ISIS militias committing atrocities

KingBrian2

Saudi backed Sunnis are succeeding in fighting back the forces loyal to the Syrian government. As the Shia Sunni conflict continues to rage on in the east Mediterranean it looks like a bloodbath will come out of all this. When will the EU act on this? European countries have to get involved and call on the US to change their tactics by persuading them not to invest in Saudi Arabia and pull out of that country for supporting such Barbaric militias. When South Africa practised Apartheid the US stopped supporting the government and it quickly caved in. We should end our complicity in this tragic war.

Manach

Unfortunately given the multi-layer issues that are swirling around the conflict there are no easy solutions. The West would not have the will or public support to re-engage in the region and the economic balance would rather favour the Saudi regime in any tussle with the western powers: that is assuming any in-concert action can be assembled. It might be in the interests of near major powers such as China, India or Russia to pressurise various actors, but they are in also in no position to project beyond their regional base any permanent settlement. Only positive thing to do might be contribute to Churches, NGOs, UN charities that are aiding the dispossessed.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

When will the EU act on this?

It has though, to the limits of what it can do.

The EU recognises the 'National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces' as the legitimate government of Syria instead of the Assad regime.

European countries have to get involved and call on the US to change their tactics by persuading them not to invest in Saudi Arabia

That would be quite hypocritical seeing as EU nations supply more armaments to the KSA than the US does.

and pull out of that country for supporting such Barbaric militias.

Already done.

There are no US offensive military capabilities left in the KSA, they left some time ago for redeployment in Qatar.

Remaining capabilities involve a handfull of civilian military offices, a training mission & the
"64th Air Expeditionary Group", about 300 service prersonel involved in support services.

We should end our complicity in this tragic war.

The EU's complicity extends only to supporting a people trying to overthrow a dictator.... That's it.

I thought this was about ISIS, rather than another 'why the US is evil' thread? (The same US who are the only ones fighting ISIS btw).

Thread title change needed.

TommyKnocker

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I (The same US who are the only ones fighting ISIS btw).

And the same US who through their policy of arming "Moderate" factions have helped create IS, AQ etc.

BoJack Horseman

TommyKnocker wrote: »

And the same US who through their policy of arming "Moderate" factions have helped create IS, AQ etc.

The vast.... vast bulk of the arsenal of the FSA was/is Russian equipment, that was either captured, looted or purchased on the black market from corrupt Syrian forces.

In June 13, some small amounts of US supplied rifles & ATGMs started to trickle into Syria, but not much as the FSA territory wasnt contiguous which made logistics difficult.
Small arms shipments ceased in December 13 when a FSA depot fell to Islamic Front (an opponent of ISIS).

What has continued unabated throughout the 4 year civil war is Russian arms imports.

Accordingly the vast bulk of ISIS weaponry is Russian/Soviet in origin, again largely captured or purchased illicitly.

Looking at the ISIS arsenal & vehicles used, the limited no's of US weaponry & armour was captured by fleeing Iraqi soldiers.

As I said, the thread title is wrong, Tis just another 'bash America' thread.

WakeUp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It has though, to the limits of what it can do.

The EU recognises the 'National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces' as the legitimate government of Syria instead of the Assad regime.


That would be quite hypocritical seeing as EU nations supply more armaments to the KSA than the US does.


Already done.

There are no US offensive military capabilities left in the KSA, they left some time ago for redeployment in Qatar.

Remaining capabilities involve a handfull of civilian military offices, a training mission & the
"64th Air Expeditionary Group", about 300 service prersonel involved in support services.


The EU's complicity extends only to supporting a people trying to overthrow a dictator.... That's it.

I thought this was about ISIS, rather than another 'why the US is evil' thread? (The same US who are the only ones fighting ISIS btw).

Thread title change needed.

Im not sure thats accurate the US are not the only ones fighting ISIS. and right now theres a blame game going on between the US and Iraq as to who is responsible for losing Ramadi. the shadow has had a few choice words. I dont believe its up to the US to fight ISIS but to say they are the only ones fighting them well I dont think thats true myself.

Iraq and Iran pushed back Monday against U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter's criticisms over the fall of Ramadi to the militant group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), with an Iranian general going as far as saying America had "no will" to fight the extremists.

In Baghdad, a spokesman to Iraq's prime minister suggested Carter had "incorrect information," while Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds forces in Iran's Revolutionary Guard, offered his own assessment of American forces.

