Syria reported to have use Chemical Warfare

[LMNO]

Passing by a TV in the airport (ps-- I'm in Montana again for the weekend), I heard that ISIS sleeper cells were "almost certainly" already in the country, even though there is no evidence suggesting anything of the sort.

I mean, in the buildup to Iraq One, I honestly had fears that there were terrorists in the country, just waiting for Hussein's signal. But then again, I was eighteen goddamn years old, and didn't know shit about world politics. But to think, I could have skipped college and immediately become a Fox News pundit.

But back to OP: is there an implication in there that merely TALKING about counter terrorism increases the chances of an attack? I'm being facetious of course, but that appears to be the logic they're using.

[Cain]

No, not really.

They're talking about preventing the carnage being visited on Iraq and Syria coming to UK shores, because ISIS is "determined" to attack the UK.  By which they mean, our Kurdish allies have told us ISIS is determined to attack the UK.  Admittedly, the Kurds got it right on the ISIS offensive in North Iraq, but then so did many other people, who didn't exactly have access to any kind of privileged knowledge.  And given the Kurds really really want our assistance...well, you can see how that might give them incentives to overstate UK national interests in the region.

And there are a worrying amount of ISIS fighters from the UK, possibly 100-500 of them, depending on who you believe.  At the same time, ISIS kinda has its hands full.  A full blown military campaign by the UK could possibly change the strategic calculus, making an attack on the UK a more sensible option.  But ISIS are fighting the Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian governments, the Russians also have a hand in the conflict, the Saudis and Qataris are backing their enemies in the Islamic Front, there's the Jordanian border, expanding their presence in Lebanon, and of course Israel...all I'm saying is, ISIS has a lot of enemies.

Which is not to say some idiots may not come back here after a crash course in IED construction and chopping off the infidel's head 101 and decide to cause trouble on their own.  That's what idiots do.  But I very much doubt al-Baghdadi will expressly give an order that London must be attacked unless we start dropping cruise missiles on his safe houses or something.

Which we may end up doing.  The US is apparently leaning on Parliament to back a joint Iraq-Syria bombing campaign against ISIS.  Perhaps this is a "preventative measure"...but given Parliament hasn't even voted on such action yet, deciding ahead of time that it will happen and taking steps to prevent blowback...well, it wouldn't look good.  MPs don't like being second-guessed.

[Junkenstein]

Just caught Cameron trying to put the shits up people over ISIS and beheadings. Which is totally unacceptable.

And certainly something our friends in Saudi Arabia never do.

[Cain]

Yeah.  Incidentally, guess who is most opposed to a USA/UK led intervention in the region?

Just some guys in robes.  Though given the hysterical pronouncements of late, I'm wondering if they've changed policy.

Probably.  I mean, expecting Saudi Arabia to actually do anything itself is clearly out of the question, so their next best step is to endlessly complain and drum up the threat so someone else does their dirty work for them.

Incidentally, Louis Freeh was in a car crash the other week.  He's known for being especially close to the Saudi Royal Family.  Probably just coincidence...probably.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Can we please just invent Mr. Fusion and be done with this useless region forever?

[Junkenstein]

That Fox article is a masterclass in alarmist shitstirring.

"If neglected, I am certain that after a month they will reach Europe and, after another month, America," he said at a reception for foreign ambassadors Friday.

"These terrorists do not know the name of humanity and you have witnessed them severing heads and giving them to children to walk with in the street," the king said, urging the ambassadors to relay his message directly to their heads of state.

Yeah, beheading is OK, it's giving the heads to kids that's a line.

Also, I can't help but recall the WMD shit that was at the start of Iraq 2, Jihadi Boogaloo. Dire claims of imminent doom, we call upon our western neighbours to bomb the shit out of X.....

On Friday the UK government raised its terror threat level from "substantial" to "severe," the fourth highest of five levels, in response to events in Iraq and Syria. The move means a terrorist attack is highly likely, although there is no intelligence to suggest one is imminent, Home Secretary Theresa May said.

I don't know about that. With veiled threats of "in the UK in a month, the US in two" a cynical man might suspect Saudi Arabia of being willing to carry out a covert terrorist attack to further it's own ends. That's obviously delusional paranoia, SA would never do or be implicated in such a thing.


In other news the chap currently in charge of Al-Qaeda and associates are not happy with this attempt at nation building.  I wonder how long until "Enemy of my Enemy...." kicks in and we start shoving guns at them. At this point, I wouldn't even be surprised.

[Cain]

At this point, Al-Qaeda core are (and I hate saying this) the lesser of two evils.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq was always a bit extreme for them, especially under Zarqawi.  While I have no doubt that "intercepted letter" between Bin Laden and Zarqawi is fake, it was no doubt inspired by real tensions between the two about the whole "ethnically cleansing Shiites off the face of the earth" aspect of the latter's program.  Probably didn't sit well with the old guard of Al-Qaeda either.  They may have had strong disagreements with Shiites, and saw Iran as an enemy...but they also respected the Islamic Revolution, enough to treat it as a model for their own plans.

