Yes, is it possible that the West and Russia can collaborate effectively to destroy ISIS ? Can they organise a truce between Assad's forces and the democratic/liberal/communist/social-democrat forces, so that they can all - Assad, the Western coalition, Russia AND those scattered 'democratic' forces - can co-ordinate their efforts on the destruction of ISIS, al Qa'ida/al Nusra/Khorasan and the various other jihadist factions ?

Would Assad et al. agree to partition Syria, into a Shi'a/Alawite/Christian state, and inland Sunni state ? Pretty clearly, the Yanks would be stuck with a future Sunni state, and with trying to form a workable government, a vast slab of desert BUT with most of the oil. Maybe they would be tempted to give it to the Saudis, EXCEPT for the oily bits in the north-east. The Iraqis might be interested in those bits. So would the Kurds. And the Turks. Oy.

A coastal state under a coalition of Assad and the 'democrats', on the one hand, and an inland state, ideally under more 'democratic' Sunnis and secular (assuming hypothetically that they exist) forces, on the other, with a long, thin Kurdish territory linking what is now northern Syria with Kurdistan: does that sound too crazy ?

Fortuitously, it will take a long time to destroy ISIS completely, AND to painfully build up the 'democratic' forces in Assad's enclave and in the rest of Syria. So much can go wrong: I wouldn't trust the Russians to stick to any agreement, especially in the final stages of the destruction of ISIS. The Yanks have a long and thankless task to defeat ISIS, and will get nothing out of it, except a bit of kudos.

But otherwise - what ?

Joe

An excellent comment Joe

Where you say:

"Would Assad et al. agree to partition Syria, into a Shi'a/Alawite/Christian state, and inland Sunni state?"

The tendency for Syria to fragment may move from small ethnic-religious segments to tiny clan-tribal segments. One might think they would be happy with that - but then they would fight between themselves for land, water, "toll-way" roadblocks and protection racket rights.

Arab tribal traditions to fragment are certainly at odds with creating larger viable nation states. Nation states large enough to their defend land against Israeli air and land incursions.

Regards

Pete

The US has to get real with the Saudi's to have any real cred here. After all this is a proxy war between the Saudis and the Iranians, with IS as the an arm of the Saudi's.
The Saudi's are happy for the Iranians to fight in Iraq while they deal with the Iranian backed rebels in Yemen.

Still gotta keep that oil is flowing.

Thanks Pete,

I suppose the bottom line is that Syria (and perhaps Iraq too) won't be the same shape on the map once all this is over. If I were either government, I would be tempted to say to the Sunni: form tribal fiefdoms and alliances at perpetual war with each other, raid each other's women, dates and camels, and go for each others' throats all you like - just bugger off and leave the civilized world alone.

So maybe the best we can hope for, and perhaps for decades, is a vast ungovernable desert tract - call it, say 'Northern Arabia', who cares - and two agricultural- and urban-oriented territories, mainly Shi'a, Christian and 'secular': Syria and Iraq. Maybe from that point, any painfully slow move towards democracy can begin. Live in hope.

Joe

Hi Joe

Yes an equilibrium of infighting amongst some Muslims may be good for:

- the West generally
- for Israel
- even good for the oil providing Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc)

The last major War Of Equilibrium was the Iran-Iraq War (Iran Shiite dominated, Iraq was Sunni dominated). They fought it out 1980-1988 using poison gas, children for mine clearance and Scud missiles. Oil prices went up - to the satisfaction of the Saudis and West Texas crude. Good for President Reagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

The US and Israel supported Iran or Iraq depending on which side was losing at the time. Iran was too disrupted to devote much effort to its nuclear program.

Who knows incoming President Donald Trump (and Israel) could benefit from a Sunni versus Shiite/Kurd War covering Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Cheers

The aim of the USA and other western powers has obviously been "regime change" in Syria to replace Assad, who was democratically elected and is apparently very popular with Syrians with puppet/stooge leadership sympathetic to the interests of their own companies, military and banksters. Similar to what was done in Ukraine. This is obvious to many who follow news on sources providing viewpoints that those influencing western mainstream media do not want publicised. Also that Islamic State has received at least some covert support from those opposed to Assad. Now it is looking like with some additional support from Russia, the US aim of deposing Assad is unachievable and there is no acceptable possible alternative government anyway. Also, that many European states are now becoming more inclined to support Assad to stop the influx of Syrian refugees

" However Allah saved Prophet Jesus . " surely the son of Maryam ) will descend amongst you as a just ruler. He will destroy the cross, kill the swine and abolish the tax."

. He asked, "What are you talking about?" ," He then mentioned the Smoke, the Dajjal, the Beast, the Rising of the Sun in its place of setting, "

The Dajjal (anti-christ) having failed to enter the holy city of Madinah will proceed to Syria gathering his forces on the way.

