Quantcast
ISIS - To Attack or Not? - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Guest Numero Veinticinco

ISIS - To Attack or Not?

Recommended Posts

Guest Numero Veinticinco

I was having a conversation with an old colleague about this a couple of days ago, with the contention being that Iraq and Afghanistan - and the public and political reaction to those wars - have made us soft and unable/unwilling to act against a serious threat like ISIS.

 

With what we have seen in Germany and France, as well as some in the States pledging allegiance to ISIS before gun attacks, and the absolute horror we are witnessing in the Middle East from them, and accepting they are getting wealthier and more powerful despite airstrikes, would you support a multilateral ground attack to clear/kill ISIS fighters? This would be assuming that all diplomatic measures had been tried and failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what doing that would achieve. While i couldn't care if the fuckers were blown sky high its hardly worked before and imo would just lead to more small cells working throughout Europe who are very hard to stop

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you attack,and where do you attack?

I get the impression that ISIS are more of a force made up of lots of different groups with a common aim,to gain a large part of control of resources in the Middle East by using the West's previous campaigns to recruit members. I also thought that we(the western forces) had been attacking them for years yet they are still here. The cynic in me says that they are beneficial to the aims of some governments to continue their own 'wars on terror.'

Thus far I would say that attacking targets in the Middle East has made things far worse than before and has the chance of creating yet more extremists than we have already.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were going to do it we should have done it 18 months ago when it was needed. Instead the Russians put boots on the ground and broke the back of ISIS in Syria. Between government forces and the Kurds they're being dealt with in Syria now. Instead we were too busy trying to insist Assad had to go when it was never happening.

 

It might be more effective to support Iraqi troops who seem to be struggling more. But how welcome the return of foreign troops to Iraqi soil might be is anyone's guess.

 

The air strikes we indulged in were pure propaganda shite. Totally pointless as all the major targets were dealt with. Even the Americans were wondering why we bothered.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not that serious a threat. There's 20 to 30 thousand of them. To put that in perspective the US army has 1.4 million personnel. The key is starving them of funding from countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and crippling them that way. It's also about being smart enough not to do a Merkel and invite ISIS sleeper cells into your country under some misguided notion of liberalism.

 

There's also the factor of dealing with home grown radicalisation which causes groups like ISIS to become almost like the Mecca for martyrdom. It's also about building bridges in the Middle East and making amends for the terrible foreign policy decisions that left the power vacuum in Iraq which caused Islamic State to take root in the region. What we don't need to be doing is bombing the shit out of the Middle East again, that's defo not the answer. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they could wipe out Isis if they wanted but probably don't for whatever reason.

I think virtually all nations would be onboard with the idea of wiping them out.

 

One of the worst aspects of bush and Blair's legacy in Iraq was the way they made the UN and Irelevance. You never hear it mentioned now as a negotiating or peacekeeping force, it should be involved in Syria and Ukraine but it's nowhere to be seen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they could wipe out Isis if they wanted but probably don't for whatever reason.

I think virtually all nations would be onboard with the idea of wiping them out...

I think the security forces see IS as a containable threat. The majority of IS operations are in historically disputed Eurasian regions and therefore NIMBY. The domestic threat is localised and sporadic and is checked by intelligence gained from cooperation with the wider Muslim community. I genuinely think the reason there are more attacks in France than the UK is that we are much less well, overtly racist and thus better at integrating our different communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS still seem to be much more interested in their region then attacking the West, so no, since meddling has only made matters worse so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just arm the Kurds properly, give them air support, keep Turkey off their backs and they'll finish the job without too much difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False Flags Fluttering in the Empire's Hot Air

 

When I think of the recent developments in the USA (Dallas shooting, Orlando shooting) and Europe (Nice, murdered priest, Germany shooting) I get this unpleasant feeling that something is not quite right. For one thing, the perpetrators are absolutely ridiculous: pseudo-Muslims who turn out to be drinking homosexuals, ex-patients of mental institutions – the kind of people I call “overnight Muslims”: they all make darn sure to say Allahu Akbar a number of times, but other than that, they have no sign of Islam at all. In fact, far from being trained Daesh fighters, they are all losers with weak personalities. Exactly the kind of people the special services (and religious sects) like to prey upon because they are weak and easy to manipulate. Oh yes, I know, the good folk a Daesh do end up claiming that the perpetrator is one of them, but that really proves nothing (except maybe that Daesh is desperate to increase its notoriety).

