ISIS strikes, any effect?

What he actually said was:

"Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

A pretty innocuous reference to 'family values' placed by a right-leaning politico attempting to appeal to the readership of a left-leaning newspaper. Remind Cameron of that during the election campaign, and it'll be an excellent chance for him to claim an interest in civic responsibility. Changing 'British Asian' to 'Muslim' in that context is reminiscent of the weak chain-letter sort of email/status that comes in capital letters with a link to cloned Cialis hidden within.

But then, one suspects you're not all that interested in accuracy on this score.





Interesting times at the moment, isn't it.
Jordan's King Abdullah was apparently once listed as 'the world's third most influential Muslim'.
Not a happy chappy at all is King Abdullah. His personal stock is high among many neighbouring nations to an extent he could conceivably be a catalyst for a stronger local coalition, and the local co-religionist co-regional response has to firm up, surely? At least if any permanent solution is ever to be found. One does wonder if the IS mentalists really have gone too far when even Al Quaeda (whatever that means) nervously condemns their actions.

A former diplomat friend says 'let Iran loose & look away, they'll sort IS'... I sometimes think he has a good point.

 

The sources I have seen did quote :with the MUSLIM way of life .They also said that he was telling this at a conference with the Muslims .

 

That's lovely. Smashing. Super. Great.
They weren't correct though, were they. The quote is from the article linked above.
I wonder why anyone would change that quote...


I read that his Maj. went to Sandhurst, served in BAOR, is an enthusiast for Harley Davidsons, understands special forces, loves Star Trek, and has a masters in the Arab Israeli wars, having studied at Oxford & Georgetown.
But as he's also a Muslim, I assume you'd dismiss that he and others might be part of a more nuanced and long term approach to sorting out IS's murderous barbarian cluster-F.
I think he'd look at you funny.

 

Some fella said something about Birmingham (England) the other day.
Same kind of source

 

You fail to grasp the situation,which was the following:

Libanon was an independent state,where the IDF had no jurisdiction .The IDF invaded Libanon because there were Palestinians,not Libanese,who attacked Israel from Libanon .OTOH,there was the Libanese government with a Falange president,who was murdered .As reaction to this murder,the Libanese government forces (the Falange )went to the Palestinian "fugitive " camps (= bases of terrorists who were attacking Israel,and where were living enemies of Israel,and murdered some 1000 (not 3500 as has been claimed) of them .

What was now the duty of the IDF? Very simple : to protect the lives of the Israelis,not to protect the lives of the Palestinians (=the enemy),besides, the Libanese Falange had the legal right to do what it wanted in Libanon .And the truth is that the result of Sabra and Shatilla was beneficial for Israel : for a long time,there were no more attacks against Israel from Libanon .

Besides, if Arabs were killing other Arabs,this was not the business of Israel .

Some years later,Saddam crushed a rebellion of the Kurds using poison gas,and,all those who wereblaming Israel for what happened in Libanon remained silent,which is proving that the attacks against Israel were only disguised antisemit attacks .

 

Can we not start all that old guff?
The old defence of any critique or query of Israel with 'oooh, you're being antisemitic!' is one of the most tiresome and regressive forms in any debate of international or Middle Eastern politics. A base re-purposing of PC nonsense to try and back up a point, usually by people who would decry PC nonsense in any other form.

Israel's a big boy. It stands on it's own two feet in a harsh part of the world and really shouldn't need to be protected with such a weak blanket defence. Some attacks on Israel are of course from a purely anti-jewish point of view, but the second you start claiming any and all attacks are so-formulated I think you begin losing any credibility in serious discussion.

Any grown-up would concede that Israel has behaved in 'occasionally questionable' ways over the years; it is after all the Middle East and the swings are as big as the roundabouts.
Now look at my c.nine years of commentary on the holocaust etc. here and accuse me of anti-semitism.

 

This is off-topic: the subject is : was the speech of Cameron pro Muslim and thus anti Jewish and anti- Israel,and the answer is : yes (for 200 %).About the words :British Asian way of life : the Title of the speech (as mentionned by the prp Muslim ) Guardian was : What I learnt from my stay with a MUSLIM family(not : an Asian family);thus,it is obvious that Asian means :Muslim .