The war of words over the loss of Ramadi, amid other gains by ISIS in recent days, lay bare the fissures among countries that have become allies of convenience against the militants. And as Iraqi troops continue to flee their advance, governments across the world are questioning whether relying on Iraqi troops and militiamen on the ground alone will be enough to stop them.

The criticism began Sunday, when Carter told CNN's State of the Union news show that Iraqi forces "vastly outnumbered" ISIS, but still "showed no will to fight" and fled their advance on Ramadi.

In Iran, the daily newspaper Javan, which is seen as close to the Revolutionary Guard, quoted Soleimani as saying the U.S. didn't do a "damn thing" to stop the extremists' advance on Ramadi.

Mideast Iran Islamic State
The commander of Iran's Quds force, Qassem Soleimani, is seen in this March 2015 photo. The chief of an elite unit in Iran's Revolutionary Guard has accused the U.S. of having "no will" to stop ISIS. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via Associated Press)

"Does it mean anything else than being an accomplice in the plot?" he reportedly asked, later saying the U.S. showed "no will" in fighting ISIS.

Soleimani said Iran and its allies are the only forces that can deal with the threat.

"Today, there is nobody in confrontation with (the Islamic State group) except the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as nations who are next to Iran or supported by Iran," he said.

U.S. officials, including Carter, have said Iraqi forces fled ISIS advance on Ramadi without fighting back, leaving behind weapons and vehicles for the extremists. So far, the American approach to the conflict has been to launch airstrikes as part of an international coalition it leads, as well as equipping and training Iraqi forces.

Iran has offered advisers, including Soleimani, to direct Shia militias fighting against the extremists. Iran has said it does not have combat troops fighting in Iraq, though some Revolutionary Guard members have been killed there.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iraq-iran-critical-of-u-s-comments-after-fall-of-ramadi-to-isis-1.3085977

BoJack Horseman

WakeUp wrote: »

Im not sure thats accurate the US are not the only ones fighting ISIS.

No, I know that.
It was glib of me.

The coalition is numerous in name, but in terms of combat effectiveness, its only the US & perhaps Iran (vis-a-vis vehicles etc) who are stepping up in sufficient capacities to make a difference.

KingBrian2

Some misleading information from the start. First of all this is not an Anti American thread. I wanted to highlight Europe's disastrous policy of supporting America in its continuous partnership with the Gulf states. If people think that is anti Americanism then good luck to you and farewell. For those who see the real problem than I put it to you guys that Europe must side with the authorities in the region that actually are doing the best part of the fighting against the militias instead of cheerleading for the fighter pilots.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Europe must side with the authorities in the region that actually are doing the best part of the fighting

So you think Europe should switch its support to the Assad regime?

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So you think Europe should switch its support to the Assad regime?

We should never have recognised the Syrian National Coalition. I am not going to get into backing one regime over the other since various Muslim states have appalling human rights records. However the International Community as in European Capitals are very quick to recognise illegitimate rulers. The Republic of China (now Taiwan) instead of the People Republic of China. Kosovo. South Vietnam and post reconstruction Iraq. We condemn the Russians for backing the Ossetians yet we pick and chose which countries to validate like some sort of rating agency. Europe's imperial days are long over and I feel it is very necessary that we reposition ourselves as standing for a truly inclusive UN that recognised all states instead of trying to undermine governments.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Europe must side with the authorities in the region that actually are doing the best part of the fighting against the militias

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We should never have recognised the Syrian National Coalition.

So, its the Assad regime then.

Fine, it would have been easier to say that from the get-go.

I doubt the EU or its component nations will be in the mood to throw their (very modest) weight behind the Syrian dictatorship & I doubt Assad would care once Russia keeps shipping in the weapons.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So you think Europe should switch its support to the Assad regime?

I actually do. Assad was quite calm so long as you didn't threaten his position, and he didn't harbour delusions of grandeur (ISIS want a world caliphate). He is a spent force, and Iran's support for him is ebbing as they can't prop him up with thousands of troops while their economy is in the crapper and they are breaking ice with the US. Heck, even the Russians are starting to open up to the idea of Assad's removal from power as a pillar of a peace agreement.