Prophet Jesus Peace be upon him will descend to the white Minaret (Nawwas-b-Samaan/Muslim) in the east of Damascus, wearing two garments died with saffron, placing his hands on the wings of two angels.
'' The gate will be opened and the Dajjal will be waiting behind it accompanied by an army of 70,000 Jews, each armed with a sword and shield. '' He will catch up with him at the Eastern gate of Ludd (Ludd is a mountain in Syria. Some say that it is a village in Jerusalem, and some say that it is a village in Palestine

Hi Nick,

Good luck with that.

Pete, yes, the two issues - how to defeat ISIS; and more urgently, but more futilely, how to stop the flow of Syrians to Europe.

Germany's generosity in the past few weeks may help to massively boost the next wave of refugees and economic migrants, at least until Winter catches up with them in three or four weeks, poor bastards.

But even Germany's generosity and physical capabilities are hitting limits. So Germany is considering joining the war against ISIS in Syria. We tend to forget that ISIS controls territory about as big as NSW, and has an army bigger than Australia's, an army of psychotics. So the necessary war, the vitally necessary war, will still take years.

So meanwhile, the unstoppable bullet of migration will keep hitting the impenetrable wall of Europe's generosity limits. I fear that many tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people are going to be caught out in the fields of central Europe at Winter sets in, with many of the vulnerable, old and young, dying.

Wow, plenty of scope there for the Lefts' Gramscian 'march through the institutions', the destabilisation and destruction of the capitalist West.

Joe

Hi Joe

If ISIS was beaten then there are many:

- other Sunni extremists in other groups to replace them

- other moderate Sunnis who need protecting from Shiite Armies and militia in/from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon

- Kurds who will still need Western air support

All of this fighting displaces people in Syria and Iraq - increasing refugee numbers from now till after Winter and throughout 2016

Germany's generosity may have made things worse because 100,000s beyond the 800,000 German quota now have their hopes up

German jets adding to the bombing will do nothing.

Western troops-boots on the ground will do nothing in such a big war except to turn moderate Muslims into extremists fighting Western troops. Same with Russians, Chinese or UN troops

Best thing may be to:

- keep the jet and UAV bombing up mainly in support of the Kurds, and destruction of ISIS

- while protecting and feeding refugees who need to be kept in their camps

Keep on bombing all and sundry and put the refugees into camps, says our Planter. Sounds like a brilliant move, one that will surely win the peace.

But, consider this, to warmongers, every weapon must be fired, every bomb must be dropped, every depleted uranium munition must be deployed, every white phosphorous explosive needs a target, every cluster bomb needs a village to destroy, every drone must be given a target, etc, etc.

Warmongers are amoral. They belong in an earlier century. Let's bury them in unmarked graves!

Their very existence puts the world at risk!

Giday David G

So we agree:

"Keep on bombing all and sundry and put the refugees into camps, says our Planter. Sounds like a brilliant move, one that will surely win the peace."

and I never thought you were capable...

Hi David,

So, when ISIS bursts out of Syria and seizes territory, captures tens of thousands of (as they see it, unbelievers), rapes and sells into slavery god knows how many women, you suggest that we should sit back and do nothing ? This is the best advice that the pseudo-left can offer, to roll over and open our legs to ISIS ?

Do you think that ISIS wouldn't use every one of those dreadful weapons that you describe ?

Yes, yes, war is terrible, it's so nasty, it's so bad and naughty. Most of us would agree. But some of us - not necessarily, it seems, on the part of the pseudo-left - would suggest that aggression has to be combatted, that fascist aggression especially has to be fought unto the death.

I'm puzzled why the pseudo-left think they are so superior that they will be able, as they see it, to use fascists like ISIS, and then take over. NO, little brother, they will use you and then drop you into their mincing machines. Goodbye :)

Joe

Joe, every hammer sees nails everywhere and, compulsively, the hammer wants to smash them into something, doesn't really matter what.

This is how warmongers see the world.

Of course, hammers aren't very bright and neither are warmongers!

Joe

There's no hope for David G.

He's one of those appeasement, peace in out time, GC types.

Hi David,

It's a pity that you can't see the difference between a war of aggression such as, let's say, Saddam's invasion or Kuwait, or Putin's invasion of Georgia, Crimea or the Ukraine - and a war to defend the people of Syria and Iraq from ISIS fascists. Wars of aggression must be condemned totally, you're right there, but a war to defend ordinary, innocent people must be waged - surely - with every force that we can muster ?

Can you understand that wars of aggression must be opposed, but wars to defend innocent people must be supported ? Until they are liberated ? Can you grasp the difference ? Or do we have to go back to primary school level and explain the difference between right and wrong ?

When people are attacked, they are entitled to defend themselves. When Australia was attacked in 1942, we were entitled to defend ourselves - isn't that so ? I'm sorry if that might involve nasty things like guns and bombs, but unfortunately that's how wars go.

