European take on the Syrian crisis?

[Maturin]

Well it appears that at least 719 muslims won't be making the trip across to Europe and I understand they don't qualify for any virgins either. Some people just can't win a trick.

If it had been a Buddhist festival then they may well be forgiven for thinking it was karma that bit them in the ass for refusing to help their fellow Buddhists.

[BBsq69]

Trying to explain the complexity of what happens in the middle east in this forum would be an impossibility. Yes, wealthy individuals in Qatar probably did fund ISIS. Up to 2014, possibly, but as I stated, so did many other wealthy donors, some with and some without state approval or knowledge. But ISIS obtains funds from many other sources, many other countries, including the UK, the US and Australia, as well as what they acquire along the way.  As for some US diplomat (or maybe British) who said recently that he was told the Saudi policy was annihilation of Iran, just like Iran's policy to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth, you'll probably find that on 1000's of sites on the web.

And yes, Saudi Arabia did bomb Yemen, along with another 9 allied countries. But don't forget the numerous US airforce bases in the country that the coalition depend upon. Same as allowing the Turks to bomb ISIS and Kurds, maybe ten or twelve attacks against ISIS, maybe what, 200+ against the Kurds, an unofficial US ally.

I can't help but notice no one mentions the deals done between Assad and ISIS to take over Syrian cities to remove Assad's enemies. No one mentions the build up of Russian planes in Syria that are not designed for a defensive function anymore but aggression, which indicates a completely different strategy. Yes, Saudi Arabia does have a fairly significant air-force, recently updated by the US identical to those used by the US and supplied to Israel to create a level playing field. But actually not identical, they do not have the same tactical capabilities as the US planes, a budget version.

I notice no one mentions the diplomatic talks between most of the coalition countries, who despite all the critics, have taken note of 'lessons learnt' by previous mistakes, particularly the French. Removing Gaddafi and Hussein created short term solutions but without a plan to fill the voids, left long term problems. Why do you think no one has really moved against Assad? Because the only force capable of filling the void is ISIS and then we will never get rid of them.

One of the military think tank solutions was to let ISIS sort out Assad for us, but I think Russia intervention will lay that idea to rest. Then again, Russian success in the region, Afghanistan, is no better than ours. Imagine ISIS with all that Russian hardware. Today the middle east, tomorrow the world, 50 or so years earlier than expected.

Why won't the coalition properly support the Kurds? Because providing them that much power will result in an independent Kurdistan, which will upset Syria, Iran and Iraq but totally piss of Turkey, a NATO member.

And the US has to provide some compromise with Iran, otherwise the Russians certainly will. Imagine Russia with a stronghold in Syria and Iran. But nobody mentions the deals being negotiated between the US and Israel to compensate for the potential threats that the US has acknowledged do exist.

The list goes on and on and on.

There are two major conflicts going on the middle east, the Jews against the Arabs and the Shi'ites against the Sunnis. But unless you are aware of the other 100 or so major conflicts in the background, along with the factions and internal politics, you can't really understand the region and therefore will never come up with an adequate solution.

And all of this helps the cause of Islam, creating millions of muslim refugees to populate the rest of the world, particularly Europe at the moment and subsequently the corrupt governments that are allowing this to occur in many other countries. Wait till Turkey gets into the EU, over 70 million muslims with freedom of movement, hell on earth.

Millions of people still  in the middle east are not in the countries where they belong and probably never will, except maybe the Jews. There's only about 6 million of them in Israel, maybe another 8 million spread around the world. Leaving them in peace will solve half of the middle east problems. Then maybe the rest of the region can sort out their problems and stop the refugees.

No I haven't mentioned a lot of these things although I thought had mentioned the Russians - maybe that was in another discussion - with their 48 aircraft doubling Asad's capability because you are mentioning a lot extra things here. My information tends to come not from websites but reputable news organisations. And of course it is more complex than I said but Saudi aren't just playing a game (with Iran) that effects the Arab world it is their sponsorship around the world that is of a greater concern. They seem to exploit everywhere to extend their influence leading to the deaths of many people especially in Africa. However maybe they have begun to realise the effects of their policies with the stopping the sponsoring of schools in Pakistan where those Taleban have become very nasty and I suppose they have the excuse they have only been in this influential position for a relatively short time. However it would not surprise me if Iran are involved in Yemen.

