Paris Terror Attacks

[Lu Xun]

Deliberately attacking civilian targets is terrorism, whether it be instituted by an organization or a state. For that matter, Western terror bombings against the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Vietnamese all failed. The Nazis held on until the Soviets captured Berlin; the Japanese, despite the deaths of hundreds of thousands, refused to surrender until the Americans nuked cities and threatened national obliteration, and the North Vietnamese won the war, despite not having air superiority and being bombed half to death throughout.

 

The intent to directly kill civilians, no matter who perpetrates it, is most often reprehensible and counterproductive. It's terrible and it doesn't work, and defending the practice puts you on Ibrahim's level.

[Spite]

There aren't a lot of Kurds, they're not interested in occupying Arab lands, and the Arabs wouldn't want to be part of kurdistan anyway. Kurdistan as a stabilising force is fairly unsteady anyway considering the traditional deep divides within the kurdish leadership, currently glossed over during the Battle for survival.

 

How exactly did the West support ISIS?

 

Remember that Assad and his allies Hezbollah are hardly beacons of peace in the region either. Besides in my opinion Assad lacks both the military and political capital to reassert control over Syria. If there is a continuation Syrian state ruled by the ba'ath party, then Assad would need to go. I think that's unlikely.

 

Iran has no capacity to project enough power beyond its borders to significantly decide the issue in Syria, so attacking other gulf states seems unlikely. What Rahl was alluding to, though he didn't explicitly name them, is that Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia don't have capacity or political will to involve themselves in that mess.

 

ISIS killing people isn't in anyone's interest except ISIS. But the question is why should America, Britain and France expend huge amounts of money, political capital and lives in bombing ISIS when this won't generate an easy solution? As Rahl says it would mean an occupation, and decades of work rebuilding, to give true stability. America spends a lot on military true, but even the current limited strikes add an extra $2.4bn a year according to estimates. A full scale deployment ala Iraq would cost an insane amount. Estimates for the ten year deployment in Iraq exceed $1tn

[LordRahl2]

Why can't they? They'll (Kurds) do whats needed and could no doubt get support from a number of players if they diplo decently enough (Russia, Iran, Israel). Iran to me can "digest" it easily enough, as they'll put down anything that doesn't go down. Assad will undoubtedly arrest and execute some of al-Nusra the "moderates", oh well, better him executing some nut cases then the likes of ISIS executing every minority they get their hands on. 

 

No, I'm well aware the Gulf states have some importance, be it in resources or investment around the world. It's why European leaders go over there and and shame their country by kowtowing to them... however... I don't much care. ISIS kills today because the west supported them and made it happen, it's our mess. Iran being the one to finally punish the Sunni fanatics that are the gulf states? Good luck to them, we'll be over here saying it ain't our business, I mean those in the middle east don't want us doing anything there right? We'll just be giving them what they want.

 

Where should this power be expended and why is it seemingly in such short supply? America spends so much on military and you're telling me that they are so powerless they can't exert any real effort? No I think they could quite easily, they just don't because ISIS being there killing people is very much in their interests. 

Why can't they?  Because the Kurds hold no legitimate authority to govern or rule over all those people.  As an occupying power they would be strongly and violently opposed. Not sure why other countries would matter much.  You also suggest a violent regime of oppression for Iran, the resistance to which would be supported by other regional States.  Assad would face the same challenges as before (other than his opponents being better armed and he has expended significant power and would need to lean on outside support.  Again, you are not even changing the basic problem which is a Westphalian State system laid over a region that does not fit that mold and your plan is simply impractical.

 

At the end of the day if the US and Europe go in on the ground they will either be required to stay for an extended and costly occupation (again) or leave creating yet another power vacuum.  As hard as we may wish or scheme for a better solution than those two, one simply does not exist.

 

/////

 

"shits not our business":

 

Well it is.  We care about international trade and energy is part of that equation.  Not all considerations run back to oil as some think, however, it is a major consideration.  Smashing a major oil production and transportation region would likely lead to a global economic slump, at best.

 

So even if you chose to ignore the human cost of war, there are massive practical considerations.

 

/////

 

The US's power is not really in short supply.  But it is not unlimited.  Again, your call for regional restructuring requires an extended commitment of US power (as much as you think it does not it really will).  I can point to recent history where Washington focused on the ME and allowed other problems, notably Russia, to pop up unopposed.  Is the reward worth the expense?  I do not see that in any way.

 

/////

 

On a side note, Washington only spends a lot on defense in absolute terms.  Relative to other global hegemons it spend about normal.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Abdelhamid Abaaoud was killed in the Saint-Denis raids.