Joe

Hi Joe

There is no helping David G
As he relies on ideological simplicity

Views of the green-red sort
With reflection nought

Brains like a Chocolate Wheaton
Behold the Gibbering Cretin

10,000 years of war have achieved nothing but death and destruction yet Planter and Loudmouth want more war. "Kill, kill, kill," they cry. "Bomb, bomb, bomb."

And when our world is destroyed in a nuclear firestorm and resembles the Moon, I wonder what they'll say then.

Probably, "Kill, kill, kill, bomb, bomb, bomb!"

Morons!

You're slipping David GC = Gibbering Cretin ;-)

Hi Pete,

Perhaps David is right - all he needs to do is tell all those people carrying out wars to stop, it's so destructive and nasty.

Once David has done this, he can explain to governments and would-be rebels, and even Putin, that wars are bad, and that everybody should sign an agreement never to go to war again. Armies could be disbanded, armaments destroyed and everybody could join hands and intone 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony'.

You know, Pete, I think it could work :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe

Yes David G. Cretin is SPECIAL that way.

Cheers

Pete

Yes, Pete, you may criticise, but I would contribute a few dollars to David's going amongst the various fighters, even tomorrow, in, say, Syria, telling them to lay down their weapons and join hands:

* the jihadis could re-consult the Koran and with a bit of luck, realise that there are sections in it that might justify getting on with other people, that the sword is not the be-all an end-all, well not always anyway;

* the various anti-Assad forces would realise that there is much more to be gained by campaigning peacefully against Assad;

* the various persecuted minorities might even forgive their persecutors, after all many of them are Christians who have a long history of forgiving, perhaps a bit longer at any rate than the jihadists'.

While he is at it, he could campaign amongst all those groups for gay rights and gay marriage; that should go down well.

David is, of course, only one person (well, with Jeremy Corbyn, two), albeit one with enormous passion and talents, but he may need some help across the twenty million people still left in Syria, especially if he wants to bring peace and love in, say, the next couple of years. I, for one, wish him good luck.

Joe

Yes you're right Joe

David G. Cretin would do well as jihadi for Peace in sunny Syria or maybe bottle washer for al Qaeda in irascible Iraq.

David G, after all, is a Kumbaya kinda guy https://youtu.be/QKAolQ0yxIo

Yours

Poida

//10,000 years of war have achieved nothing but death and destruction//

And us not speaking Deutsch.

Not that I have anything against Deutsch; I regard it as a more efficient and logical tongue than English. But I prefer to make that decision for myself rather than have had it decided for me by the Krautish high command.

Now for something which will probably make David Gimp's tiny little head explode: I think there is an argument to be made in favour of nuking ISIS. Now, I know nukes have been unpopular since the end of WWII, but they certainly stopped the Japanese in their tracks. As far as I know, ISIS have no nukes so we don't have to worry about retaliation. A few well-placed thermonuclear devices might be the way to go.

Hi Toni,

Well no, I don't think so - and my reasons might make David's head spin even faster - because this war against ISIS has to be taken fairly slowly and carefully.

Why ? Partly, because even if ISIS could be overthrown soon, there is no remotely-democratic force to take its place, and Assad would be in total control. Which means the Russians would have a strong beach-head in Syria, inland from the coast, so also naval bases at Tartus.

The danger of going in like a bull at a gate is that Assad and Russia simply sit back, every so often butcher a few anti-Assad/anti-jihadist forces, while the West does all the heavy lifting. In the meantime, the Western forces have to pull together elements of a vaguely-democratic opposition to Assad, otherwise what is the point, why not just leave ISIS to Assad and the Russians ?

Maybe this is why Obama is moving so slowly: there is no point getting involved unless 'our boys' can build up their numbers and strength, to take on not just ISIS now, but Assad later. In fact, if I were Obama, I would be using any democratic and Kurdish forces very sparingly, using the air forces instead, and leaving it to the Russians, but in a very carefully calibrated way - and of course, to make sure the b@stards don't abuse their positions to get stuck into the anti-Assad and Kurdish forces.

To be honest, I suspect that we don't have a clue how complex this situation is. And using such an immoral weapon as nuclear bombs on ISIS might spike a lot of sympathy for them, and they're already getting plenty of that from the pseudo-Left anti-Gramscians, who think they are using the Jihadists as 'useful idiots' on THEIR way to power. HMMM ..... who are the useful idiots in this Byzantine scenario ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth, I'd take a closer look at the Ukraine and see if it is really the Russians being the aggressor.

If they were, how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of refugees fleeing the Ukraine didn't seek asylum in the west, they went to Russia?

