Islamic State

Harry Ellis wrote:Amazing scenes.

Nobody noticed the real amazing scene.

Cal, yes that Cal, is posting in a [DISCUSSION] thread.

Moggy wrote:

Harry Ellis wrote:Amazing scenes.

Nobody noticed the real amazing scene.

Cal, yes that Cal, is posting in a [DISCUSSION] thread.

Yep - I know my mistake.

Dan, the real irony (or the thing we might find interesting) is that right now I'm contracted to work on some design for The International Refugee Trust. Last year I worked on design material for Friends of the Earth. Before that, Oxfam. Will this madness never end?

It's quite clear which side Turkey is on now

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 72206.html

Turkey is terrified that the Kurds might win their own autonomous region in Syria, which would threaten their own stability in the east as there are a strawberry float ton of Kurds there.

What a mess.

Karl wrote:What a mess.

Saudi war planes are massing on the Turkish border too, you can guarantee Assad's forces and the Kurds will be the only one they're bombing.

I'm so tired of bullshit from the West and it's 'allies'.

Not strictly ISIS, but seriously WTF

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article ... oscow.html

A burka-clad babysitter decapitated the little girl in her care before walking through Moscow carrying the child's severed head, police say.

The woman shouted 'Allahu Akbar' as she appeared near Oktyabrskoye Pole metro station in the northwest of the Russian capital and threatened to blow herself up.

NSFL

I can't think of anything constructive to say in response to that.

The mind strawberry floating boggles.

Really wish I hadn't seen that right before bed.

strawberry floating hell.

Islamic State 'committed genocide' says US

The US says the Islamic State (IS) group has committed genocide against Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims. US Secretary of State John Kerry said IS was "genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology and by actions". He also said the group was responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing in areas it controls in Syria and Iraq. "Naming these crimes is important, but what is essential is to stop them," Mr Kerry added. Mr Kerry admitted that a lack of access to IS areas meant the US did not have a "complete picture" of the atrocities that had been carried out. He said the "full facts" must be sought, and the US would "strongly support" efforts to collect evidence of IS atrocities and brings those responsible to account. "The fact is that Daesh kills Christians because they are Christians, Yazidis because they are Yazidis, Shia because they are Shia," he said. "This is the message it conveys to children under its control. Its entire world view is based on eliminating those who do not subscribe to its perverse ideology."

Genocide is defined by the UN Convention as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". It is understood by most to be the gravest crime against humanity it is possible to commit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35831711

This is important and shouldn't be left unremarked. 'Genocide' - as defined by the UN:

Article Two of the convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such":

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The convention also imposes a general duty on states that are signatories to "prevent and to punish" genocide.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11108059

So far, despite being the most powerful, technologically advanced and well-funded military nation on Earth, the US has apparently been unable to eliminate Islamic State. This is what was not reported by the BBC:

Kerry's finding will not obligate the United States to take additional action against ISIS militants and does not prejudge any prosecution against its members, said U.S. officials.

“Secretary Kerry is finally making the right call,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said in a statement after the announcement Thursday. He added that “President Obama should step up and lay out the broad, overarching plan that’s needed to actually defeat and destroy ISIS. This administration’s long pattern of paralysis and ineffectiveness in combating these radical Islamist terrorists is unacceptable.”

The determination marks only the second time a U.S. administration has declared that a genocide was being committed during an ongoing conflict.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03 ... tcmp=hpbt1

Now that his Administration has defined Islamic State as genocidal, according to a strictly-mandated UN definition, will Obama make defeating Islamic State a part of his legacy before he leaves the White House or does he consider binding 'action on climate change' far more important?

Cal wrote:

This is what was not reported by the BBC:

Kerry's finding will not obligate the United States to take additional action against ISIS militants and does not prejudge any prosecution against its members, said U.S. officials.

“Secretary Kerry is finally making the right call,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said in a statement after the announcement Thursday. He added that “President Obama should step up and lay out the broad, overarching plan that’s needed to actually defeat and destroy ISIS. This administration’s long pattern of paralysis and ineffectiveness in combating these radical Islamist terrorists is unacceptable.”

