40,000 Iraqis stranded on Sinjar mountain

[Skashion]

says something when Syria, Iran and USA agree on getting rid of them,

about time Saudi stepped upto the plate.

Yes and no. Syria and Iran have always been there to lend a helping hand in getting rid of Sunni extremists which pose a threat to Shia regimes like those of Syria and Iran. Iran offered a lot of co-operation during the invasion of Afghanistan and then in Iraq and it was all rejected. The only issue is the United States, who flit between positions, in Afghanistan 2001 to present, and Iraq fighting the same groups and the same ideologues it indirectly supported in Syria and actively supported in Afghanistan during the 1980s. So, basically, the stance of Iran and Syria are not at all strange. As Shia regimes they've always opposed militant Sunnis like Al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS. It's the United States that can't make its mind up. Once in a while it might try to put aside its geopolitical selfishness in ensuring maximal conformity to US interests (in other words, get over the fact that Syria and Iran aren't doormats for the United States) and operate in the interests of peace and stability in the Middle East. For once, they're actually doing ok. I think for once, everyone has realised how serious the situation and have unified against the threat. With a lot of luck, some good might be salvaged IF ISIS are defeated. Hopefully coming that close to the brink will knock some sense into both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide to be more politically inclusive towards one another.

Iran has already played its part in getting rid of Maliki. As you say, it's time for Saudi Arabia to step up. Can't see it though. Saudi Arabia is a cowardly shithole nation, too afraid to own up to its responsibilities and the monster it helped create. They are afraid of what will happen to themselves. They know they've fucked up and now do not support ISIS (bit too late as they are now operating a war economy worth billions on the land they've captured) but they're still hoping to fly under the radar. It's what they've done for years and years and years. They've paid the worst sorts of people - or turned a blind eye to private donors in Saudi Arabia to fund them without interference, genocidal groups, in the hope that they will be placated. It's utter cowardly self-preservation.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Clearly beheading folk in this manner is barbaric and completely at odds with any religious teachings I've ever read, but in many ways the west has created the monster that is ISIS with a series of ill-conceived and badly executed, (pardon the pun), interventions in Arab countries.
There is a huge amount of anti-American sentiment in Muslim nations - not without good reason, when you consider the atrocities and tortures committed at Guantanamo Bay, and their slavish support for Israel, and sooner or later it was inevitable that it would find an outlet in extremism such as the fervour of ISIS, who actually manage the virtually impossible feat of making Hamas and even al-Qaeda look like paragons of moderation.
Sadly its the same old story from history that we seem incapable of learning from - if you treat folk like savages and give them nothing, then eventually they will act like savages and learn to take it by any means necessary.

 

[stonerblue]

Don't mention Nigeria or its army.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/

NB; video contains graphic violence.

 

[the blue panther]

Apparently, Ed Wood's been spotted, asking if there's any decent centre halves around that fancy a game at the Swamp

 

[CTID1988]

The guy doing the beheading in the video is british...

 

[Skashion]

The guy doing the beheading in the video is british...

Just heard the audio, don't particularly want to watch it. The scumbag claims attacks on ISIS are attacks on all Muslims... Apart from Shia Muslims who you're massacring or making refugees out of...

Unfortunately the conflict is yet another example of political interests colliding and as I said in a previous post I hope this fucked up situation manages to produce some good by forcing both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide to be politically inclusive across the region. I don't think US airstrikes are going to help in the long-term. Is the region a better place than it was on September 10th 2001? No. Are there fewer of these Sunni extremists than there were on September 10th 2001? No. Are they less extreme than they were on September 10th 2001? No, in fact they're a lot more extreme. Are they less politically powerful than on September 10th 2001? Certainly not. US military interference has not and will not help in the medium or long-term. The medium and long-term solutions is that there has to be much greater political reconciliation and cooperation between Shia and Sunnis and the countries directly involved need to be those to solve it. The west can facilitate this and should continue and/or accelerate reconciliation with Iran and even Syria.

As I've already said, US intervention just fuels recruitment for Sunni extremists, as such it doesn't represent any kind of solution. However, in the short-term ISIS still needs to be defeated and the US can play a part from the air but not on the ground. I'm also loath to suggest more western arms in the region but the Kurds are people, who, if you're going to arm someone to destroy ISIS, they're the best of all possible options. If it's going to be done, it should be the Peshmerga. Apart from that though, the west is best left to dropping humanitarian aid as the most productive non-diplomatic measure. The Shia militias will take care of themselves, especially if they are left to it and not thwarted in doing so. I think the west is on the right track for a change, it's just a shame it has taken the threat of ISIS to get the west and proxy belligerents like Saudi Arabia to realise, oh fuck, what have we done; this needs sorting.

 

[Skashion]

Just listening to Philip Hammond talking about ISIS' attacks on 'minorities', I don't know whether we read ignorance into this or whether it's reflective of a mindset where Shia Muslims don't matter, but as Shia Muslims are a substantial majority in Iraq they don't fall into that category. I hope it's not the latter. Every innocent life is equal to another. Muslims killing fellow Muslims is just as a big a tragedy as Muslims killing Christians or Yazidis.

 

[jimbopm]

The guy doing the beheading in the video is british...