If possible I always double check my information but sometimes I have to rely on the integrity of the correspondents. It is normally very easy to spot websites with agendas. Look at what they say and examine who runs them and any bias or axe to grind should be obvious.

Kurdestan should exist as a country. The fact that it doesn't is the UK's fault when they were carving up their empire sometimes they just drew straight lines but this is by the worst case after that laziness. I have always felt sorry for the injustice served on them.

Nevertheless I am glad to see a coherent argument.

[Ozi]

How many incidents in history have contributed to the refugee problem now facing Europe? Here's one:

In March 1947, Mountbatten became viceroy of India with a mandate to oversee the British withdrawal. He established good relations with leading politicians, particularly with Nehru, but was unable to persuade the Muslim leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah of the benefits of a united, independent India.

Mountbatten soon gave up hope of a united country and on 14-15 August 1947, British India was partitioned into the new states of India and Pakistan. This resulted in widespread inter-communal violence, particularly in the Punjab, which now sat in East India, and West Pakistan. There were huge population movements as 3.5 million Hindus and Sikhs fled from the areas that had become Pakistan and around five million Muslims migrated to Pakistan.

The reality is that Britain were never serious about giving India independence. Mountbatten became so frustrated with the procrastination of the British government, he officially announced a date for British withdrawal without parliamentary approval, then flew back to London forcing Churchill to sign the appropriate paperwork.

The repercussions are still being felt today and added significant fuel to the fires that still burn. As Britain had no real commitment to Indian and Pakistani independence, there was no plan in existence as to how it would occur. Mountbatten's announcement of a date left just 3 months to draw up arbitrary borders that, taking ethnicity, religion and culture into consideration, should have taken many years of negotiations.

These are the worst lines the Brits ever drew.

[BBsq69]

Mountbatten was of course killed by terrorists who received at lot of funding from strange bedfellows which i will not detail here. A member of my family was injured and inches from being killed by that same terrorist organisation - the result of another possibly misguided partition, where people are still fighting a religious war.

Also Mountbatten was twice asked to lead in coup (in the 60s and 70s). Yes he rejected them but at what point did he think was OK not to the conspirators in for treason, so like our other war leaders Churchill and Montgomery very much a maverick.

The reason I said the lack of a Kurdish country was the worst because they have been continually persecuted by the countries they reside in, especially Turkey (even though they did well enough in elections to upset the tyrant Erdogan, who is similar to Putin in that he finds ways of not relinquishing power and indeed never stops trying to extend his power) and with Saddam. That's not to diminish the Kurds' plight elsewhere. The Indian partition was an incredibly brutal affair with little or no thought for those effected. I know there is a lot of hate along that border now which perhaps ought to be directed at the UK.

As I said, most of the couple of million of Pakistanis in UK come from a small area which also produced many soldiers who fought for the Allies in the war. There used to be (certainly in the 90s) a lot of violence between the Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities on the outskirts of west London, but because it was more complicated that white racial attacks on blacks, it was not well reported.

[Maturin]

How many incidents in history have contributed to the refugee problem now facing Europe? Here's one:

In March 1947, Mountbatten became viceroy of India with a mandate to oversee the British withdrawal. He established good relations with leading politicians, particularly with Nehru, but was unable to persuade the Muslim leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah of the benefits of a united, independent India.

Mountbatten soon gave up hope of a united country and on 14-15 August 1947, British India was partitioned into the new states of India and Pakistan. This resulted in widespread inter-communal violence, particularly in the Punjab, which now sat in East India, and West Pakistan. There were huge population movements as 3.5 million Hindus and Sikhs fled from the areas that had become Pakistan and around five million Muslims migrated to Pakistan.

The reality is that Britain were never serious about giving India independence. Mountbatten became so frustrated with the procrastination of the British government, he officially announced a date for British withdrawal without parliamentary approval, then flew back to London forcing Churchill to sign the appropriate paperwork.

The repercussions are still being felt today and added significant fuel to the fires that still burn. As Britain had no real commitment to Indian and Pakistani independence, there was no plan in existence as to how it would occur. Mountbatten's announcement of a date left just 3 months to draw up arbitrary borders that, taking ethnicity, religion and culture into consideration, should have taken many years of negotiations.