The determination marks only the second time a U.S. administration has declared that a genocide was being committed during an ongoing conflict.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03 ... tcmp=hpbt1

Now that his Administration has defined Islamic State as genocidal, according to a strictly-mandated UN definition, will Obama make defeating Islamic State a part of his legacy before he leaves the White House or does he consider binding 'action on climate change' far more important?

Posting in a [DISCUSSION] thread? I will ignore my having you on ignore then.

You say that "This is what was not reported by the BBC" and then post a Fox News article that says one Republican thinks that the administration has been ineffective? Do you think the BBC should have to report on the thoughts of every single member of the US Senate and House of Representatives?

You then go on to ask if Obama thinks climate change is more important than ISIS. Do you think the only options are to concentrate on one of those?

The two things are not related and so I fail to see why you are trying to conflate them. The threat of ISIS is tiny compared to that of climate change but there is no reason why both cannot be tackled at the same time.

Obama is held back by not wanting to put ground troops into Iraq and Syria. After the results of actions following 2001, I can see why, the appetite for such a ground war is not there amongst the American or European people.

As has been said time and time again, the only solution is to work with countries in the area to get them to sort it out. America and the UK strolling back in will only make things worse.

Moggy wrote:

Cal wrote:

This is what was not reported by the BBC:

Kerry's finding will not obligate the United States to take additional action against ISIS militants and does not prejudge any prosecution against its members, said U.S. officials.

“Secretary Kerry is finally making the right call,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said in a statement after the announcement Thursday. He added that “President Obama should step up and lay out the broad, overarching plan that’s needed to actually defeat and destroy ISIS. This administration’s long pattern of paralysis and ineffectiveness in combating these radical Islamist terrorists is unacceptable.”

The determination marks only the second time a U.S. administration has declared that a genocide was being committed during an ongoing conflict.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03 ... tcmp=hpbt1

Now that his Administration has defined Islamic State as genocidal, according to a strictly-mandated UN definition, will Obama make defeating Islamic State a part of his legacy before he leaves the White House or does he consider binding 'action on climate change' far more important?

Posting in a [DISCUSSION] thread? I will ignore my having you on ignore then.

You say that "This is what was not reported by the BBC" and then post a Fox News article that says one Republican thinks that the administration has been ineffective? Do you think the BBC should have to report on the thoughts of every single member of the US Senate and House of Representatives?

The BBC has duty to report the Obama Administration's pitiful record in dealing with a murderous - and now UN-defined genocidal - organisation. The BBC minces its words and decides not to dwell on Obama's atrocious record in this respect.

Moggy wrote:You then go on to ask if Obama thinks climate change is more important than ISIS. Do you think the only options are to concentrate on one of those?

Which of the two do you think worries people around the world more? If you think the fear of rising global temperatures (not the case, for at least the past 15-20 years according to the experts) is more pressing than the systematic murder and terrorism of Islamic State, an organisation which is in great part responsible for the current migrant crisis, specifically responsible for targeted terror attacks across the world, factually responsible for the countless public murders of both muslims and non-muslims, then I would humbly suggest that perhaps taking care of the butchers in Syria and Iraq (and beyond, if necessary) is perhaps a tad more urgent that worrying about the Polar Bears (which are doing just fine, btw).

Moggy wrote:The two things are not related and so I fail to see why you are trying to conflate them. The threat of ISIS is tiny compared to that of climate change but there is no reason why both cannot be tackled at the same time.

That kind of reasoning only works only if one accepts your assertion that the 'threat of climate change' is much greater than the clear and present danger of Islamic State. One is a hypothetical, the other is a demonstrable fact.

Moggy wrote:Obama is held back by not wanting to put ground troops into Iraq and Syria. After the results of actions following 2001, I can see why, the appetite for such a ground war is not there amongst the American or European people.

But if America is a co-signatory to the UN agreement on dealing with acts of genocide it has a duty to act when such a declaration of genocide is made (by its own Administration) whether there's an 'appetite' amongst the US electorate or not. I think that goes a little further there simply being a 'moral obligation' to act.

Moggy wrote:As has been said time and time again, the only solution is to work with countries in the area to get them to sort it out. America and the UK strolling back in will only make things worse.

