UKC

The murderers wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria are apparently quite close to the Turkish Border. Can anyone see a showdown between these murderers and Turkey? What do you think the outcome would be?

In reply to mypyrex: The Turkish President's chickens may be coming home to roost! If it came to Tureky vs IS, Turkey would annihilate them, however RTE and IS are as thick as thieves.

In reply to Big Steve:

Wipe out the remaining Kurds and come to a screeching halt at the border.

D

In reply to Dauphin: Thats what I was thinking, solves one of his biggest problems then

My thoughts are that if these terrorists confronted the Turks they might find they've bitten off more than they can chew. Turkey presumably has far more military resources than they do, plus they are a member of NATO so any attack on them would call for action by other members.

I almost find myself hoping that these b@stards are stupid enough...

In reply to mypyrex:
When you say murderers, how do you distinguish between "them" and the allied forces and the "collateral" damage they cause in the course of their business?

In reply to ByEek:


The clue is in the title of the thread.

In reply to mypyrex:

I find the terminology of war very interesting. Murder is unlawful killing. So in a war, presumably that is lawful killing. Unless you are fighting against people who don't wear a recognisable uniform who are insurgents and not soldiers. And of course, if they fight in unorthodox ways, they are also terrorists.

Now we on the other hand are liberators working in a theatre of war. We perform operations as part of a defense strategy and regrettably, there is collateral damage.

But if you are on the receiving end of our "operations" we are murderers just like the other lot.

In reply to ByEek:
Well my understanding is that "war"(not "civil war") is hostilities between two nation states. Since those people who call themselves IS(or whatever) do not represent a bona fide nation state then they are committing crimes including murder.
Anyway that was not really what my OP was about ;o|

In reply to mypyrex:

My point exactly. Murderers is rather an emotive word. In response to your original point, if they have a pop at Turkey, they will get their asses kicked. But in the lawless zones of Iraq and Syria, this is the new Taliban / Afghanistan.

In reply to ByEek:


Agreed.

And, of course, under the NATO T & Cs it would give legitimacy to intervention by the US et al.

In reply to ByEek:

The definitions are fairly simple:

a) Armed fighters vs armed fighters = Military losses

b) Civilian near a tank you blow up = collateral damage

c) killing an unarmed prisoner = Murder

Geneva convention an all that...

In reply to mal_meech:

(a-2) Bombs vs. any males of combat age = combatants neutralised

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/obama-misleading-war-i...

In reply to mal_meech:
Agreed. But if your house has just been flatten and your family killed by a Nato war plane operating within the Geneva convention under a UN mandate, you might think slightly differently just as we resort to emotive language when the people we are fighting don't play by our rules.

In reply to skog:

Yes, interested to see the response on that.

It seems that "anything goes" on both sides of the pond, just depends what your definition is... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29448989

But I digress. Who wants to define "acceptable losses"?

In reply to ByEek:

I would be traumatised, even enraged at being caught up with it.

Still wouldn't slaughter an unarmed aid worker in the name of publicity.

If someone is an immediate danger, defending yourself is fine. I can even understand the mentality of celebrating the death of an enemy, when caught up in the moment.

The differences in attitudes to morality are part of the problem, we (the west) are using language to justify some questionable actions for the "greater good", ISIS is trying to introduce 16th century attitudes by force.

Neither is ideal, but I like the 21st Century myself...

In reply to ByEek:


Agree completely, but it appears the chief head lopper of western prisoners in ISIS hasn't had his house flattened, and his family are snug in front of the telly in the UK.

It does call into question if the self imposed rules we 'play' by are somewhat nonsensical in the context of this sort of warfare.

In reply to mypyrex:

looking at track record of Syria and Iraq, two countries with huge military might, the later one supposedly trained and armed up even more by the 'coalition partners' , I don't think Turkey stands much chance really.

Isn't this the same Turkey that said they'd never take let IS take this border town?

In reply to Ridge:


Indeed. And for me, the question most in need of an answer, is why do people like this feel the need to behave in the way they do? And the solution to this question will almost certainly not require any form of military action.

Sadly, our politicians prefer shock and awe rather than taking a good look at themselves and the countries they govern.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Turkey are very powerful militarily, they could crush IS if they entered Turkey BUT, Turkey are playing their own games in all this. I'm not sure what their next play will be, but it helps them if the Kurds are weakened

In reply to mypyrex:
i have heard from different people about holiday makers in turkey been approached on the beaches and been told to cover up and been heckled about following islam.not what you need on a break.

In reply to mypyrex:

What your missing here is that the Turkish government and IS share a common enemy, the Kurds.

In reply to hokkyokusei:


But do you not think that Turkey will see it as a threat if these terrorist continue their sabre rattling along the border?

In reply to mark s:


Makes a pleasant change to the usual sex pests...

In reply to ByEek:

A very good question. Miserable as life in Bradford, might be, it's hard to see how anyone would think a return to the dark ages would be preferable. It's possibly a mix of gullibility, desire for 'adventure',religious /racist brainwashing, alienation from society, scapegoating...all sorts of stuff. Not an easy fix or a comfortable situation to discuss.


The whole murky Web of who's funding and supporting who in Syria leads me to think that getting involved militarily would be a very bad idea.

In reply to mypyrex:

The Turks hate the Kurds, especially the ones who are/were PKK fighters fighting for more independence from Turkey and are now trying to defend Kurdish populated towns near the Turkish/Syrian border. So they are quite happy to see ISIS wipe out those fighters.
After that the Turkish attitude might change.

In reply to mal_meech:






Right! They should change commandment 6 from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shall not murder" That would clarify things.

In reply to Ridge:

[...]


As the Poles might say: not our circus, not our monkeys.

We can find out who is buying ISIS oil and make sure we don't buy any. We need to look at who is funding them (Saudi?) and take a long term view on our relationship with those countries. We absolutely should no be bombing them now or thinking about 'boots on the ground'

In reply to mark s:


Then they simply shouldn't go to Turkey or Egypt. Turkey is a Muslim country, we are expected to abide by their rules, just as when we go to Rome, we don't walk into the Vatican with bare shoulders.