The UNHCR reported that in December 2014 there were half a million internally displaced Ukrainians, 233,000 have applied for refugee status in Russia and 8,639 applied for refugee status in EU.
Things that make you go hmmm.
http://www.unhcr.org/548190aa9.html

Then there is the story of the deals the Ukraine was working on with both the EU and Russia - the EU deal offered $838 MILLION in loans but also demanded major changes to regulations and laws in Ukraine. Meanwhile the Russians were offering Ukraine $27 BILLION in loans plus cheaper gas prices. Hmm, which offer is more attractive? Unfortunately for Yanukovych, he chose the "wrong" deal (ie) Russia. It was soon after this decision that the riots started.

Then we find out that the US has been funneling $5 Billion into the Ukraine. The US has never tried to influence democratically elected governments before - except for Iran in the 1953, Guatemala 1954, The Congo 1961, Chile 1973, Haiti 1991 & 2004 and Venezuela, 2002 <sarc off>

Then there is the strange phone call that was recorded between US Ass Sec of State Victoria Nuland and Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOwfeoDX2o

contd

Nuland: What do you think?

Pratt: I think we are in play.The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Um. Especially the announcement of him as Deputy Prime Minister, and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage. We are trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff ....

N: So I don't think Klitsch should go into the government.I don't think it is ... a good idea.

P: In terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework ...

N: I think Yats is the guy. He has the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside, he needs to be talking to them four times a week. I just think Klitsch going in - he's going to be at that level - working for Yatseniuk - it's just not going to work. ....

Guess what Yatseniuk became Ukrainian PM after the 2014 Revolution!
Klitschko is now Mayor of Kiev
Tyahnybok became deputy leader for a short while - his being head of Ukrainian National-Socialist Party, Svoboda, was a bit too awkward for him to stay in that position too long. He is now a councilman in Lviv.

BTW, Victoria Nuland just happens to be married to Neo-Conservative Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) thinktank which called for a more interventionist US foreign policy - Many members of PNAC were part of George W Bush's government, eg Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, they were the ones pushing the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Wow, just too weird huh? And not a peep about these shenanigans in the MSM - well I never!

Sorry Bob/Arjay, I'm not clear about shat you are complaining of.

Russians living in eastern Ukraine, fleeing back to Russia - what's your point ? A telephone call in which people toss around ideas - So ?

Oh well, back to reality. Thanks anyway, Bob.

Joe

Russia has been an ally of Syria for a long time. It is not that strange that they should give support for Assad and help him in his fight against ISIS.

The US should be doing it's best to stop ISIS as they share some of the responsibility for it.

Ret lieutenant general Michael T Flynn, former US's spy chief saw intelligence reports in August 2012 that stated the US was supporting radical muslim groups eg the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda (the so-called moderate Muslims the US was assisting) to help oust the Assad regime in Syria - as well as the risk these groups might form a calaphate, but nothing was done - not just ignored, but worse.

Mehdi Hasan:"Did you say we shouldn't be supporting these groups?"
Michael Flynn:"I did, I mean we argued about the different groups that were there and we said who was involved here and I will tell you that I do believe that the intelligence was very clear. And now it's a matter of whether or not policy is going to be as clear and as defining and as precise as it needs to be and I don't think it was."
...
MH:"You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew those groups were around (Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda etc) and you saw this analysis and you were arguing against it - but who wasn't listening?"

MF:"I think the administration."

MH:"So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis.

MF:"I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, it was a willful decision."

MH:"A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

MF:"A wilful decision to do what they're doing, which you have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place because it is very, very confusing. I'm sitting here today Mehdi, and I can't tell you exactly what that is, and I've been at this for a long time"

Well, at least the three stooges of Singer, Planter and Loudmouth have been pushed out of the road for the time being.

But now we have Toni advocating the use of nukes, a novel approach which will strongly appeal to the brain-dead.

We can't stop talking about war and killing, can you?

I'm not!

You GC you :)

Poida
https://youtu.be/vpS31FJO8_o

It's easy to forget about what is important: Love, Peace and Understanding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2DTLbTQj0I
One Love!!

//But now we have Toni advocating the use of nukes, a novel approach which will strongly appeal to the brain-dead.//

And my work here is done.

Poe's Law: without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will, to some readers, be indistinguishable from sincere expressions of the parodied views.

Perhaps if we could avoid the personal attacks, we may be able to seriously deal with this crucial topic.

OF COURSE, war is dreadful, it should never be initiated to resolve differences. But once a regime has initiated a war, against another country or against their own citizens, then what are the innocent citizens of the other country, or of one's own country, supposed to do ? Lie down and take whatever comes ?

No, David. People have the right to fight back: aggression cannot be allowed to prevail. During the 2nd World War, if Australian troops had not been sent to Libya, the Germans could well have taken Egypt and the Suez Canal. If we had not sent troops to Papua-New Guinea, the Japanese would have taken Port Moresby and from there, an easy step for their navy to invade the east coast of Australia.

Are you suggesting that we should have let such aggression happen ? That Nazism and fascism should not have been opposed ? That Russia should not have resisted the Nazis ? That the US should have stayed out of the 2nd world War ?

