IS are really able to get rid or it, even with the massive help of Russia.

yep. You need rifles, not bombs. Obama is starting to understand it, we aren't.

 

Situation is getting tougher in Libya, by the way. Oh my god, they are coming to Rome :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libya is a mess and IS troops are raising in numbers....

 

The question is: what comes after ISIS ?

You wont be able to quickly bomb away an ideology.

 

 

You can read and hear about western countries and military engagements against the IS,

but what about the arabic league ?

 

You dont hear anything from any arab nations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our parliament has voted in favour of extending RAF air-strikes to include targets in Syria (397 in favour 223 against)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is: what comes after ISIS ?

You wont be able to quickly bomb away an ideology.

obviously not, but because the real job is much harder people like to think they can bomb their way to safety.

And it's not just ISIS: you have the Shia with Iran, other Sunnis with the Arabs, in this specific situation Assad with the Russians, and the Kurds. They all eat bread and C4 for breakfast, so when you get ready of ISIS you are just at the beginning.

 

You dont hear anything from any arab nations

I don't know why I keep seeing the Arabs mentioned here. On the other side are the Iranians, and they are at least as bad.

The whole region is just a mass of problems, and they are staying at least as long as we need oil.

 

Get rid of oil, I always say that. Just get rid of oil. Why don't people get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

obviously not, but because the real job is much harder people like to think they can bomb their way to safety.

And it's not just ISIS: you have the Shia with Iran, other Sunnis with the Arabs, in this specific situation Assad with the Russians, and the Kurds. They all eat bread and C4 for breakfast, so when you get ready of ISIS you are just at the beginning.

 

I don't know why I keep seeing the Arabs mentioned here. On the other side are the Iranians, and they are at least as bad.

The whole region is just a mass of problems, and they are staying at least as long as we need oil.

 

Get rid of oil, I always say that. Just get rid of oil. Why don't people get it.

 

Arab nations are mentioned because they are members of the coallition, the Iran supports the Hizballah which is fighting IS in Syria and probably other rebels.

You dont hear much from the arab nations or arab league when it comes to military support except  fighting in Yemen.

 

 

The current problem is wahabism/salafism when it comes to radical Islamists and the ideology and religious view of the IS/Al Qaeda have close ties to it.

 

 

 

 

This news article offers some background infos:

 

Anti-ISIS coalition crumbles as Arab allies focus elsewhere  (Washingtong Post; Nov 30)

The Obama administration consistently touts the “65-nation coalition†it has assembled to fight the group also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh — but critics say that fewer than a dozen nations today are contributing anything significant to the campaign.

 

....administration and military officials admit that air support from such key Arab allies as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — something the White House once touted as an unprecedented and essential part of the coalition — has all but evaporated.

 

 

One Pentagon official directly involved in the counter-Islamic State fight told The Washington Times that the Saudis haven’t flown a mission against the group in nearly three months.

 

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Bahrain is still involved, but confirmed that Jordan stopped flying sorties against the extremists in August and the UAE hasn’t flown one since March.

 

 

 

A top former Obama administration official who helped build the coalition last year, meanwhile, said that Persian Gulf Arab powers made a strategic gamble months ago to focus their military resources on helping Saudi Arabia wage war against Houthi rebels seen as Iranian proxies in neighboring Yemen — wagering that the U.S. and the European Union would lead the fight against Islamic State.

 

“Their calculation was that the Americans would take care of leading the coalition against Daesh while they take care of fighting the Iranians in Yemen,†the former official said.

 

“This is a ‘65-country coalition’ of which only about nine are doing something,†said Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington.

 

An internal State Department memo obtained by The Times maintained that the UAE has contributed $1.1 billion in humanitarian aid to Syria and Iraq since 2011, while the Saudis have put forward roughly $36 million...Qatar has also made numerous financial contributions, most recently announcing a pledge of $160 million for an education initiative for Syrian refugees, according to the memo, which also noted that Kuwait has donated at least $800 million.

 

The coalition is missing the “Muslim answer†to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,...

