Rare Bear Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Stay out of it and build a wall across the Med. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Take Me Back To London! Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) What they need is a Middle East Peace Envoy to sort it all out. Can we find one and drop him right in the middle of it all? He could even take his wife Peace - they would not know what to do with it. Here is the World Cup - sorry World War fixture list for this year's tournament, including teams, players and statistics. The ancient Muslim hatreds tearing apart the Middle East: How 1,400-year-old feud between Shia and Sunni sects flared into life with the fall of dictators like Gaddafi and Saddam... and now threatens to swallow all of IraqSunni and Shia factions have been warring since 632AD disagreement over successor to prophet Muhammad ISIS militants - who are Sunni - have been stampeding through majority-Shia Iraq But the militants have stuck to Sunni heartlands, where residents are glad to be rid of Shia government forces Religious tensions are flaring again now that dictators such as Colonel Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein have fallen Rest of the world - and especially other Middle Eastern states - are watching nervously as the conflict intensifies By Michael Burleigh Published: 23:25 GMT, 12 June 2014 | Updated: 06:56 GMT, 13 June 2014 At the heart of the terrifying meltdown in Iraq is the centuries-old hatred between two Muslim ideologies: Sunni and Shia. The deadly power struggle between these two rival versions of the same faith has flared into life as Sunnis in the extremist terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) advance on Baghdad, where flailing prime minister Nouri al-Maliki - who is Shia - begged his parliament to declare a state of emergency. It is a battle being watched with trepidation throughout the Middle East, where the escalation of the traditional Sunni/Shia conflict threatens governments and national borders. Already, ISIS has effectively established its own nation state - or Islamic caliphate - which spreads across the north of Syria and Iraq, taking no heed of the border between the countries. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656734/Ancient-hatreds-tearing-apart-Middle-East-How-1-400-year-old-feud-Shia-Sunni-Muslims-flared-life-fall-dictators-like-Gaddafi-Saddam-threatens-swallow-Iraq.html#ixzz34WBjsfLr Edited June 13, 2014 by Take Me Back To London! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Far from being a black swan event I fear it may have the opposite effect as money and people flood out of these regions to safe havens. The safe havens won`t be in Europe or the UK, due to the recently changed political situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The safe havens won`t be in Europe or the UK, due to the recently changed political situation. Imagine if Marine Le Pen gets elected in France and you get all the radicals across Europe pouring in to start jihad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Take Me Back To London! Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) The safe havens won`t be in Europe or the UK, due to the recently changed political situation. ISIS are re-establishing the old caliphate, the rate they are going at, they will be back in control of Spain and into the southern parts of France and Austria by Christmas. Edited June 13, 2014 by Take Me Back To London! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Take Me Back To London! Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Imagine if Marine Le Pen gets elected in France and you get all the radicals across Europe pouring in to start jihad. They have already started the Jihad in Europe either by stealth or overtly, a recent example were the murders at the Jewish Museum in Brussels by a returning jihadist from Syria. It has nothing to do with Le Pen or Hollande being in power they are both unIslamic kaffirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) It seems now that this is not Shias x Sunnis and they will unite with Kurds against the ISIS guys. The ISIS seems to be even more crazy what a regular Islamist can take. With US air strikes and support of all 3 Iraqi ethnic groups it should be possible to contain it. http://www.kurdpress.ir/En/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=7556#Title=%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09Iraqi%20Sunni%20cleric%20says%20fighting%20against%20ISIS%20is%20a%20duty%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09 Iraqi Sunni cleric says fighting against ISIS is a duty http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e3b144e-f2cc-11e3-85cd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34Q5hiYb8 Iraq’s most senior Shia cleric issues call to arms against Isis Edited June 13, 2014 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 With any luck sunni and shias will deplete one anthers numbers and then the civilised world can just drop a nuke on the remainder. Its the only way to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Bad news, certainly, but not a black swan. Entirely expected in my mind for years. Other "black swans" that won't be: - another spectacular attack somewhere in Europe - medium size bank collapse in Asia due to a discovered fraud - civil unrest in Asia I agree this must have been expected considering the post victory it was clear the US had no real plans other than awarding fat contracts to it's own businesses. This isn't a black swan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederico Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I think it is a black swan, there is no way they remotely expected this. If the US decide to take action it will be air strikes and go on forever . meanwhile Russia will be chucking weapons at the rebels. Vietnam anyone and Afghanistan hasn't even got going yet, what a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I think it is a black swan, there is no way they remotely expected this. If the US decide to take action it will be air strikes and go on forever . meanwhile Russia will be chucking weapons at the rebels. Vietnam anyone and Afghanistan hasn't even got going yet, what a mess. i said before. this is