I think Europe should provide him with non-lethal equipment and lessen or lift sanctions placed on Syria. If the EU can turn Assad into a European-ally (or at least drive a wedge between Syria and Russia), it could allow us an end to ISIS' brutality in a much quicker way, and it would provide us with leverage to stabilize and moderate Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

I'm aware that this is sort of a double-edged sword, however, so I believe we need small nudges to make sure he wins, but not outright arming. If we were to carry out airstrikes in Syria against ISIS, and promise we wouldn't target Kurdish or Syrian-State forces, I believe this could be a boon to the EU.

donaghs

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It has though, to the limits of what it can do.

The EU recognises the 'National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces' as the legitimate government of Syria instead of the Assad regime.


That would be quite hypocritical seeing as EU nations supply more armaments to the KSA than the US does.


Already done.

There are no US offensive military capabilities left in the KSA, they left some time ago for redeployment in Qatar.

Remaining capabilities involve a handfull of civilian military offices, a training mission & the
"64th Air Expeditionary Group", about 300 service prersonel involved in support services.


The EU's complicity extends only to supporting a people trying to overthrow a dictator.... That's it.

I thought this was about ISIS, rather than another 'why the US is evil' thread? (The same US who are the only ones fighting ISIS btw).

Thread title change needed.

I think if most Irish people posting here actually lived in Syria, they would choose the Assad regime over any other unknown future. The rise of ISIL and other crazies, and the failure of any western-backed "moderates" has bourne this out. Not a nice choice to have to make maybe, but real people living in Syria are in that situation.

I was listening to an RTE radio documentary about the Armenian Genocide recently. The lady narrating it had completed a cycling trip across Syria, similar to the one in this link
http://travellingtwo.com/resources/syria/the-desert-to-the-euphrates-damascus-to-deir-ez-zor-and-halabiayh

She spoke of a relatively peaceful, and compared with the Arabia penisula, a secular country. She finished her journey in Deir Zor, where many Armenians had been herded in 1915 from various parts of Turkey to waste away. There was an Amernian Church and monument there to the victims. The narrator noted that now, this journey is no longer possible due to ISIL who have also destroyed the church and the memorials.

People in the Europe can laugh at Assad's attempts at "reforms" http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704832704576114340735033236,
but they're still preferable to having factional groups supported by foreign countries destroying the country, and a flood of jihadists from around the world.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If we were to carry out airstrikes in Syria against ISIS, and promise we wouldn't target Kurdish or Syrian-State forces, I believe this could be a boon to the EU.

Folks, I think you need to understand that the EU is not a military alliance.

It cannot & will not go invading/bombing other nations willy-nilly

There is no "we" doing anything.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Folks, I think you need to understand that the EU is not a military alliance.

It cannot & will not go invading/bombing other nations willy-nilly

There is no "we" doing anything.

Correct, but that does not mean the EU can not deploy its European Battle Groups (they could utilize the Jas 39 or the F16s of the Nordic Battle Group) as a theatre force to provide for air strikes.

The EU can do more to help bring a speedy end to this war than just sit on its hands and hope the lesser of two evils prevail. The sale of non-lethal equipment, the lifting or lessening of sanctions, the sale of small arms, providing air support, providing economic assistance... There's a plethora of things the EU can do that would help in bringing this war to a close, with a more EU-friendly Assad in power.

omri

EU+rest of the world should invade the area controlled by IS and eradicate these beasts. There is no other way.

IrishTrajan

omri wrote: »

EU+rest of the world should invade the area controlled by IS and eradicate these beasts. There is no other way.

Absolutely not. Not a single European soldier should be deployed on the ground. There is sufficient force within the Kurds and Syrian Government to act as the ground troops. If Europeans are deployed, we'd become the target of every group there, much like the Americans were the target of Shia and Sunni alike in Iraq.

We should provide logistical support and carry out airstrikes, but we should not put a boot on the ground.

omri

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Absolutely not. Not a single European soldier should be deployed on the ground. There is sufficient force within the Kurds and Syrian Government to act as the ground troops. If Europeans are deployed, we'd become the target of every group there, much like the Americans were the target of Shia and Sunni alike in Iraq.

We should provide logistical support and carry out airstrikes, but we should not put a boot on the ground.

I don't think this should be looked at as if it was a local conflict. And I think the peace loving european community will find out the full scale and reach of IS in years to come. This is something that is bound to happen.

