It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But Islam has nothing to do with it because the terrorists misinterpret the Koran and are thus no true Muslims. Although their anger is fueled by Western prejudice and racism towards their faith, and the mockery that say some secular cartoonists make of it, so in the end, they are wrong in the way they express their anger, but sort of justified about being angry. But it has nothing to do with Islam. No sirree no.
1. The first was after the first Iraq War in 1990. George Bush Snr (the smart one) left strongman Hussein in power and imposed a no fly zone. He did not destabilize the region. There was no trouble from Hussein until the 2nd Iraq War in 2003. The ISIL crew are actually a part of his Baathist party. Actually, many members of ISIL are ex-Hussein army that was disbanded after the US invasion in 2003 and left without jobs. That is why they are very well trained organizationally and know how to conduct military operations (strategic and tactical). Why do you think they are so difficult to defeat?
2. The 2nd example is in Egypt (sort of the start of this thing with the 'Arab Spring'......or Tunisia if you want). In Egypt, The US left original strongman Mubarak to fall. The Israelis were concerned that this could create instability, but the US (and Obama) thought that democracy should be allowed to work. Then the Muslim Brotherhood won the election and started to impose Islamic values. So the Army came back, this time with Abdel Fattah El-Sisi (US backed) and has basically shut down democracy and dissenting voice in that country. At least its stable.....for now. Muslim Brotherhood participants have even been assassinated in Egypt even though they were freely elected (a take no prisoners approach).
3. Syria - this problem could have been solved/ended 3/4 yrs ago if the West had just done the same thing there. I.e. let Strongman Assad clean up. Instead they started supporting and flaming the 'opposition'. They are on the wrong side of the fence with this one. Assad is the only man who can contain ISIL, for now, although it may be too late.
-Do you remember the big plan to start a war there in 2013 after so called 'weapons of mass destruction' were used? The British Parliament thankfully vetoed that idiocy (they learnt from the Iraq debacle) and so America was out to lunch. It was also stuck in a major political pickle.
-Who gave them (Obama/Kerry) a face-saving way out? Putin, by suggesting that a plan be put in place to dispose of the weapons of mass destruction.
-However, they did not allow Assad to finish the job, and so ISIL got stronger. Now Russia has been forced in to do the job for them. Even just one month ago America was insisting that Russia was bombing the 'free Syrian Army' and not ISIL. If that is so then why was the Russian plane blown up, reportedly by ISIL? Other news outlets were saying that Assad was actually advancing on ISIL locations due to Russian airpower supporting him.
Let me give you examples where the other approach (Western bombing and meddling) without local support and without a strongman or a plan to 'win the peace' has categorically failed.:
1. Afghanistan - 13 yrs and counting
2. Iraq - 12 yrs and counting
3. Libya - 4 yrs and counting
4. Syria -3/4 yrs and counting
There was a completely ridiculous notion and expectation that democracy would flourish once the strong man was disposed of. Imbecilic. Do you remember Cheney expecting the Iraqi's to welcome the Americans with flowers after Hussein fell? The same stupid expectations existed after Ghaddafi was toppled in Libya. The same kind of mess exists there now.
Bottom line: Sunni Arab countries have limited experience with democracy. They mainly know autocratic dictators. Many of them Western backed, sadly.
In such instances, the local population gravitate to the Islamists, because they provide a viable, if stringent alternative to the manipulated control of their leaders by the West. The lesser of two evils for the locals. The same thing happened in Afghanistan with the oppressive Taliban.
This pattern has played out several times before and each time it gets worse, namely:
1. Iran - 1979 overthrow of western backed Shah with Islamist Ayatollah
2. Palestine - 2006 election in Gaza of Hamas
3. Syria/Iraq - ISIL spreading
Michael Weiss, senior editor at The Daily Beast and co-author of “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror.”, who has travelled to Turkey recently, stated that ISIL actually provides 'healthcare', 'rule of law - albeit Sharia via a penal code', 'city administration', 'tax collection' etc. in Aleppo and Raqqah. According to his analysis they are widely entrenched in the Sunni Areas that they control.