a very delicate,dangerous situation. probably would be for the best if russia and the yanks can see they both have a common problem in radicalised islam, and keep it confined to a proxy war between them(mexican stand off if you will). it would be to the benefit of both. we don't exactly trust the russians,that's for sure, but having a sect of fanatics that if they had their way would probaly make the spanish inquisition look like a rather polite after-dinner chin-wag, I think both need to be concerned, because both are infidel in the eyes of this lot. ...we in the mean time should bolster up our defences,and be good boy scouts(ie be prepared)....frankly our illustrious leaders are guilty of criminal negligence on this part.we need change,fast, not just military but educational and industrial policy too. no more outsourcing. best case scenario is the tories sack cameron, elect david davis as leader, and he goes into coalition with farage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Take Me Back To London! Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) I think it is a black swan, there is no way they remotely expected this. If the US decide to take action it will be air strikes and go on forever . meanwhile Russia will be chucking weapons at the rebels. Vietnam anyone and Afghanistan hasn't even got going yet, what a mess. Hi Frederico, Why would Russia be chucking weapons at the rebels, it has it own problems with Muslim terrorism and has been backing Assad? Edited June 13, 2014 by Take Me Back To London! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Take Me Back To London! Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I agree this must have been expected considering the post victory it was clear the US had no real plans other than awarding fat contracts to it's own businesses. This isn't a black swan. Hi, Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond, Would it be a black swan when we have a full blown "Arab Spring" in Europe or not as it was predicted by Enoch Powell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Yes, we would rather support Russian interest and keep a nice family based dictatorship to rule Syria with an iron fist for ever ... based on your thoughts Oliver Cromwell was a terrorist too .. When there are multiple participants in a conflict, all variously repellent, declining to attack or support one in particular, can not reasonably be construed as 'supporting' another. If we are to become militarily involved, there should be a clear, acheivable, identifiable and measurable objective. Otherwise, becoming so involved would by definition be pointless. Edited June 14, 2014 by happy_renting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I agree 100% with you comment about not getting involved. I would also add we should also keep them at arms length and not invite them into our stable democracies. Winston Churchill had first hand experience of Islam in the 1890s during his army career. The quote below is from Winston Churchill's 1899 book (unabridged version) The River War, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899) http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." From Churchill's criticism of Islam to Adolf Hitler's praise for Islam - Quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115. "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" Churchill's understanding and interest in islam went little further than condescending racism. Which is a pity, as it was Churchill himself in the 1920's who spend a disinterested few weeks carving up the Middle East into nations states, with little regard for ethnic and sectarian divisions. For all intents and purposes, the national boundaries in the region were sketched out on the back of a fag packet. The earlier Sykes-Picot agreement, and later CIA and MI6 overthrow of Iran's elected government on behalf of Anglo-American Oil didn't help matters. Britain has a century-long and disasterous history of meddling in the region. T.E. Lawrence, where are you now (and where were you then?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
200p Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 i said before. this is a very delicate,dangerous situation. probably would be for the best if russia and the yanks can see they both have a common problem in radicalised islam, and keep it confined to a proxy war between them(mexican stand off if you will). it would be to the benefit of both. we don't exactly trust the russians,that's for sure, but having a sect of fanatics that if they had their way would probaly make the spanish inquisition look like a rather polite after-dinner chin-wag, I think both need to be concerned, because both are infidel in the eyes of this lot. ...we in the mean time should bolster up our defences,and be good boy scouts(ie be prepared)....frankly our illustrious leaders are guilty of criminal negligence on this part.we need change,fast, not just military but educational and industrial policy too. no more outsourcing. best case scenario is the tories sack cameron, elect david davis as leader, and he goes into coalition with farage. Thanks for that insight, mat we live in interesting times (again) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 When there are multiple participants in a conflict, all variously repellent, declining to attack or support one in particular, can not reasonably be construed as 'supporting' another. If we are to become militarily involved, there should be a clear, acheivable, identifiable and measurable objective. Otherwise, becoming so involved would by definition be pointless. The objective is always the same. Start the democratic process. But it took English 400 years so we need to be a bit patient with Muslims. Supporting the dictators (if they do for us the dirty job) is inhumane and strategically unstable ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 The objective is always the same. Start the democratic process. But it took English 400 years so we need to be a bit patient with Muslims. Supporting the dictators (if they do for us the dirty job) is inhumane and strategically unstable ... But Damik, you were emphatic on the Ukraine Chernobyl Thread that the US/UK illegal invasion had sorted out all the problems of Iraq. Seems you were totally, totally wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 But Damik, you were emphatic on the Ukraine Chernobyl Thread that the US/UK illegal invasion had sorted out all the problems of Iraq. Seems you were totally, totally wrong. 