Foreign fighters in Iraq & Syria

[davidbfpo]

Two different commentaries, both are British. First The Guardian's columnist George Monbiot, the headline and sub-title:

Orwell was hailed a hero for fighting in Spain. Today he'd be guilty of terrorism

The International Brigades are acclaimed for bravery. But British citizens who fight in Syria are damned. If only they did it for the money

He opens with:

If George Orwell and Laurie Lee were to return from the Spanish civil war today, they would be arrested under section five of the Terrorism Act 2006. If convicted of fighting abroad with a "political, ideological, religious or racial motive" – a charge they would find hard to contest – they would face a maximum sentence of life in prison. That they were fighting to defend an elected government against a fascist rebellion would have no bearing on the case. They would go down as terrorists.

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...MCNEWEML6619I2

The contortions the UK government are embarking on are well made. One wonders if anyone who goes to fight for Bashir Assad will be targeted?

Then from a different point of view, Shiraz Maher of ICSR, in The Daily Telegraph and his final passages are:

Mr Maher said that many British jihadists denied any plan to return.

“They are often very explicit in saying they want to live in a Muslim land and they want to fight Assad and carry on doing this to build an Islamic state in Syria. They say the idea of coming back to the UK to work in Primark or whatever is ridiculous.”

However, Mr Maher highlighted a contradiction: if the fighters have no plan to return, they would have no reason to hide their identities.

“I ask them ‘why won’t you tell me who you are?’ And the answer often is ‘don’t be stupid, we might have to come back one day’.”

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-in-Syria.html

[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.