[Rozalia]

There aren't a lot of Kurds, they're not interested in occupying Arab lands, and the Arabs wouldn't want to be part of kurdistan anyway. Kurdistan as a stabilising force is fairly unsteady anyway considering the traditional deep divides within the kurdish leadership, currently glossed over during the Battle for survival.

 

How exactly did the West support ISIS?

 

Remember that Assad and his allies Hezbollah are hardly beacons of peace in the region either. Besides in my opinion Assad lacks both the military and political capital to reassert control over Syria. If there is a continuation Syrian state ruled by the ba'ath party, then Assad would need to go. I think that's unlikely.

 

Iran has no capacity to project enough power beyond its borders to significantly decide the issue in Syria, so attacking other gulf states seems unlikely. What Rahl was alluding to, though he didn't explicitly name them, is that Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia don't have capacity or political will to involve themselves in that mess.

 

ISIS killing people isn't in anyone's interest except ISIS. But the question is why should America, Britain and France expend huge amounts of money, political capital and lives in bombing ISIS when this won't generate an easy solution? As Rahl says it would mean an occupation, and decades of work rebuilding, to give true stability. America spends a lot on military true, but even the current limited strikes add an extra $2.4bn a year according to estimates. A full scale deployment ala Iraq would cost an insane amount. Estimates for the ten year deployment in Iraq exceed $1tn

 

I don't think any such group that wants land of their own would reject such an offer. 

 

Considering they arm "moderates" knowing full well a lot of it ends up in ISIS hands for one. Not stopping Turkey who is supposed to against ISIS. We also can't forget that for all the talk of the 4 year campaign it's been completely ineffective to the point you have to think it's on purpose, America ain't that incompetent.

 

Tell me this then, you want a democratic outcome that it? Alright then have a free election in Syria and tell me who you think would win if Assad ran. Actually scratch that, lets say he doesn't but his (now disabled due to the war I believe) brother does. Who do you think people will vote for? The family that kept those fanatics at bay? Or someone who will appear to be a US puppet who are the ones responsible for all this?

 

Well with sanctions being dialed back, them gaining southern Iraq, and so forth... could be possible they would in future, but that was just something I put out there. If in future they decide to do such a thing then you leave them to it.

 

Of course it's in others interests. The gulf states, Turkey, and even America considering all this began when they abruptly decided that they needed Assad to go like all the rest of the leaders in the area that were going at the time. They're not incompetent and knew this would happen so if they cared they'd never have caused this mess. I know the saying is to see people as incompetent instead of malicious, but in this case... no, I don't believe America is that incompetent.

 

 

Why can't they?  Because the Kurds hold no legitimate authority to govern or rule over all those people.  As an occupying power they would be strongly and violently opposed. Not sure why other countries would matter much.  You also suggest a violent regime of oppression for Iran, the resistance to which would be supported by other regional States.  Assad would face the same challenges as before (other than his opponents being better armed and he has expended significant power and would need to lean on outside support.  Again, you are not even changing the basic problem which is a Westphalian State system laid over a region that does not fit that mold and your plan is simply impractical.

 

At the end of the day if the US and Europe go in on the ground they will either be required to stay for an extended and costly occupation (again) or leave creating yet another power vacuum.  As hard as we may wish or scheme for a better solution than those two, one simply does not exist.

 

/////

 

"shits not our business":

 

Well it is.  We care about international trade and energy is part of that equation.  Not all considerations run back to oil as some think, however, it is a major consideration.  Smashing a major oil production and transportation region would likely lead to a global economic slump, at best.

 

So even if you chose to ignore the human cost of war, there are massive practical considerations.

 

/////

 

The US's power is not really in short supply.  But it is not unlimited.  Again, your call for regional restructuring requires an extended commitment of US power (as much as you think it does not it really will).  I can point to recent history where Washington focused on the ME and allowed other problems, notably Russia, to pop up unopposed.  Is the reward worth the expense?  I do not see that in any way.

 

/////

 

On a side note, Washington only spends a lot on defense in absolute terms.  Relative to other global hegemons it spend about normal.

 

Apologies but the other post I quoted gives many of my answers so I'd just be repeating them if I put them here. What I'll add is that Russia is showing right now that you don't need to expend a huge amount of power beyond what America currently is to change things. Already Assad's situation has improved and Russia (now together with France) is now cutting ISIS's money supply from it's oil. I've heard it said Russia has done more in 4 days/2/3 weeks/that sort of timespan than America in 4 years and it has to be the case. Why were those oil refineries even still standing until now? How did ISIS still have that large amount of trucks when America was supposed to be stopping that?