I have been to Turkey twice and both times we had a private beach where bikinis were absolutely fine. What we didn't do was wander down to a public beach and expect it was okay to strip off.

In reply to Ridge:

The Turkish prime minister has just said that "air strikes are not enough to save Kobane, a ground force is needed". Which might sound reasonable, were it not for the fact that at least 14 Turkish tanks have been counted on the hillside directly opposite the town, and far more could undoubtedly be moved up shortly if he wished, as could infantry.

The Russians dozing across the Vistula while the Warsaw uprising was crushed in a fashion extraordinarily brutal even by SS standards comes to mind. Probably the motives of the adjacent major, but inactive, power are pretty similar.

In reply to 999thAndy:


I think it is harder than that. Sadly we need Saudi more than they need us. We buy their oil and sell them arms. Sadly we are in a position where we can't ignore either.

I was having a think about this and I think we need to step change. Our foreign policy, inline with the US is very much ditatorial along western principals and thinking and is littered with double standards that alienate people who think differently. Closer to home I imagine for young Asian men, there is a depressing lack of opportunity in this country. To them, I imagine the idea that the UK is a classless land of opportunity it total and utter rollocks. It is no wonder they are happy to fight against western ideals when they have been so let down.

In reply to mypyrex:

Islamist Terror and Turkey

Anyway. My bet is 'IS' won't be desperate to open up a new front along the well defended Turkish border while there are easier pickings still to be had amid the chaos of Syria and Iraq. Likewise Turkey is unlikely to engage aggressively them on foreign soil especially while 'IS' are busy fighting the Kurds. There might be the odd tit for tat cross-border skirmish but I doubt they'll be taking and holding any Turkish towns.

jk

In reply to 999thAndy:



http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-sponsors-of-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-...

In reply to ByEek:


That's certainly part of the issue, although there's a depressing lack of opportunity for young working class white, black or Chinese men too. It's not an exclusively Asian lack of opportunity, although IS etc are a readily identifiable anti-anything-you-want group to fantasise about.

In reply to jkarran:

Is the punchline 'neither are looking forward to Christmas'?

In reply to ByEek:

Closer to home I imagine for young Asian men, there is a depressing lack of opportunity in this country.

Really? I don't see the Indian diaspora taking up arms against Western values. Seem to be too busy making money and becoming doctors, dentists and lawyers.

In reply to mypyrex:

Turkey seems to be playing fast and loose on this. According to a Kurdish spokesman on the radio the Turks are allowing right of passage to ISIS fighters and refusing to supply arms to to the Kurds.
At the same time the Turkish president is saying that Kobane will fall and the West needs to put in ground troops.

Very under analysed in the mainstream media but what seems to be happening is that the Turks don't want to arm the kurds lest the arms flow to rebel Kurds within Turkey, but nor do they want ISIS to knock on their borders. So do the usual, call up Johnny Foreigner.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Its no secret that Turkey armed and funded ISIS when they were fighting Assad, Turkey have been playing both sides from the start. I dont think Turkey will attack IS unless part of the deal is to remove Assad (Assad and Erdogan hate each other).

Im a little surprised Erdogan is doing nothing for the Kurds, as much as he hates them as well (he hates anybody who isnt a devout Sunni), he needs their vote next year to push through his new constitution to make him all powerful.

In reply to mypyrex:

I found a good explanation earlier and now can't find it but there is a bit in this article that gives you an idea - particularly down the last few paragraphs.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/07/us-turkey-diplomacy-isis-kur...

In reply to mypyrex:


Depends. IS are currently killing Kurds on the Syrian side of the border. Turkish Kurds are travelling across the border to help defend the Syrian Kurds. The Turkish leadership won't be very upset about any of that. Indeed, some are suspicious of the IS advances of IS against the Syrian Kurds and wonder if anyone is aiding them.

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons", Winston Churchill.

I hadn't fully appreciated the situation regarding the Turks and Kurds. It certainly sheds an interesting perspective. What complexities there are in middle east politics. Reminds me of what my grandfather used to say, he was out in Mesopotamia in the 1920s in the RAF. He used to say that there would never be peace out there because, basically, it was tribal warfare plus religious warfare: Sunni vs Shia vs Kurds vs ...

I believe T. E. Lawrence gave up trying to united the Arabs.

In reply to Ridge:


Very good
jk

In reply to mypyrex:

U.S. officials were quoted voicing impatience with the Turks, Washington's most powerful ally in the area, for refusing to join the coalition against Islamic State fighters who have seized wide areas of Syria and Iraq.

"There's no question the U.S. government thinks Turkey can do more, should do more, and that they are using excuses not to do more," said a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We have been sending that message very clearly behind the scenes."

Analysts and U.S. officials said Turkey's hesitance to commit its military, NATO's second-largest, to save Kobani reflected a fear of emboldening and empowering its own Kurdish population, which has long sought greater autonomy.

Turkey says it could join only if Washington agrees to use force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Sunni Muslim jihadists fighting him in a three-year-old civil war.

Turkey's Kurds, who make up the majority in the southeast of the country, say President Tayyip Erdogan is stalling while their brethren are killed in Kobani.

In reply to mypyrex:

Turkey's foreign minister says expectations of unilateral action are 'unrealistic'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29548662

In reply to winhill:

by the by - have contributors to this thread read 'mindstar rising' by peter hamilton? has reference to a war very similar to that apparently in the offing.

In reply to Big Steve:


There is little doubt that Turkey under Erdogan, as the regional superpower, has been stirring the pot of the Syrian civil war hugely in all sorts of ways, all of them malign. It is continually surprising how little the Syrian war is reported given its scale (upwards of 200,000 dead, many millions displaced either internally or to the surrounding countries, destabilising them hugely in turn, see Lebanon, Jordan and others), and it implications for making an already desperately volatile and dangerous region of the world much more so.