For a short moment I had a strong hope that Turkey will solve their PKK-related issues with their Kurdish population by aiding the Peshmerga fighters during their fight for the Aleppo (I think it was). But sadly the Turkish government decided that they prefer let the Kurdish fighter bleed and turn blind eye on the situation apart from occasional retaliatory shelling. I think it would have been a very wise move that would allow Kurds to have their own independent teritory and be able to defend it and in the same time make the Kurdish Turks happy.

I don't think ISIL will be easily defeated by the local forces. The whole area is a mess. We can continue ignore it but we will pay the price in few years time. The refugees crossing to Italy already pay the price. These who make it will be marginalised by the citizens of countries they eventually end up in. A lot of them will be frustrated by their prospects for future and some of them will be radicalised. This all will lead to more attacks in europe.

The local forces are split into too many factions they're not effective enough and nowhere near motivated to fight and die as the ISIL fighters are (excluding Peshmerga fighters which I think show real spirit - something they have developed during many years of hardship).

Europe and US have enough firepower and would be able to find reliable allies on the ground to deal with these savages.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

but that does not mean the EU can not deploy its European Battle Groups

No, no they can't.
The EU battle groups (such as they are), are specifically intended for humanitarian, peacekeeping & support missions, usually under UN mandate.
They are not capable or allowed by treaty to engage in expeditionary/attack missions.
(Otherwise Ireland, Sweden & Finland would have never signed up).

they could utilize the Jas 39 or the F16s of the Nordic Battle Group) as a theatre force to provide for air strikes.

Again, no.
The Battle groups are based around infantry batallions & armoured regiments.
EU battle groups do not comprise either strike air or naval capabilities.
(Besides Sweden & Finland being constitutionally neutral to begin with!!)

The sale of non-lethal equipment,

The EU doesn't sell such things & has no capability to prevent member states from doing so.

the lifting or lessening of sanctions

Unlocking bank accounts will help the regime & I'm sure Asma Al-Assad will appreciate having her credit cards unlocked.... I'm unsure how it helps the army... Theyve not wanted for cash.

the sale of small arms, providing air support

As an entity, the EU doesn't do this.

You guys are giving the EU a lot of credit for abilities that don't exist.

All of the above can be done by individual member states.
One wonders why it hasn't been?

Larbre34

omri wrote: »

EU+rest of the world should invade the area controlled by IS and eradicate these beasts. There is no other way.

Cos that worked out great in the past.

Its an impossible position for the west, and ISIS knows it. The coalition countries can only enable Iraq militarily, but then you end up on the same side as Iran and Assad. You also run the risk of any weaponry being captured by ISIS once the shambolic Iraqis turn tail when the heat gets too much.

Airstrikes in support of local efforts on the ground should be the limit of western activity. How intense those airstrikes get is another matter. ISIS needs the sh1ts put up them by some intensive bombardment and some hearts and minds displays by the big transcontinental bombers or the Carrier based F/As

fly_agaric

omri wrote: »

I don't think this should be looked at as if it was a local conflict. And I think the peace loving european community will find out the full scale and reach of IS in years to come. This is something that is bound to happen.

When or if that happens is the time to deal with it imo (though can anything useful or effective really be done even then - I don't know).
EU and its member states should stay very well out of this mainly US mess in the Middle east other than dealing with the refugee problems and stopping their so called "citizens" from travelling abroad to create mayhem and commit atrocities (or if they do get out, they can stay away for good if they have any other citizenship available to them). If they can't be "disowned" then good tracking/intelligence is needed to welcome them back to prison for a nice stretch when they get tired of the jihad.

KingBrian2

Larbre34 wrote: »

Cos that worked out great in the past.

Its an impossible position for the west, and ISIS knows it. The coalition countries can only enable Iraq militarily, but then you end up on the same side as Iran and Assad. You also run the risk of any weaponry being captured by ISIS once the shambolic Iraqis turn tail when the heat gets too much.

Airstrikes in support of local efforts on the ground should be the limit of western activity. How intense those airstrikes get is another matter. ISIS needs the sh1ts put up them by some intensive bombardment and some hearts and minds displays by the big transcontinental bombers or the Carrier based F/As

It sounds as though you have caught the anti Shiite bug that is going around. The US military command, European heads of states and neighbouring countries have all falling ill from it.

