BS: Caliphate

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: bobad
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 08:00 AM

Turks are facilitating Turkish Peshmerga to cross border into Syria to fight IS.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 05:18 AM

US have airdropped weapons and stores to Kurds in Kobane, barely outside Turkish border.
Turks had refused to supply them because they regard them as terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Oct 14 - 03:14 AM

Guest Rahere, articles 5 & 6 were most certainly invoked in the wake of the attacks on the USA on the 11th September 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 14 - 11:37 AM

IS continues to make gains despite coalition air strikes.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 04:53 AM

...with dear old Shaw as his toadying arslikkun assistant

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 04:51 AM

Of what possible concern can it be to the officious Musket which tv channels my wife & I opt to view in our leisure times. Really is an old-womanly little bizziboddy, innit!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 09 Oct 14 - 03:59 AM

Watching the NATO Turkish News Conference, there is only one thing which is clear, that the removal of Assad remains on the table, and that Turkey will do nothing to promote it, not least because of the cost. The NATO SG maintains support for Turkey's defence, preferring to seek to reinforce Iraq's military, which IMHO is another way of saying he'll do nothing effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 07:50 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:40 AM

Serves you right for watching ITV

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:32 AM

Teribus
I was part of a very small team entrusted with Western Europe's Article 5 commitment for ten years 2001-2011, and as a senior officer in a larger team for 8 years before that, 1993-2001: my late spouse was central to that team for five years before that. Article 5 is not meant to be a hair-trigger in the way you describe, but as a bottom-line buck-stops-here defence of the survival of a nation.
If it were invoked in the way you describe, it would be devalued. Politics and international relations requires a certain robustness, and during the Cold War, the Eastern Block was forever perpetrating minor incursions along the Iron Curtain border. These were on the same scale as may be envisaged from IS, and so i see no reason whatsoever for the Article to be invoked, not least because IS is amorphous and cannot therefore be treated with.
The existing provisions for response to terrorism are entirely adequate for any measures needed. The bombing is not undertaken in the Article 5 framework, for example, and it moreover demonstrates the Russian position on Syria is not as you describe: they have changed radically over the last month, as they are likely to be on the receiving end of whichever body wins in the IS vs Kurds battle, and so the vetos flung around with wild abandon in the UNSC a year ago are now strangely absent. Kurdistan also includes a chunk of Southern Russia, and IS aligning with the Chechens is an even worse nightmare to them, as they might suck in the rest of Muslim Central Asia.
Russia's support for Syria was never altruistic, as I've described here previously, but in defence of an interest in the Med ports. However, Syria no longer controls them, IS have cut them off from Damascus, and so Russia is less interested in Assad, whose past human rights record comes home to roost. Had Assad not provoked civil war, none of what has followed would have happened, and Russia will also ask him for its price.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 04:29 AM

In response to GUEST - Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:23 PM

"1. Turkey at the moment is defacto allied with ISxx, as they are knocking the stuffing out of the Kurds. The Turkish Government has nothing to fear from reproaches that they did nothing, as all they have to say is "we took in millions of you as refugees", and yet at the same time they are able to divide and conquer a possible problem."

Ehmmm NO – Turkey is at present dealing simultaneously with the following:
(a) - A massive humanitarian refugee crisis
(b) – Understandable civic unrest by a large minority ethnic group within its borders, the military wing of which is itself an acknowledged terrorist group proscribed by both the Turkish Government and by the USA.
(c) – Trying to seal a 900 kilometre long border with a country that is in a self-destructive downward spiral.
(d) – Turkey MUST tread very carefully with regard to Syria as the current regime in Syria is closely allied to Russia and Turkey is a member of NATO (Something that you appear to have completely failed to mention)

(THAT factor Steve Shaw is where the WW3 might come into things – NOTHING to do with Jordan)

The Kurds in Turkey, the Kurds in Iraq, the Kurds in Iran and the Kurds in Syria are of no concern at all to the Turkish Government – all three Kurdish groups are actively seeking political dialogue as the means to achieving their goals not as a united Kurdish Nation but as identities within their present countries (In the summer of 2012 President Bashar Al-Assad ceded control of the Kurdish area of Syria including several Kurdish cities to the PYD {Syrian affiliate of the PKK}).