Yes, war is nasty, it's terrible, it is so destructive. But once someone has started a war of aggression, the only course is to oppose it, until the bitter end. Yes, many fine people get killed in wars, and it is fitting that we should never forget them.

I worked at the Sunday markets and an old bloke used to shuffle around from stall to stall. He use to be the manager of the State Abattoirs, he said, But eventually, he told us that he had been at Kokoda all through 1942, climbing up almost sheer slopes with 30-kg back-packs, in desert uniforms that were falling apart, sometimes only a few feet from the Japanese. Now that was a generation of heroes for us to be truly proud of.

Can you understand that ?

Joe

Joe, I have never argued against the involvement of the Allies in WW2 (even though the U.S. entered the conflict two years after it started).

But America, being an opportunist nation, when the war ended, decided it was all powerful and had some mandate to rule the world. All the crap about being indispensable and exceptional and being the greatest nation in the history of the world is just that: CRAP.

But, in order to gain world domination, America had to conquer certain nations which didn't share American interests like infinite greed and war for plunder.

That is why the world has not seen peace since the end of WW2 and, given the callous, brutal, deranged imperial agenda of America, it's not likely to either.

That's why I despair when I see people like you and the toadying Australian Government seemingly giving Big Brother U.S. unqualified support when what it deserves is infinite condemnation.

That's why people like Planter and Singer are so dangerous because they accept war, encourage it, believe that it is a normal activity for humans to engage in.

When the nukes start falling, perhaps commonsense will enter the minds of those who think war is some kind of game and chatting about this weapon and that is what intelligent people should do!

Intelligent people hate war and those who promote it!

Hi David,

As you say, 'Intelligent people hate war and those who promote it!'

BUT, when innocent people are attacked, what should anyone do ? When entire religious or ethnic minorities are persecuted and slaughtered, do we all sit back ? Or do we just snipe and go off-topic ?

Of course, the suggestion of using nuclear weapons was a joke, nobody in their right mind would support that. Not with Iran and Pakistan (and possibly Saudi Arabia) and Israel possessing them. So let's put that right out of our minds.

By definition, wars are unjust and unnecessary, politics by other means. BUT, if one nation or group uses brute force against another without cause, then the nation or group attacked has the right to defend itself.

Isn't that so ? And, please, no going off-topic :)

Joe

But Joe, the Americans are not innocent people.

They are professional warmongers who employ war so they can plunder nations that have scarce resources and gain strategic advantage over nations that threaten America's interests.

America's prime interest (or more correctly, the interest of American Oligarchs and Corporations and Politicians) is in gaining domination over the world so that 1% of its population can continue to milk the world and live a lavish lifestyle.

To this end, America will attack anyone and everyone who offers resistance to its grand plan which no one except 1% of Americans want.

America is a malignancy which is slowly but surely destroying our world and any possibility of peace!

Hi David,

Yeah, probably all nations that aspire to be Great Powers always go along that path. Russia would be a good example of that these days - Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, perhaps Syria now - and China, in its transparent aim of closing off the entire South China Sea as a sort of domestic waterway, and its ridiculous claims on bits of the Philippines, isn't far behind. Just watch how those two bullies duke it out in Central Asia in the next five or ten years - neither has much longer before they start losing their muscle.

So, I'm assuming that you WOULD agree that, when people are aggressed against, or persecuted, they are entitled to defend themselves, even if it means a long-drawn-out war ?

No fudging now :)

Joe

Those two bullies (Russia and China) as you describe them are all that stands between relative freedom and the curse of world American hegemony.

America is the world's biggest bully and is the greatest threat the world faces.

Most of the world can see this (hence the reason for the hatred of America) but this little corner of the world internet has selective myopia and refuses to acknowledge the evil that capitalist America poses.

America will use nukes to achieve its aims before long such is it greed for power and treasure.

How come you can't see it, Joe?

Hi David,

As an ex-comm, no, I can't see it. I don't think I'm a half-wit, and I've been observing international politics for sixty years now, and I've observed the Yanks in their overthrow of governments in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, etc., its destabilisation of governments in Nicaragua, its wars against the people of Indo-China, etc., its invasion of Afghanistan in pursuit of al Qa'ida, and of Iraq, etc. etc., yes indeed it has had a 'robust' policy of aggression. And, yes, most of those were quite illegitimate, but not all. But, as they say, that was then, this is now.

And yes, some of the problems that it now faces, it has partially brought on itself. BUT the main struggle now is against a form of fascism, Islamo-fascism, ISIS, a reactionary movement adhering entirely to the Koran, and carrying out the most brutal oppressions and aggressions. It must be opposed, combatted, gone to war against, in order to protect minorities and other innocent people. And if the Yanks are part of that anti-fascist response, then good on them.