 

Like I said above. I don't believe this is incompetence, I'm not that disrespectful. However, it's now irrelevant as Putin is now showing how to lead the fight against ISIS. 

[Spite]

I think the Kurds almost certainly would reject the opportunity to be a Western backed occupation force in Syria or Iraq, and have more or less rigidly stuck to their borders throughout the conflict.

 

Arming moderates does not equate to the West supporting ISIS. ISIS don't have a problem getting military supplies. Western powers are very hedgy about what they give to the rebels anyway, it's mostly small arms and generic munitions.

 

I think Assad very likely lose a popular election if it was truly free, not that it would be. Prior to the arab spring, he was fairly popular within Syria, the way he handled popular protests ended that forever. As the war has drawn on, the government has alienated people in 3 ways:

1. By abandoning large portions of the country deliberately

2. By bombing the anti-government rebels and ignoring ISIS (including chemical weapons)

3. By allying with Iran and Hezbollah (Shi'a) to fight against largely Sunni forces. Most Syrians are Sunni and this has caused problems.

Syria under Assad would be heavily reliant on Iranian funding and Russian diplomatic protection going forward. Whether people would prefer to be a "puppet" of one great power or the other is kind of not relevant tbh since neither option is likely.

 

Iran occupying a big chunk of Iraq would actually reduce their ability to project power not enhance it. Occupations are costly. Don't make the mistake of assuming just because the South of Iraq is Shi'a they're pro-Iran. They're still arabs, Iranians are still Persians. Shared religion gives some common ground but they're two different nations. They don't have a common language, history or societal structure and are on two quite different developmental levels. Politically and culturally they're very different too. Any absorption of Iraq would not be comfortable for Iran.

 

I don't buy the conspiracy theory that the Syrian civil war was encouraged for the benefit of anyone.

[Rozalia]

I think the Kurds almost certainly would reject the opportunity to be a Western backed occupation force in Syria or Iraq, and have more or less rigidly stuck to their borders throughout the conflict.

 

Arming moderates does not equate to the West supporting ISIS. ISIS don't have a problem getting military supplies. Western powers are very hedgy about what they give to the rebels anyway, it's mostly small arms and generic munitions.

 

I think Assad very likely lose a popular election if it was truly free, not that it would be. Prior to the arab spring, he was fairly popular within Syria, the way he handled popular protests ended that forever. As the war has drawn on, the government has alienated people in 3 ways:

1. By abandoning large portions of the country deliberately

2. By bombing the anti-government rebels and ignoring ISIS (including chemical weapons)

3. By allying with Iran and Hezbollah (Shi'a) to fight against largely Sunni forces. Most Syrians are Sunni and this has caused problems.

Syria under Assad would be heavily reliant on Iranian funding and Russian diplomatic protection going forward. Whether people would prefer to be a "puppet" of one great power or the other is kind of not relevant tbh since neither option is likely.

 

Iran occupying a big chunk of Iraq would actually reduce their ability to project power not enhance it. Occupations are costly. Don't make the mistake of assuming just because the South of Iraq is Shi'a they're pro-Iran. They're still arabs, Iranians are still Persians. Shared religion gives some common ground but they're two different nations. They don't have a common language, history or societal structure and are on two quite different developmental levels. Politically and culturally they're very different too. Any absorption of Iraq would not be comfortable for Iran.

 

I don't buy the conspiracy theory that the Syrian civil war was encouraged for the benefit of anyone.

 

You don't pass up a chance like that if someone hands you it. It'd be like Israel being given all of Israel and then rejecting it saying they'll stick to a much smaller amount of land, which as I've seen they've clearly haven't.

 

When these "moderates" are groups like al-Nusra and ever knows it, yeah they're supporting fanatics. Additionally the only reason they haven't given anything stronger is because their own planes are in the air so they can hardly give something to fight the Russians.

 

The people of Syria will believe Assad's line, which is that the protesters were infiltrated by terrorists and such groups caused the war, not him. 

 

1. Don't see how that matters. Assad barely hanged on by retreating and concentrating his forces, so I don't see how he can be criticised or expected to defend the entire country. If he could we'd not be talking as clearly his military power would be vastly stronger.

2. Chemical weapons are alleged especially as at the time the media was in full swing and the rebels were these angels as everything they did was attributed to Assad, and besides thanks again to Putin they're gone anyway. The "rebels" are fanatics, if you kill them or you kill ISIS the result is the same, one less fanatic in the world. 

3. This one I'll give you as it's definitely possible that'll be a factor even if the Sunni states are what has been getting their state destroyed, and the ones who deployed their Sunni fanatic attack dogs (ISIS) to kill them. 