I have no proof of that, of course, but I am getting the very strong feeling that somebody is putting a great deal of effort to scare the bejesus out of the TV-watching crowd. But why? Why would anybody go to the effort to create a completely fictional threat?

And should we really dismiss all the innumerable witnesses who speak of “more than one shooter”? What about the absolutely ridiculous police “overkill” when hundreds of policemen are sent in to deal with one single shooter. Does that not strike you as odd? Am I the only one with the feeling that what is shown to us is a carefully choreographed show?

Then there is the canard about the Islamic threat. Okay, it is true that all these Islamo-terrorists told the cops, and anybody else willing to listen, that they are killing infidels for the greater glory of God. That reminds me of the passports helpfully found in NY on 9/11 (and at the Charlie-Hebdo attacks) or how the alleged Islamic-terrorists of 9/11 left copies of the Quran in the bars were they were getting “lap dances”. The problem with all that nonsense is that there is exactly zero real evidence that any of these terrorists had any real Islamic education or beliefs. Besides, even if every single one of them turned out to be a deeply religious and pious Muslim, that would hardly prove anything. The IRA was “Roman Catholic” and yet nobody spoke of a “Catholic threat”. True, there is a very real threat to the entire Middle-East from the Daesh crazies (yes, the very same ones whom the US wants the Russians to stop bombing), but there is no evidence whatsoever of any real subordination/coordination between the Takfiris in the Middle-East and the perpetrators of the recent mass murders in the USA and Europe.

The cui bono, of course, immediately points to those interests who desperately want the prop-up the shaky “Islamic threat” myth: the Zionists, of course, but also the Neocon elites in the USA and the EU.

Think of it: their great hope was that Russia would “invade” the Donbass (or, even better, the entire Ukraine) against the Nazi crazies in the Neocons put in power in Kiev. Such a Russian move would have been used as a “proof” that the evil revanchist Russkies are about to rebuild the Soviet Union, invade Eastern Europe and maybe even drive their tanks to the English channel. And if enough people would buy the “Russian threat” theory, they would also have to accept larger military budgets (to further fatten the US MIC) and more US forces deployed in Eastern Europe (where they would provide a much needed, and sometimes only, source of income). Then all the internal problems of Europe could be blamed on, or at least eclipsed by, the Russian threat (in the “Putin wants a Brexit” style). But that irritating Putin did not take the bait and now Europe is stuck without a credible threat with which to terrorize people. NATO, of course, and its prostitute-colonies in the Baltics and Poland, likes to pretend that a Russian invasion is imminent, but nobody really believes this. According to some polls, even the people in the Baltics are dubious about the reality of a Russian threat (forget Poland: a country with a national hero like Pilsudski is a hopeless case).

But then, almost at the same moment when the Neocons came to realize that the Russians were not taking the bait, the steady flow of refugees coming from the Middle-East and Africa suddenly sharply increased, courtesy of the mayhem and chaos created by the Neocon policies in the Middle-East. How long do you think it took the rulers of the Empire to realize the fantastic opportunity this influx of refugees had just created for them?

First, this wave of refugees creates a series of major social problems which all could be used to provide distractions from the massive credibility crisis and economic woes of the EU. No matter how bad the economic indicators are, you can always “hide them” behind a headline like “Refugee rapes 79yo woman at German cemetery” (true case, just click on the link to see for yourself).

Second, just at the time when the ruling comprador elites of the EU are threatened by popular discontent, the refugee crisis creates the perfect pretext to adopt emergency legislation and, possibly, introduce martial law.

Third, the worse the crisis in Europe becomes, the better it is for the US Dollar which becomes the safe® currency to run to.

Fourth the more military units, as opposed to regular police forces, are deployed in Europe, the more the Europeans will get used to the notion that “only the military can protect us”.

Fifth, if, at the end of the day, the EU really tanks and riots, uprisings and chaos spread – guess who will show up to “save Europe yet again”? That’s right – Uncle Sam and NATO. Pretty good for an otherwise illegitimate leftover from the Cold War, no?

Ideally, the European population should become polarized between, on one hand, those who pretend they like the refugees are no problem at all, and those who blame everything on them. The more polarized the society becomes, the more there will be a “need” to keep law and order.

Does that all look familiar to you?

Yes, of course, this is also exactly what is happening in the USA with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.