The Turks seem to think that they can ride the tiger of such turbulence, even feed it, and it will never turn on them. Given that widespread violent riots all across Turkey with (at last count), 19 deaths are now occurring, that assumption seems wildly over-optimistic on their part. The indications are also that they were taken almost completely by surprise by the riots as well.

The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state, and the largest Kurdish population live in Turkey. The Turks are desperate to stop any talk of "Kurdistan" and are almost certainly very unhappy indeed about the de-facto one in Iraq. The idea of another Kurdish enclave just across their own border must be a nightmare for them (and for Iran, who are little more tolerant toward religious or ethnic minorities), much more so than ISIS, who are at least Sunni.

In reply to Simon4:

Tayyip is now blaming 'dark circles' for causing the riots:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/mass-protests-aim-to-sabotage-kurdish-peac...

In reply to Big Steve:
IIRC Steve, you are quite familiar with Turkey.

Am I correct in thinking that the Turkish recent tradition, dating from Kemal Attaturk, was very secular and Westernising (including banning traditional Islamic dress, including the Burka), seen as breaking the historic causes of social failure there (explicitly linked to Islam, female exclusion, etc), but Erdogan is fairly rapidly reversing this tradition and Islamising the country?

In reply to Simon4: yes, that just about sums it up. Erdogan has stated before he wants Sharia law in Turkey, and it wont be too far away, the way things are going. He main aim now is to change the constitution to give the President all the power (ie him), as in the USA. One way or another, he will get it.
Islamic studies is already becoming compulsory in all schools, with some schools having 2-3 hours each day dedicated to it. Non muslims are losing their jobs all across the country, women are being spat at the streets in some areas for not wearing a headscarve. The part of Ankara our home is in is a decent, modern area yet people are losing their jobs or not winning any contracts if they are not seen at prayers. Everything can be traced back to one man, Erdogan. IMHO, he has it in his mind that he can be Caliph

In reply to Big Steve:
That is profoundly depressing, especially when considered in conjunction with the cult of personality associated with Putin in Russia, exemplified in the adoring celebrations of his recent birthday.

Of course Turkey has a dreadful historical record with regard to minorities, but to a fair extent was dragged kicking and screaming, at least into the 20th century by Attaturk. It now seems to be regressing to the 14th century, to the worst ravages of Islam, but the 14th century equipped with modern technology, while Russia is dominated by a "strong man" and an upwelling of aggressive Russian nationalism and exceptionalism. At the same time, the West is economically weak, tired and headed by indecisive, insecure and inadequate leaders.

I guess you also agree that Turkey has been mixing things in Syria (though not just Turkey of course), in an entirely self-serving and destructive fashion. That it is now proclaiming itself some sort of innocent victim, and talking about its NATO allies being obliged to help (and placate) it is overwhelmingly ironic.

The world seems to be regressing from a tolerable level of civilisation to prevalent barbarism, where massacres, cruelty and intolerance are the norm and widely approved of. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with a passionate intensity.

In reply to Simon4:

No chance of an army led coup as on previous similar occasions this time I understand either

In reply to MG:

So I believe.

Steve can probably confirm, but the army in Turkey used to be the preserver of the secular, Attaturk tradition, an effective if not very democratic constraint on Islamising politicians.

God knows what if any restraining force may act on Putin.

In reply to Simon4:

No chance of a coup now, Erdoggan has seen to that - dozens of Generals and other senior military personnel are in prison on trumped up charges

In reply to ByEek:


Then why do they come here? "Classless Paradise" wasn't written on the package. Most of them would still be better off in Europe than where their ancestors came from though, maybe that's the nub of the problem?

In reply to Simon4:


I bet you go to bed dreaming of strong leaders in the West, and even a couple of wanks won't take away your certainty of being "the Man". Cool it, it isn't anyone, not even you

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Who are they? Most of the people going Syria appear to be young 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation British citizens. So when you say "why do they come" what exactly do you mean?

The opportunities of the original immigrants to Britain in the 50's, 60's and 70's are entirely different to the lack of opportunity for their children and children's children.

In reply to ByEek:



You mean working in plush offices rather than sweatshops?

In reply to ByEek:


The reality is that many of those who are traveling to fight do in fact have a wealth of opportunities.
Radicalisation is far more complex and insidious than just being able to ignore/minimise by suggesting it is a byproduct of crime/poverty/lack of opportunity.
The similarity that those (incorrect) causes have is that they are all areas where we can beat ourselves up in a good old liberal breast beating.
When you read into radicalisation, those (now reformed) radicals often blame multicultural type policies that enabled for example some Islamic societies in Universities to foment Islamism, and defend themselves from attack by cries of "racism" should anyone dare.
Similarly our admirable history of free speech and tolerance, is distorted to allow bigotry to be preached and the preachers themselves defended.

Unfortunately all these policies and principles are founded for entirely good reasons, and to erode them is dangerous, no easy answers.

In reply to ByEek:



But it's precisely because the jihadists are 2nd or 3rd generation that tends to show that it's not conditions in the UK that are driving them overseas, they're most likely to be well educated and from much more advantaged backgrounds than newer immigrants. Also when you have 15 year old girls going off, who haven't sampled the delights of work, there is clearly something else at play.

In reply to off-duty:

A good response. However my original point was that I feel we should be asking the question of why, rather than just send troops to mop the problems after it has all kicked off.

I suppose my question to you, is that if we live in an egalitarian state (we don't) why do these folks feel the need to commit violent acts in the name of their religion against western people and interests? Surely, if you are seeking vengence, your enemy has done something against you? My question is, what have we done and how can we put it right in the minds of these people?

In reply to ByEek:

The answer to what I presume to be a rhetorical question is surely "the Islamic faith(s)".

It is the most aggressive, intolerant, proselytising and violent of the major religions in the world today (not to say that others do not have a violent past, but they have mostly or entirely grown out of it).