The notion that Shiite states are to be untrustworthy while the Kingdom of Arabia goes un reprimanded is ridiculous. Lets not forget we are intimately involved in this as the EU supports the state of Palestine. No deal can be reached until and unless the Syrians come on board. At present we are taken liberties as to who are terrorists Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS while the PKK, SNC and PLO are supposed to be our friends. Only the Shiites in Tehran and Damascus have proven trustworthy in waging battle against these milita fighters. We stand back make accusations against those doing the actual fighting against the enemy.

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It sounds as though you have caught the anti Shiite bug that is going around. The US military command, European heads of states and neighbouring countries have all falling ill from it.

The notion that Shiite states are to be untrustworthy while the Kingdom of Arabia goes un reprimanded is ridiculous. Lets not forget we are intimately involved in this as the EU supports the state of Palestine. No deal can be reached until and unless the Syrians come on board. At present we are taken liberties as to who are terrorists Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS while the PKK, SNC and PLO are supposed to be our friends. Only the Shiites in Tehran and Damascus have proven trustworthy in waging battle against these milita fighters. We stand back make accusations against those doing the actual fighting against the enemy.

Only because they're going to be hunted down and exterminated if ISIS win. It has nothing to do with the greater good.

KingBrian2

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Only because they're going to be hunted down and exterminated if ISIS win. It has nothing to do with the greater good.

How many good officers have been killed or injured by enemy forces? We are talking about on a scale similar to Afghanistan. Lets be clear Iraqi troops are fighting the same enemy as their Syrian counterparts. Once these states fall then on to Jerusalem down to Mecca and Medina where they will be greeted with celebrations and adoring followers who despise the Saudi Royal Family.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, no they can't.
The EU battle groups (such as they are), are specifically intended for humanitarian, peacekeeping & support missions, usually under UN mandate.
They are not capable or allowed by treaty to engage in expeditionary/attack missions.
(Otherwise Ireland, Sweden & Finland would have never signed up).

Then why have an air complement and armoured forces? You hardly need Gripens for peace-keeping.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Again, no.
The Battle groups are based around infantry batallions & armoured regiments.
EU battle groups do not comprise either strike air or naval capabilities.
(Besides Sweden & Finland being constitutionally neutral to begin with!!)

That's not correct. The Nordic Battlegroup has its own air power. According to the wikipedia, there are also F16s, but I can't find any source on how many of them there are.

The Expeditionary Air Wing consists of a fighter unit of eight JAS-39C Gripen fighter-bombers, an air tactical transport unit of two C 130 Hercules aircraft, along with two helicopter units for troop transport and medical evacuation.

Yes, it's not exactly a heavy-hitting force, but 8 JAS39s (each with 5300kg payloads) is not exactly a feather duster. The JAS 39 can be used for air reconnaissance (they flew in Libya, I believe), or for ground-attack.

The 8 x 5300 is nothing to scoff at. Canada's commitment to air strikes consisted of 6 CF18s (6200kg payloads), for example.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The EU doesn't sell such things & has no capability to prevent member states from doing so.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

As an entity, the EU doesn't do this.

You guys are giving the EU a lot of credit for abilities that don't exist.

All of the above can be done by individual member states.
One wonders why it hasn't been?

So then give the EU the ability to do these things.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Unlocking bank accounts will help the regime & I'm sure Asma Al-Assad will appreciate having her credit cards unlocked.... I'm unsure how it helps the army... Theyve not wanted for cash.

Of course not, but the problem is that you can't use the money as a weapon. There are arms sanctions on Syria, which is why the Government hasn't been able to buy up more and more arms that easily. No doubt they are buying weapons from the Iranians and probably the Chinese/Russians, but if we want this war to end quickly, it's probably best if the EU tries to leverage the lessening of an arms embargo.

Dohnjoe

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The notion that Shiite states are to be untrustworthy while the Kingdom of Arabia goes un reprimanded is ridiculous.

There's little or no evidence that the Saudi government is currently involved in funding ISIS, which means the US/EU would be foolish to take any action on the country. However, it's evident that financiers in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and other nations have directly and indirectly helped ISIS and similar groups (mainly earlier in the conflict)

Whether officials in those countries turned a blind eye to such directed funding and equipping is the question, but it is strenuously denied. The Saudi's also have a very real fear of those militants returning - the recent bombing of the mosque over there being ominous

KingBrian2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's little or no evidence that the Saudi government is currently involved in funding ISIS, which means the US/EU would be foolish to take any action on the country. However, it's evident that financiers in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and other nations have directly and indirectly helped ISIS and similar groups (mainly earlier in the conflict)

Whether officials in those countries turned a blind eye to such directed funding and equipping is the question, but it is strenuously denied. The Saudi's also have a very real fear of those militants returning - the recent bombing of the mosque over there being ominous

It all goes back to choosing who your friends are and who can be reasoned with. Saudi Arabia and the others are Theocracies and cause all this indoctrination in Nigeria, Pakistan and so on. Cut off links to these people.