These are the worst lines the Brits ever drew.

That assessment doesn't really take into account the pressures within India and Britain that forced such a speedy resolution and the creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan.

The nationalist movement within India had been gathering pace for most of that century, the British economy was ruined after WWII and was unable to afford not just its empire but also the policing of India whilst any multi-party succession talks (lasting years) happened.

Violence was already breaking out, both between supporters of the Quit India campaign and between Hindus and Muslims themsleves.  India was on the verge of civil war and the British knew that they no longer had the resources to manage it. Also, at what stage, once you've have granted independence, do you stop meddling in the now internal affairs of a former colony and a new state?

Almost immediately India and Pakistan started contesting the area of Kashmir, a conflict that is probably the most hotly contested between the two right up to today. I think that if those two countries had sat down themselves and worked out that difference at the start, then pretty much all excuses for future conflicts would have been insignificant. Could or should Britain have demand a resolution to this in 1948? No. Britain after WWII had neither the influence, ability or the motivation to resolve a dispute between two independent neighbours.

Whilst I'm not defending Mountbatten in the slightest, it is important to look at the whole picture, although extremely simplified in this post, to understand what happened. I think the decision made averted a civil war that would most likely have resulted in extensive ethnic cleansing by the victors, far exceeding the numbers killed in the subsequent India/Pakistan conflicts.

It has of course resulted in the Pakistani state becoming a training ground and refuge for religious fundamentalists but it is hardly accurate to say that the creation of Pakistan is the only spur for the course that modern Pakistan has taken. 

[JoJoGunne]

Another result of the refugee influx into the EU:

German woman threatened with eviction to make way for refugees

A 51-year-old German woman is being evicted from her home of 16 years to make way for refugees, with shelters already full across the country

A woman in Germany is being evicted from her home of 16 years to make way for asylum-seekers, amid growing concerns over how Germany will find accommodation for the hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into the country.

Bettina Halbey, a 51-year-old nurse, has lived alone in her flat in the small western German town of Nieheim since her children grew up.

On September 1, she received a letter from her landlord, the local municipality, telling her the building was being turned into a refugee shelter and she had until next May to leave.

“I was completely taken aback,” Ms Halbey told Welt newspaper. “I find it impossible to describe how the city has treated me.”

read more at:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11891631/German-woman-threatened-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html

And here, we have the poor immigrants actually refusing a country that'll take them in...

'Finland's no good': Disappointed migrants turn back

Hundreds of predominantly Iraqi migrants who have travelled through Europe to reach Finland are turning back, saying they don't want to stay in the sparsely-populated country on Europe's northern frontier because it's too cold and boring.

Migrants have in recent weeks been crossing back into Sweden at the Haparanda-Tornio border just an hour's drive south of the Arctic Circle, and Finnish authorities have seen a rise in the number of cancelled asylum applications.

"You can tell the world I hate Finland. It's too cold, there's no tea, no restaurants, no bars, nobody on the streets, only cars," 22-year-old Muhammed told AFP in Tornio, as the mercury struggled to inch above 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit) on a recent blustery grey day.

He had already travelled from Tornio to the capital Helsinki almost 750 kilometres (465 miles) south, and then back up to the Tornio border again to return to Sweden.

Migrants who lack proper travel documents are unable to take the ferries that run between Helsinki and Stockholm.

Another group of around 15 Iraqi refugees waiting at the bus station that Tornio shares with its Swedish twin town Haparanda also said they wanted to go back to southern Sweden.

"Finland is no good," the men echoed each other.

read more at:  http://news.yahoo.com/finlands-no-good-disappointed-migrants-turn-back-152042061.html

[Ozi]

Mountbatten was of course killed by terrorists who received at lot of funding from strange bedfellows which i will not detail here. A member of my family was injured and inches from being killed by that same terrorist organisation - the result of another possibly misguided partition, where people are still fighting a religious war.

Also Mountbatten was twice asked to lead in coup (in the 60s and 70s). Yes he rejected them but at what point did he think was OK not to the conspirators in for treason, so like our other war leaders Churchill and Montgomery very much a maverick.

