Why the West is responsible for ISIS atrocities

Does anyone not on hallucinatory drugs seriously think that the combined military might of Russia, America, Britain and France couldn’t wipe out the few divisions of ground troops that ISIS, with no air cover, has in the field?

So, why don’t they?

Because of a whole lot of complicated politics about a whole lot of national interest bullshit by the various nations which choose not to use their military might to resolve this problem, which allows ISIS to survive when just even the weakest two, quite probably just one, of these of ISIS’s sworn enemy nations could easily destroy ISIS.

This failure to act ensures that, as usual, the little people will be the ones who pay the price in their blood and lives, whether in areas under direct ISIS control or in far away places inspired by ISIS, for the protection of big people’s politics and money interests.

Air strikes by France, Britain and anyone else ain’t gonna destroy ISIS unless they all get serious about abandoning the modern bullshit of remote legal officers deciding what can be attacked and just get in there and fight the only war in the Middle East that, unlike the various oil and related wars over the past quarter century, is fully justified on humanitarian grounds.

As long as the West refuses to use its great resources to wipe out ISIS in its heartland, I have difficulty supporting the restrictions on freedom implemented in Western countries to deal with the threats in those countries inspired by ISIS.

What is the point of issuing snake alerts in Paris, Brussels, New York, London and other places when the snake is in Iraq and Syria, where it readily can be killed but nobody in Paris, Brussels, New York, London and other places readily able to kill the snake is willing to do so?

A long time ago when my family had a farm, when we saw a snake we killed it. Can’t do that now, because they’re protected native species. Much as ISIS seems to be for the world it threatens with impunity from its base in the Middle East, just like bin Laden did from Afghanistan not all that long ago until the West took the appropriate action and went in there to cut the head off the snake, albeit unwisely deciding to engage in a pointless occupation.

To apply an old but apt expression to the West’s weakness and selective refusal to wipe out ISIS on its home ground, “Piss, or get off the pot.”.

I’m with you, but to point the blame at only the West looks only at half the picture. The Aussies/Kiwis and the powerful Middle East (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait) could do the same and yet do not either. You would think that especially the Saudis would be interested in removing ISIS as they claim to act using the voice of Islam.

Not arguing with you, just pointing out some things…

I was listening to an Emirati “strategist”, interviewed on the BBC this morning. Confronted with the accusation that, in recent times, the West’s Arab “allies” had “faded themselves out” of the air campaign against ISIS, this person stated, pretty broadly, that the Arab “allies” were entitled to behave thus, until the Western component of the “alliance” was willing to commit to all-out war on ISIS, including major “boots on the ground”. No mention of Arab “boots on the ground”. That is the voice, not only of the United Arab Emirates, but of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt … And, at the same time, the not inconsiderable income of ISIS from oil, extortion and so on no doubt continues to be subsidized by funding from the Arab oil states, and assisted by their co-operation in “financial matters”. American, British, French, German etc. should die while Sheikhs laugh …

This is not an argument for further “intervention” in itself. The fundamental problem is that the West should not have intervened militarily in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria in the first place. The feet of the great bears of the world have been caught in these traps, and there is no easy way for them to get out of them. BTW - hear that the Turks have shot down a Soviet warplane (a fighter bomber, by the sound of it) in “disputed circumstances”. Worse and worse. JR.

Not that this is

The Turks shot down an Su-24, a bit of an aged piece and its shoot-down is an unfortunate byproduct of nationalist chest thumping…

Exactly! Until there is a resolution to the Syrian Civil War which the West largely ignored until it became a bloody, terror-spawning stalemate and field of proxy-war - ISIS will go on. The Iran/Shiite vs. the Saud/Sunni states contributes to this as does the Middle Eastern penchant for gleeful double-dealing with the sort of enemies of my enemy of my friend who is really my enemy but my enemy is sort of my friend because we have a mutual interest mindset, etc. must be acknowledged. There needs to be some sort of workable detente but I think we are a ways away. Israel is the rhetorical target but in the end this comes down to a Sunni and Shia national struggle with both sides preparing for the ultimate showdown…

The Russians have been playing at Border Tag with their Aircraft of late, seeing what the U.S. will do in response, much like their misanthropic behavior in the old soviet days. I figure their recent games in the middle east have been for similar purposes, but now have cost them something. It will be interesting to see what happens once Putin gets winded after huffing, and puffing about it for awhile.

The heart of the ISIS problem is Saudi Arabia, which has exported fundamentalist Wahabbi doctrine with its petrodollars to all parts of the Islamic and other world, which has achieved its,to date, zenith in ISIS.