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/30/obama-anti-isis-coalition-crumbles-as-arab-allies-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asking salafites to fight against salafited because infidel was killed, lol

i will wait till enemy is defined ;) so far "Belgian organized it, Frenchmen were killing Frenchmen" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The current problem is wahabism/salafism when it comes to radical Islamists and the ideology and religious view of the IS/Al Qaeda have close ties to it.

I repeat: don't think that you defeat ISIS and your problems are solved. Your problems are not solved even if the Saudis disappears. Pretty much everyone in that region is used to violence, and Iranians are no exceptions; just look at the state they have. They make less problems because Shia are just fewer people. Sunni is the main Islam, sort of Catholics for Christianity. But they are not very different:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

 

The problem is not just salafism, it's extremism. Not to mention a culture of violence.

 

And by the way, you shouldn't even think that you solve the problems in Syria and you solve everything. There is still Libya, and that's the best case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still Libya, and that's the best case.

 

And Afghanistan, Mali, Nigeria, Cameroon etc. IS or Al Qaeda are also trying to destabilize Tunisia and Algeria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is whole jihad ideology which is very deep part of islam system of beliefs (including other problem which is superiority) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Afghanistan, Mali, Nigeria, Cameroon etc. IS or Al Qaeda are also trying to destabilize Tunisia and Algeria.

yes, the list is long. You can add Somalia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Niger...

Even worse, I can tell if it's ISIS, al Qaeda, Iran sponsored terrorism, some other Islamic bullshit, local tribes, local criminals, or kids playing with fireworks. Everyone feels entitled to go around, shoot, and blow off anything that happens to be on the way. It's a total mess.

 

Pope Francis likes to talk of a piecemeal world war 3. I think I sort of agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our parliament has voted in favour of extending RAF air-strikes to include targets in Syria (397 in favour 223 against)

And the permission of RAF operations in Syrian airspace (that is needed according to international laws) had been granted on... Oh it hadn't been but who cares about such BS as international laws...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the permission of RAF operations in Syrian airspace (that is needed according to international laws) had been granted on... Oh it hadn't been but who cares about such BS as international laws...

That's because you're the only one to think Assad governement is still legitimate. But it's a failed state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because you're the only one to think Assad governement is still legitimate. But it's a failed state.

Be so kind and provide me a link to any internationally approved document that fully describes the term of legitimacy of the state and any internationally recognized council that decides whether any state is legitimate or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be so kind and provide me a link to any internationally approved document that fully describes the term of legitimacy of the state and any internationally recognized council that decides whether any state is legitimate or not.

When you bomb the other 70 percents of your population, you lose all legitimacy, if Assad ever had any. Even the Alawites are leaving the Syrian army and come back to defend their own villages. The Syrian army is hardly existing anymore, mainly Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran troops are still defending the regime. And Russia of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you bomb the other 70 percents of your population, you lose all legitimacy, if Assad ever had any. Even the Alawites are leaving the Syrian army and come back to defend their own villages. The Syrian army is hardly existing anymore, mainly Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran troops are still defending the regime. And Russia of course.

So there is no any. Okay. Change 'Assad' to 'Poroshenko', 'Alawites' to 'Zapadency' (inhabitants of western regions of Ukraine) and 'come back to defend their own villages' to 'join Donbass rebels/flee to Russia' etc. Ukrainian army is hardly existing anymore, mainly 'volunteer' batallions and NG troops are still defending the regime. And US of course. So... is it excuse for Russian airforce to bomb the position of 'Right sector' troops in Donbass?

Like it or not, but your words about legitimacy are nothing but some EU and US politicians' opinion. Moreover many countries like China, Brasil or India still find Assad's govt the only legitimate authority in Syria. But use of armed force on the territory of other sovereign state without permission of its govt is clearly described as armed agression. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the permission of RAF operations in Syrian airspace (that is needed according to international laws) had been granted on... Oh it hadn't been but who cares about such BS as international laws...

I wonder what Ukrainians and Georgians would say now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×