Of course, they may have their own motives and aims, everybody does, but the bottom line is that Islamo-fascism has to be combatted, and defeated, and that will probably suck more out of the Yanks than they will gain. But that war has to be fought. Yes, it's a lot easier to sit back here in Australia and csrp and whinge and bitch and throw up old history - the power of the powerless. But let's get this job done first, then we can sink the boot into the Yanks again, as we so enjoy doing.

Joe

Hi Loudmouth,
Islamic fundamentalism is a problem. But why has it only been an issue for the last 20 or 30 years? There have always been large numbers of Muslims, but only relatively recently have they been seen as a threat to the West.

I think a big piece in the puzzle is the US-Saudi Alliance that formed in the 1970s to prop up the US petrodollar. In return, the US gave the House of Saud the promise of protection. The unintended consequence is that Saudi Arabia also is home to the most extreme form of Islam - Wahhabism.

For the past 30 or so years, the Saudis have been using their vast wealth to spread Wahhabism around the world. Many Muslim countries are actually secular - with citizens of many faiths. Saudi Arabia is not one of these, it is an Islamic Theocratic Monarchy. You can't apply for Saudi citizenship if you aren't Muslim.

Saudi Arabia is a known backer of ISIS and Al Qaeda. What is less well known is that the US has been turning a blind eye at times, and other times has used Jihadists to further their own aims.

For eg the CIA backed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 80s. Which morphed into Al Qaeda.
Hillary Clinton has said the US backed the Mujaheddin/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help defeat the Soviets who were in Afghanistan at the time. Zbigniew Brzezinski played a big role in this too, and he is still around today - he now advises Pres Obama.
There are now many documents and US government officials who have said on the record, that the US made a "willful decision" to allow the growth of ISIS in order to affect regime change in Syria.

To get rid of these Islamofascists, we need to get our allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to stop supporting them. And the US needs to stop "accidentally" dropping supplies to them.

The CIA created this monster in Operation Cyclone - they even coined this term that describes this fubar - blowback

Hi Bob,

Well, no, Islamist fundamentalism has raged ever since the death of Muhamed and his successors - after all, that's one reason for the Sunni-Shi'ite split. The Berber groups who dominated in the invasion of Spain were pretty fundamentalist. At the turn of last century, Lord Lugard found in northern Nigeria a war raging between Islamist factions, one which believed that the real Messiah would soon be born, but properly this time, to a man. That war spilled over into Libya, where a rebellion from 1915 (I think) to 1917 engaged the British/Australian Camel Corps. And then there have been the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, as you point out. And followers of Qutb in Egypt since the twenties. I have a vague memory of an Islamist movement of fifty years ago in the Yemen ? No, maybe not.

Yes, I can sympathise that it would be convenient to be able to prove that this fundamentalism stuff has all been the recent doing of the Americans - after all, they are the spring from which all evil flows. But sadly, no.

You ask the reasonable question of why should Islamo-fascists be seen as the enemy of the West ? Perhaps 9/11 may have something to do with it. And the London bombings. And the Madrid bombings. The attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-des-Salaam. On the USS Liberty in Yemen. And the attacks on hotels in Bombay. Bali and Bali and Jakarta embassy bombings. Charlie Hebdo. And the daily bombings around the Middle East - around 200 killed this week, it seems, probably a fairly quiet week.

I hope this helps.

Joe

Hi Joe,
Yes, thanks for the history lesson, but does it explain how and why groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS arose to become the number one threat to the West? They are ostensibly the reason we can't fly with more than 100ml of hand-gel. The reason why people including babies and elderly have been subject to invasive body searches. They are also the reason we have lost many of our civil liberties and freedoms and even the right to privacy.

Doesn't the fact that Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations have some impact into the growth of militant Islamic groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that the CIA covertly spent $500 million a year from 1979 to create a secret Islamic terror group to spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia in order to destabilize the Soviet Union. They also spent $4 billion setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means student).

Brzezinski is now advising Pres Obama, and now we have Syria where the US neo-cons have made no secret they want regime change,(Syria also just happens to have a long alliance with Russia) and suddenly we have ISIS with their convoys of bright shiny white toyotas gallivanting around the countryside spreading terror with their hollywood grade snuff flicks. We have leaked documents and former government officials, including the former head of JSOC, stating the US has willfully funded Islamic fundamentalists in the region in order to destablise it. Does it sound familiar?

I like to think of these Jihadis as a modern day Beserkers. They create chaos in far away places of enormous geo-political importance, while also creating the perfect excuse to bring in authoritarian legislation that would never be acceptable without regular terrorist attacks.

Remind me again how building 7 of the World Trade Centre fell down on 9/11? It is first and only time a steel framed building has ever been completely destroyed and demolished by fire - no plane hit this building - strange? Check out Operation Northwoods.

Hi Bob,

Much of what you assert has some credibility, but it may not be all that relevant. Has it occurred that sometimes, in some situations, the US has little power (wash my mouth out !) on the one hand - and on the other, that 1.5 billion Muslims may have their own world-views, their own internal dynamics, their own internal disputes and controversies, their own detailed 'understandings' of their own religion and its role in the modern world ?