IrishTrajan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's little or no evidence that the Saudi government is currently involved in funding ISIS, which means the US/EU would be foolish to take any action on the country. However, it's evident that financiers in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and other nations have directly and indirectly helped ISIS and similar groups (mainly earlier in the conflict)

And there's no evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons, or that the Saudis funded Pakistan's nuclear program, or that Turkey is buying oil from ISIS and other groups... It's an open secret.

Dohnjoe

IrishTrajan wrote: »

And there's no evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons, or that the Saudis funded Pakistan's nuclear program, or that Turkey is buying oil from ISIS and other groups... It's an open secret.

ISIS is pretty much self-funding at this stage. There's no evidence or open secret of direct Saudi leadership funding. Of wealthy gulf state financiers yes, but that's dried up fast in the last year or two.

The conflict economy is so bizarre that ISIS are selling black market oil to Assad and receiving arms in return.. while they are both fighting for control of territory.

KingBrian2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

ISIS is pretty much self-funding at this stage. There's no evidence or open secret of direct Saudi leadership funding. Of wealthy gulf state financiers yes, but that's dried up fast in the last year or two.

The conflict economy is so bizarre that ISIS are selling black market oil to Assad and receiving arms in return.. while they are both fighting for control of territory.

ISIS has Saudi clerics actually on the ground directly assisting them plus the Saudi's have expressly stated their main objective is to remove Assad and not fight the militants.

Nodin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It all goes back to choosing who your friends are and who can be reasoned with. Saudi Arabia and the others are Theocracies and cause all this indoctrination in Nigeria, Pakistan and so on. Cut off links to these people.

Hate to be a pedant but the only theocracy in the region is Iran. The gulf states are monarchies. Were the religious running them, they'd be far far worse than they are now.

KingBrian2

Nodin wrote: »

Hate to be a pedant but the only theocracy in the region is Iran. The gulf states are monarchies. Were the religious running them, they'd be far far worse than they are now.

That is haberdash everyone and their mother knows Saudi Arabia is a good for nothing totalitarian dictatorship. The difference between Iran and Arabia is a question of scale and if you stack up all the injustices in Arabia it would probably come up worse than Iran. Just because Iran has the "Death to America" slogan means diddle squat. The Iranians are just less accommodating. We should be done with the lot of them and just cooperate with states that directly need our help. If people say Arabia is too valuable because of the oil than just look at Nigeria the violence over there is fuelled by the Saudi clerics and their Islamic fanaticism.

Nodin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That is haberdash everyone and their mother knows Saudi Arabia is a good for nothing totalitarian dictatorship. .

Its a monarchy, but "totalitarian dictatorship" is fine too. It is not, however, a theocracy. Theres only one, and that's Iran.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The difference between (....................)fanaticism.

You seem to be having an argument with somebody other than me there, as I made comparison between the two, merely stated the fact that one is a genuine theocracy and the other an absolute monarchy. In Iran, ultimate power lies with the clergy by law, it does not in Saudi.

KingBrian2

Nodin wrote: »

Its a monarchy, but "totalitarian dictatorship" is fine too. It is not, however, a theocracy. Theres only one, and that's Iran.


You seem to be having an argument with somebody other than me there, as I made comparison between the two, merely stated the fact that one is a genuine theocracy and the other an absolute monarchy. In Iran, ultimate power lies with the clergy by law, it does not in Saudi.

Saudi Arabia is a theocracy in all but name. To be pedantic about it Britain, Sweden, Swaziland, Brunei, Thailand and Japan are theocracies because the monarch is also the head of the established church. Nobody is suggesting Prince William is the equivalent to the Royalty in Saudi Arabia as he is not directly controlled by clerics.

Nodin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is a theocracy in all but name. To be pedantic about it Britain, Sweden, Swaziland, Brunei, Thailand and Japan are theocracies because the monarch is also the head of the established church. Nobody is suggesting Prince William is the equivalent to the Royalty in Saudi Arabia as he is not directly controlled by clerics.