"2. That may seem shortsighted from a Western point of view. But at the same time, it is our self-interest which paints it that way, Turkey asked long enough to join the EU and was consistently told that they need to resolve their human rights policies such as this, and so no longer feels it owes Europe anything."

Turkey as a NATO member can render humanitarian assistance and support – what it cannot do under any circumstances as a country is intervene unilaterally directly in Syria. If on the other hand they can provoke an IS attack on Turkish troops or on Syrian refugees on Turkish soil then IS falls into the NATO treaty Article 5 & Article 6 trap where an attack on one is an attack on all – the precedent is Al-Qaeda and 9/11.
Turkey can provoke this attack by providing support for the Kurds and it could use the situation to its advantage in negotiations with the PKK Leadership. The second the first IS shell lands on Turkish soil the game changes – The US/NATO/Turkey tell Assad in Syria to attack IS and tell Russia either to assist Assad in that attack or keep completely out of the picture. Up until now no real tactical air weapon capable of taking on troops deployed for an attack has been used – once Turkey has been attacked then A-10s and Helicopter Gunships can loiter and hunt out individual IS units.

"3. IS, having secured its rear, may either continue to milk Iraq, or more likely turn right into Jordan and Israel. King Abdulla's alignment with the UK from his Sandhurst days must make him an appealing target."
I would dearly like to know precisely what it is that IS "controls" in either Syria (A broken totally dysfunctional state) or Iraq (A fractured state in the process of reconstruction). There is absolutely no border, or territory for that matter that IS can "secure" as you call it. It is only a matter of time, the "boots-on-the-ground" have to be Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian boots on the ground and they will take time to raise (particularly inside Syria) Oh and by the way what would make Jordan an appealing target "Guest" has got S.F.A. to do with " King Abdulla's alignment with the UK from his Sandhurst days" but might have a lot to do with:

(a) Robbing their "Anti-Assad" moderate opponents in Syria of attractive and potential training and support bases from which the FSA could attack IS in either Anbar Province in Iraq, or in central Syria.
(b) They might possibly tempt the Israelis into acting due to their presence and thereby enhance their appeal in the "Muslim World"
(c) Obtain for their Caliphate their first free access to a seaport (Aqaba)
(d) They would find themselves parked along the borders of the richest prize of all in the region – The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

"4. If it does continue through Iraq, it's next step will be into the Gulf, to increase its grip on fuel supplies. However, it is still small, and relies on mobility: towns tie their forces down, and make them vulnerable to attack. At the moment, the air forces are based too far away to respond tactically. However, if IS were to attack Turkey seriously (by which I mean the heartland, the Turks will be only too happy to see the refugee camps cleaned out - yes, that's genocide, but they won't be the ones perpetrating it), then IS might find they get bogged in."

They will not "continue through Iraq" as you put it, they have reached their "high water mark" there, from where they are now it is Shia all the way, and they will fight, in Iraq today it has been the Shia and the Kurds that have stopped them and it will be the Iraqi Shia, Iraqi Sunni and the Iraqi Kurds that will forcibly drive IS out of Iraq.
As stated above – If IS attack anyone on Turkish soil it will NATO that comes after them and unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan, IS have no "Pakistan" to run to and hide in in the region. The spin-off will be that NATO will effectively control the airspace over northern, central and eastern Syria and that will allow the moderate FSA further space to train, equip and attack Assad.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:38 AM

"you do not go for the jugulars in quite the same way of your pro-Israeli allies who post here about Israel. Don't be so uncomfortably sensitive is my advice."
.,,.

You were not being quite fair here, Steve. The pro-Israel posters on here have been responding to drift-style hostile posts aimed at Israel; none of them has been the original hijacker of this thread to introduce Israel irrelevantly [or at best marginally] into the argument. e

Guest's excellent analysis above should get the thread back on track. Why don't we all just keep Israel out of it.

≈M≈

As to your truculent opening about how you will post about what you please, and no-one shall stop you --

I am sure you will like to know that our cat Cleo has stopped covering our patio with murdered mice & birds, as we did not appear to her to treat her gifts with the delight she had clearly expected.

And we had roast duck portions for our Sunday lunch this week, instead of a joint.

And I didn't think "Grantchester' on ITV was much cop.

And.........................