Islam was founded by a brutal desert warlord (who differed from other marauding medieval dessert chiefs in that he heard, or claimed to hear, voices, but little else - voices that had a habit of relating the "word of God" in a way that was remarkably convenient for Mohammed), and for much of its life was imposed by the sword and deliberate terror. ISIS is not a perversion of true Islam, their claim to represent a pure and unadulterated form seems pretty reasonable if one considers the Koran and the reported actions of the "prophet". It is the moderate moslems, who seek to dilute their barbaric cult with the sort of compromises one needs to make to live in relative peace with ones' neighbours that dilute and pervert the faith - and thank heaven they do!

Islam is also is fissiparous to a degree that would make an amoeba green with envy, but each faction or sect tends to hate and conduct murderous campaigns against the others almost as much or more than they do against the "kufr".


We have not done anything to provoke their ire, their grievances are imagined or at the very most wildly overblown. No level of appeasement will satisfy these extremists, certainly "unilateral liberalism" - where we extend to them a tolerance and a strained attempt to understand and sypathise which is never reciprocated by treated with contempt - will be fatal if we wish to defend our civilised and liberal-minded society.

In reply to ByEek:


The people you referred to in your post. They may have been born here but their parents came to Europe looking for a better standard of living and life style. Why do you think the children have less opportunity? Unemployment is relatively low, the failure of integration could be the problem and the work of fanatics too but even today there are still plenty of people queuing up to get in.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It can depend on how you look at things, unemployment may be relatively low, but there's been a huge rise in self employment, with many people earning less than while being employed by others, and many people are working in low paid part time jobs when they would prefer to be working full time. Social mobility has declined since the 60's too. The employment figure itself doesn't show the full picture, the means of employment also need to be looked at.

There may still be people queuing to get into the country, but all that proves is that it's (considered) a better option than the country which many are travelling from.

In reply to Timmd:


Of coure, but isn't that the point in discussion?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You asked why he thought the children have less opportunity, most of my post was about why this might be so.

In reply to ByEek:


There are literally millions of immigrants and children of immigrants of all races and religions who have successfully benefitted from the opportunities available to them. ask said elsewhere, there are huge numbers of successful Indians, Moslem, Sikhs and Hindus. Opportunity is clearly not the problem. It's aspiration and willingness to take the opportunities.

In reply to mypyrex: in all the above discussion there is tacit assumption that any and everyone going to fight at the moment is going to join Isis. But that isn't correct - i would be suprised for example if no part of the kurdish diaspora was going there to fight Isis.

How do de deal with this. That guy would be very comparable to someone joining the Spanish civil war (considered acceptable ). Are they a terror threat on return? Also, many of these guys went out before Isis - they are appaled by what they see and want to go home, and could be used effectively to warning others from going there. MI5 have said that.

Lumping all foreign fighters together is not very fair, and i doubt it's very effective for countering real terror threats

In reply to Big Steve:

I hope you are OK Steve, as there are now reports of riots/gunbattles in cities across Turkey, including Istanbul. Death toll claimed to be in the thirties now, no particular reason for it not to rise further.

In reply to wbo:

A lot of this is stupidity finding it's way home. For months, years even, the main stream media from the BBC, to the Guardian to the Daily Mail, assisted by their well meaning readers (a majority on ukc probably) have been screaming a totally distorted and simplistic view of what is going on in Syria, Assad was the evil incarnate and, until quite recently, when the truth became undeniable, that this was a fairly simple totally bad against good, or on occasions "fairly" good.

That some naive youngsters actually believed this message and decided to go out and "do their bit" in the name of good is hardly surprising. Sometimes you actually get what you ask for.

In reply to wbo:


Yes, many were seen as a very real terror threat and were monitored by the intelligence services for years afterwards. My great uncle was one of them, he was still unable to work at the large engineering companies in the 50s.

In reply to Simon4:

We are ok, thanks. I have been told that the IS are openly recruiting in Istanbul. The unrest is spreading across the country, some buildings have been burned down, police are being shot at etc, its very worrying times yet still the government are insisting it is outside forces stirring up the trouble.

We are coming back to the UK as soon as we can to wait this out

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Naughty Brucie. You're telling your little fibs again aren't you? Or is it just you're infamous reading difficulty intervening again? Or your penchant for simplistic "them and us" scenarios" Or maybe your desperate need see yourself as the independent thinker in a world of drones?

The consensus on UKC , as far as there was one, was never "bad Assad" versus "good others". It was basically "this is a complicated mess and will end in tears".

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=513584

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=532000

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thanks for posting that - NOT.

It's like sodding Groundhog Day.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Wot, me? I knew people would like to revisit such erudite discussions. God I miss Shona…..

In reply to Postmanpat:


Only when things went topsy turvy, at the beginning and until quite recently is was bad Assad, evil dictator imposing himself by force - look at the nice wife he bought (no one actually said this!) shooting unarmed demonstrators, dropping drum bombs from helicopter on innocent civilians, gassing them with sarin etc etc. There was much talk of moderate islamists and progressive opponents (mostly represented by a single bloke in Coventry (IIRC)) who gave "accurate" information about casualties in Syria while running his shop downstairs.

The problem is no one really found these moderate elements and pretty soon it was clear that the opposition in Syria were mostly Sunni extremists financed by people in Qatar or Saudi Arabia and provided with "non-lethal" equipment by others. It still doesn't stop governments bringing out the fable though.

Now we have ISIS, and they are breaking out and becoming a real nuisance, not just killing the "bad people" they were supposed kill... few have drawn the logical conclusion though, that perhaps they were wrong from the start, but governments rarely do this... wriggly people on forums may try to though

In reply to Postmanpat:

I've just read a bit of the first thread and one thing that is amusing is the faith some of you had in the elections in Libya... by now the country must be a pretty nice democratic calm place to live! How you all admonished me for not realising what a great step towards democracy they were! Silly me.