And likewise you can't claim Saudi is a theocracy as the monarchy aren't controlled by clerics either. If you think the house of Saud and its allies get the same treatment from the religious police as the rest of the population you're sadly mistaken. Neither do the religious have a veto over the monarchy and legislation. Iran is the only state in the area defined as a theocracy because there the clerics have the ultimate say, which is written into the constitution and occurs in practice.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Hate to be a pedant but the only theocracy in the region is Iran. The gulf states are monarchies. Were the religious running them, they'd be far far worse than they are now.

The religious? I thought they were just conservative? :pac:

Manach

Given the historic interweaving between Islam and Middle east affairs, transposing Western ideological -ologies divisions would not be a best fit. Models are only a subset and not the actual reality being described. As for blanket claim that Monarchies being a better form of government rather betokens that one should read Kapuściński's work on Iran on the Shah's regime.

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

Given the historic interweaving between Islam and Middle east affairs, transposing Western ideological -ologies divisions would not be a best fit. Models are only a subset and not the actual reality being described. As for blanket claim that Monarchies being a better form of government rather betokens that one should read Kapuściński's work on Iran on the Shah's regime.

I don't believe I said that, rather that should the Imams be in charge in Saudi, it would be a yet more conservative state.

KingBrian2

Nodin wrote: »

I don't believe I said that, rather that should the Imams be in charge in Saudi, it would be a yet more conservative state.

Can't we all agree that we should work with secular states.

Nodin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Can't we all agree that we should work with secular states.

Wherever possible, yes.

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Can't we all agree that we should work with secular states.

Nodin wrote: »

Wherever possible, yes.

That worked so well with the USSR.

KingBrian2

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That worked so well with the USSR.

It could be argued the totalitarian system constituted a cult. In particular under various Politburo officials and General Secretaries. Gorbachev like other Russians as in Marshal Zhukov were honourable politicians advocating diplomatic and political cooperation.

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It could be argued the totalitarian system constituted a cult. In particular under various Politburo officials and General Secretaries. Gorbachev like other Russians as in Marshal Zhukov were honourable politicians advocating diplomatic and political cooperation.

Not really. The USSR instituted State-sponsored "lack of belief" rather than belief. Even so, they were secular, and they were terrible.

Religion isn't the end-all, be-all. If Iran or the KSA was secular, they could be just as brutal and repressive as they currently are.

KingBrian2

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Not really. The USSR instituted State-sponsored "lack of belief" rather than belief. Even so, they were secular, and they were terrible.

Religion isn't the end-all, be-all. If Iran or the KSA was secular, they could be just as brutal and repressive as they currently are.

All three promoted an ideology that was circulated across the world. Be it Wahhabism, Political Islam or Stalinism. This propaganda was regarded as a religion.

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

All three promoted an ideology that was circulated across the world. Be it Wahhabism, Political Islam or Stalinism. This propaganda was regarded as a religion.

One of these is not like the others. Can you spot it?

Wahhabism is dictated by religion. Sharia Law (whatever the Iranian version is as well) is dictated by religion. Stalinism was not, it was directed by a form of economics mixed with authoritarianism, yet it was just as brutal, just as repressive and just as vicious.

The fact of the matter is that religion in and of itself does not make anything better or worse. Yes, Islam is a violent religion, but so is (was) Christianity, and so can secularist regimes.

KingBrian2

IrishTrajan wrote: »

One of these is not like the others. Can you spot it?

Wahhabism is dictated by religion. Sharia Law (whatever the Iranian version is as well) is dictated by religion. Stalinism was not, it was directed by a form of economics mixed with authoritarianism, yet it was just as brutal, just as repressive and just as vicious.

The fact of the matter is that religion in and of itself does not make anything better or worse. Yes, Islam is a violent religion, but so is (was) Christianity, and so can secularist regimes.

Your making a case for siding with any dictator regardless of who they are. You fail to distinguish between the awful religious run states and the modern secular run states. It is not in the worlds interest to cooperate with countries that want to start religious wars which is why I mentioned Stalinism, the old Soviet Union was peddling war and acting in defiance of international law. Nobody knew if tomorrow it would advance from Budapest to Brussels.