So how has that whole 'working with other countries' thing been going for Obama? That approach has been like herding cats, up to now, for the most part. Just seems odd to me that a nation so militarily super-powerful just can't find a way to eliminate what is - in the great scheme of things - a relatively small number of lawless murderers in the desert. Absolutely baffling.

Cal wrote:The BBC has duty to report the Obama Administration's pitiful record in dealing with a murderous - and now UN-defined genocidal - organisation. The BBC minces its words and decides not to dwell on Obama's atrocious record in this respect.

Other than the Republican quote on Fox News, what evidence is there that Obama has a pitiful record in dealing with ISIS?

The BBC has a duty to report facts and events. It does not have a duty to report what you think it should.

Which of the two do you think worries people around the world more?

Terrorism obviously worries people more. That doesn’t make it a bigger threat though. Fear of zombie attacks might be at an all time high, it doesn’t mean we are going all “Walking Dead” anytime soon.

If you think the fear of rising global temperatures (not the case, for at least the past 15-20 years according to the experts) is more pressing than the systematic murder and terrorism of Islamic State, an organisation which is in great part responsible for the current migrant crisis,

I thought you said they were economic migrants? Do you now accept that they are refugees?

specifically responsible for targeted terror attacks across the world, factually responsible for the countless public murders of both muslims and non-muslims, then I would humbly suggest that perhaps taking care of the butchers in Syria and Iraq (and beyond, if necessary) is perhaps a tad more urgent that worrying about the Polar Bears (which are doing just fine, btw).

Again, saving polar bears and defeating ISIS are not mutually excusive.

That kind of reasoning only works only if one accepts your assertion that the 'threat of climate change' is much greater than the clear and present danger of Islamic State. One is a hypothetical, the other is a demonstrable fact.

I agree that the danger of ISIS to us living in the West is a hypothetical. The two things are not mutually exclusive though, we can deal with the real threat of climate change and the possible threat of ISIS in the future.

But if America is a co-signatory to the UN agreement on dealing with acts of genocide it has a duty to act when such a declaration of genocide is made (by its own Administration) whether there's an 'appetite' amongst the US electorate or not. I think that goes a little further there simply being a 'moral obligation' to act.

Why are you singling out America? Why are you not asking what the UK is doing? What is France doing? What about China? Australia? Brazil? Is the government of Japan weak because ISIS exist?

So how has that whole 'working with other countries' thing been going for Obama? That approach has been like herding cats, up to now, for the most part. Just seems odd to me that a nation so militarily super-powerful just can't find a way to eliminate what is - in the great scheme of things - a relatively small number of lawless murderers in the desert. Absolutely baffling.

That’s a very simplistic view of the issues. Just barging into Syria guns blazing is not a way to solve the issues and it is all more complex than just “eliminating a small number of people in a desert”. Again though you only blame Obama, why don’t you blame any of the other Western nations?

ISIS isn't just a group of crazy people, it's an idea: a belief some people in the Middle-East have, that their lives are gooseberry fool because of the West, and if they could just strike back at the West then their lives would start improving.

There's no point blowing up some of the mentalists that believe the idea if your doing that reinforces their belief system and hence makes the idea itself stronger. It may solve the problem in the very short-term but the next lot of nutters would hold the ideology even more strongly and would therefore behave even more deplorably.

Karl wrote:ISIS isn't just a group of crazy people, it's an idea: a belief some people in the Middle-East have, that their lives are gooseberry fool because of the West, and if they could just strike back at the West then their lives would start improving.

They should be wiped off the face of the earth as a lesson to anyone else who wants to start something similar in future.

They need to learn that any attempt to establish a "caliphate" results in nothing but ashes. Continuous pussyfooting by the outside world is the ONLY reason they still exist.

Well thought through argument there. What we doing then, nuking most of Iraq and Syria?

Rocsteady wrote:Well thought through argument there. What we doing then, nuking most of Iraq and Syria?

What happened to good old fashioned carpet bombing?

Brilliant. If only you were Secretary of Defence.

Rocsteady wrote:Brilliant. If only you were Secretary of Defence.

Ok, let's just continue with your policy of doing absolutely nothing.

Is it possible to reconcile our differences though? They seem so far gone in terms of ideology that I just don't see a way they can be peacefully "defeated". I think the most you could achieve is some kind of North Korea style isolation.