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:39 PM

Well I'm not over the moon about any of your thoughts to be honest, even though you seem to have your finger on the pulse a bit more than most of us. :-) I'm no fan of Erdogan but I can't for one minute think that Turkey could ever be in league with ISIS in a million years. They are just as worried as we are about getting boots-on-the-ground involved. It seems to me that we have only two options. Either we go in with our armies on the ground, big-time, or we assist the Syrian army to resist ISIS, again big-time. Unless you have a better idea. Discuss. I could agree with you about the threat to Jordan. Now that could be WW3. We have a battle on our hands but I'm not quite the Mr Apocalypse that you are. Not yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:23 PM

Let's focus back on the question, therefore.
1. Turkey at the moment is defacto allied with ISxx, as they are knocking the stuffing out of the Kurds. The Turkish Government has nothing to fear from reproaches that they did nothing, as all they have to say is "we took in millions of you as refugees", and yet at the same time they are able to divide and conquer a possible problem.
2. That may seem shortsighted from a Western point of view. But at the same time, it is our self-interest which paints it that way, Turkey asked long enough to join the EU and was consistently told that they need to resolve their human rights policies such as this, and so no longer feels it owes Europe anything.
3. IS, having secured its rear, may either continue to milk Iraq, or more likely turn right into Jordan and Israel. King Abdulla's alignment with the UK from his Sandhurst days must make him an appealing target.
4. If it does continue through Iraq, it's next step will be into the Gulf, to increase its grip on fuel supplies. However, it is still small, and relies on mobility: towns tie their forces down, and make them vulnerable to attack. At the moment, the air forces are based too far away to respond tactically. However, if IS were to attack Turkey seriously (by which I mean the heartland, the Turks will be only too happy to see the refugee camps cleaned out - yes, that's genocide, but they won't be the ones perpetrating it), then IS might find they get bogged in.
5. In dealing with the Gulf, they deal with their brethren the Gulf Salafi, who are not the most genteel rulers. In this, they have to hold their heads high with a reputation for brutality, as they are dealing with the likes of Nasr al Khalifa, who's just made the headlines for butchery. I had the somewhat interesting pleasure of the Prince's hospitality ealier this year, as he needed my advice on something, and in prson he is both highly cultured when it pleases him and utterly lethal, very much the Medici Prince. Thankfully I did not have the duty of telling him where he got off, as he threw his toys out of the pram: he is now wondering exactly who he was talking to as he never expected to have an International Arrest Warrant against him. But never for a moment in dealing with these think that they have any interest other than their own as leaders of their tribe. Their money maskes them capricious at best, and homicidal at worst: and it is very likely that the idea of a viable Califate will pleaase them. However, it will also cause serious behind-the-scenes infighting as they will all see themselves as Calif and will NOT appreciate the power behind the throne being quite so apostate as IS.

One aspect the West needs to think about, and quickly, is that if it does not do something quickly to build the Kurds, then Turkey will have to clean the house, leaving them with a hegemonic claim over Syria and Iraq. Are we really happy with that thought?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 07:56 PM

And you, Robo, are a master of selective IN-attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 07:19 PM

You are both, Steve and Greg F. masters of selective attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:54 PM

You are welcome to say what you want on Israel but this thread is not supposed to be about Israel,

Yeah, except the machinations of the Israeli government, aided, abetted, and supported by the U.S. of A., has a great deal to do with creating the situation that is now being faced in the middle east.

Do look up "blowback", Robo.

Or not- just keep your head buried in the sand.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:50 PM

Well, just about every thread I ever start on the interwebbie gets hijacked and I'm pretty cheerful about it. You do not get to tell me what I can post on what thread, thanks. My posts are nearly always reactions to what someone else has posted, as it happens. I note that you do not go for the jugulars in quite the same way of your pro-Israeli allies who post here about Israel. Don't be so uncomfortably sensitive is my advice. While you're at it, I note that, oddly, you wish to widen the discussion still further to North Korea, so may I take this opportunity of asking you in what way North Korea has been bellicose towards its neighbours recently? Everything I can think of is wrong with that silly regime except for bellicosity towards its neighbours. Unless, of course, you count a few damp squibs fired into the ocean and think that words can hurt as much as sticks and stones.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:25 PM

Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:41 PM Steve Shaw wrote:

They are under threat because they are the most bellicose nation on the planet.

