Antiochas III Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) We always get told that ISIS uses proceeds from captured oil fields to fund itself. Think it says something that nobody in the media asks the obvious question of who they could possibly be selling the oil to, given they are surrounded by what are all supposed to be enemy states, i.e. Iraq (Shiite run and allied with Iran, so that's not happening), de facto but yet to be internationally recognised Kurdistan (definitely not pals with ISIS as way too secular and borderline commie), Jordan (not likely to have forgiven and forgotten what happened to their pilot yet and appear to very much back the western backed rebels instead, and quite distant from firmly held ISIS area), what's left of Baathist Syria (way too much head chopping of captured prisoners going on for them to be trading in that sort of way to any significant extentand Iran is known to be sending the oil needed to keep the Assad war machine going), so who does that leave? By far the most likely candidate for some dodgy trading with ISIS is the neighbouring NATO member that is letting the US use one of its air bases to carry out its bombing campaign. So not the most hated nation in the Middle East that seems to be the only Nation to remain totally untouched by the growth of ISIS? Edited November 28, 2015 by Antiochas III 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkmenbashi Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 We always get told that ISIS uses proceeds from captured oil fields to fund itself. Think it says something that nobody in the media asks the obvious question of who they could possibly be selling the oil to, given they are surrounded by what are all supposed to be enemy states, i.e. Iraq (Shiite run and allied with Iran, so that's not happening), de facto but yet to be internationally recognised Kurdistan (definitely not pals with ISIS as way too secular and borderline commie), Jordan (not likely to have forgiven and forgotten what happened to their pilot yet and appear to very much back the western backed rebels instead, and quite distant from firmly held ISIS area), what's left of Baathist Syria (way too much head chopping of captured prisoners going on for them to be trading in that sort of way to any significant extentand Iran is known to be sending the oil needed to keep the Assad war machine going), so who does that leave? By far the most likely candidate for some dodgy trading with ISIS is the neighbouring NATO member that is letting the US use one of its air bases to carry out its bombing campaign.I am pretty sure, as well as being sold to Turkey, a lot of it is, or at least was in the past, being sold to the Assad regime, just need some corrupt middlemen and cheaper than normal prices. Plenty of people on both sides who will quite happily ignore their ideology for money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner I know Isis fighters. Western bombs falling on Raqqa will fill them with joy Edited November 28, 2015 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 So not the most hated nation in the Middle East that seems to be the only Nation to remain totally untouched by the growth of ISIS? I'll assume you mean Israel? Wouldn't put it past them, but they don't have a border with the main ISIS held areas (will add before a pedant does that there is a very small ISIS aligned area next to the Golan Heights). Agree with the poster immediately above that at one point the Assad regime could conceivably have been doing it as well, but not so likely over the last year or so once the frontlines between the two became hotly contested and it's worth noting that ISIS have not collapsed financially in the interim. What was particularly telling was that when the Kurds started to move against the last ISIS controlled area along the Turkish border north of Aleppo, Turkey declared it to be a "safe zone", although obviously it was all spun as an action against ISIS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-us-turkey-plan-amounts-to-a-safe-zone-in-northwest-syria/2015/07/26/0a533345-ff2e-4b40-858a-c1b36541e156_story.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I'd not disagree with a multilateral force but it still does not deal with fundamental issue of tackling the ideologues. Dealing with ISIS and their ilk is like tackling the hydra - cut off its head and another two pop up in its place. As an extremist, terrorist group, probably. One holding a huge tract of territory and a considerable population under its control? No. The pressing issue is to deal with the failure of legitimate states in the region, and work towards a coalition that can clear IS off their current territory and for functioning states to take over. The first part of that is far more difficult to achieve, and likely will require Assad's much-diminished but crucial legitimacy to pull off. I can't see the West shifting from their anti-Assad stance though, unless IS atrocities force a more realistic approach to the situation. As a terrorist group without territory IS and their zombie follow-up outfits can be easily dealt with, much as Al Qaeda have been ultimately reduced to a busted flush outfit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 As an extremist, terrorist group, probably. One holding a huge tract of territory and a considerable population under its control? No. The pressing issue is to deal with the failure of legitimate states in the region, and work towards a coalition that can clear IS off their current territory and for functioning states to take over. The first part of that is far more difficult to achieve, and likely will require Assad's much-diminished but crucial legitimacy to pull off. I can't see the West shifting from their anti-Assad stance though, unless IS atrocities force a more realistic approach to the situation. As a terrorist group without territory IS and