While there are plenty of immigrants in the USA, they are mostly Hispanics and Asians who adapt rather well to US society. The good news for the US “deep state” is that Blacks in the USA can very much accomplish the same function as the refugees do in Europe: they are a vocal, mostly deeply alienated minority, with a great deal of pent-up anger against the rest of society which can very easily be set-off to create riots and commit crimes. It is also rather easy to find a few crazies amongst these Blacks to start murdering policemen (the ideal symbol of the oppressive White establishment) and create a sense of crisis acute enough to justify the use of police, National Guard and, potentially, military forces to restore and uphold “law and order”.

Is it really a coincidence that the US Presidential elections features two extremely polarizing figures like Hillary and Trump and that low-levels of violence have already been triggered by the hysterically anti-Trump propaganda of the US corporate media? Just imagine for one second what could happen in the USA if a “lone gunman” was to kill either Hillary or Trump? The society would literally explode and law and order would have to be “restored”.

The modalities might be different, but in both the EU and the USA we now see heavily armed and generally militarized forces in the streets to “protect” us from some exotic and scary threat.

Might that have something to do with the fact that the ruling elites are absolutely hated by the vast majority of Europeans and Americans? Of course it does!

I am convinced that what is taking place is the gradual suppression of the civil society under the pretext of protecting it – us – from some very scary threat. I am also convinced that part of this plan is to polarize our society as much as possible to create civil strife and to hide the real systemic and structural problems of our completely dysfunctional society and discredited and illegitimate political order.

The panem et circenses (bread and games) only works in a society capable of providing enough wealth to its people to enjoy them. But when an Empire is agonized, when its military cannot win wars anymore, when its leader is being ridiculed, when its currency is being gradually weakened and even replaced and when its power is not feared anymore, then the Empire becomes unable to provide the minimal conditions needed to keep its subjects quiet and obedient. At this point the choice becomes simple: either find an external enemy or, at least, identify an internal one. This time around, the AngloZionist found what they think is the perfect combo: a diffuse/vague external threat (Islam) and an easily identifiable internal “carrier” threat (refugees in Europe, Blacks in the USA). The fact that the US government has been planning for various kind of emergency rule or martial law situations for years is not much of a secret (see: National Security Presidential Directive 51 and National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan or Rex84 ) but now there is also evidence that the Germans are also planning for it. In fact, we can be confident that they are all doing it right now as we speak.

The last time around, when the Empire felt the need to regain control over Europe and prevent the election of anti-US political parties to power they engaged in the notorious GLADIO false flag campaign to neutralize the “Communist threat” (see full documentary here). It appears that the same people are doing the same thing again, but this time against the putative “Islamic threat”. And just to make sure that the common people really freak out, it appears that the AngloZionists have settled on a rather counter-intuitive plan:

1) officially (politicians) condemn any anti-Islamic rhetoric

2) unofficially (media, public figures) warn of an threat of Islamic extremism

3) take some highly visible but totally useless measures (TSA, anti-terror training) to prepare for an Islamic attack

4) covertly but actively foster and support Daesh-like Takfirism in the Middle-East and oppose and subvert those who, like the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrian, really fight it on a daily basis.

What does such an apparently illogical and self-defeating plan achieve? Simple! It maximizes fear and polarizes society.

That kind of artificial polarization is nothing new. For example, this is why those who hate Obama call him a socialist (or even a communist) while those who hate Trump call him a fascist (when in reality both Obama and Trump are just the figureheads of different capitalist factions of the same 1% elite).

What our imperial overlords really want is for us to either fight each other or, at least, fight windmills. Look at the American public – it is totally obsessed with non-issues like homosexual marriage, gun control vs “active shooters”, Black Lives Matter vs cops, and the time tested pro-life vs anti-abortion protests. To some minority of Americans these issues do matter, I suppose, but for the vast majority of Americans these are total non-issue, meaningless crap which does not affect them in any way other than through the corporate media. This really reminds me of the Titanic’s orchestra playing while the ship was sinking: the Empire is cracking at all its seams, there is a very real chance of a nuclear war with Russia and we are seriously discussing whether trannies should pee in male or female toilets when in the Target store. This is crazy, of course, but this is hardly coincidental. This is how our leaders want us: terrified, confused and, above all, distracted.

Frankly, I am pessimistic for the near to mid-term future. When I see how easily the “Islamic threat” canard has been bought not only by official propagandists but even by otherwise mostly rational and educated people, I see that 9/11 has taught us very little. Just like a bull in a bullfight we are still willing to go after any red rag put before our noses regardless of who is actually holding that rag or actually making us bleed.