Bothered to check out North Korea, lately. You've posted overblown attacks on Israel (in a thread not devoted to Israel), some outright falsehoods, and when you've been responded to point-by-point (at your own request) you've resorted to ad-hominem attack. You are welcome to say what you want on Israel but this thread is not supposed to be about Israel, there were two others going strong a couple weeks ago.

Back to the Caliphate:
Is there any information on tactical reasons why IS is so successful. I heard a snatch of radio play indicating that IS had tanks and artillery, which apparently the Kurds do not have.
I am wondering out loud why solid targets like tanks and artillery can't be destroyed from the air, and I'm wondering why the Kurds can't get hold of some of those readily transportable anti-tank weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:59 AM

Despite all the coalition air strikes, more ground is lost.
They have entered Kobane and it will soon be in their hands.
It is within easy range of the Turkish army on the border, but they have not intervened.
They did prevent Kurds from crossing the border to help Kobane.
Kurds accuse Turkey of colluding with IS against them.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:30 AM

So by criticising Israel you hate Israeli people? Yeah right.

No, wrong.
No country is above criticism, least of all Israel.
All countries should be criticised.

I was commenting on people who ONLY criticise Israel while ignoring greater and worse misdeeds all around it.
Who even ignore the medieval barbaric evil of the Caliphate and just use it as another platform to attack Israel.

They always and only attack Israel, even on a thread dedicated to discussion of the most evil entity on Earth by a long way, and about which they have almost nothing to say.

Sorry, but it does suggest an irrational dislike of that country or its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:32 AM

It's the mental leaps that make debate here infantile.

So by criticising Israel you hate Israeli people? Yeah right. Perhaps the difference between you and I might just be that I do visit Israel, not as often as I used to but I do. I have friends there, good friends with views ranging from disgust at their government to quoting scripture regarding land grabs.

No I don't hate. Unlike you, I seem to have the ability to be objective. Perhaps, judging by the posts of some on here, if stems from a perspective of better understanding.

Mind you, even if I were as thick as some here, I would still have the advantage of agreement with most commentators.

Perhaps Keith would be happy if we ended each post with "and for balance here is a list of other countries whose foreign policy is suspect to say the least."

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 08:37 PM

Daesh. Pronounced kinda like Dash.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 06:28 PM

Taking a break from the hate agenda:

I was just watching the BBC 2 Genesis, commenting on Phil Collins' thinking about Steve Beco, when it struck me that in many ways, Alan Henning may become the kind of iconic image for the decade. A man of the streets, with more than a bit of baggage, but also doing something right - which got out of control.

Does the act of how he was killed mean that the reality of the ordinary man can or should be disassociated from his virtue, or is it part of it? He was killed because an icon, his British citizenship, was put in front of his humanity: he was held when his colleagues, of Arabic ethnicity, were freed, in many ways making him a victim of reverse racism: his colleagues don't see him that way, he was one of them and they were part of him. It makes this us-and-them rather nonsense, in fact.

In killing him, therefore, the ISxx put themselves up against humanity. They iconised someone to whom that icon did not apply, (one can see elements of Inquisition tactics there: People's Front of Judea, Judean People's Front, how right the Pythons were! The Judean Popular People's Front, the Campaign for a Free Galilee...) and so made a valid martyr icon. It's so tempting to do unto them...

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 12:04 PM

...or in other words, what do those who oppose the existence of Israel, on here, propose?
any suggestions?..or are you just blowing hard??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 09:48 AM

If you find Israeli aggression repugnant you therefore support ISIS.

Well, it IS strange that you always and only attack Israel, even on a thread dedicated to discussion of the most evil entity on Earth by a long way, and about which you have almost nothing to say.

Sorry, but it does suggest an irrational dislike of that country or its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: bobad
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 07:58 AM

"The world other than US politicians bankrolled by Israeli interests...."

Ah yes, the old shibboleth that Jews control the US through it's politicians and by extension run the world through their control of the banks, newspapers etc. Let me remind you again that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a proven hoax.......put it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 02:52 AM

Yeah yeah. If you find Israeli aggression repugnant you therefore support ISIS.

I don't find the post strange, after all it came from Goofus. It is those who try to convince us of their intelligence agreeing with it that I find odd.

The world other than US politicians bankrolled by Israeli interests find their attitude to neighbours to be the main cause of the backlash. It doesn't mean you have to be part of that defence of the indefensible. You can be objective if you really really try.