Besides:this was not the only anti- Israel speech from Cameron :an other one was his speech in Ankara (july 27, 2010),which provoked the following reaction from the dovish Israeli president Peres":Some British lawmakers have turned to anti-Israel politics to appease Muslim constituents "

As in France, the political influence of the Muslim lobby is much greater than that of the Jews,and,as in France,in Britain,Israel has been abandoned .

Hollande and Cameron are both politicians : they have become president/PM using lies,and to remain in office,they will continue to lie ..

If one is using the only valuable criterion to judge their foreign policy,which is : abandon Israel AND the French and British Jews,the obvious conclusion is that they have failed :by abandoning Israel,France and Britain have not become the darling of the Muslims,but the contempt of the Muslims for Britain and France has become bigger :the Muslims have only respect for force and the willingnes to use force .

 

NO : the enemies of Israel are making NO difference between Israel and the Jews living outside Israel :the destruction of Israel is only the first step to the elimination of all Jews in the world,outside the ME,there are enough people willing to finish the work of Adolf .

Besides,why should the West be entitled to critisize Israel ?The ME is no longer a colony of Britain and France .What happens in the ME is no longer the buiness of Britain and France .

 

Woohoo. I love being told I'm off topic when the subject is anti IS air strikes, a Jordanian pilot is shot down and brutally murdered, and Jordan responds with... air strikes.
"Off topic!", the bleat of the stump poster who has someone disagree with him and then spends an afternoon bolting together an increasingly shrill denial of maybe making the tiniest mistake, combined with my personal favourite; semantic nit-picking word by word of a post or article.
And CAPITALS. Coloured CAPITALS no less. They always make something true, everyone knows that.

So Israel can do no wrong, ever. Because: the holocaust.
That's fantastic. Next time the UK does something worthy of wider approbation I shall use the Roman or Norman invasion as a defence. Don't you dare criticise my country - Julius Augustus Caesar once invaded us, the rotter. That's our get out clause for every F up.
The final point above seems to imply international politics and the effects of one region on another no longer exist, 'cos you say so. And yet, you can comment strongly negatively on the UK PM, while misquoting him? That's OK... apparently.
I'm setting Caesar on you.

I am as cynical as the next man about the current problems within Islam, and even that failure within the wider religion to really confront the problem with Islamism, and a commonly found relativist unwillingness to even slightly conflate the two, even though they are indeed intertwined. I don't want some clerofascist arse-hats telling me or anyone else what to do, at all, ever.
I do, however, try to resist the lazy and pretty weak bigotry you're enjoying banging on about. There are more things in heaven & earth than are found on shouty Facebook groups.




Egypt engaged in the aerial war now.
This becomes more intriguing. If we've learnt one thing from 'limited air campaigns' in the last two decades, it's that they very often flower into something more.
#6 in the local armies size rankings:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-in-the-middle-east-2014-8#no-6-egypt-11

 

Bravo....Adam old bean...Bravo!!

 

Why should Western Europe (and especially Britain) have the right to lecture Israel ?The colonial time is over .The less Western Europe is interfering in the ME,the better :the interventions in Libya,Syria and Egypt were disastrous.The interventions of the US were even worse .The liberals in Paris,London and Washington have created ISIS .Everything was going fairly well,til the liberals were thinking that liberalism and democracy should be imposed in the ME and that Israel should become the scape-goat.We have seen the results in Lybia,Syria,Iraq,Egypt,but that will not stop Hollande;Cameron and Obama to continue their suicidal policies,which is :hoping that if Israel will be throwed to the lions,magically will appear a moderate,liberal and democratic Islam :liberalism and democracy have no place in the ME and have no place where is living a Muslim .

Kipling (a wise man) knew it : West is West and East is East and never will both encounter each other.

And all the flatteries of Cameron to the Muslims in Britain (with as only aim to get their votes) will change nothing .

 

The other countries have no business with the way how Israel is behaving ,neither with the way how the US is behaving in Afghanistan,etc,etc

 

The article referenced expressed implied critisism for that not being acomplished. By the way your caveat is not applicable even if it was correct which it is not.

