Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Rad Prince)
    I didn't mean you, I saw you said you were Shia so it's pretty obvious they're not exactly going to be your favourite people, I just meant when non-Afghan Pashtuns (especially Pakistanis) constantly apologise for the Taliban, as if they were misunderstood good guys fighting against foreign oppressors rather than oppressive racists.
    I agree with you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    I know the US is helping them but how come the documentaries show them with weapons of the 1960's?
    Some parts of the Kurdish forces still have AK-47s, others have been provided with G3 rifles from the Germans (iirc about 50,000 G3 rifles have been shipped by now). We (the Brits) also provided the Kurds with quite a few M2 machine guns. The Kurds are now also receiving Milan and TOW guided missiles in significant numbers, which has been hugely successful in helping them to destroy ISIS suicide car bombs before they can reach the frontline.

    Unfortunately, many of the weapons we have sent are being held by the senior PUK clans in Erbil, like the Barzanis, for political reasons (they are creating stockpiles to strengthen themselves against their enemies in the Kurdish regional government). The weapons are making a difference, but it's slow. We are also making a significant difference

    Yes the US are bombing targets but has it been enough I wonder?
    The President has made a determination, and I agree with it, that sending in ground troops en masse simply will not be accepted by the American people. The level of intervention we have now enjoys broad support, including in the Arab world.

    At the moment, the US is carrying out about 20 airstrikes a day. This is the daily strike list published by Centcom on November 11th.

    Syria
    * Near Al Hasakah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) and an ISIL staging area.
    * Near Al Hawl, five strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed eight ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL building, and an ISIL VBIED.
    * Near Dayr Az Zawr, two strikes struck an ISIL gas oil separation plant and destroyed three ISIL front end loaders and damaged two ISIL cranes.
    * Near Mar'a, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
    * Near Palmyra, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL tactical vehicle and damaged a separate ISIL vehicle.

    Iraq
    * Near Kisik, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
    * Near Mosul, one strike destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
    * Near Ramadi, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL vehicles, an ISIL excavator, two ISIL heavy machine guns, two ISIL buildings, and an ISIL 23mm anti-aircraft artillery piece.
    * Near Sinjar, six strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed eight ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL command and control nodes, three ISIL vehicles, and 18 ISIL staging areas.
    * Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
    * Near Al Huwayjah, four strikes struck an ISIL headquarters, an ISIL weapons cache, an ISIL logistical facility, and an ISIL security headquarters.
    * Near Albu Hayat, one strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit, and destroyed two ISIL buildings, three ISIL weapons caches, and three ISIL fighting positions.

    Strike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely.
    Keep in mind, we (the West) have been doing the above every day for the last 15 months. Keep in mind where it says "one strike", that could involve multiple aircraft and bombs. To run about 20 airstrikes a day doesn't take 20 aircraft, it takes about 100 combat aircraft and another 50 air-to-air-refuellers, drones and wide area surveillance aircraft, etc. The US is spending $18 million a day on this intervention.

    On top of that, there will be literally thousands of analysts and targeters at the Pentagon, in the Defence Intelligence Agency, the CIA, the NSA, painstakingly listening to ISIL signals, watching every second of drone footage, looking at satellite images for bomb damage assessments and writing up reports on numbers of ISIL fighters estimated killed, publishing assessments on their financial position and oil production capacity. On top of that you will have the direct CIA covert support to the Kurds and special forces on the ground.

    And then many countries have their troops in Iraq training Kurdish and Iraqi forces in infantry tactics, teaching their officers how to lead, how to use their equipment most effectively, doing contact drills over and over again.

    That is pretty much everything you can do short of sending in conventional ground forces, which has been agreed by all concerned as not being the right approach. In any case, if we just come in and do it for them, then we could end up in the same place ten years down the road. By helping them in the way we are, we are creating the nucleus of a future, stable Iraqi state. From this war, tens of thousands of battle hardened veterans will be created. Not only will they constitute a future army that genuinely will be able to defend itself and its country, but these veterans once they return home will also start making political demands. They won't accept the old ways of corruption and incompetence, and I predict that several future leaders of Iraq is out there on the ground fighting right now.