But, even with ISIS on its northern border the most aggressive action the duplicitous Saudis can mount against the Sunni extremists they have spawned is to build a fence to keep ISIS out :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :confused: :confused: :confused: while the Saudis have been heavily militarily engaged with the Shia Houthis in Yemen on their southern border.

But Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil which it is prepared to sell to the West. The West depends on oil. So the West overlooks the cause of its ISIS and related Islamic extremism problems spewing out of Saudi Arabia with the petrodollars the West gives to the Saudis.

Conversely, the fundamentalist Wahabbi Saudis who preach and internationally fund hostility to and destruction of the infidels in the West happily accepted the help and even presence on Saudi soil of the Western infidels when Saddam, with about one fifth of the world’s oil in Iraq, invaded Kuwait and was perceived as a potential invader of Saudi Arabia with about another one fifth of the world’s oil supply.

So we’re saddled with an impotent West dealing with hypocritical Saudis who will get away with anything they like, such as primitive human rights abuses by executing people for sorcery, because they have the oil the West wants.

And the West doesn’t want to piss off the Saudis by getting properly stuck into ISIS. Unless, of course, ISIS carries out its aim of invading Saudi Arabia to expel the Saudis who have defiled the holy land by allowing the West to station troops there to, among other things, enable the Saudis to conduct the pilgrimages to Mecca.

The Middle East reminds me of the Great Oozlum Bird, which flies in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up its own arsehole.

I disagree with non-intervention in Afghanistan. It was a viper’s nest which had to be eradicated after it demonstrated the damage it could do outside its borders on 9/11.

The same already applies to ISIS and will do so increasingly as it mounts more attacks outside its borders.

I’m ambivalent about intervention in Iraq in the Gulf War, but on balance I think it was necessary to curtail Saddam’s ambitions to control the Gulf.

Dubya’s reasons for going into Iraq were utterly unconvincing at the time and nothing since has made them less unconvincing.

The problem I have with these military interventions is, regardless of whether they were necessary or desirable, that they were woefully mismanaged by getting involved in withering occupations rather just than punishing raids with the message that there will be further raids if misconduct is repeated.

That about sums it up.

Apart from the farce that various elements in the West are wringing their hands about how poorly we treat Syrian etc refugees while no Western government which is accepting refugees makes the clear and accurate statement that the countries which have the cultural, religious and regional obligation to be the hosts to these refugees (Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, etc) refuse to accept them. And acts on that refusal and forces these primitive religious states to perform their duties as members of the United Nations and, separately, in accordance with the benign and benevolent form of Islam which we are continually assured by various prominent Muslims in the West is the true nature of Islam.

All of this demonstrates the gulf (no pun intended) between the commitment of the West to human rights and the pretty much complete absence of that commitment in the Middle East to their co-religionist (i.e. Muslim, as distinct from Sunni /Shia factional hatreds) Arabs.

Meanwhile the refugees generally don’t want to go to the countries which are their closest religious and ethnic mates, which merely confirms that the likes of Saudi Arabia should be treated as international pariahs.

Without oil, they would be, on about the same level as North Korea, and justifiably so if the West extended its commitment to various principles of human rights to the corrupt Saudis etc.


You are playing with fire.

The man has superhuman powers, and you really don’t want to make yourself a target for him.


I agree entirely.

Some of the reasons why that won’t happen are in my posts above, and in Nick’s comments on the duplicitous, double-dealing, untrustworthy, religiously aligned states in the region.

So we’ll just sit here in our cosy Western nations dealing with what are essentially quite trivial ‘terrorist’ attacks (don’t know about your country, but down here we have a better chance of being killed by a bee, snake, shark and, for women and some children, a vastly better chance of being hurt or killed by a partner or parent) while the poor bastards in places subject to ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban etc are subjected to wide scale abuses of every appalling kind, from rape to enslavement to murder.

This is upsetting only to those of who are not politicians obsessed with national interest but just ordinary people outraged by the inhumanity which our national politicians allow to exist.




AARGH ! Der Fuhrer’s Face ! Seriously, the Russians have been playing aerial tag all around western Europe since Cold War II began to chill. The RAF seems to get most of its practice these days shadowing Russian incursions and near-incursions, a practice made dangerous for civilian aircraft, since Ivan has taken to switching off their identification beacons. The RAF, with the benefit of full military radar, may be able to see them, but not Your Captain on your flight to Manchester …

It is not clear that the Turkish shooting-down fits entirely into the pattern. The Soviet fighter-bomber appears to have committed a minimal intrusion into Turkey’s airspace. Whether this was a case of “tag”, a genuine mistake, or even a misjudged attempt to take a short-cut, is not at the moment clear. The reaction of the Turks - setting two F-16s on the Russkie and actually shooting him down - is alarming. If the RAF and other NATO air forces in Europe reacted in this way to similar levels of intrusion, we would have all-out aerial warfare - or much worse - over Europe by this stage. It seems to me that the Turks have been gunning for this. I suppose their nervousness is understandable, given that the Russians are actively involved in a multi-faceted war right on Turkey’s doorstep, and that Russian aircraft are targeting groups within Syria that are supported by Turkey. That having been said, in the present chilly climate, NATO aircraft shooting down Russians is, seriously, Not a Good Idea and is, indeed, very dangerous.