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Your making a case for siding with any dictator regardless of who they are. You fail to distinguish between the awful religious run states and the modern secular run states. It is not in the worlds interest to cooperate with countries that want to start religious wars which is why I mentioned Stalinism, the old Soviet Union was peddling war and acting in defiance of international law. Nobody knew if tomorrow it would advance from Budapest to Brussels.

No, I'm not, but I am arguing the point that Secular States are not inherently better (or worse) than Religious States. Stalinism is not a religion, it is an economic and political belief. It was secular, it was just as violent (if not more so) than Iran and KSA. The "Saudi would be worse if it was Imam-run" is not necessarily true in this regard.

KingBrian2

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, I'm not, but I am arguing the point that Secular States are not inherently better (or worse) than Religious States. Stalinism is not a religion, it is an economic and political belief. It was secular, it was just as violent (if not more so) than Iran and KSA. The "Saudi would be worse if it was Imam-run" is not necessarily true in this regard.

I cannot agree with you on this Saudi Arabia and Iran are both totalitarian states. Neither have freedoms, the state enforces everything and society is deeply conservative. The same was true of the Jim Crow Southern States. Today North Korea practises a form of Stalinism and Il Jung is regarded as divine. Backward Nations with the West giving them way too much attention.

BuilderPlumber

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I cannot agree with you on this Saudi Arabia and Iran are both totalitarian states. Neither have freedoms, the state enforces everything and society is deeply conservative. The same was true of the Jim Crow Southern States. Today North Korea practises a form of Stalinism and Il Jung is regarded as divine. Backward Nations with the West giving them way too much attention.

Of all these, Saudi Arabia is by far the worst. It has total support from the West, has massive oil reserves that are well developed, has not suffered a major war on its soil in recent years (unlike virtually every other big Middle East state) and knows it can get away with much more than any of its neighbours can.

Iran is a country of two halves: an educated middle class who want change and have always been used to a society similar to what we have (Iran afterall only started copying Saudi Arabia's system in 1979 and were trying to implement Saudi style laws on a population used to something more similar to European laws). That's why it is not nearly as repressive as Saudi Arabia. Then, there's the poor masses from the East of that country who more hardline elements of the regime have fooled with voodoo for years. Iran's government has since 1979 between a power struggle between moderates and Saudi-styled voodoo besotted hardliners. But Iran has a future, wants to change its image and may well end up as rich, moderate country with proper elections and separation between church and state.

North Korea is a mix of traditional emperor worship (emperors in Korean and Japanese cultures were considered to be gods) along with Stalinism. Both ideologies appealed to the Kims who love a cult leadership style. Still, it has got to be more fun than Saudi Arabia!

KingBrian2

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Of all these, Saudi Arabia is by far the worst. It has total support from the West, has massive oil reserves that are well developed, has not suffered a major war on its soil in recent years (unlike virtually every other big Middle East state) and knows it can get away with much more than any of its neighbours can.

Iran is a country of two halves: an educated middle class who want change and have always been used to a society similar to what we have (Iran afterall only started copying Saudi Arabia's system in 1979 and were trying to implement Saudi style laws on a population used to something more similar to European laws). That's why it is not nearly as repressive as Saudi Arabia. Then, there's the poor masses from the East of that country who more hardline elements of the regime have fooled with voodoo for years. Iran's government has since 1979 between a power struggle between moderates and Saudi-styled voodoo besotted hardliners. But Iran has a future, wants to change its image and may well end up as rich, moderate country with proper elections and separation between church and state.

North Korea is a mix of traditional emperor worship (emperors in Korean and Japanese cultures were considered to be gods) along with Stalinism. Both ideologies appealed to the Kims who love a cult leadership style. Still, it has got to be more fun than Saudi Arabia!

Interesting you point out that distinction in Iranian society much like neighbouring Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. A wealthy upper class that in the case of India has nuclear weapons and a space programme but also has a caste system full of endemic poverty.

BuilderPlumber

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Interesting you point out that distinction in Iranian society much like neighbouring Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. A wealthy upper class that in the case of India has nuclear weapons and a space programme but also has a caste system full of endemic poverty.

The caste system is to India what [abused] Sharia law is to Islamic countries. It clearly is also designed to keep the people down and also belongs in the stone age. But all of India's rules from the Moghuls to the Muharajahs to the British to the modern capitalist republic have ALL been allies of the caste system for obvious reasons.