1929crash, it would be quite useful for you to try to ignore from time to time what Putin/RT says and try to use your own brain to analyse carefully the issue. And suggesting that we should keep "friendly" dictators to do a dirty job for us is beyond silly. It is barbaric ... http://www.kurdpress.ir/En/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=7556#Title=%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09Iraqi%20Sunni%20cleric%20says%20fighting%20against%20ISIS%20is%20a%20duty%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09 An Iraq famous Sunni cleric Sheikh Ahmad al-Kabisi said fighting against the Takfiri forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) is a religious duty for all Muslims. Releasing a Fatwa, religious order, the cleric asked all Iraqi politicians to forget differences at the time and oust ISIS forces from Iraq, al-Baghdadiya News reported.The Islamist militants effectively took control of Mosul, the country's second-largest city, and much of its province of Nineveh June 9, AFP said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 During GW 1 The reasons we were given why we would not be invading Iraq were that the situation that we currently see could be predicted.Interestingly those countries with regimes equally as evil as Sadam's but who are friendly and useful to the US are never troubled. Interestingly, one of those doing the predicting was Dick Cheney, who strongly advised Bush Snr against it.He hadn't half changed his tune by the time the Shrub was in the Oval Office.The twit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Interestingly those countries with regimes equally as evil as Sadam's but who are friendly and useful to the US are never troubled. The US acts in its own interests. It doesn't have the resource to do much more than that, even if there was a desire. Outside of the civilised world can be a pretty nasty and horrific place. When such backward societies look like they might be gathering in strength enough to trouble the civilised world, the civilised world is forced to do something about it. It is likely quite reluctantly, but when it is deemed necessary the islamic world needs putting back in its box for the sake of civilisation and indeed the future of mankind as a whole. It shouldn't be a surprise that the US acts in its own interests, there only so much that can be done. For the rest of the world to become civilised will take generations, and it needs to start with education for which stable societies are a pre-requisite. An introduction of a less backward society was the aim of previous engagements. But its hard, its unpredictable, its complicated. The alternative of doing nothing is unacceptable. A foothold cannot be tolerated. It will get messy and it will take a long time. In the meantime the march of technology, led by the US, is playing its part in this wider picture. Boots on the ground this time? No. It won't be necessary. Dependency on oil funding the backward cultures? Watch this space. Progress is being made on all fronts. It will get messy and it will take a long time. Im optimistic about the longer term future for us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Hi Frederico, Why would Russia be chucking weapons at the rebels, it has it own problems with Muslim terrorism and has been backing Assad? Plus there's the pipeline from Iran under threat. Here's an energy doomer view: http://www.economic-undertow.com/2014/06/13/arab-summer/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) 1929crash, it would be quite useful for you to try to ignore from time to time what Putin/RT says and try to use your own brain to analyse carefully the issue. And suggesting that we should keep "friendly" dictators to do a dirty job for us is beyond silly. It is barbaric ... http://www.kurdpress.ir/En/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=7556#Title=%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09Iraqi%20Sunni%20cleric%20says%20fighting%20against%20ISIS%20is%20a%20duty%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09 An Iraq famous Sunni cleric Sheikh Ahmad al-Kabisi said fighting against the Takfiri forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) is a religious duty for all Muslims. Releasing a Fatwa, religious order, the cleric asked all Iraqi politicians to forget differences at the time and oust ISIS forces from Iraq, al-Baghdadiya News reported.The Islamist militants effectively took control of Mosul, the country's second-largest city, and much of its province of Nineveh June 9, AFP said. You were totally wrong about the 2003 illegal invasion and you lack the courage to admit it. Edited June 14, 2014 by 1929crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederico Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Hi Frederico, Why would Russia be chucking weapons at the rebels, it has it own problems with Muslim terrorism and has been backing Assad? Russia wants influence and control.She also wanted to piss off America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrieb Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) The violent insurgency in Iraq is the "predictable and malign effect" of the West's inaction over Syria, former UK prime minister Tony Blair has said. Writing on his website, he said the takeover of Mosul by Sunni insurgents was planned across the Syrian border. Every time "we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will be ultimately greater", he added. He said the idea that the current crisis was a result of the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 was "bizarre". "We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this," he wrote. "We haven't." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832 Oh, right, I see Mr Blair. So, if we had just given the Syrian "Freedom Fighters/insurgents" even more weapons, then this wouldn't have happened. Edit: also notice the timing of this blairism. Edited June 14, 2014 by enrieb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.