It is perhaps too much to expect, but I am sure that the Turkish leadership and military commanders are old enough to remember Cold War I. Much more of this, and things could get very sticky indeed. This is yet another consequence of the failure to sort out the Syrian disaster, and of “world leaders” to adopt responsible policies and co-operate to achieve this outcome. They prefer to go on playing the old, dangerous game “Geopolitics”. “World leaders” ? Jesus Wept … Yours from the Mineshaft Gap, JR.


Islam has been fighting itself for a long time. The split between Sunni and Shia was evident in the Iran-Iraq war.

Someone with lots of oil dollars woke up to the fact that if the west could be prodded into action, (9/11), Islam would be united under an anti-wastern banner, rather than permanently split along factional lines.

Our best reponse at this stage is to recognize the country.
Negotiate to find out exactly what they want. It will force them to codify it and put it down on paper for the very first time. Naturally, their demands are going to be unsustainable, which will give us the pretext we need to launch a full scale, multinational invasion.

The rest is straitforward. all the suicide bombers in the world won’t be able to escape the fact that their military capaility is laughable.

Game over.

Don’t see this as anything but an attempt to distract attention from the age old split that Islam has been fighting over before Europe was a political entity.

:(The problem about negotiating with Islamic State is … that they don’t negotiate. Anybody coming close enough to negotiate with them face-to-face tends, in the most literal sense, to lose their head. It is not surprising that outsiders find it difficult to come to terms with Islamic State. It has territory, yes. However, it appears to rule this territory on the basis of a partial, archaic understanding of Sha’ria. It has even fewer instruments for conducting foreign relations than the early Arab/Muslim states of the 7th century. Or, indeed, of any states of the 7th century. Furthermore, while it controls territory, it does not recognize the traditional model of a “nation state” linked to territory, at all. In fact, when its critics describe as “Fascist”, they might be more accurate to describe it as “Nazi”. Like Nazi Germany, ISIS has no respect for territorial divisions. Nazi Germany recognized a “Reich” composed of members of the supposed “racial community” of German and “Germanic” people (whether the latter were enthusiastic about the prospect or not). Islamic State, similarly, recognizes a “Community of the Faithful”, unlimited by territorial considerations, defined by adherence to Sunni Islam (whether the non-Islamic are enthusiastic about this prospect or not). This sort of thinking justifies any amount of brutality, any amount of aggression (including by means of terrorist activities outside the territory controlled by IS), and has no regard whatsoever of what most of the world regards as “human rights”, even at the basic level recognized by repressive dictatorships.

Make no mistake - this aberration of Islam is a serious, implacable threat to the present world order, however imperfect this might be. It might have made some sense in the context of 7th century Arabia - a society of cultivators (Arabia was a lot more cultivable at that time, on the cusp of climate change). In the modern world, it is a cancer that needs to be zapped out. Most Muslims would agree with that. But how ? Yours from the Prophet’s cattery, JR.

Nor do they want anything from anybody who isn’t them except to exterminate or enslave those they hate.

Contrast, say, Palestinian terrorism in the 1970s which involved demands for something or we’ll blow up the plane with, say 9/11 which was not related to demands for anything, just destruction for the sake of destruction.

It is pointless even considering negotiating with people like this.

It is kill or be killed.

Sure, that upsets Western ideas of being nice and reasonable to people, but these bastards aren’t nice or reasonable people. If we don’t kill them, they’ll kill us. It’s that simple.


I’m not sure about that.

Most Muslims living in the West, perhaps.

Most Muslims in Pakistan, and certainly the parts of Pakistan which foster the Taliban, highly unlikely.

Most Muslims in Saudi Arabia, which is the source of Sunni jihadism around the globe, no way.

You might as well ask me how I can control paedophile Catholic priests and, worse, the bishops who protect them.

Not my problem.

I just want the bastards dealt with for what they’ve done, and to discourage them from doing it in future.

Same with jihadists.

I did read that Putin has inferred the possibility of a nuclear response against ISIS, maybe just to rattle them a bit, but given Putin’s behavior of the last couple years, anything is possible.