Turn on thread page Beta

Turkey Condemns Russia for Fighting Islam in Syria, Calls on West to Accept ISIS watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RamocitoMorales)
    Your 'amazing' YPG have been accused of 'ethnic cleansing' by Amnesty International among other atrocities. :laugh:
    Source? And I'm looking for one specifically referring to ethnic cleaning, not for any lesser charge.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like the wests having fun at the expense of a backward ideology.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    The left wingers will welcome this and actively support it
    Yeah 100% because I'm a lefty I support terrorist groups yep you got me completely right
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Crimes are unlawful acts. The law specifically allows certain scenarios where you commit acts that would otherwise be unlawful. In those cases no they aren't crimes.

    It's no grey area. Terror bombing is definately a war crime. The grey area is whether or not it was necessary and for the greater good.
    I imagine the Kurds whole heartedly believe their 'war crime' measures, ie. forcing Arabs sympathetic to ISIS to foxtrot oscar out of their territory are necessary for the war effort and will help them win. Proportional to the danger the Kurds face, I can not manage to find one single **** I can give about these Arabs losing their homes.
    It wasn't necessarily terror bombing - some targets were for that reason, others were legitimate military and industrial target. It depends which bombing target you are referring too, hence the reason that its a grey area.

    I agree with the first bit. Which is precisely why they should be judged through the judicial system and made accountable - so such a judgement can be made. I've already mentioned this.

    I imagine the Kurds think the same. But that is not a defence until it is put forward in a court of law and backed with evidence so such a judgment can be made. Not caring about Arabs is irrelevant - the law applies.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)



    The YPG have been very effective over the course of the last year. The only faction in Syria that has consistently pushed back ISIS, including driving them out of large urban areas (e.g. Hassakeh), despite being lightly armed.
    I understand this. But that's more of a comment on the complete ineffectiveness of the Iraqi Army, Syrian Army and various other militias, than an observation of the Kurds being effective fighters. They are not. Leadership and management is very basic, their equipment is mostly obsolete, they have very limited tactical awareness and soldiering skills, communication between different units is very poor and their intelligence gathering largely consists of listening in on ISIS radios and looking on updated versions of google maps.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    I understand this. But that's more of a comment on the complete ineffectiveness of the Iraqi Army, Syrian Army and various other militias, than an observation of the Kurds being effective fighters. They are not. Leadership and management is very basic, their equipment is mostly obsolete, they have very limited tactical awareness and soldiering skills, communication between different units is very poor and their intelligence gathering largely consists of listening in on ISIS radios and looking on updated versions of google maps.
    The Iraqi army has much better equipment and has tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery in good numbers. Their results on the battlefield have been mixed - they've pushed ISIS back in places but lost ground in others. The lightly armed YPG have had consistent successes against ISIS. Both of them benefit from American air support. The YPG have their problems, but don't underestimate them.

    The problems the YPG has aren't unique to them - other Syrian rebel groups have problems with organisation, intelligence, etc. That's just because they're a militia rather than a proper army. You can't expect a militia to run a proper intelligence service like an actual army would.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The Iraqi army has much better equipment and has tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery in good numbers. Their results on the battlefield have been mixed - they've pushed ISIS back in places but lost ground in others. The lightly armed YPG have had consistent successes against ISIS. Both of them benefit from American air support. The YPG have their problems, but don't underestimate them.

    The problems the YPG has aren't unique to them - other Syrian rebel groups have problems with organisation, intelligence, etc. That's just because they're a militia rather than a proper army. You can't expect a militia to run a proper intelligence service like an actual army would.
    It's not an underestimation to realise that the Kurds aren't unique. ISIS is greatly outnumbered, fighting on about 4 different fronts, and yet still dominates a significant amount of territory. Both the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds have kicked ISIS out of their territory, and advanced a little into ISIS held territory, where they have now currently stopped and dug in - there is now a line of fortified compounds and trenches in northern Iraq and Syria. They haven't done the fight through, and they haven't exploited their initial success. The only thing that has been effective is the defence of their territory. If their objective is to defeat ISIS, then they have been relatively ineffective so far. If there objective is to defend their territory only, then I suppose you could say they've done an adequate job. But they are nothing special.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    It's not an underestimation to realise that the Kurds aren't unique. ISIS is greatly outnumbered, fighting on about 4 different fronts, and yet still dominates a significant amount of territory. Both the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds have kicked ISIS out of their territory, and advanced a little into ISIS held territory, where they have now currently stopped and dug in - there is now a line of fortified compounds and trenches in northern Iraq and Syria. They haven't done the fight through, and they haven't exploited their initial success. The only thing that has been effective is the defence of their territory. If there objective is to defeat ISIS, then they have been relatively ineffective so far.
    The main problem the Kurds have is sectarian - Sunni Arabs probably won't want to be ruled by Kurdish groups. So the Kurds won't advance far into Sunni Arab areas where they have little public support unless they have Arab allies fighting with them. That's probably the main problem limiting their expansion.