I don't see much to show much that goes against what I've just said though, a few voices crying in the wilderness but not the majority... hardly a balanced appraisal of the various forces at work in Syria... a mention of his glamorous wife, of how he may not have wanted to become what he now is, the barrel bombs were mentioned etc etc.

Just one of many threads though.

Now for the second.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The people on the forums don't need to because thy never claimed otherwise. You may even have missed the bit where the UK parliament voted against intervention because the general public was saying "We don't know who we are interviewing on behalf so to do so would fxcking mad".

You may like to portray Syria as a land only of passive supporters of a nasty dictator or of crazy jihadists but most people realised long ago that it was more complicated than that. You weren't reading what people were saying to you on the threads then and you won't now because it would undermine your self image.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The only people portraying the conflict in such black and white terms were Shona (and to a lesser extent Bruce) who appeared to be saying- Assad good (bordering on saintly) everyone else evil western agitators.

(wonder what the view is on the 4 non-disclosed Assad chemical weapons plants, for the cw that Assad "wasn't using" )

In reply to Postmanpat:

I've read your second link and it doesn't say what you are saying, there is a lot about only helping the "right" rebels, the ones that don't exist, a lot about how Assad is the evil of evils and quite a lot of interesting discussion too but not really what you say... Assad has to go is the conclusion of as much as I had time to read.


I haven't said that, those who support Assad, including quite a lot of Sunnis, are active because they are scared for their own lives if a radical Sunni regime came about, which is what I have been saying since the beginning.


Did they?


Funny, I seem to have spent a lot of time replying to them on the two threads you link to... perhaps it was another Bruce Hooker?


Self image? Speak for yourself, I don't function like that. Haven't you noticed how much time you spend on personal attacks at present... wonder why?

PS. The first thread you linked was July 2012, the second was December 2012, hardly the beginning of it all.

In reply to off-duty:

Come on now, I never said Assad was good, I don't think Shona did either, but I didn't think another armed intervention like in Libya was the solution. I did, and do, think that in both countries the agitation was encouraged by the West and that however much both regimes could be criticized their destruction by force was likely to cause immense suffering far more than leaving them to follow their own course, respecting national independence as laid out in the UN charter.

That was before both civil wars, can you honestly say that history has not proved me right? Have the deaths and destruction in both countries been less than if these events had not taken place? And when it comes to Libya you must include the whole destabilisation of North and Saharan Africa that resulted from the NATO intervention and the distribution of arms to fanatical gangs that followed, and for Syria the present ISIS explosion must also be counted in balance sheet.

The option of a few "peaceful" demonstrations leading to instant democracy and all concerned settling down to a peaceful co-existence, now and for ever more just never existed.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes, you just didn't notice.


Doh! Replying doesn't demonstrate you read something. Your replies consistently demonstrate your failure to have read the posts you are replying to.


Because I long ago realised that rational debate with you was impossible because,mainly because you argue not with what is being said but with what you imagine is being being said.

In reply to Postmanpat:
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome.

I remember GingerKate mentioning how Bruce can seem to reply to what he interprets is being posted, rather than what actually is.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's true, you do it frequently because you put people in little pigeon holes... like when you refer to me a Stalinist though I am not and never have been. Clearly your knowledge of political parties is very limited or you would know that European Communist parties denounced Stalinism decades ago and even the USSR did.

I have also said on various occasions that I left the PCF many years ago and was no longer involved in politics. I don't have the presumption to think that you would remember the political views of everybody but as you appear to be obsessed by me a little (should I feel flattered?) you might have done and moved me from that pigeon hole to another?


ie. agreeing with Postmanpat... difficult but not impossible, but you didn't even notice it when I did, you are guilty of the fault you find in others.

In reply to Timmd:


And yet it's what most governments do. I think you are mixing your metaphors.

In reply to Timmd:


Don't we all do that? This language thing can be a bit confuddlisitating at times, especially when done in a hurry whilst concentrating on something else and you aren't really listening and oh look is that the time, I'd better get the oven on for tea.

In reply to skog:
We do, I've found on here I can need to qualify what I don't mean, so that it's clearer what it is I actually do mean, I try and think of as many possible interpretations of what I'm writing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That's true enough.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes Bruce, we've been through a thousand times. I'm well aware of your views and I even have a passing knowledge of the difference (if it really matters) between different brands of communism.
I'll jog your memory, the terms you my be familiar with are "stereotyping" and "labelling". Ring a bell?


No Bruce, agreeing with me (which I know you occasionally do) or with anybody else. is not the issue.

You simply need to learn to slow down, read what people write, and respond to that rather than to what you expect them to write because you have already pigeon holed them (or because you like to wind people up-I never can tell)

In reply to Postmanpat:


Given that until recently parties which called themselves Communist ruled a very large part of the planet and were even rivalling with Capitalism as a social and economic system I'd say it did really matter, even for those opposed to it. Do you deliberately adopt a cocky sort of tone or does it just come naturally?


We can go on saying this same thing about the other till the cows come home but it is not very interesting. As a method of arguing it is tedious and inefficient as no one can actually prove who is doing it any more than prove whose opinion is right. It is the same as saying I am right and you are wrong alternatively.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


With you, deliberately mainly.

The realisation that they were and are all inevitably forms of nasty authoritarian dictatorship is more important than arguing about their different ways to get there but I realise that the penny hasn't yet dropped for you.


Yes, but it does seem to be a rather common complaint about you. Perhaps you should stop and ask yourself why.

Bye. x

In reply to Postmanpat:


Don't you think it's time you got out of the sand pit: "I don't like you and Sally doesn't either!"

The Middle East deserves better.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No, silly points scoring aside, if people consistently tell you something about your debating style, namely that you don't address what is actually written, it would seem sensible to wonder why they do this and if they have a valid point. After all, they presumably understand what they wrote, but they don't think you do.

I recognise you enjoy holding different viewpoints and that's fine (although it obviously has no bearing at all on the validity or not of the viewpoint) but this is not about holding a different viewpoint it is about your ability to engage in debate with people.