The reason I said the lack of a Kurdish country was the worst because they have been continually persecuted by the countries they reside in, especially Turkey (even though they did well enough in elections to upset the tyrant Erdogan, who is similar to Putin in that he finds ways of not relinquishing power and indeed never stops trying to extend his power) and with Saddam. That's not to diminish the Kurds' plight elsewhere. The Indian partition was an incredibly brutal affair with little or no thought for those effected. I know there is a lot of hate along that border now which perhaps ought to be directed at the UK.

As I said, most of the couple of million of Pakistanis in UK come from a small area which also produced many soldiers who fought for the Allies in the war. There used to be (certainly in the 90s) a lot of violence between the Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities on the outskirts of west London, but because it was more complicated that white racial attacks on blacks, it was not well reported.

Churchill and Montgomery mavericks?

[Ozi]

That assessment doesn't really take into account the pressures within India and Britain that forced such a speedy resolution and the creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan.

The nationalist movement within India had been gathering pace for most of that century, the British economy was ruined after WWII and was unable to afford not just its empire but also the policing of India whilst any multi-party succession talks (lasting years) happened.

Violence was already breaking out, both between supporters of the Quit India campaign and between Hindus and Muslims themsleves.  India was on the verge of civil war and the British knew that they no longer had the resources to manage it. Also, at what stage, once you've have granted independence, do you stop meddling in the now internal affairs of a former colony and a new state?

Almost immediately India and Pakistan started contesting the area of Kashmir, a conflict that is probably the most hotly contested between the two right up to today. I think that if those two countries had sat down themselves and worked out that difference at the start, then pretty much all excuses for future conflicts would have been insignificant. Could or should Britain have demand a resolution to this in 1948? No. Britain after WWII had neither the influence, ability or the motivation to resolve a dispute between two independent neighbours.

Whilst I'm not defending Mountbatten in the slightest, it is important to look at the whole picture, although extremely simplified in this post, to understand what happened. I think the decision made averted a civil war that would most likely have resulted in extensive ethnic cleansing by the victors, far exceeding the numbers killed in the subsequent India/Pakistan conflicts.

It has of course resulted in the Pakistani state becoming a training ground and refuge for religious fundamentalists but it is hardly accurate to say that the creation of Pakistan is the only spur for the course that modern Pakistan has taken.

That's one version.

[Maturin]

That's one version.

Well not really. Until the final paragraph I think I'm only stating what happened as well as a bit of comment with reference to interfering in states and the possibility of solving Kashmir before years of protracted hostility.

It probably would have been much better if India had remained, as Gandhi  supposedly wanted, one nation but I don't see how that could have been achieved without civil war.

[Ozi]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, except in the middle east. Sometimes the enemy of my friend is my friend, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy, the friend of my enemy is my friend, the friend of my friend is my enemy, etc. etc. etc.

Saudi Arabian Enemies:

Al-Qaeda - supports the overthrow of the House of Saud

Hezbollah – blacklisted as a terrorist organisation

Iran – normal sunni / shi’ite conflict

Iraq – they claim the Saudis support ISIS

ISIS – some private donations but not state sanctioned

Syria – wish to overthrow Assad with support from Qatar and Turkey

Saudi Arabian Friends:

Egypt – financial support for government

Palestine – financial support

Saudi Arabian Questionables:

Hamas – support Palestinian unity but declared Hamas parent group, Muslim Brotherhood, terrorists

Israel – both disagree on US policy regarding Iran and Syria

Turkey – rivals for regional superiority

[Ozi]

These are the appalling facilities we are keeping asylum seekers in, some of the muslim scum coming out of the middle east that Australia has agreed to accept will probably end up here. Unbelievable squalid conditions, airconditioned, running water, three meals a day, medical support, recreational facilities.

I know half our country's pensioners would move in tomorrow, but we can't afford to look after them like human beings, pensioners whose taxes paid for these facilities.

[BBsq69]

Churchill and Montgomery mavericks?

Absolutely. Montgomery was really difficult to manage. Of course Churchill had the huge weight of his family's reputation behind him and had a fairly spectacular intellect when he was sober, but he always did his own thing ... and both had huge egos but that probably comes with the territory.