Unless we have found one of the lobby idiots who wander around Washington saying anything other than unconditional support for Israeli aggression is anti Semitic?

😱

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 02:05 AM

Steve -- what 'threats' do you perceive to have been uttered or implied; apart from "If you start on us, we will respond to whatever extent may be necessary to make you stop"? What "aggression towards neighbours" is occuring there?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 01:40 AM

Quite!

If you continually threaten, or more than threaten, your neighbours,.....

Israel does not.
It was invaded by five armies on the first day of its existence, and has only ever responded to attacks from outside.

What specific facts in Teribus' post do you not believe Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:09 PM

It's amazing, what people will post in lieu of an intelligent post, responding to an intelligent post.

OK, we got it, Steve, you don't like Israel, you don't like Jews, and you don't like intelligent posts. You prefer ISIS and anyone who wants to wiped Israel off the map..which also means you must like Sharia law, over Israel's democracy...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:41 PM

Oy vey. It may not have been successfully invaded but it has certainly been threatened. No excuse for their behavior, but one can't say they aren't under threat.

They are under threat because they are the most bellicose nation on the planet. They are not under threat because they are, as they wish to be defined, a nation of Jews. Let's not get suckered into buying into that victimhood thang. If you continually threaten, or more than threaten, your neighbours, you will feel threatened. One fine day the Jewish people of Israel will finally see that their successive regimes constantly put them, by their aggression towards neighbours, in harm's way.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:34 PM

Capital bloody aitch.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 03:44 PM

Well said, and concisely to the point!

Bloody Nora, Guffers, "concisely"? he's one of the most wordy and repetitive (and bigoted) people here! That what happens to one when one is probably Bibi's uncle (Keith's Bibi's other uncle. Possibly his great-great uncle. You're not one of Bibi's uncles because you don't understand anything about anything). Grab yerself a dictionary and investigate "concise", Mr Mad!

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 02:13 PM

Musket: "nice to see you have respect for UN after all,..."

Let's not get TOO far ahead of yourself !!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 01:44 PM

Rarely attended them. Although I once got the cane at one in front of the whole house.

nice to see you have respect for UN after all, even if it is only when responsible decisions and views happen by chanve to suit your weird outlook on life.

🌽

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:58 PM

BRAVO!! Teribus!!..Well said, and concisely to the point!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:55 AM

Well said, T.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:41 AM

General Assembly Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:04 AM

Tell me, does UN have credibility now because of the united stand on ISIS or do they have credibility when they have a pop at Israel?

Talk about hypocritical posts...

In the meantime, ISIS have won a battle. See the Conservative party conference for details. Wanting to curb more human rights over here, playing to the tune of terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 02:50 AM

OK then Mr.Shaw let us talk about Delusory shall we:

1: "Israel has never been invaded since its inception."

Israel declared itself independent on the 14th May 1948 (Its inception)
Arab Armies from Egypt; Jordan; Syria and Iraq invade Israel on the 15th May 1948
Result Arab armies defeated. Egypt and Jordan however occupy and annex parts of the former mandated territory of Palestine where they proceed to shut their fellow Arabs up in refugee camps - inconvenient truth that Mr.Shaw and like minded "useful fools" somehow completely manage to ignore {Pssst Mr.Shaw Jordan's intention during this first invasion was to take over the whole of the mandated territory of Palestine and drive the Jews into the sea - do some research and read up on the subject}

Between 1949 and 1956 Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon were used as bases from which the Fedayeen backed to the hilt by the governments of those countries raided and carried out attacks against Israel - Again Mr. Shaw simple matter of record if you would care to do the research.

In 1956 Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal closed both the canal and the Straits Tiran to Israeli shipping and vessels sailing to Israeli ports. This Mr.Shaw constitutes an act of war and Israel quite rightly responded to the threat. Egypt loses once again and in return for Gaza {Which it never had any right to in the first place} and the Sinai - Egypt agrees to freedom of navigation and demilitarisation of the Sinai Peninsula - This lasts of course only until 1967 when the Arabs once again break their promises and throw peace out the window again and threaten Israel with annihilation.

Six Day War Israel once again finds itself blockaded and threatened by the presence of five armies camped on it's borders. Israel mounts a pre-emptive attack and destroys the Air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. This time when they take territory that was originally part of the former mandated territory of Palestine they hold onto it. They also hold onto territory belonging to their enemies just as the Egyptians and Jordanians did in 1948. The Israelis will now trade land for peace. The Arab leaders meet in Khartoum at the end of August 1967 and jointly issue their decree "That there should be no recognition, no peace, and no negotiations with the State of Israel" - Tell me Steve can you give any examples of such unequivocal language being used by Israel?