    Also you must be aware by now that the US monetary arms funding is ending up in jihadist hands.
    No, it really isn't. I'm very widely read on this subject, that absolutely is not happening. It's a claim a lot of leftists are making, and you will see it on RT, but actually it's not happening either directly or indirectly.

    The US should be giving arms directly to the YPG/YPJ but PROBABLY, I would surmise that that is because of Turkey who is a huge military power that the US wants to keep on reasonable diplomatic terms with, and who hate and want to destroy Kurdistan.
    Actually, the US is supplying weapons directly to the YPG. The Turks are screaming about it

    http://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2...-northern-iraq

    It's also important to remember that the group Turkey hates is the PKK. Turkey has quite good relations with the PUK / KRG of Northern Iraq.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    Some parts of the Kurdish forces still have AK-47s, others have been provided with G3 rifles from the Germans (iirc about 50,000 G3 rifles have been shipped by now). We (the Brits) also provided the Kurds with quite a few M2 machine guns. The Kurds are now also receiving Milan and TOW guided missiles in significant numbers, which has been hugely successful in helping them to destroy ISIS suicide car bombs before they can reach the frontline.

    Unfortunately, many of the weapons we have sent are being held by the senior PUK clans in Erbil, like the Barzanis, for political reasons (they are creating stockpiles to strengthen themselves against their enemies in the Kurdish regional government). The weapons are making a difference, but it's slow. We are also making a significant difference



    The President has made a determination, and I agree with it, that sending in ground troops en masse simply will not be accepted by the American people. The level of intervention we have now enjoys broad support, including in the Arab world.

    At the moment, the US is carrying out about 20 airstrikes a day. This is the daily strike list published by Centcom on November 11th.

    [b]

    Keep in mind, we (the West) have been doing the above every day for the last 15 months. Keep in mind where it says "one strike", that could involve multiple aircraft and bombs. To run about 20 airstrikes a day doesn't take 20 aircraft, it takes about 100 combat aircraft and another 50 air-to-air-refuellers, drones and wide area surveillance aircraft, etc. The US is spending $18 million a day on this intervention.

    On top of that, there will be literally thousands of analysts and targeters at the Pentagon, in the Defence Intelligence Agency, the CIA, the NSA, painstakingly listening to ISIL signals, watching every second of drone footage, looking at satellite images for bomb damage assessments and writing up reports on numbers of ISIL fighters estimated killed, publishing assessments on their financial position and oil production capacity. On top of that you will have the direct CIA covert support to the Kurds and special forces on the ground.

    And then many countries have their troops in Iraq training Kurdish and Iraqi forces in infantry tactics, teaching their officers how to lead, how to use their equipment most effectively, doing contact drills over and over again.

    That is pretty much everything you can do short of sending in conventional ground forces, which has been agreed by all concerned as not being the right approach. In any case, if we just come in and do it for them, then we could end up in the same place ten years down the road. By helping them in the way we are, we are creating the nucleus of a future, stable Iraqi state. From this war, tens of thousands of battle hardened veterans will be created. Not only will they constitute a future army that genuinely will be able to defend itself and its country, but these veterans once they return home will also start making political demands. They won't accept the old ways of corruption and incompetence, and I predict that several future leaders of Iraq is out there on the ground fighting right now.




    No, it really isn't. I'm very widely read on this subject, that absolutely is not happening. It's a claim a lot of leftists are making, and you will see it on RT, but actually it's not happening either directly or indirectly.