As well, from an ethnic point of view, Arabs have been feeling aggrieved for some time, well, since the Crusades really, against the west. They may see that their rightful place is as world leaders - after all, that worked for hundreds of years after Muhammed. And force was seen as a legitimate means of asserting that power, the sword, slavery or dhimmitude for non-believers, the absolute power of the Sultan.

So on the one hand, a long-held sense of grievance, and on the other, for both Moslems an for Arabs, a sense of their superiority, the limelight of which has been, they would suspect, 'stolen' by the West. There's enough material there for any number of endogenous anti-Western movements, even while they were so totally dependent on the technology that it has spawned.

Yes, maybe the US contributed to the creation of this pack of wild dogs, but - if you can put aside your conspiracy theories - that was a long time ago: they have very little power to control or even manoeuvre in the current Syria-Iraq situation against ISIS. They had ideas about the universality of democratic possibilities (naive, as we now can see, with hindsight) about an Arab Spring, but in the context of a history of nothing but absolutism in both secular and religious rule, they were out of their depth.

Hence Putin - another dictator totally familiar and comfortable with dictatorships - is outplaying them now. No, the US is not all-powerful and never has been and never can be, in the Middle East.

Joe

Hi Joe, that presumes the US wants to spread democracy in the Middle East.

I think one has to be incredibly naive to accept this. The trick is to look at what they do, rather than listen to what they say.

If you look at what the US has been doing, you see it fights wars of aggression sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly to further the interests of big business. They have used their military power to overthrow many democratically elected governments who voted "irresponsibly" in ways that hurt American business interests.

Egs of DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments covertly overthrown by US/CIA.

Iran in 1953
Guatamala in 1954
Congo in 1961
Brazil in 1964
Chile in 1973
Haiti in 1994 and 2001
failed coup in Venezuala 2002

I think a better hypothesis is that their military interventions are designed to spread chaos and destabilise the Middle East.

Here is a Youtube clip of Dick Cheney in 1994 where he points out that removing Saddam Hussein would be a disaster if there was nothing to put in it's place - it would destabilise the whole region.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Dick Cheney: "No.... Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey."

Now the US has taken down not just Saddam Hussein in Iraq (2003) but Col Gaddafi in Libya (2011) and they have spent the last 4 years unsuccessfully trying to oust Assad from Syria. And you still think they are trying to spread freedom and democracy?

" And you still think they are trying to spread freedom and democracy?"

BJelly, some people will believe anything especially the braindead admirers of the U.S.

The U.S. deserves universal condemnation. It is a greedy rogue nation the like of which the world has never seen. Even Germany didn't pretend it was going to save the world and spread freedom and democracy!

The US is pretty powerful.

It has by far the world's largest military force - it is bigger than the next 10 countries COMBINED - and that includes some of it's rivals such as China and Russia as well as allies, UK, Saudi Arabia, France and Germany.
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/

That doesn't include the many private contractors or mercenaries (PMCs) it uses abroad - like Xe/Blackwater and DynCorp.

That also doesn't include the massive amount of funding the CIA gets for its covert operations through its drug running.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-drug-lords-a-brief-history-of-cia-involvement-in-the-drug-trade/10013

The CIA was responsible for trafficking crack cocaine into black neighbourhoods in the 1980s - remember the Iran-Contra affair? The crack came from Nicaragua which funded the CIA backed Contras, because the CIA couldn't get legitimate government funding due to the Boland ammendment. It is no accident that opium poppy production went down under the Taliban, but has gone up since the US invaded Afghanistan. it is no accident that Bolivia's coco production has plummeted since they stopped accepting US DEA's "help" and have implemented their own scheme.

Bob & David,

No, I'm suggesting only that the US thought it could capitalise on any movements towards democracy in Arab countries, if only because, as they thought, that would open up those countries to all sorts of opportunities for them that may not be available under dictatorships which favoured other powers such as Russia or Iran or China.

So the questions now are: should the US set out to help destroy ISIS ? Should it co-ordinate its activities with Russia, Iran and Syria to wipe out the Islamo-fascists ? And what might happen once that has been done, in a few years' time ?

Any ideas ? Or are you content to just snipe from your caves ?

Joe

Hi Joe, here is what I said on page 7 about how to deal with ISIS
"To get rid of these Islamofascists, we need to get our allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to stop supporting them. And the US needs to stop "accidentally" dropping supplies to them."

We could help Russia defend the Assad regime, against ISIS, but considering that the US and its allies supported Al Qaeda and aided the rise of ISIS, in order to remove Assad from power, that may be a little awkward. But the US has a gift for hypocrisy and with a compliant MSM to keep information like the explosive interview below off the front or even back pages of the newspapers, they may decide to play it that way.