In reply to Postmanpat:

But you would say that, wouldn't you? As your arguments are weak you look for another way to "win"... a very large number of people on ukc are in favour of British colonialism in the Malvinas but that doesn't prove they are right simply that they agree with the establishment view, elsewhere in the world many people see it differently. A recent poll showed that the majority in Britain favour the monarchy but that is absolutely no reason for republicans to change their view, it just shows that on this question there is a long way to go... encouraged by a general move against the present format of the House of Lords.

Not everybody need the comfort of holding the majority opinion... you do, I don't. But whatever way you look at it history has shown that it's not always the majority view that is right, even if sometimes the minority is wrong too. Perhaps you should look for convincing arguments rather than join in a silly personal attack?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


AAAAAGGGHHHH. Read, read , read!

Do you not understand that I am not saying that the majority view in a debate on the geopolitics or anything else like that is necessarily right? That is not the issue here.

I am saying that that if people consistently say that you don't seem to grasp what they have said, and therefore don't engage with it, then they are in a position to know, because they know what they meant to say.

Here is a simple breakdown of the logic for you.

I say X. Bruce responds as if I'd said Y.

There are two possibilities :

1) What I wrote was unclear and it was possible that it could be misunderstood as saying Y.(this sometimes happens)
2) Bruce has, for some reason, not understood or that I was saying X or decided to misconstrue it.

3) Subsequently I notice that all other readers except Bruce understood that I was saying X. (nb. not that they agree with X, but that they understood that X what I was saying)

4) Subsequently I notice , as do others, that when a poster says A,B or C, Bruce consistently seems to think they have said D,E or F.

The evidence from '3' and '4' suggests that the problem lies not with the clarity of what people write, but Bruce's ability or willingness to understand and engage with what they wrote, rather than what he thinks or pretends to think they wrote.

I repeat, I am not arguing that a majority view in general discussion in necessarily correct. I am making a completely different point. Do you understand that?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, I realise that, but I'm saying you would say that as it's a classic way of dodging the issue, as is all your "AAARRRGHing!" and so on. You seem to have difficulty in understanding that, or pretend to. Same as the other character who's been dodging the issue for a couple of days. It's a way of "arguing", people do it on the telly all the time, it convinces no one, largely because it does not set out to convince only to waste time and dodge the issue. By the end of your post most people have forgotten what the discussion was about - "Islamic Terrorist and Turkey". You do it all the time.

I'm afraid you're the one who is replying off subject. Like the other bloke, I asked him a simple question half a dozen times, I instigated the exchange, or at least attempted to, and he either ignored it or pretended not to understand each time, and like you set off on a totally different tack. I'm afraid it doesn't work, at least it makes communication difficult... which I suppose is your (plural) objective. Your little demonstration falls flat for the same reason.... except in as much as it wastes my time.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I didn't reply "off the subject". I started "off the subject" in that my OP was calling you out for misportraying other peoples' views and that is what I continue to do. I am happy apologise to those on the thread for hijacking it.

I'm not much interested in discussing the topic of Turkey and Islam with you for the reasons I have repeated several times. You don't engage properly with what people actually say.I am trying to encourage you to engage with what people say rather than you think they said or what you think they really mean. Trying to second guess what people are really trying to say is pretty pointless since only they can know.

Once again, you have failed to understand or take on board where I coming from and what I am saying and then impute explanations for what you mistakenly think I have done or said. Are you not able to stop doing this?

In reply to Postmanpat:


And you? Are you not able to not go off on tangents about how people don't react as you think they should, always wanting others to "think" like you? If you want to discuss with other people you'll just have to learn to take them as they are... few will be able to attain your level of intellectual prowess, that's certain. You'll just have to be modest and bring yourself down to the level of the hoi polloi.

For you to accuse others of answering questions that haven't been asked and to "misunderstand" what others have written is pretty rich, you do it all the time.

But we've said this before.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What do you mean " think like me"?

PS. There you again, imputing something that you imagine is there. It's like some sort of addiction or nervous tick. Can you not stop it?


Such as? Whe you say "questions" do you mean points. Sometimes people miss my point but it's usually a one off and as often as not my fault for not making my point well. We all do it from time to time but not on a consistent basis. Don't you think people might point it out if it were?

In reply to Postmanpat:
It seems to me that you both think you're the objective ones, which is human nature, and you both think it's the other guy who's weird, which is also human nature, and this could continue round and around in circles indefinitely.

You both need to think about and do something else, in my humble opinion, life's too short. ()

In reply to Timmd:



I have never agreed with you so well! I'mm off to rake the grass, far less tiring than exchanging words with PMP

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


As usual I'm way ahead of you. I've already sowed a whole lawn and raked in the seeds this weekend

In reply to Postmanpat:

Is it the right time of year to do that?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Oh yes! OK until mid October unless there's a frost!! So the inter web says…….

In reply to Big Steve:

That bad, huh?

Hope you get the move done before things really erupt in Turkey, if they are going to do so. The UK is still relatively secure at the moment, though it is highly questionable how long it can remain so. It is quite likely that the new, dynamic, ever more extreme group ISIS will inspire some quite horrific acts here (and elsewhere in Western Europe), just among the rootless youth who imagine that they are in some way hard done by, despite the privileges and protection that they get as British citizens, quite apart from ISIS central organising any outrages.

I think we can expect some atrocities closer to home fairly soon, either due to actual ISIS influence or copycats. Hope I am wrong, but realistically am probably not.

In reply to Simon4:

We are massively more secure now than we were in the early seventies.

In reply to elsewhere:


I'm glad you think so.
There are a great deal of changes in the motivation, nature and tactics of the threats against us, compared to the relatively simpler scenarios of the 70s.
In addition the threat is on an international scale.

Interesting that you should post this at the same time as the threat to police officers has just been raised to substantial.