No, there are no such possibilities in practice. Sure we could insure peace in the Mid East by making it glow in the dark but that isn't going to happen so talking about it like it was at all reasonable is useless.

Some of the following has been addressed by others but I hope I'm providing at least a somewhat different slant on it.

And no one has suggested otherwise.

This is exactly wrong. Indeed brutality is often a sign of weakness. WWI ended with a brutal treaty that pretty much insured WW2.

Possibly but possibly not as well. The way you talk with such assurance of hypotheticals so ill defined speaks worlds.

True of some not of others.

On the contrary it is just such a war that it is most important.

Your assurance in hypotheticals that fit your beliefe system is amazing.

Or not. Mostly or not.

 

Lebanon yes was an independent state however as soon as you occupy any region of territory you assume direct responsibility for the policing of that territory. The Camps where the massacre took place was within territory controlled by Israel as thus making them responsible for the security of unarmed combatants.

The Job of the IDF is yes to protect Israel but also to police regions under it's control.

The death count has been claimed at 1,000 and also as high as 3,500. There is no accurate count of the casualties, So your claim bears no more weight then the 3,500 claim.

The Phalanges had no legal right, They operated within Israeli controlled territory, They claimed to have been going in to get out the 'terrorists' and yet 1,000+ men, woman and children were killed, To my knowledge not a single weapon was found on those 'terrorists'.


Simple matter of fact, Israel as the occupying power bore responsibility, Not only did they fail to intervene and stop it but they armed and provided night time illumination. If you honestly believe Israel has no fault then you have zero understanding of international law or even the semblance of a moral compass.

Had a portion of Israel been occupied, Then some Israeli Arabs gone and massacred some Israeli Jews, The occupying nation would have been held directly at fault and Im guessing you would have blamed them too, But no the civilians massacred were simple Muslims, Who cares right?

 

??? Absurd hypotheticals and absurd conclusions. This is relevant how?

How did you come to that warp conclusion? i.e. sources please.

I'd like to see where the numbers come from.

That's not what he said and it is removing what he said from it's context.

That is hardly correct. Especially neighbors and those closely involved with the parties have a direct interest in what happens and how (i.e. "buisness")

 

LJad, You seem to be dead set on the only way to win a war is by brute force.. Lets look at warfare in modern history..

WWI - Brute force, Brutal conditions set upon.. Led to WWII

WWII - Basic conditions put in place, Gave Germany and Japan fair treatment even after all that minorities had done - Led to peace with both till this day

Korean War - Brute force - Stalemate

Vietnam War - Brutal force, Heavy civilian casualties - the North won

etc etc etc The use of brutal indiscriminate force and harsh conditions does not have a place on the modern battle field. Want to bomb the Islamic State? Go for it but don't level entire towns to kill a couple. Killing a thousand civilians for a dozen members of ISIL is a sure way to push another 10,000 into there ranks. Get rid of the bombers, They are of no use, Use the A-10's, Not wiping entire towns off the map and far more accurate then any other weapons platform bar the C-130 Gunship variant.

 

Only marginally related but I remember hearing an interview with a reporter that talked to some Vietnamese who were in Iraq when the bombing campaign started. The Vietnamese were vetrans of the Vietnam war and based on that assued they were all going to die or at least most of them. They were shocked and surprised (pleasantly) by the differences.

I've also read numerous accounts of how at the individual level the inhabitants of Afghanistan in particular know, understand, and appreciate our respect for civilian life. It's one of the things (combined with the lack of the same by the Taliban) that has turned them against the jihadis.

 

What, this one? Which part did the israelis allegedly object to?
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-in-turkey

 

BS- it only means that to Guardian readers who spend their lives looking for things to take offence at. That's why the rest of us laugh at them.

 

This is not correct,because it assumes that the air attacks of 2015 are more accurate than those of the past,which is wrong :Egypt attacked camps of ISIS and claimed 50 ISIS killed :how would Egypt know ? It is even not provable that these camps were hit .

There are only 2 ways to eliminate ISIS : 200000 boots on the ground or WWII bombardments :all this talking of precision air attacks is only wishful-thinking that one can wage war without killing enemy civilians ,something very popular these days,where enemy civilians are presumed to be innocent :there are no innocent people on a battlefield .