Fawaz Gerges, Professor of Middle East Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences (my alma mater) told Farid Zakaria of CNN almost 4 years ago that Assad was not going anywhere and that he had entrenched support among certain components of the Syrian population. This was at a time when American policy officials were saying he would fall in a year (wishful thinking again).
No, actually it is not. It is essential to preventing continued radical (and note the word radical) Islamist philosophy from taking hold in that region. However, it cannot be done the way the west has attempted to do it in the past, which is namely to overthrow a government and then either install its own dictator forever or pillage the place while it stays in a state of chaos. What it needs is a transition plan away from the dictator in an orderly fashion over a period of years. Easier said than done, but it must be attempted. The radical Wahabbist and Salafist philosophy will not take hold if the majority of the population see opportunity and if the economy is open.
I don't think that this can be done by the US/West alone. They have demonstrated a lack of 'good faith' and a continued inability to look outside their own oil driven interests. That is why counterbalancing superpowers must also be involved....Russia/China.
Sunni Islamist society is not incompatible with capitalism. Dubai is a perfect example of this.
Sadly, the lessons of the past 30 years may have shown people in that region that the approach of the Iranians (going it alone in an Islamist fashion) is the best way to achieve a result. After all, on their own, over the past 30 years, they have built an economy (despite attempts to shut them out of the banking system by the West) and their scientists have even gone so far as to develop Nuclear material (with Pakistani and Russian assistance). All this while they have been ostracized.
No, it's not. The examples are not meant to be taken literally. All circumstances are different (especially ones that are 50 yrs apart and which are in different regions of the world). What I mean is that after the war has been won (and no one doubts the ability of Western air power and military might to eventually win this war), there has to be a coordinated plan by all the major powers (including Russia/China) to invest in and develop the region in a coordinated fashion. That foreign investment will create jobs and give the economies potential to grow, thereby reducing the control of the radical Islamists on the young population.
I don't recommend any of this taking place until the roots of a transition plan away from the dictators is in place. Without Russian involvement, the US/West will flounder and will not be credible. US/Russia/China/Iran all together will be sufficient to ensure that the plan can work.
However, this is not something that can start until the war is won conclusively, and until some form of 'dictatorship' or 'autocracy' is in place first to stabilize the place. Egypt would be a perfect example of a place where the economy should be gradually opened up now.....since Sisi is firmly in control of that place now.
I agree completely with you. As I said here before, when I lived in the UK 20 years ago, I could see the seeds of this sowing. At least Maggie kept a tight lid on things. Multiculturalism, as I said before, has failed. Mass immigration without assimilation has failed. People must be made to integrate.
Why are radical clerics (like Anjem Choudary for instance) allowed to spew their vile garbage in the Mosques. Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is another thing. Freedom to worship is one thing. Freedom to incite is another thing.
Every country has its issues with the Muslim communities. Chief among them is an inability to integrate. That must be insisted on.
Ironically, it's actually less of a problem in North America than it is in Europe.
Excellent post. Great point about ISIL actually bringing a semblance of government as well. They probably crack down on petty corruption as well to a certain extent. It's not unreasonable to assume they have significant support amongst many Sunnis in the areas they control.
Frankly the West have behaved like total morons. It's been clear for years that Iraq probably needed to be partitioned into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish statelets but everyone's to scared to say it. Iraq is a colonial invention, almost designed to be unstable - the British 'divide and rule' approach in action.
If we get rid of ISIL what are we going to replace it with? Does anyone expect the Sunnis to recognise the Shia led government in Iraq? It's never going to happen.
We need a new state, straddling eastern Syria and western Iraq. I was actually of the view that we should let ISIL get on with it and see what hAppens, but have realised that's not the best idea. There has to be a Sunni state there in some shape or form though.
Blaming religion for violence excuses and denies our own countries' political actions and how they have contributed to that violence. Violence is inherent in the state.
the separation of religion and politics is a distinction drawn by Europeans, mostly Protestant, in the Modern period.This distinction does not fit the rest of the world.