The Yom Kippur of 1973 was started with a two pronged attack on Israel by Egyptian and Syrian Forces. After initial Arab successes the Israelis go over onto the offensive sweep the Syrians from the Golan Heights and threaten Damascus and clear the Egyptians from the Sinai and drive over onto the west bank of the Suez Canal encircling the Egyptian Third Army around Suez. The Syrians and Egyptians agree to a ceasefire

In 1979 Egypt signs a peace treaty with Israel (Guess what Steve? Egypt has not attacked Israel since and Israel has not attacked Egypt).

In 1994 Jordan signs a peace treaty with Israel and guess what Steve? Jordan has not attacked Israel and Israel has not attacked Jordan - See any sort of trend here?

2: "Yet Israel has invaded and/or annexed neighbouring territories on many occasions. Sinai. Negev villages. Gaza. All the best West Bank land. Lebanon. Golan Heights. Most of these incursions have had brutal consequences for thousands of innocent civilians."

After the 1973 Yom Kippur War Syria still holds out but Syria on its own will not attack Israel the Syrian Army is good at killing unarmed civilians but against trained armed forces they do not fare so well, they know that and the Israelis know that. So Syria contents itself doing Iran's bidding acting as host to Hamas and as a supply conduit to Hezbollah both armed and financed by Iran. Iraq used to be in this equation but they were removed from the scene in 2003.

Since that reality has become accepted Israel has been subjected to missile and rocket attacks from both Southern Lebanon and from Gaza and from bombing attacks mounted from inside the West Bank. Incursions into South Lebanon and into Gaza and the building of the wall have reduced the effects of those attacks but had there been no attacks no incursions would have been carried out and no wall would have been built.

Yes Steve it is great that you realise that when leaders opt for war then there are consequences - brutal consequences if you lose. I would have thought that those Arab leaders, after 66 years of losing, might at least try some other approach, but they appear to be on a very slow learning curve with predictably brutal consequences and results.

3: "Always with consequences for innocent civilians that have far outweighed any injury to Israeli civilians (the deliberate policy of successive Israeli regimes)."

Ehmmmmm Steve, it is the duty and responsibility of any sovereign government to defend its territory and defend and guarantee the safety and security of it's citizens. This is not an exercise in equivalence, there is no rule that states if I kill 100 of yours you are only allowed to kill 100 of mine - the rule is that if you chose war then the other side is fully entitled to defend itself as best as it sees fit to stop and prevent you from ever attacking again. If I were a leader and every time I provoked an attack "my side" lost 2,000 and my "enemies side" only lost 79, "my side" suffered extensive destruction of vital infrastructure while my enemy was unscathed, then I would change my game plan wouldn't you? Until of course you view the tragedy as a casual observer and you realise that the leaders representing the "Palestinians" and the backers of the likes of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah don't really give a flying F**K for the "Palestinians" - They never have, they never will.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 11:43 PM

Oy vey. It may not have been successfully invaded but it has certainly been threatened. No excuse for their behavior, but one can't say they aren't under threat.

Egypt's gonna get one too, just to use on you-know-who
So Israel's getting tense
Wants one in self-defense
The lord's our sheperd says the psalm
But just in case, we better get the bomb
Who's next...

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:11 PM

In Israel's case the country has been under threat of attack or under actual attack since it's independence was declared on the 14th May 1948.

Delusory. Israel has never been invaded since its inception. Yet Israel has invaded and/or annexed neighbouring territories on many occasions. Sinai. Negev villages. Gaza. All the best West Bank land. Lebanon. Golan Heights. Most of these incursions have had brutal consequences for thousands of innocent civilians. Let me rephrase your idiotic assertion: in Israel's neighbours' cases, they have been under attack, threat of attack, invasion, annexation or occupation since 1948. Always with consequences for innocent civilians that have far outweighed any injury to Israeli civilians (the deliberate policy of successive Israeli regimes).

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: bobad
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 02:27 PM

"I wonder why you people think it more important to attack Israel than discuss the subject of the thread!"