their zombie follow-up outfits can be easily dealt with, much as Al Qaeda have been ultimately reduced to a busted flush outfit. IS have and its predecessors have been on the go since the 1930s - what's different now is the splinter groups that have caused the terror - either homegrown or European based - are much harder to track and neutralise. Some of the action credited to IS has been little more than in the name of IS - with little real input from them themselves, It's this random terrorism - the guns on the beaches terrorism that we saw in Tunisia - that worries me. It's also clear that those who have been involved are not disillusioned working-class muslims but those from well-educated middle-class backgrounds. What makes someone who has everything going for them strap a bomb to themselves or go on a suicide shooting mission? That is the real frightening thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 That's Capitalism for you. Someone, somewhere, will be making a fast buck providing arms to one (or more) of the participants in this conflict. War is a result of government. No large scale and sustained war can happen without it. Whose buying those arms? Not some corporation I tell you. It's the Saudi government. Eventually they'll come a time in the not too distant future where they can't or won't fund those jihadists. The IMF have already reported the Saudi regime will be bankrupt by the end of the decade if they continue to run their finances in the manner they have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 War is a result of government. No large scale and sustained war can happen without it. Whose buying those arms? Not some corporation I tell you. It's the Saudi government. Eventually they'll come a time in the not too distant future where they can't or won't fund those jihadists... It's only a matter of time until the price of oil goes up again and they still have plenty of it. The collapse of the Saudis isn't likely on that timescale in other words, but will happen eventually obviously given their birthrate and population that is way beyond what their country can reasonably sustain in the absence of oil. The Qataris are the other prime suspects along with the Saudis and Turks for arming the most radical of the bearded head chopping nutters with a gas pipeline to Europe being their end game, which is why Vlad eventually felt the need to intervene given that would be very bad news for Russia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Waiting for David Cameron to suggest a bombing campaign in South Carolina or wherever that nutjob who shot up in Colorado was from. waiting for him to be labelled a Christian extremist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Bizarre comments on this from the Labour drone on Daily Politics. "It would be on my conscience if my constituents or any British citizen was killed by ISIS and we hadn't advocated lethal force in Syria". He's pretending that the situation doesn't exist in which he and his party commit to air strikes in Syria and Britons are caught up in further ISIS atrocities outside Syria. Edited November 30, 2015 by Antlion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Bizarre comments on this from the Labour drone on Daily Politics. "It would be on my conscience if my constituents or any British citizen was killed by ISIS and we hadn't advocated lethal force in Syria". He's pretending that the situation doesn't exist in which he and his party commit to air strikes in Syria and Britons are caught up in further ISIS atrocities outside Syria. Wonder if he was in favour of bombing the ROI, when the IRA were active. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Bizarre comments on this from the Labour drone on Daily Politics. "It would be on my conscience if my constituents or any British citizen was killed by ISIS and we hadn't advocated lethal force in Syria". He's pretending that the situation doesn't exist in which he and his party commit to air strikes in Syria and Britons are caught up in further ISIS atrocities outside Syria. Isis are already planning attacks against us,makes no difference if we bomb them or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Isis are already planning attacks against us,makes no difference if we bomb them or not. So there is absolutely no rational argument for airstrikes. Cool, call your pal Dave and let him know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Isis are already planning attacks against us,makes no difference if we bomb them or not. How do you know? Are you a member of ISIS? You know what they say - no smoke without fire. #bombkevthedee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I don't think cowardice should play a part here. I.e. any whiff of 'let's stay out of it and the terrorists might ignore us and attack others in the West'. That's pretty pathetic. But we should avoid bombing them because the case made for doing so seems exceptionally weak and badly thought out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 How do you know? Are you a member of ISIS? I could ask that same question to people on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 How do you know? Are you a member of ISIS? I could ask that same question to people on here. You would.. because it's a stupid question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Corbyn is letting the MPs have a free vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Oh well. It will be a landslide and we can resume our usual role of bombing brown people in far away lands. Rule Britannia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Corbyn is letting the MPs have a free vote. That's because he's as weak as vegetarian piss. What's the point in Labour even being a party - it's essentially a loose conglomeration of independents, some left wing, some right wing. 0 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.