 

I agree with you there, though I don't agree with your racial angle. However Iran could do the job I'm sure and the shared religion is a very good step to doing that. 

 

It could be said Turkey and the Gulf States helping ISIS is a conspiracy theory, but regardless of the derogatory meaning it's taken on it doesn't mean that ain't true. Why do proxy wars happen if not for someone's benefit or gain, be it material or political? When all this started they could have just had Assad win a very quick victory and the matter is ended, but instead these rebels all suddenly got armed and organised mysteriously. In Libya they could have just Gaddafi win but instead sent the planes in (which they thankfully failed to do in Syria when they tried the same thing), and what is Libya now? It a better place?

[Landontom]

Comme vous le dévaster nos terres, nous allons jeter les déchets à la vôtre

[Spite]

On the kurds: they would reject it. Idk where you get this idea from but it's backed by nobody with any experience of the area.

 

On various jihadi groups:the west doesn't support them. The moderates that were armed were the FSA and more recently the kurdish groups.

 

On assad somehow controlling what people in Syria understand: he doesn't. The people there aren't morons.

 

I do think, and so do most people, that Assad's position in Syria is hopelessly compromised. I'm not going to labour this point though.

 

I think claims that the west somehow enjoys an unstable zone across the middle east has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory of the same calibre as "the Jews!"

[Wayne]

I think claims that the west somehow enjoys an unstable zone across the middle east has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory of the same calibre as "the Jews!"

 

!@#$ please, you need to watch some more Youtube videos!  It's all a Zionist ploy to enable the rise of the New World Order.  You need to open your eyes and see the truth, stop being Sheeple and wake up!

[Rozalia]

On the kurds: they would reject it. Idk where you get this idea from but it's backed by nobody with any experience of the area.

 

On various jihadi groups:the west doesn't support them. The moderates that were armed were the FSA and more recently the kurdish groups.

 

On assad somehow controlling what people in Syria understand: he doesn't. The people there aren't morons.

 

I do think, and so do most people, that Assad's position in Syria is hopelessly compromised. I'm not going to labour this point though.

 

I think claims that the west somehow enjoys an unstable zone across the middle east has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory of the same calibre as "the Jews!"

 

Well if they want a state and someone offers them one and they reject it then... well I suppose thats smart, alright. Personally I'd jump at the chance and subjugate any unruly Arabs who'd cause problems, but I suppose that's just me.

 

The "FSA" are those Jihadi groups. Lets say there is a number who aren't, and I'll give you that for the sake of it and there you know, has to be at least 1 or 2 moderate guys about, maybe... you still don't give such a group arms if you know without fail those weapons will end up in Jihadi hands (which they have).

 

Not sure why you think it has anything to do with being "morons" or not. People believe nonsense everywhere and it ain't due to being "morons", but simply mislead/ignorant.

 

So to answer what I put forward, is the "conspiracy theory" that Turkey and the Gulf States have aided ISIS true or not? Comparing what I said to the Zionist world order thing is a low blow as that is saying what I base my thoughts on the matter comes from some irrational hatred of some sort. I've explained why I think what I do on the matter.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Rozalia

[Spite]

The only group I can see who have actively aided ISIS are Assad and Russia. Assad deliberately targeted moderate groups and ignored ISIS to make the war into "Assad vs Terrorists" and Russia are mainly attacking the moderate groups to further the same agenda.

 

On a more positive note, I haven't seen Ibrahim in a while.

[Wayne]

The only group I can see who have actively aided ISIS are Assad and Russia. Assad deliberately targeted moderate groups and ignored ISIS to make the war into "Assad vs Terrorists" and Russia are mainly attacking the moderate groups to further the same agenda.

 

On a more positive note, I haven't seen Ibrahim in a while.

 

Of course you aint gonna see the aid that USA have given to numerous 'Terrorist Groups', having that kind of information out on the public sphere will negate the effect that certain groups wish to push.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

The only group I can see who have actively aided ISIS are Assad and Russia. Assad deliberately targeted moderate groups and ignored ISIS to make the war into "Assad vs Terrorists" and Russia are mainly attacking the moderate groups to further the same agenda.

 

On a more positive note, I haven't seen Ibrahim in a while.

"Moderates" Yeah, moderates right? That's why the FSA is a loosely held-centralized organization with several rebel fanatics in it, most of the troops in FSA and ISIS aren't even Syrians, but foreigners.

[Spite]

Of course you aint gonna see the aid that USA have given to numerous 'Terrorist Groups', having that kind of information out on the public sphere will negate the effect that certain groups wish to push.

 

What shadowy agenda is achieved by arming terrorists?