The good news is that regardless of our gullible passivity the Empire is coming down, maybe not as fast as some of us would wish, but fast enough to really worry our rulers. Look at the Israelis – they have already read the writing on the wall and are now in the process of changing patrons, hence their newfound big friendship with Russia – a marriage of convenience for both sides, entered into with both sides holding their noses. Ditto for Erdogan who has apparently decided that neither the EU nor the US could be considered reliable protectors. Even the Saudis have tried, however clumsily and crudely, to get the Russians on their side.

For the time being the “Islamic threat” show will continue, as will the “active shooters”, Black Lives Matter and all the rest of the program brought to us by the Empire. False flags will contiune to flutter in great numbers in the Empire’s hot air.

The Saker

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You always have headlines in the Express and the Mail "Boots on the ground within 30 days to combat ISIS".

 

Personally I think selling them aftershave, perfume and giving them meal deals will achieve fuck all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not that serious a threat. There's 20 to 30 thousand of them. To put that in perspective the US army has 1.4 million personnel. The key is starving them of funding from countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and crippling them that way. It's also about being smart enough not to do a Merkel and invite ISIS sleeper cells into your country under some misguided notion of liberalism.

 

There's also the factor of dealing with home grown radicalisation which causes groups like ISIS to become almost like the Mecca for martyrdom. It's also about building bridges in the Middle East and making amends for the terrible foreign policy decisions that left the power vacuum in Iraq which caused Islamic State to take root in the region. What we don't need to be doing is bombing the shit out of the Middle East again, that's defo not the answer. 

 Great post Mate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Mate.

It's a great post if you live in the UK, it's not so fucking great if you live in the areas affected!!!

 

Fucking hell, I fucking love this place. who cares about the 'brown people'? Ha ha ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great post if you live in the UK, it's not so fucking great if you live in the areas affected!!!

 

Fucking hell, I fucking love this place. who cares about the 'brown people'? Ha ha ha

 

If you live in the areas affected you probably have bigger daily issues than IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great post if you live in the UK, it's not so fucking great if you live in the areas affected!!!

 

Fucking hell, I fucking love this place. who cares about the 'brown people'? Ha ha ha

Are you on the ale like Stig?

You make no sense at all with your comments and just keep popping into threads taking a contrary opinion to everything without,it seems,even reading what people have said.

I will wait until tomorrow until you have sobered up(or given your head a wobble) before I go into any detail, but your anti muslim rhetoric is preventing you from even reading what people have written.

Goodnight.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you on the ale like Stig?

You make no sense at all with your comments and just keep popping into threads taking a contrary opinion to everything without,it seems,even reading what people have said.

I will wait until tomorrow until you have sobered up(or given your head a wobble) before I go into any detail, but your anti muslim rhetoric is preventing you from even reading what people have written.

Goodnight.

 

Great post, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you on the ale like Stig?

You make no sense at all with your comments and just keep popping into threads taking a contrary opinion to everything without,it seems,even reading what people have said.

I will wait until tomorrow until you have sobered up(or given your head a wobble) before I go into any detail, but your anti muslim rhetoric is preventing you from even reading what people have written.

Goodnight.

I think what he's saying is the brown people in palmyra would rather die by being bombed to pieces by NATO than shot or beheaded by ISIS.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about the detail of the region to be able to give a valid answer. However, in principle, I would support a multinational ground and air offensive to defeat their forces and neutralise (in whatever way was most effective while remaining legal) their leaders.

 

However, far more important than winning the war would be the old cliché about winning the peace. The whole region needs major long-term investment and support that has peace, stability and the welfare of the local people at heart rather than corporate profit or political soundbites. Furthermore that winning of the peace is the only thing that has any chance of taking the heat out of the anti-Western feelings that feed the terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was having a conversation with an old colleague about this a couple of days ago, with the contention being that Iraq and Afghanistan - and the public and political reaction to those wars - have made us soft and unable/unwilling to act against a serious threat like ISIS.

 

With what we have seen in Germany and France, as well as some in the States pledging allegiance to ISIS before gun attacks, and the absolute horror we are witnessing in the Middle East from them, and accepting they are getting wealthier and more powerful despite airstrikes, would you support a multilateral ground attack to clear/kill ISIS fighters? This would be assuming that all diplomatic measures had been tried and failed.

How does a ground attack work against a stateless enemy?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you on the ale like Stig?

You make no sense at all with your comments and just keep popping into threads taking a contrary opinion to everything without,it seems,even reading what people have said.

I will wait until tomorrow until you have sobered up(or given your head a wobble) before I go into any detail, but your anti muslim rhetoric is preventing you from even reading what people have written.

Goodnight.

Can't wait. Particularly when we get to the anti Muslim bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×