Of course, it's more than just that.  ISIS has been bucking Al-Qaeda core's authority for a long time now.  I think they always feared the prestige of the Iraq War, and Zarqawi in particular, would lead to them being displaced as the vanguard of the Islamic revolution.

So far, a few opportunists and newer groups aside, it does seem that Al-Qaeda are retaining their affiliates.  How long that will last remains to be seen.  Nothing changes peoples minds like success...and should ISIS continue to succeed, and do so well enough to also support their aims and goals, I can groups switching their alleigance without too much trouble

[Junkenstein]

Nothing changes peoples minds like success...and should ISIS continue to succeed, and do so well enough to also support their aims and goals, I can groups switching their alleigance without too much trouble

I can't help but think that this is quite true. Which begs the question of: How successful would ISIS need to be for them to be left alone to crack on with their larger agenda? A mass pledging of support from various terrorist affiliates with attacks on their behalf as a show of support I would guess to be possible, if not particularly likely at this point. That said though, I'm sure there's room at the table for anyone willing to demonstrate their intentions.

A cynical man might suggest that ISIS would be able to use pledges of support to boost their own position, or if required, as bargaining chips. "Here's X, so don't bomb Y and let us pick up those guns from Z". Of course, we don't negotiate with terrorists though. So this is all lunacy. 

[Raz Tech]

Obomba's presidential address:

• more airstrikes
• international coalition
• funding groups who are both against ISIS and Assad

I can kinda see the first two, but the third one never really seems to work out for us in the long run. 

But we'll use this group and maybe they'll take out ISIS for us.
And when they're done, if they still have enough funding and firepower (they will),  they'll take out Assad.  That's just icing on the cake.
Next step: Iran

At least that's what I see.

[Cain]

That group, incidentally, has a name.  It's the Islamic Front.  The main military force of the Islamic Front is the al-Nusrah Brigades, a recognised affiliate of Al-Qaeda.

Oh sure, we'll make noises about supporting the "moderate" Free Syrian Army...but they were the ones who had a guy fanatical enough to cut out and eat the heart of his enemy, and besides they've had their military forces severely undermined...by the Islamic Front and ISIS.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I do not understand why Obama needed a whole prime time speech for this. More money for proto-Islamist militias, more drone strikes, more "Coalitions of the Willing." What exactly is new here? Has the average American's attention span so atrophied that we can no longer even remember what is happening RIGHT NOW, and need to be reminded?

[Cain]

Probably.  That, or you're not the intended audience.  I need to look over Obama's speech when I'm not tired, but I suspect this was a statement for the benefit of all the Gulf states, minus Qatar, and for Turkey.

But yeah, it is kinda funny that this is essentially a continuation of past policy in Syria and Iraq combined with current policy on Pakistan (which was debated...when, again exactly?).

Also, don't trust the American or British government to know what they were doing.  It took until last week for our government to realise any sustained campaign against ISIS would involve action in Syria as well as Iraq.  This is the same government which allegedly reads our output to such a degree that we received a letter from a senior government official praising our work on those particular countries.  I may have mentioned this particular problem...in June.  Y'know, when Mosul fell.

[Cain]

Oh, and while all eyes are on ISIS, Boko Haram are practically carving an Islamic state out of Nigeria and Cameroon.  And, by the by, Cameroon borders the Central African Republic, where a nasty Christian-Muslim sectarian conflict is ongoing. 

[Raz Tech]

I think that at least part of the reason it was a big televised speech is because he has been under so much pressure to do something.  Pretty much every time something happened the news would blow up with "right wing nutjob blasts Obama on ISIS" or "left wing nutjob blasts Obama on ISIS".  Coupled with his recent goofs of saying "yeah we're gonna crush them" then later in the same talk "I just want to make them a managable problem", as well as a week or so ago when he made the mistake of admitting that his administration had no plans on how to handle the ISIS situation, and I'd say it was probably a pretty good idea to get the word out that he actually is doing something about this, rather than just golfing as everyone would have you believe.

[Cain]

I wish he'd stuck to golfing.  Admittedly, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were gonna fund jihadis no matter what, but at least then we'd be approaching the situation with somewhat clean hands.

Well, clean if we ignore how ISIS was created as a response to the Allied occupation of Iraq in the first place... All I can say is, I'm glad history will judge George W. Bush.  Because sure as fuck no-one else seems willing to at the moment.

Also, look at who we're pointedly not working with.  Namely, Assad.  I'll be honest, allying with the likes of Assad does make my stomach twist.  But at least under Assad, religious minorities were protected, not gutted in the streets and their head given to children as a football.  Women weren't house-bound slaves.  Syria under Assad had at least some redeeming features, which is more than can be said of Islamic State.

But we're not allying with him.  Not because he's too totalitarian or has too much blood on his hands.  I mean, we're all still friends with the Saudis, after all.  But because Project: Depose Assad will continue.  I'm calling it now, extensive air campaigns and support for rebels, obstensibly to fight ISIS, will magically form into a coalition to fight Assad and collapse his regime.

After all, the road to Tehran runs through Damascus.  And we must keep our eye on the prize.