    Actually, the US is supplying weapons directly to the YPG. The Turks are screaming about it

    http://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2...-northern-iraq

    It's also important to remember that the group Turkey hates is the PKK. Turkey has quite good relations with the PUK / KRG of Northern Iraq.
    Why does turkey hate the YPG when they're not necessarily affiliated with the PKK, which are designated as a terrorist organisation for atrocities they themselves have taken credit for? The YPG doesn't seem like that kind of group, although I've seen allegations of arab village pogroms in kurdish majority areas - though this may be the blowing out of proportion about how they turn ISIS sympathisers out of their homes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Why does turkey hate the YPG when they're not necessarily affiliated with the PKK, which are designated as a terrorist organisation for atrocities they themselves have taken credit for? The YPG doesn't seem like that kind of group, although I've seen allegations of arab village pogroms in kurdish majority areas - though this may be the blowing out of proportion about how they turn ISIS sympathisers out of their homes.
    I'd say there are two reasons. The Turks know that many fighters from the PKK have gone to Rojava, the YPG state, to fight and that also some American weapons provided to the YPG have flowed back to the PKK. The Turks fear that if Rojava becomes a permanent fixture on the border then the PKK may have a sanctuary from which they can launch attacks against the Turks.

    When you look at historical conflicts, insurgencies are always most successful when they have a sanctuary across the border from the country in which they are fighting. A couple of examples are the Vietcong sanctuary in Cambodia and Laos, and another was the Pakistan sanctuary for the Taliban. It means that if they are being pursued they can cross the border back into the safe haven, and use it to launch hit and run attacks.

    But I do think there is hope, in that the Kurds of Rojava have said they seek autonomy, not independence. The Kurds of Northern Iraq also have good relations with Turkey because the Turks know they aren't seeking independence or engaging in irridentism.

    I do think there's a more subtle consideration; I think there's a degree of chauvinism in Turkey's foreign policy in that they have supported, directly and indirectly, extremist groups in Syria because of their hatred of Assad, and that has been their primary mission. They see the Kurds as building up at the expense of groups they have supported and that makes them angry as they see the Kurds as being an irritant who should not stand in the way of Turkish foreign policy. But that is more speculation on my part

    For my part, I am a huge supporter of the Kurds but I don't support the PKK's actions. Before the recent election they launched an attack that killed several Turkish police officers. That really is so unnecessary, it is foreseeable that if the Kurds of Turkey focus on electoral politics through the HDP Party then they could genuinely make a difference and get some form of internal federal autonomy within Turkey
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Enlighten me on this support that Obama is currently giving Jihadists. Don't link me air drops that have fell off course into enemy hands, or the equipment given to the legitimate secular FSA a few years ago before it pretty much disbanded itself and lost. I need proof of deliberate support that has happened within the last month or year.
    Unwittingly Obama was funding "moderate" jihadist forces against Assad. Much of the funding has ended up in the ISIS coffers. The US are to be praised for their bombing missions on ISIS targets but by some accounts these bombing missions are often oddly targeted when they might cause ISIS more destruction elsewhere. The frequency of bombing compared to bombing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan is a very small percentage. Some US govt funding has, if I am not wrong, gone to the 'Free Syrian Army' which is more of a name than an actual army. It's reps appear in publicity driven European political meetings but it is really a bit of a phantom army. The US has had very little success in training them. Basically they can turn and slaughter the hand that feeds them, because they are Islamist fighting for Allah, not Syria.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    Some parts of the Kurdish forces still have AK-47s, others have been provided with G3 rifles from the Germans (iirc about 50,000 G3 rifles have been shipped by now). We (the Brits) also provided the Kurds with quite a few M2 machine guns. The Kurds are now also receiving Milan and TOW guided missiles in significant numbers, which has been hugely successful in helping them to destroy ISIS suicide car bombs before they can reach the frontline.

    Unfortunately, many of the weapons we have sent are being held by the senior PUK clans in Erbil, like the Barzanis, for political reasons (they are creating stockpiles to strengthen themselves against their enemies in the Kurdish regional government). The weapons are making a difference, but it's slow. We are also making a significant difference



    The President has made a determination, and I agree with it, that sending in ground troops en masse simply will not be accepted by the American people. The level of intervention we have now enjoys broad support, including in the Arab world.