    The Iraqi Kurds are basically holding the line north of Mosul, and cutting/putting pressure on supply lines, until the Iraqi army gets its act together. The Syrian Kurds do have Arab allies, including some FSA groups. Those groups are fairly small though, and will need to grow if they want to push much further.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    It wasn't necessarily terror bombing - some targets were for that reason, others were legitimate military and industrial target. It depends which bombing target you are referring too, hence the reason that its a grey area.

    I agree with the first bit. Which is precisely why they should be judged through the judicial system and made accountable - so such a judgement can be made. I've already mentioned this.

    I imagine the Kurds think the same. But that is not a defence until it is put forward in a court of law and backed with evidence so such a judgment can be made. Not caring about Arabs is irrelevant - the law applies.
    Where is this grey area? Are you saying if you intersperse blatant crimes with a load of lawful actions then the crimes suddenly stop becoming crimes? The specific terror bombing raids were crimes, regardless of other bombing missions.

    Some might say you were being too rigid. It's all well and good to try and be a morally superior waterwalker but ultimately when it's literally a life and death situation a lot of people are a bit more pragmatic about things. The UK in WW2, besides terror bombing the **** out of Germany, instituted some totalitarian polices for the sake of national security that would have been unacceptable during peace time, but were accepted because, you know, WW2 and that.
    It's not about not caring about Arabs, it's weighing up the apparent crime to the gravity of the situation at hand. I'm certainly not going to preach to the Kurds from my nice safe comfortable position in Britain.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Write properly

    Bomb Turkey to oust Erdogan, he's another insane 'Islamic' dictator.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Where is this grey area? Are you saying if you intersperse blatant crimes with a load of lawful actions then the crimes suddenly stop becoming crimes? The specific terror bombing raids were crimes, regardless of other bombing missions.

    Some might say you were being too rigid. It's all well and good to try and be a morally superior waterwalker but ultimately when it's literally a life and death situation a lot of people are a bit more pragmatic about things. The UK in WW2, besides terror bombing the **** out of Germany, instituted some totalitarian polices for the sake of national security that would have been unacceptable during peace time, but were accepted because, you know, WW2 and that.
    It's not about not caring about Arabs, it's weighing up the apparent crime to the gravity of the situation at hand. I'm certainly not going to preach to the Kurds from my nice safe comfortable position in Britain.
    Bombing military facilities, or industrial areas that support military capabilities is not a war crime. Even if they are located in civilian areas.

    The law is the law, regardless of what you believe or agree with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Yeah 100% because I'm a lefty I support terrorist groups yep you got me completely right
    Finally someone who admits it. Have you actually been to one of Corbyn's or McDonnell's rallies yet where they stand in support of terrorists like hebzollah? You will be in familiar company
    Offline

    21
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Source? And I'm looking for one specifically referring to ethnic cleaning, not for any lesser charge.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/w...cle4584754.ece

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...ar-crimes.html

    http://ww4report.com/node/14372

    etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Bombing military facilities, or industrial areas that support military capabilities is not a war crime. Even if they are located in civilian areas.

    The law is the law, regardless of what you believe or agree with.
    They do however have to be targeted and proportionate. An indiscriminate mass air raid to pulverise an entire city for the sake of trying to destroying the industrial sector part of said city is not, legally speaking, okay.
    There were also many air raids that didn't even have strategic value, and were plain and simple terror bombing. Illegal but arguably justified.