Just heard the audio, don't particularly want to watch it. The scumbag claims attacks on ISIS are attacks on all Muslims... Apart from Shia Muslims who you're massacring or making refugees out of...

Unfortunately the conflict is yet another example of political interests colliding and as I said in a previous post I hope this fucked up situation manages to produce some good by forcing both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide to be politically inclusive across the region. I don't think US airstrikes are going to help in the long-term. Is the region a better place than it was on September 10th 2001? No. Are there fewer of these Sunni extremists than there were on September 10th 2001? No. Are they less extreme than they were on September 10th 2001? No, in fact they're a lot more extreme. Are they less politically powerful than on September 10th 2001? Certainly not. US military interference has not and will not help in the medium or long-term. The medium and long-term solutions is that there has to be much greater political reconciliation and cooperation between Shia and Sunnis and the countries directly involved need to be those to solve it. The west can facilitate this and should continue and/or accelerate reconciliation with Iran and even Syria.

As I've already said, US intervention just fuels recruitment for Sunni extremists, as such it doesn't represent any kind of solution. However, in the short-term ISIS still needs to be defeated and the US can play a part from the air but not on the ground. I'm also loath to suggest more western arms in the region but the Kurds are people, who, if you're going to arm someone to destroy ISIS, they're the best of all possible options. If it's going to be done, it should be the Peshmerga. Apart from that though, the west is best left to dropping humanitarian aid as the most productive non-diplomatic measure. The Shia militias will take care of themselves, especially if they are left to it and not thwarted in doing do. I think the west is on the right track for a change, it's just a shame it has taken the threat of ISIS to get the west and proxy belligerents like Saudi Arabia to realise, oh fuck, what have we done; this needs sorting.

Good points, I would argue that given the impact and scale of shock inflicted on the American public following 9/11 there was no possible way that the White House could not have taken any action (excuse the double negative) in Afghanistan at the very least. The follow up in Iraq was driven more by a desire to exercise policy led by influential neo-cons inside the Bush administration and veterans of the Bush Senior administrations decision to pull out of Iraq after a decisive military victory was won following the Gulf War. Unfortunately for the world, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et al, overcame the logical arguments being presented by Colin Powell and believe it or not Bush Jnr and now we're at where we're at now.

In hindsight the next logical step for the West after the invasion of Afghanistan would have been to exert massive pressure on the Saudi's to clean up their act. After all Osama Bin-Laden was a Saudi and most of the 9/11 hi-jackers had Saudi nationality and had sought out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to train for their mission. Unfortunately too much political and economic interest is invested in Saudi Arabia in the US so it was deemed too risky to pursue that kind of strategy.

What we've come to realise is that the Saudi's are the key to the region, along with Qatar they are the most powerful and influential Sunni controlled states following the Wahhabi strand of Islam which has come to be associated with Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram and the insurgents currently fighting in Libya. The funding has come from the Saudi's & Qatari's and they will risk being overpowered by the monsters they have helped to create. The US and and European role in this conflict has to be to exert diplomatic pressure on these two countries, to denounce the actions of these terrorist entities. This would also have the purpose of bringing Iran and Saudi Arabia closer together and meet your aims Skashion of greater cooperation between Shia and Sunni Islam.

 

[Skashion]

Hamas don't have much to do with Saudi Arabia, and they are not Wahhabi, they were previously mostly funded by the Iranians, until they fell out over Syria and are now mostly funded by Qatar. I don't think you can put them in the same bracket as the others you mentioned. Firstly, you must recognise, and disagree with their targeting of civilians all you want in doing so, but they are primarily a resistance movement. They are geographically focussed in the Palestinian territories and Israel is the sole recipient of their militancy. That is their primary motivation rather than regional Sunni dominance or establishing a caliphate. If that was the case Iran would never have been so keen to fund and arm them. Hamas aren't going away. They run a territory, and they tax within it, they're always going to manage to smuggle arms in as well. You can't get rid of them militarily. Only politically. Ending the occupation would be a good start. You'll never stop a segment of the population fighting you if you occupy them.

 

[jimbopm]

Hamas don't have much to do with Saudi Arabia, and they are not Wahhabi, they were previously mostly funded by the Iranians, until they fell out over Syria and are now mostly funded by Qatar. I don't think you can put them in the same bracket as the others you mentioned. Firstly, you must recognise, and disagree with their targeting of civilians all you want in doing so, but they are primarily a resistance movement. They are geographically focussed in the Palestinian territories and Israel is the sole recipient of their militancy. That is their primary motivation rather than regional Sunni dominance or establishing a caliphate. If that was the case Iran would never have been so keen to fund and arm them. Hamas aren't going away. They run a territory, and they tax within it, they're always going to manage to smuggle arms in as well. You can't get rid of them militarily. Only politically. Ending the occupation would be a good start. You'll never stop a segment of the population fighting you if you occupy them.

I don't want to get into Israel, I think we can agree to disagree on that one! It's fair enough to suggest that Hamas aren't guided by Wahabbist ideology but you raise the point that they now get their funding from Qatar which is guided by Wahabbism so it stands to reason that pressure exerted on Qatar and Saudi Arabia could help to marginalize Hamas?