    At the moment, the US is carrying out about 20 airstrikes a day. This is the daily strike list published by Centcom on November 11th.

    [b]

    Keep in mind, we (the West) have been doing the above every day for the last 15 months. Keep in mind where it says "one strike", that could involve multiple aircraft and bombs. To run about 20 airstrikes a day doesn't take 20 aircraft, it takes about 100 combat aircraft and another 50 air-to-air-refuellers, drones and wide area surveillance aircraft, etc. The US is spending $18 million a day on this intervention.

    On top of that, there will be literally thousands of analysts and targeters at the Pentagon, in the Defence Intelligence Agency, the CIA, the NSA, painstakingly listening to ISIL signals, watching every second of drone footage, looking at satellite images for bomb damage assessments and writing up reports on numbers of ISIL fighters estimated killed, publishing assessments on their financial position and oil production capacity. On top of that you will have the direct CIA covert support to the Kurds and special forces on the ground.

    And then many countries have their troops in Iraq training Kurdish and Iraqi forces in infantry tactics, teaching their officers how to lead, how to use their equipment most effectively, doing contact drills over and over again.

    That is pretty much everything you can do short of sending in conventional ground forces, which has been agreed by all concerned as not being the right approach. In any case, if we just come in and do it for them, then we could end up in the same place ten years down the road. By helping them in the way we are, we are creating the nucleus of a future, stable Iraqi state. From this war, tens of thousands of battle hardened veterans will be created. Not only will they constitute a future army that genuinely will be able to defend itself and its country, but these veterans once they return home will also start making political demands. They won't accept the old ways of corruption and incompetence, and I predict that several future leaders of Iraq is out there on the ground fighting right now.




    No, it really isn't. I'm very widely read on this subject, that absolutely is not happening. It's a claim a lot of leftists are making, and you will see it on RT, but actually it's not happening either directly or indirectly.



    Actually, the US is supplying weapons directly to the YPG. The Turks are screaming about it

    http://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2...-northern-iraq

    It's also important to remember that the group Turkey hates is the PKK. Turkey has quite good relations with the PUK / KRG of Northern Iraq.
    In this Chinese documentary (worth watching I think) about the YPG at about 11.30 in the video they look at the very old equipment they have to use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2WBwPXipqs Big Phil's War also highlighted this point. The Chinese documentary was only published about three days ago. Both Phil and the Chinese soldier/journalist were right there on the ground with them to see the weapons they are using. Glad to see that's changing though. I applaud the US for the good work they are doing to combat ISIS but I despair at the preoccupation with ousting Assad rather than focussing on ISIS. It seems to be changing for the better now. Thanks for your explanation. Very informative. I am just trying to piece the reality of what is going on, by the bits I read. I love anyone that wants to crush ISIS bullying rats!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHBKhan)
    Just going to interrupt and stress that ISIS is barely Islamic and they use Islam for their own political and financial gains.
    Don't bother replying with some 'Islam is a religuunnn of the evil zombi killa paedos' just reflect on what I said and so some extra research from real sources and preferably look into 'ISIS Khwarij' on Google.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In that case, the prophet Muhammad was "barely Islamic" too.

    Muhammad - led an insurgency of religious extremists, who raided, pillaged, conquered and enslaved, destroyed historic pagan artifacts and commited genocide against non-muslim peoples.

    ISIS - An insurgency of religious extremists, who raid, pillage, conquer and enslave, destroy historic pagan aritifacts and commit genocide against non-muslim peoples.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    In that case, the prophet Muhammad was "barely Islamic" too.

    Muhammad - led an insurgency of religious extremists, who raided, pillaged, conquered and enslaved, destroyed historic pagan artifacts and commited genocide against non-muslim peoples.