    I'm not disputing what the law says, I'm arguing ethics. Regardless of what the law says, I would not in any way shape or form advocate charging Kurdish commanders with war crimes because they forcibly removed ISIS-sympathising Arabs from their homes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Could the world be any more screwed up?
    I mean, we have the Islamist President of Turkey winning his corrupt sham of an election by an unpredicted landslide.
    We have Turkey bombing Kurds and raiding Kurdish villages instead of fighting ISIS.
    We have Obama getting pally and doing deals with Erdogan.
    Instead of arming the Kurdish YPG and YPJ who are on the frontline against ISIS and in dire need of better arms and logistical support, the US funding is going everywhere but them and instead going to ISIS, Al Nusra, and the so called Islamist ‘Free Syrian Army’.
    Erdogan is pro ISIS and so is Obama actually because he is prepared to back Islamists as long as they are against Assad. Both Erdogan and Obama obviously are dodgy as hell.
    Meanwhile we have the amazing YPG and YPJ (it has to be said, those women are incredibly likeable, brave, and there seems such a genuine friendship, mutual respect and camaraderie among them). These Kurdish fighters with ISIS at their front and Turkey at their back, are the real heroes but they are not getting any support from Europe, Britain or the US? Utterly shameful!
    It’s all so upside down, so amoral.
    Aside from all the tawdry political self interest of the big players, I think something quite remarkable is happening in the ranks of the YPJ and I am surprised really, that many more young women with spirit and conscience aren’t flocking in droves to join their ranks and be part of something awesome and noble. It's about freedom, emancipation, friendship and unity for the common good. What great company to be in. So rare to find in todays topsy turvy world.
    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...o-accept-isis/
    Wanna get even more angry?
    http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-...rigins-of-isis
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    Finally someone who admits it. Have you actually been to one of Corbyn's or McDonnell's rallies yet where they stand in support of terrorists like hebzollah? You will be in familiar company
    Hezbollah are not terrorists. I am amazed at such accusations towards them still being made when they have hundreds of christian recruits this year, proving that they aren't islamo-fascists, and have never engaged in the deliberate killing of civilians, removing any possibility of the 'terrorist' label being placed upon them.
    I hope you know that the definition of terrorism constitutes, 'Violent acts or their threat towards civilians for the purpose of coercing a group (including governments, populations, and organisations) into conceding to demands.'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Hezbollah are not terrorists. I am amazed at such accusations towards them still being made when they have hundreds of christian recruits this year, proving that they aren't islamo-fascists, and have never engaged in the deliberate killing of civilians, removing any possibility of the 'terrorist' label being placed upon them.
    I hope you know that the definition of terrorism constitutes, 'Violent acts or their threat towards civilians for the purpose of coercing a group (including governments, populations, and organisations) into conceding to demands.'
    I hate to break it to you but hebzollah, Hamas, IS...the lot are all terror groups. Just because a country like Iran deems them not does not mean anything
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    I hate to break it to you but hebzollah, Hamas, IS...the lot are all terror groups. Just because a country like Iran deems them not does not mean anything
    It has nothing to do with Iran. I don't even like Iran in most aspects. Hezbollah isn't a terror group because it has never engaged in terrorism by the definition of the term. It is that simple. If you were gonna 'break' anything to me, you'd do so with points of evidence, and then citations, as well as something explaining how the citation is valid.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    Finally someone who admits it. Have you actually been to one of Corbyn's or McDonnell's rallies yet where they stand in support of terrorists like hebzollah? You will be in familiar company
    ...you do realise that was sarcasm, don't you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    It has nothing to do with Iran. I don't even like Iran in most aspects. Hezbollah isn't a terror group because it has never engaged in terrorism by the definition of the term. It is that simple. If you were gonna 'break' anything to me, you'd do so with points of evidence, and then citations, as well as something explaining how the citation is valid.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...rrorist_groups

    Hezbollah and its many wings are designated terror groups

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

    Hezbollah itself described with evidence as anti-Semite, anti-west,basically anti everything you expect from an Islamist group

    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1148

    Timeline of hebzollah terror attacks and violence


    http://archive.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/hezbollah.html
    The aims of hebzollah all fitting terror aims and Islamist aims



    Hebzollah even say themselves they want a caliphate comprising of Lebanon and Israel
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.