As I've posted before, but I will post it again, the interview ret lieutenant general Michael T Flynn, where he admitted that as head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency he saw an intelligence report in August 2012 that the US was supporting radical muslim groups eg the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda (the so-called moderate Muslims the US was assisting) to help oust the Assad regime in Syria - as well as the risk these groups might form a calaphate, but nothing was done - not just ignored, but worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG3j8OYKgn4 - need to go 8 minutes into interview.

Hi Bob,

Saudi involvement, etc.: good luck with that. it would be great to actually see the text of that report by the way, not just a ridiculous interpretation of it.

Clearly ISIS has to be defeated, even in co-ordination with Assad and the Russians, if only because there is basically no alternative, no 'third force' to take over after a hypothetical defeat of both ISIS and Assad.

Clearly also, the West should de-list the PKK and the YPG/YPJ as terrorist organisations since they seem to be the most effective force currently fighting ISIS in the north of Syria and Iraq.

Perhaps Russia and the West should divide up the task of defeating the fascists, with Assad and Russia taking on the job in southern and eastern Syria, and the Western coalition focussing on defeating ISIS in Iraq, and co-ordinating with the Kurds.

But nothing's simple in this dog-fight: how will Turkey perceive the heavier involvement of the Russians in Syria ? As well, they will fight tooth and nail to keep the PKK and YPG/YPJ listed as terrorist organisations.

And now that Iraq is sharing intelligence with Iran and Syria - and thereby with the Russians - how will that complicate the picture ?

Can of worms ? Bucket of crabs ? Insert metaphor here: -

Hi Joe
Here's those documents you wanted
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

Here's a website that highlights some of the important bits
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html

You are right it is a can of worms. Maybe the most realistic option is as you suggest, the Russians help their ally Syria and the US helps Iraq. But that presupposes that the US and it's allies stop assisting ISIS and Al Qaeda etc. That presupposes that the US wants peace not chaos. I'm just not so sure about that. But hey what do I know? I'm no intelligence or military expert, just an interested onlooker.

Re Iraq sharing intelligence with Iran and Syria - did you see this story?
US On The Ropes: China To Join Russian Military In Syria While Iraq Strikes Intel Deal With Moscow, Tehran
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-27/us-ropes-china-join-russian-military-syria-while-iraq-strikes-intel-deal-moscow-tehr
Makes for interesting reading.

Thanks Bob, that's a fascinating article about Chinese involvement in the Middle East. With the Taliban seizing Kunduz in northern Afghanistan, and the US pulling out at the end of the year, that puts China in an interesting position vis-à-vis the Taliban, al Qa'ida and IS there. Islamist groups are gaining strength in central Asian countries as well, in the backyards of both Russia and China.

So perhaps the US can only play a secondary role in the Middle East, mainly with the thankless task of trying to keep Sunni and Shi'ite powers apart and to protect Israel.

But both Russia and China may find themselves inheriting the complex mess that seems to have defeated the US. If so, then they both, at a time when their economies are heading south, may find themselves fighting on two fronts, Russia also with Ukraine, and China becoming more enmeshed in central Asia and particularly Afghanistan. And that brings Pakistan somewhat into play, China's erstwhile ally, covertly supporting the Islamists, and allied to the Saudis.

Wouldn't it be nice if it was a simple, clear-cut, either-or, one-on-one dog-fight ? Pity about the complexities of the modern world.

Joe

And it's already clear that the Russians, in their support of Assad, will NOT get stuck into ISIS but will direct all their firepower against the other groups fighting Assad, especially those in the western Shi'ite/Christian/Alawite heartlands. They will leave the much larger battle against ISIS to the Western coalition and the Kurdish militias. And once Assad and the Russians have destroyed all the non-Islamist, oppositional groups, they will turn on the Kurds.

It could be that Assad and his allies will leave the eastern and southern areas to the Sunnis for the time being, always with their eyes on the oil in the north-east. And the Sunnis will keep turning to ISIS unless the Western coalition can find some way to make deals with the Sunni tribal groups, and attempt to build up a more secular, less Islamist, faction there. Yeah, right.

Perhaps the West and the neighbouring Arab countries around Syria and Iraq will attempt to carve out a new country of mainly Sunni groups, encompassing the west of Iraq and the south-east of Syria, an area which would have a population of maybe twenty million: their initial task there would be to find forces to administer it - which would, no doubt, evolve very quickly into a dictatorship of its own. Alternatively, the borders of Jordan and Saudi Arabia could be re-drawn to take in these areas.

But the bottom line is that there would be very little likelihood of anything remotely resembling democracy taking hold in those areas, once ISIS is defeated: in the absence of any unifying power, the entire area, and population, could descend into civil war, before yet another dictator puts his brutal stamp on the area.

Of course, this is assuming that ISIS can somehow be defeated: the Russians won't bother, so that battle may have to be taken up eventually by Iran.

Horrible options all round.

Joe