The relationship between ISIS, Iraq and Syria

bianchimoon

I'm a wee bit confused!
Politicians in the main wanted to intervene militarily in Syria?
We supported the rebels in Syria against Assad?
Isis were/are part of the rebels?
Isis now move into Iraq and cause mayhem?
USA and iran possibly work together in Iraq to defeat Isis?
Question: if we had intervened in Syria as we did in Iraq would Isis have been part of the legitimate future of the new Syria? Then would Syria be in an even bigger mess than both it and Iraq are now?
Then would Politicians in the main want to intervene militarily in Syria?

pblakeney

Yes.

wishitwasallflat

Nothing to do with Tony anyway so that's alright then.

bianchimoon

wishitwasallflat wrote:

Nothing to do with Tony anyway so that's alright then.

somewhere near Darlo... Sedgefield possibly? is he yours?

Majestic 12

On another thread re this subject I have mentioned that on Radio an Iraqi exile stated that Saudi, Qatar and Turkey are funding ISIS. The whole region has gone to rat 5hit. The only reason Blair is chomping at the bit for western involvement is that he would no doubt benefit from another multi million pound windfall in 'consultancy fees' from the American companies that go in to reconstruct the mess, that they made.

bianchimoon

Majestic 12 wrote:

On another thread re this subject I have mentioned that on Radio an Iraqi exile stated that Saudi, Qatar and Turkey are funding ISIS. The whole region has gone to rat 5hit. The only reason Blair is chomping at the bit for western involvement is that he would no doubt benefit from another multi million pound windfall in 'consultancy fees' from the American companies that go in to reconstruct the mess, that they made.

I'm sure he is thinking about the money, but also could be he's thinking another disaster would take the heat off him and put it onto Cameron. Either way he's a disgrace to humanity and humility.

Majestic 12

bianchimoon wrote:

Majestic 12 wrote:

On another thread re this subject I have mentioned that on Radio an Iraqi exile stated that Saudi, Qatar and Turkey are funding ISIS. The whole region has gone to rat 5hit. The only reason Blair is chomping at the bit for western involvement is that he would no doubt benefit from another multi million pound windfall in 'consultancy fees' from the American companies that go in to reconstruct the mess, that they made.

I'm sure he is thinking about the money, but also could be he's thinking another disaster would take the heat off him and put it onto Cameron. Either way he's a disgrace to humanity and humility.

Whilst this shower of the proverbial of an administration have shown their true colours of looking out for themselves and their mates in the higher echelons of commerce. We quickly forget that the 'cloth cap wearing' socialists who wrecked this country were equally as guilty of feathering their nests and took us war in order to make themselves millions. Blair must have a bloody good security detail, the way he keeps popping up above the parapet it is surprising nobody has had a pot shot at him.

bianchimoon

he does appeal across the board tho, the neo-cons in the US love him, the Israelis love him, even the terrorists must?after all he's done more for their recruitment campaign than just about anyone

meagain

"We quickly forget that the 'cloth cap wearing' socialists who wrecked this country were equally as guilty of feathering their nests and took us war in order to make themselves millions."

Possibly you meant the ' after "wearing" to be one word to the right? Certainly there have been no socialists in any UK government for some 4 decades and no socialist government ever.

wishitwasallflat

bianchimoon wrote:

wishitwasallflat wrote:

Nothing to do with Tony anyway so that's alright then.

somewhere near Darlo... Sedgefield possibly? is he yours?

Fraid not Ive never had a cloth cap but I'm way too left for Tony and his new L crew! I though I had seen all the bollooks possible on here but for someone to suggest TB and new labour were/are socialists takes it to a new level.

Anonymous

"First Saddam was the baddie, so we got rid of him. Then Assad was the baddie and the people fighting him were the goodies. Now the goodies fighting Assad are now in Iraq and have become the baddies and Iran, who used to be a baddie, is now a goodie? But if Saddam was still alive he'd be fighting the baddies and would now be a goodie? "

bianchimoon

coriordan wrote:

"First Saddam was the baddie, so we got rid of him. Then Assad was the baddie and the people fighting him were the goodies. Now the goodies fighting Assad are now in Iraq and have become the baddies and Iran, who used to be a baddie, is now a goodie? But if Saddam was still alive he'd be fighting the baddies and would now be a goodie? "

Seems I was right to be confused!

markhewitt1978

bianchimoon wrote:

Politicians in the main wanted to intervene militarily in Syria?

I wouldn't say in the main, some of them did.

We supported the rebels in Syria against Assad?

We supported the Free Syrian Army against Assad.

Isis were/are part of the rebels?

Not originally. The revolution was started by the Free Syrian Army and it is they whom the west sought to assist, but then decided not to. However the meantime jihadists have joined the fight against Assad and now form a good proportion of the rebel force, the FSA don't like them any more than anyone else but they can't stop them.

Isis now move into Iraq and cause mayhem?
USA and iran possibly work together in Iraq to defeat Isis?

Could cause long term issues, what if Iran decided it would now rule the Shia parts of Iraq, including Baghdad?

Question: if we had intervened in Syria as we did in Iraq would Isis have been part of the legitimate future of the new Syria? Then would Syria be in an even bigger mess than both it and Iraq are now?
Then would Politicians in the main want to intervene militarily in Syria?