Plus this news from our friends in Saudi:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/20/saudi-court-sentences-poet-to-death-for-renouncing-islam
Plus anyone see this:
and more from the religion of peace:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/terrifying-video-shows-bradford-dad-attacked-by-pickaxe-thugs-for-converting-from-islam-to-christianity-1-7579804
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34891928
Sanity, at last.
Are these people insane? We're trying to combat ISIS and the Americans are still obsessed with getting rid of the one man who stands in their way.
We got rid of dictators in Iraq and Libya and the result has been total chaos and breeding ground for terrorists.
In Egypt they got rid of the dictator and then we supported the military when they overthrew the democratically elected president and brought back an army strong man. And yet in Syria the solution is apparently to get rid of Assad. There is absolutely no coherency or logic to western foreign policy.
The majority of the Syrian population still lives in the government controlled part of the country where there is still some semblance of order, and yet until very recently US and UK policy was to topple the government.
I am convinced we're governed by total idiots.
By the way, its all kind of a setup from the CIA. Strange isn't it?
Just to start a war, actually. Pretty pathetic, right?
This much is certain. Our only hope is that ISIS are even bigger idiots.
Someone made a good point during an online debate:
"The only reason why things are not much much worse is lack of access to better technology."
The AK47 went into service in 1948. Just look what two of these can do plus ammunition can do at a concert venue.
I recently read that ISIL may in fact concentrate on smaller, localised coordinated attacks rather than try to duplicate an Al Quada 911 scenario, because there is more chance of being caught with the latter (due to logistical/communication issues).
You'll find that the primary reason for that is the Syrian government is buying it's weaponry and munitions from the wrong sources. Military Industrial Complex again.
If it's not the reason, what is?
Religion (in this case the radical subset known as Wahabbist Islamic doctrine, which is preached in some mosques and financed and spread globally and insidiously via Saudi Arabia primarily) is a reason and a tool. The most organized and mobilized tool to influence young, confused minds.
Because it's more complicated than that.
On top of that, ISIL videos (apparently on the internet) are showing western munitions killing & maiming muslim children in Iraq/Syria etc. That is a further recruiting tool for these youth in the West.
Lets ask this a different way - what's the common denominator between 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, Lee Rigby, Paris?
Although fair enough on the whahabbists. The west's arselicking of Saudi Arabia is disgusting. If we want their oil so much I'd sooner we just invade them rather than ignore the fact that they're a more disgusting regime than Saddam or Gadaffi.
Guess where Assad gets his arms? Not UK/US. Coincidence? No.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11455304/Charted-the-worlds-biggest-arms-importers.html
Also, even though Saudi is a big source of funding for a lot of the Islamonutters, their intelligence services have also helped the UK foil a large number of plots.
That's why I love QoS more and more nowadays. That film more than any other had the balls to call it like it is when it comes to realpolitik. It's all about shared interests, not whether we're dealing with a 'nice' person or not. Bad Felix.
You can look at other aspects like oil, poverty, politics, poverty etc etc but with all these, any war or conflict will be indefinitely easier to fight if your enemy is not delusional.
These people are non human beasts that need to be exterminated, plain and simple.
Irish Terrorists, Bask terrorists, German Terrorists, Dutch Terrorists, Italian Terrorists killed unarmed people, women & children. Those pesky Christians who did attack a Abortion clinic are also terrorists who kill people that help other people.
Terrorism is a minority tool to manipulate a majority to change their ways in what you consider the right way. Muslims, Hindus or Christians they all fail in their thoughts and actions when it comes to another way of life or thinking.
Because not every Muslim is a fanatic. That does not mean the ideology behind the fanaticism of an Islamist is not... his religion.
One thing I don't get with religious tossers is their whole schtick (well the main religions and certainly the two biggest trouble makers Islam and Christianity) is that this life is a load of bullshit and when you die you go and live in this amazing place and everything's just dandy.
So why don't you all just do the rest of us a favour and f**king hang yourselves?
If this life is nothing compared to the 5 star luxury of heaven why bother at all. Just get 200 paracetamol and hurry yourselves on the way.