 

 

"Moderates" Yeah, moderates right? That's why the FSA is a loosely held-centralized organization with several rebel fanatics in it, most of the troops in FSA and ISIS aren't even Syrians, but foreigners.

 

<Citation needed>

[Franz Von Dietrich]

What shadowy agenda is achieved by arming terrorists?

 

 

 

<Citation needed>

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrias-new-super-opposition-coalition-unites-moderates-islamists-leaves-us-limited-1735154

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/11/major-syrian-rebel-groups-join-forces-20131122141129975421.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/22/us-syria-crisis-islamists-merger-idUSBRE9AL0I420131122

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/extremist-element-among-syrian-rebels-growing-worry-f8C11115141

 

 

I literally can go on forever. Most of these members of the FSA and the Syrian Revolutionary Council are a bunch of Islamist fanatics, such as the Army of Conquest, Islamic Front (not islamic state), Al Nursa, including Ajnad Al Sham Islamic Union.

 

So, yeah. I rather have a secularized Syria under Assad, than a radical Wahhabist state like Saudi Arabia, (which saudi arabia isn't any better, when it comes to human rights)

Edited November 20, 2015 by Francisco Franco Bah

[Spite]

Except none of your sources back up your point that the syrian rebels are "mostly foreigners". Your articles don't back up your claim that the FSA is full of islamists anyway. The last link explicitly states that the islamist groups are opposed to the FSA. It makes me wonder how many of you actually read your sources, or just google stuff and post links.

 

It doesn't matter what you want, what matters is reality.

[Wayne]

What shadowy agenda is achieved by arming terrorists?

 

 I can't take my own drink on to a plane, I need to buy an overpriced one!  All the little things add up to a big thing, next thing you know, you wake up in 1984.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Except none of your sources back up your point that the syrian rebels are "mostly foreigners". Your articles don't back up your claim that the FSA is full of islamists anyway. The last link explicitly states that the islamist groups are opposed to the FSA. It makes me wonder how many of you actually read your sources, or just google stuff and post links.

 

It doesn't matter what you want, what matters is reality.

"loosely held centralized organization" did I not state that? I believe I did. 

 

I don't want anything, you're right, what matters is reality, the reality that FSA isn't the best choice in governance, neither is any Islamic rebel group. That's what I'm trying to imply.

 

As for the foreign fighters, forgot to post the links

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10523203/Number-of-foreign-fighters-in-Syria-nearly-doubles.html

http://jihadology.net/2015/02/02/the-clear-banner-azerbaijani-foreign-fighters-in-2014/

http://thelineofsteel.weebly.com/analysis/turkistan-islamic-party-in-syria-fighting-alongside-junud-al-sham-in-idlib

 

I'm done at this debate, as this has derailed the topic quite far.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Francisco Franco Bah

[Spite]

None of your sources state they're the majority. Again lazy Googling typical of sensationalism and armchair generals.

[Wayne]

None of your sources state they're the majority. Again lazy Googling typical of sensationalism and armchair generals.

 

You are mainly arguing with children Spite, do you expect anything more?

[Buorhann]

None of your sources state they're the majority. Again lazy Googling typical of sensationalism and armchair generals.

 

Just be thankful he didn't throw a wikipedia article at you.

[Rozalia]

The only group I can see who have actively aided ISIS are Assad and Russia. Assad deliberately targeted moderate groups and ignored ISIS to make the war into "Assad vs Terrorists" and Russia are mainly attacking the moderate groups to further the same agenda.

 

On a more positive note, I haven't seen Ibrahim in a while.

 

Considering ISIS were a third player who barged into it I don't see why Assad continuing to focus on his main enemy is him "aiding ISIS". As for Russia don't worry, once Comrade Putin has put one batch of fanatics in the ground he'll put the rest in too. Though Russia and France have been bombing ISIS lately targeting refineries and transport trucks, so some air power is targeting ISIS where it hurts, the pocket.

 

Must be having a chat with the old bill, there has just been an attack in a neighboring country after all. Whatever the case, it's nice yes. 

 

What shadowy agenda is achieved by arming terrorists?

 

Well it quite clearly started as merely regime change, but it's gone further than that now (if it's intended or not I don't know, I'd hope not). As for what is achieved with that, I'm sure you know what the cold war was. Much the same, you want "your man" in charge and Assad was not their "guy", but Putin's "guy".

 

Of course that is my opinion on the matter, and obviously it can always be said to be a "conspiracy theory" which is fine. However the behaviour of Turkey/Gulf States, the proxy war element, the complete ineffectiveness of America, among other things makes me reach that conclusion.