Possibly, but if the intervention was early it's possible ISIS would have not gained a foothold in the firstplace and the orignal rebels would now be forming the Syrian government.

drlodge

coriordan wrote:

"First Saddam was the baddie, so we got rid of him. Then Assad was the baddie and the people fighting him were the goodies. Now the goodies fighting Assad are now in Iraq and have become the baddies and Iran, who used to be a baddie, is now a goodie? But if Saddam was still alive he'd be fighting the baddies and would now be a goodie? "

Iif Saddam was still alive we wouldn't have this situation since either (a) the baddies would be too scared to do anything or (b) Saddam would have them shot.

bianchimoon

markhewitt1978 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Politicians in the main wanted to intervene militarily in Syria?

I wouldn't say in the main, some of them did.

We supported the rebels in Syria against Assad?

We supported the Free Syrian Army against Assad.

Isis were/are part of the rebels?

Not originally. The revolution was started by the Free Syrian Army and it is they whom the west sought to assist, but then decided not to. However the meantime jihadists have joined the fight against Assad and now form a good proportion of the rebel force, the FSA don't like them any more than anyone else but they can't stop them.

Isis now move into Iraq and cause mayhem?
USA and iran possibly work together in Iraq to defeat Isis?

Could cause long term issues, what if Iran decided it would now rule the Shia parts of Iraq, including Baghdad?

Question: if we had intervened in Syria as we did in Iraq would Isis have been part of the legitimate future of the new Syria? Then would Syria be in an even bigger mess than both it and Iraq are now?
Then would Politicians in the main want to intervene militarily in Syria?

Possibly, but if the intervention was early it's possible ISIS would have not gained a foothold in the firstplace and the orignal rebels would now be forming the Syrian government.

If it wasn't Syria, IsIs would have found somewhere else to ply their trade

markhewitt1978

bianchimoon wrote:

If it wasn't Syria, IsIs would have found somewhere else to ply their trade

Send them all off to Winterfell.

mamba80

bianchimoon wrote:

If it wasn't Syria, IsIs would have found somewhere else to ply their trade

Before the Iraq 2003 invasion, this part of the world was relatively stable (compared to what has followed), after the invasion and the disbandment of the Iraq army, turmoil has ruled, the US/UK forces left Iraq as they realised they couldnt maintain stability (just as they have in Afghanistan) without more troops and more money and more casualties - job not done!
then followed the "arab spring" Libya, chaos in Egypt, more chaos in Syria....

Re Syria - it turns out Russia & Assad were correct, the west sided with the rebels, limited arming, encouraging Saudi to do the same with direct supplies, Russia responds with more weapons to Assad, more fighter flow into Syria and look at what has happened...... had the rebellion been crushed and the west stopped interfering, there would have been far less fall out.

Now we have the uk government saying the greatest terrorist threat to the uk, is former rebel fighters (from both Iraq and Syria) returning to england, then spreading jihad on the streets....
what an earth are we doing letting them back in ffs ..... you could nt make this up!

well never know for sure what would have happened had Iraq not been invaded but in all honesty could it really be any worse?

markhewitt1978

Well; if Saddam hadn't gone we might well have seen an uprising in Iraq as part of the Arab Spring, so we may have had a Syria situation there too. Would it be worse than what we've already seen, probably not.

drlodge

What really riles me with all of this is that its all about religious intolerance, and not between different religions, but between different parts of the same religions. In Iraq we have sunni vs shia (both muslim), and in Northern Ireland we have Catholics vs Protestants (both Christian).

What is it with these religious nutters, fighting over something which may or may not exist? I think they're all part of the inhuman race.

bianchimoon

drlodge wrote:

What really riles me with all of this is that its all about religious intolerance, and not between different religions, but between different parts of the same religions. In Iraq we have sunni vs shia (both muslim), and in Northern Ireland we have Catholics vs Protestants (both Christian).

What is it with these religious nutters, fighting over something which may or may not exist? I think they're all part of the inhuman race.

When the so called 'leader' of the free world and his puppy were both on a 'christian' crusade, what chance is there for humanity

meagain

Ah but ...if I believed in pixies at the end of the garden I would quite rightly be judged well short of a full tool box whereas if I believed in ethereal supernatural beings in white gowns, eternal life, rising from the dead etc etc then I'd be considered sufficiently sane to rule millions of people.

Really is time that all religion was put to rest.

DesB3rd

well never know for sure what would have happened had Iraq not been invaded but in all honesty could it really be any worse?

Plenty worse: a failed Arab spring in Iraq degenerating into a Islamist-Baathist civil war which runs on well-armed & indefinite because the Saudis & Iran are pumping in money & guns to try & avoid Iraq becoming the other’s puppet.

That’s the beauty of the ME, you don’t have to diverge far from reality to get to a MUCH worse scenario – and western intervention is purely optional!

mamba80

ha ha how true!
hmmm we are heading in that direction already, US siding up with Iran...... Saudi supporting..... weapons pouring in from the US and the Saudis? they ll do what they need to do to avoid turmoil in their own country.

no invasion and would there even have been an Arab Spring?

Iraq will eventually be split into 3 states, how it gets there is anyone's guess but a look at European history gives us some clues.