In reply to off-duty:

I'm a bit puzzled and cynical about these 'threat levels' - the way they are expressed as though they are some quantifiable, measurable entity like temperature, sea level or % O2.

I'm not sure what they contribute to our knowledge or understanding of what is going on other than to give pseudo scientific respectability to what must be subjective judgements., open to manipulation or exaggeration - like 'sexing up'.

Which isn't to say that there may be credible evidence for targeting of police officers; why not just say that?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I guess these things have to be quantified to a certain degree - otherwise how do you make the strategic decision to put x staff on terrorism versus y staff on drugs versus z staff on sex crimes ?

Its not exact but it probably has to be done.

In reply to elsewhere:


What makes you say that? I can't remember feeling insecure in the early 70s, apart from when climbing, or worrying about getting out of the dry zone in N Wales of a Sunday night in the race down the A5 before the pubs shut

Were you actually around at the time? If so what was the problem?

In reply to mypyrex: Weren't there some blokes called the IRA or something like that? I think they were quite busy with bombs and similar.

In reply to wbo:

I don't remember feeling threatened by them in the slightest though... Sometimes I do a tiny bit now but only in shopping malls. Otherwise I can't say I feel threatened much today either, except by theft, you can't leave your bike propped up on the kerb like you could in the 70s or a motor-bike without a chain and no key ignition, but I don't suppose that's what is meant in this thread.

If I was wandering about the Middle East as I did in the 70s I might feel a bit threatened today though, I didn't in the 70s, not in the slightest.

In reply to wbo:
The IRA, vicious as they were, did not normally set out to cause the maximum number of civilian casualties they possibly could. They would normally give (frequently inadequate and sometimes misleading), warnings, also they did not behead people on the streets. They were also to a certain extent responsive to public opinion and did not revel in savagery for the sake of it, nor mostly deliberately set out to achieve the maximum terror and brutality possible.

None of which is to excuse them in any way, they were certainly murderous bastards and complicit in many atrocities, but not in the existential way we can expect from ISIS.

The IRA had a specific, if anti-democratic objective, ISIS seems to want the total destruction or enslavement of our liberal democratic society.

In reply to mypyrex:
I lived in London during the 80's and 90's and remember feeling vaguely threatened at times. The IRA pub bombings seemed quite nasty.

I suspect your level of fear, threat depends on where you live. If you commute to central London every day it will seem a bit more immediate.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Yes.

>If so what was the problem?
The UK had 300-500 deaths per year within our borders at the peak of "The Troubles".

In comparison to my childhood the current threat is vastly reduced.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Then you should feel even less threatened in the UK now.

In reply to Simon4:

Resulting in bugger all threat here in the UK compared to The Troubles so keep calm and carry on.

In reply to elsewhere:

I was referring to the 70s like the poster I replied to. In the 80s and 90s I was mostly in Paris where we did have some bombs, quite a nasty one in the Metro, but even so I didn't feel threatened, it was the perception I was thinking of, and today, despite armed soldiers all over, a bit like Belfast of Derry back in the 70s, I don't much feel threatened, don't even think of it.

There is just one place where I go shopping sometimes, a huge US style shopping mall near Eurodisney, which is very much the image of the USA where I don't like to hang about too long, it seems to be such an obvious target for anyone looking for a symbolic massacre.

It's all really down to perception for the moment though in W Europe, as you say the statistical risk is tiny, and ridiculously so for anyone with a hobby like climbing and who drives a lot. There's also the fact that in the 70s I was immortal, now I'm not

In reply to elsewhere:
Well if you remember, prior to 7/7 that was being said to dismiss concerns. Then there were massive attacks in Madrid and London, with huge numbers of deaths and injuries, far greater numbers than any IRA attack because that was the specific and malevolent intention. This is in addition to multiple shootings, beheadings and various other murders in Holland, Belgium, France and the UK.

It seems ill advised to wait until this happens before getting worried about it

In reply to elsewhere:





1 - Judging the success of anti-terrorist activity. Or even the threat level on the basis of failure is flawed.

2 - There was a 4-5 year period around the early 70's where total deaths were in the 200s with a peak around 450. These deaths were all UK/NI based. They cannot be accurately compared to current casualty figures - are you including soldiers abroad, foreign national deaths that could have been prevented by UK intelligence, the global and dynamic nature of modern terrorism, the vastly more insidious nature of being able to beam a beheading video directly around the world, etc etc.

The threat is further exacerbated by the lack of any achievable goal by the modern terrorists. Killing all kuffir is a lot less negotiable than an independent Ireland.

In reply to elsewhere:





Depends how you define threat. As far as the provos were concerned a mass casualty attack was largely counter productive. For example bombing Sellafield would have been an own goal as the fallout drifted across the Irish Sea. I suspect Jihadi Padraig would have no such qualms. The intent is there, they're just not organised as well as the Republican groups were.

In reply to Ridge:

It rather depends on what you call a 'threat'. To me it wasn't the risk of being killed in a bombing (even though the Birmingham pub bombing was a bit close to home). It was being 'asked' by 4 blokes for contributions to the Bobby Sands hunger strike fund in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Are you sure that's not the deep existential dread most normal people feel on first contact with a gleaming shopping mall full of dead-eyed zombies parading the latest overpriced fashions?

jk

In reply to off-duty:

Judging how terrorised I should feel on the basis of deaths is a good rule of thumb as it is the least biased information available to me. The idea that there can be a threat comparable to the IRA but most years it doesn't result in any deaths requires me to believe in an implausible level of crime prevention compared to what was achieved against the IRA or what is achieved against other crime now.


The UK does not run the world. We cannot save the world. UK intelligence will not fix Boku Haram, DR Congo or a multitude of other conflicts. We do not have more than a marginal influence on global deaths in conflicts unless we have direct military involvement.


Tom Clancy techno babble.


Sir Richard Dearlove, former chief of MI6 says we should just ignore such videos. He's also right to say that conflict in the Middle East has marginal impact on the UK.