    ISIS - An insurgency of religious extremists, who raid, pillage, conquer and enslave, destroy historic pagan aritifacts and commit genocide against non-muslim peoples.
    There is more than one narrative, i.e. that one. Not everyone excepts every hadith in the six 'sahih' sunni books as gospel. Educated muslims, especially historians, have always expressed that those books contained narrations with varying authenticity.

    Ibn Is'haq for instance was considered a liar by one of the founders of the main sunni schools, Imam Malik, as well as others. Ibn Kathir is and was considered unreliable by many scholars, despite being treated as if authoritative by a substantial but by no means majority following.

    The non-safavid shia narrative is older than 1000 years and so cannot be called apologetic, containing none of the things you mentioned - except for raiding - a certain fleet of meccan caravans were permitted to be raided because they were on their way to the byzantine empire to sell the belongings stolen from the meccan muslims who'd had to flee the city for medina for fear of execution after the death of Abu Talib.

    Jumping on the historical opinion bandwagon of those who support, actively or tacitly, islamic extremism simply because those are the more publicised and emphasised narratives does not helpour current situation whatsoever.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Unwittingly Obama was funding "moderate" jihadist forces against Assad. Much of the funding has ended up in the ISIS coffers. The US are to be praised for their bombing missions on ISIS targets but by some accounts these bombing missions are often oddly targeted when they might cause ISIS more destruction elsewhere. The frequency of bombing compared to bombing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan is a very small percentage. Some US govt funding has, if I am not wrong, gone to the 'Free Syrian Army' which is more of a name than an actual army. It's reps appear in publicity driven European political meetings but it is really a bit of a phantom army. The US has had very little success in training them. Basically they can turn and slaughter the hand that feeds them, because they are Islamist fighting for Allah, not Syria.
    I think Obama did what he did intentionally, but didn't foresee the consequences, thinking of ISIS like a fire used to raze a field before extinguishing it so you don't ruin the field's quality.

    Well... There's a reason that practice is illegal in the uk now, lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    I think Obama did what he did intentionally, but didn't foresee the consequences, thinking of ISIS like a fire used to raze a field before extinguishing it so you don't ruin the field's quality.

    Well... There's a reason that practice is illegal in the uk now, lol
    Nice metaphor. Although incredible, it seems to me, that was the way the US government was playing it. A dangerous game, playing with fire.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    There is more than one narrative, i.e. that one. Not everyone excepts every hadith in the six 'sahih' sunni books as gospel. Educated muslims, especially historians, have always expressed that those books contained narrations with varying authenticity.

    Ibn Is'haq for instance was considered a liar by one of the founders of the main sunni schools, Imam Malik, as well as others. Ibn Kathir is and was considered unreliable by many scholars, despite being treated as if authoritative by a substantial but by no means majority following.
    It must be pure coincidence that you nevertheless accept the authenticity of the accounts that paint Mohammed and Islam in a good light, but find the ones that show them in a bad light to be unreliable then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It must be pure coincidence that you nevertheless accept the authenticity of the accounts that paint Mohammed and Islam in a good light, but find the ones that show them in a bad light to be unreliable then.
    I was an atheist when I started studying these things. I always labelled the positive accounts as modern apologist fabrication or cherry picking, but over time as I studied I realised that this was actually the original narrative.
    When you study history under the lens of historical analysis, the factors in reliability for individual source narrations has nothing to do with how you feel about the content.
    There are things I have read that I disagree with while accepting them as reliable history, such as those expressing the idea that open male homosexuality between muslims should result in them being dishonoured and ostracised - while this lacks the violent punishment of the later narratives, it still doesn't sit well with me.
    No, I wouldn't call my overall conclusions about Muhammad to be coincidence - if this was his true nature, I think anybody studying islamic history from all of its sources will come to the same conclusion. The problem is that westerners usually study islam through the lens of sunni interpretations for some reason, as if the majority is guaranteed to be correct. o.O
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.