I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 11:28 AM

I wonder why you people think it more important to attack Israel than discuss the subject of the thread!
This is what UN said about IS today.

"GENEVA — The conflict in Iraq has killed and wounded at least 26,000 civilians this year, with the toll accelerating in recent weeks as Islamic State fighters sought to expand their control of parts of northern Iraq, the United Nations reported Thursday.

The casualty count includes 9,343 people killed from January to the end of September, the United Nations said in a joint report by its mission in Iraq and its human rights office in Geneva, which emphasized that the figures were "absolute minimums."

More than 5,500 deaths have occurred since the offensive by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, begun in June. Among the casualties were over 2,000 people slaughtered in mass executions and others killed in attacks that the United Nations said systematically targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. The extremists' offensive has involved ethnic cleansing, abductions, rape, and other physical and sexual violence against women and children, the United Nations' human rights monitors said.


"The array of violations and abuses perpetrated by ISIL and associated armed groups is staggering, and many of their acts may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity," Zeid Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein, the human rights chief, said in a statement

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:45 AM

Would you like some examples of non-defensive incursions into the sovereign state of Israel since 1948?
There are plenty of those.
Why do you never criticise them Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:42 AM

serial incursions ("defence" my arse!) into neighbouring sovereign territory,

Right Steve.
Give us an example of a non-defensive one since 1948.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 04:52 AM

Bluster Mr Shaw? I have provided hard facts that happen to be a matter of record. I notice that you do not dispute a single one - you were after all requested by me to do so where applicable.

If actions taken by an internationally recognised sovereign government in self-defence and actions taken in order to ensure the safety of its civilian population can be termed as "bad behaviour" then so many are guilty that the term becomes meaningless as they represent the norm.

In Israel's case the country has been under threat of attack or under actual attack since it's independence was declared on the 14th May 1948. Threaten any nation or any people with annihilation and generally that will be laughed off as a joke. Not so with the Jews and Israel primarily as down through history precisely that has been tried wherever they have settled ever since they were driven from their homeland. No joke to them, they take it deadly seriously - if you threaten Israel or attack Israel then you do so in the full realisation that retribution will follow as certainly as night follows day.

"the sort of stuff that would never be tolerated here" If here is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland then I have given you instances and detailed the circumstances under which such stuff has not only tolerated here but actively encouraged and supported by the vast majority of the population of the Kingdom.

As for a mug that has swallowed a line of complete and utter bullshit please contradict my assessment of the desire for a Two State Solution on the part of those representing the "Palestinians" - show me the borders of these two states as perceived by the "Palestinians".

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 06:30 PM

Nice load of bluster, Teribus, but it was all designed, as even the average thickie here (like me) could discern, to dishonestly divert from my question to you. What excuses do you have for Israel's bad behaviour, the sort of stuff that would never be tolerated here: pointless road blocks, land theft, serial incursions ("defence" my arse!) into neighbouring sovereign territory, the apartheid wall, the slaughter of innocent women and children, hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets left all over southern Lebanon to blow off the legs of kiddies (nice one!), the white phosphorus, the blockade, remote sniper fire killing children...? Which one of those would the UK get away with and still be able to call itself a democracy? Why can't you answer, please? Because you're a mug who buys fully into the self-assumed mantle of victimhood espoused by successive Israeli regimes? And don't give me that withdrawal-from-Gaza-with-conditions revisionist guff. You know damn well that that is not why Sharon, God rot him, decamped from Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 08:16 AM

I'd dearly love to know what water Israel took first Musket.

The aquifers that exist inside the old mandate of Palestine show that only the Coastal Aquifer lies inside Israel while the Northern, Western, Eastern and Mountain Aquifers all lie inside the West Bank.

Israel gets the bulk of its water from the Sea of Galilee and that is pumped via the Israeli National Water Carrier Pipeline throughout the country.

The solution to the regions water problems lie in financing the construction of infrastructure such as water treatment facilities and desalination plants. Water problems in the region as a whole result from poor management and the natural consequences of large numbers of people living in a semi-arid area - it is not because, or the result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Only thing is to provide water to the Palestinians involves giving them money with which to solve the problem. Give money to the Palestinians either in Gaza or in Ramallah and you can guarantee that not one brass razoo will be spent on improving the water supply - it will go into a Swiss Bank Account belonging to one of the "leaders" of the poor Palestinians.