In reply to Ridge:

I agree.

However I don't regard intent without capability as much of a threat.

In reply to jkarran:


No, I've been going there for quite a while, so I'm used to it, the creepy music, and all, even on the car park, it's USA in Europe. I just get a bit jumpy after half an hour or so, and find myself watching people and looking for spots to jump if a bomb went off, especially if I'm with the family... all that sheet glass could slice us in half. Maybe I shouldn't be writing about it on an unencrypted forum?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You know what, I think you'll be ok whether you do or not.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


I'm not sure, haven't you noticed how the forum's appearance went all funny all of a sudden? Something's going on.

In reply to Simon4:
300 deaths in a population of 500 million over the last 10 years - is that a reasonable estimate of 7/7, Madrid and everything else combined within the EU?

Compare that with perhaps 260,000 road deaths throughout the EU in the last 10 years.

Traffic is roughly a thousand times more dangerous than Jihad.

In reply to elsewhere:




By your simplistic assessment of "threat" here, we certainly need to get rid of murder squads.

(I am glad that you feel so safe though, it certainly justifies my overtime.)

In reply to off-duty:
Why shouldn't it be simplistic? It is simple.

Terrorists don't kill many so that threat hardly exists.

In contrast 500 uk people killed annually so murder squads are well justiifed.

In reply to elsewhere:


What is the trend in accidental road deaths?
What is the trend in jihad murders?

In reply to elsewhere:




Far greater resources are given to murder squads than traffic units - a waste by your assessment.

The current terrorist threat is far harder to contain and combat, largely due to what you dismiss as "Tom Clancy techno babble".

In reply to wintertree:
Down
There is no consistent jihad in eu or uk to judge that.

In reply to mypyrex:

Turkish planes have bombed Kurdish fighters while the latter are accused of attacking Turkish positions! It doesn't exactly look like a combined alliance against the IS, does it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29611582

It's hard to see how IS can be defeated if those against it are fighting amongst themselves, or avoid wondering if the Turkish government is not happy to let IS kill Kurds.

In reply to elsewhere



It's not actually that simple. Taking a purely quantitative view of the risk to you as an individual makes it extremely easy to dismiss pretty much anything as being pretty unlikely to affect you personally, which is a reasonable and fairly healthy attitude to the risk.

It gets harder when you have to take into account societal concerns and other issues. Take the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Tens of thousands dead, massive destruction of homes and infrastructure, huge trauma for the survivors. What was all that anyone cared about? Some releases from a power station with minor, if not negligible consequences.

Its also harder if the risk isn't obvious. The HSE gets a lot of flak from politicians and public alike for being some red tape quango that does nothing but ban conkers and should probably be abolished. In reality, do away with enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work Act and deaths and industrial injuries would steadily rise to almost Victorian levels. The same may be true of the security services at present.

Whilst I acknowledge that:
A. The media love to whip up hysteria;
B. Politicians would love to bring in more legislation at the slightest provocation;
C. Chief Constables will be eyeing up increases in budgets;
D. G4S, Serco and Crapita will gleefully fleece the taxpayer for millions to provide their total lack of expertise in anti terrorism,

We have very little understanding of the actual threat. From my own brief involvement with intelligence work some 15 years ago, I suspect we'd all be quite surprised by the level of active targeting by Islamists in the UK.

It'd be a brave politician or copper who got up at a press conference after someone got all choppy choppy at a kindergarten and said “Come on you lot, the risk was negligible by objective standards.."

I also understand the police are a tad concerned about a swathe of burning mosques and lynched taxi drivers in the event of a 'spectacular', so the spending may be justified in terms of community cohesion. To be honest I think total apathy is the great strength of the UK population and that's not a realistic scenario, but the police seem to take it seriously.

Who knows for sure?

In reply to Ridge:
I mostly agree. The quantitIve risk is tiny compared to everyday risks such as traffic but the political risks are huge.

In reply to mypyrex:

An interesting article (at least I think it is), it demonstrates just how astute your choice of title is... Turkey using ISIS to weaken the Kurds, both being led by Sunnite radicals, even if Erdogan is held back a bit. It gives an insight into the complexity of the situation, Turkey being an important part of the Western alliance and yet working with ISIS rather than against it at present:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-151014.html

The bit about Turkey is the second half of the article, the style takes getting used to:

"The Caliph counts on indirect help from The Sultan (or alternate Caliph), aka Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan. Tehran is - rightfully - furious, as it sees the "West" - and Turkey - betraying the Kurds all over again. It's no secret Sultan Erdogan is doing nothing because he wants to screw the guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Syrian-Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD); let them die instead of repelling The Caliph and then be strong enough to threaten Turkish domination of those huge, essentially Kurdish patches of Anatolia. Thus the only thing Sultan Erdogan does support is aimless bombing by the Pentagon cum coalition of the clueless-cowards."

etc.

PS. To prove it is not all nonsense there is a BBC article linked above about the Turkish airforce bombing Kurdish militia in Turkey just few days ago.

In reply to mypyrex:
No show down alone for Turkey but a Kurdish showdown with a UN negotiated deal for the partition of Syria. {ongoing negotiations between Turkey and Kurds to settle their disputes also necessary} Saudi Arabia and Iran would have to agree to a partition of Syria with the installation of a moderate government. To achieve that deal Russia has to abstain in a UN vote {but Putin has little deep regard for Assad and wouldn't support Assad's ambitions to reunite Syria, persuading him to be glad with what he has got} and Iran will also have to give the nod as well. Saudi Arabia has to agree to a general decision to drop the idea of removing Assad completely. I submit this is the aim? Somewhere in all this negotiation will come the way to implement it through a no fly zone run by the UN. Turkey is a member of UN and could participate on this level.
And Iraq has to be reunited because the South only functions with the water in the north secure.
Why do we bother? Because not to bother results in Middle East meltdown and we all have an interest in that..
Any other aims and outcomes ? Geneva 3 ? but I think the time has passed.