Foreign fighters in Iraq & Syria

[davidbfpo]

The first apparently confirmed British national responsible for a suicide VBIED attack in Syria has led to a variety of media reports alongside police action, searching his last home. Missing from most accounts is that the VBIED attack on Aleppo's Central Prison was a failure and killed a watching commander.

Raffaello Pantucci, RUSI's CT Analyst, has a short YouTube interview (3 mins):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySmw...ature=youtu.be and a longer RUSI Commentary, which reviews that status of the "breeding ground" for such fighters:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment.../#.Uv5gZWJ_vk9

[TheCurmudgeon]

I was thinking the same thing about the Spanish war. Sadly, it is not a matter of wanting to go to a foriegn country and help, it is a matter of who you are going to help. I know that seems obvious, but in a democracy, it should not matter who you are going to help or why you are going to help ... as long as it is happening outside Great Britain or America.

[Wyatt]

I was thinking the same thing about the Spanish war. Sadly, it is not a matter of wanting to go to a foriegn country and help, it is a matter of who you are going to help. I know that seems obvious, but in a democracy, it should not matter who you are going to help or why you are going to help ... as long as it is happening outside Great Britain or America.

If you are going to do it, you need to have discretion and be willing to face the consequences. "Aiding and abetting the enemy" is easy for the US gov to pursue if they aren't all too sure who the enemy is in the first place

[Bob's World]

Anyone who voluteers to go fight in someone else's war for anything other than significant money is an "extremist." After all, what could be more extreme behavior?

But to assume these people are radicalized, or proponents for some extreme perspective on Islam is an assumption without basis in logic or fact. Most probably believe in the principle of self-determination; and where legal democracy is either illegal or ineffective, then only "illegal democracy" remains. Insurgency only differs from democracy by legality. This is civil disobedience taken to the extremes because taking it to the extremes is the only viable option for change.

One need not agree, but one should respect those who answer that call. Even if one's mission is to stop them from succeeding.

[carl]

Anyone who voluteers to go fight in someone else's war for anything other than significant money is an "extremist." After all, what could be more extreme behavior?

But to assume these people are radicalized, or proponents for some extreme perspective on Islam is an assumption without basis in logic or fact. Most probably believe in the principle of self-determination; and where legal democracy is either illegal or ineffective, then only "illegal democracy" remains. Insurgency only differs from democracy by legality. This is civil disobedience taken to the extremes because taking it to the extremes is the only viable option for change.

One need not agree, but one should respect those who answer that call. Even if one's mission is to stop them from succeeding.

That"s nonsense. The foreigners who volunteer to fight for ISIS are fighting for the imposition of a radical Islamist state and they plainly state that. They do not "probably believe in the principle of self-determination", they certainly do believe in the imposition of Jihadist police state.

Geesh, talking about putting lipstick on a pig.

[Bob's World]

Carl, actually it is you espousing ideological nonsense. I tolerate your binded shots in my general direction, and I realize many are equally as ideolgogically blinded as yourself and agree in large part with your baseless positions. That does not make those positions correct.

In many ways you are a microcosm of post Cold War US national security strategy, becoming increasingly ideological ourselves to the point where we perceive ourselves to be existentially threatened merely because some other ideolog believes differently.

Personally I am cautious of all ideologs, regardless of their espoused creed. I prefer those who think, seek to understand, and then speak or act; over those who memorize, recite and perform.

These are political struggles. When one loses sight of that reality and over-focuses on "the lipstick" (to borrow your phrase) one forgets its all about the pig. And that pig is politics; and the political competition is driven by fundamental human nature, not fundamentalist ideology. Those denied legal redress will take illegal redress. It is what humans have always done and will always do.

[carl]

Bob Jones:

I am pleased to have conferred upon me the status of microcosm. I will do my best to bring honor upon this position and will strive to leave it in a better state than I found it.

Now, back to business.

You made a blanket statement about the motives of foreign fighters in Syria and you speculated that "Most probably believe in the principle of self-determination...". That is patently untrue in the case of foreign volunteers for the ISIS. They do not in any way believe in the the principle of self-determination. They are fighting for something so far removed from that that to state that "Most probably believe in the principle of self-determination" is...nonsense.

Obviously these are political struggles. And one of the political goals some of the contestants are fighting for is the establishment of a Jihadist police state. That is what the takfiri killers are fighting for. Because it is based on twisted theological principles does not make it any less a political position. Not to recognize that is, in my microcosmic view, being blind to something the takfiri killers are very forthright about.

[Tukhachevskii]

Carl, actually it is you espousing ideological nonsense. I tolerate your binded shots in my general direction, and I realize many are equally as ideolgogically blinded as yourself and agree in large part with your baseless positions. That does not make those positions correct.

In many ways you are a microcosm of post Cold War US national security strategy, becoming increasingly ideological ourselves to the point where we perceive ourselves to be existentially threatened merely because some other ideolog believes differently.

Personally I am cautious of all ideologs, regardless of their espoused creed. I prefer those who think, seek to understand, and then speak or act; over those who memorize, recite and perform.

These are political struggles. When one loses sight of that reality and over-focuses on "the lipstick" (to borrow your phrase) one forgets its all about the pig. And that pig is politics; and the political competition is driven by fundamental human nature, not fundamentalist ideology. Those denied legal redress will take illegal redress. It is what humans have always done and will always do.

...to this nonsense. Political preferences are non ideiological? Ever hear of the spanish civil war? So politics is purely proceducral? I take it these people travel abroad to risk their lives for such administrative or procedural political goals as wether or not the central government should pick up household rubiish on Tuesday instead of Wednesday? Its crap like this that simply turned me off SWC. Bobs worls and I have debated before. Right now I just can't be bothered. Politics is not ideological?!! Thank god this site doesnt require a subscription.