ISIS in Iraq and Syria

And when ever has the concerns of the American people as a whole been of a concern to the ruling elite?
You really hate US. In first place, yes some interest in the region to make sure Iran is weak and would be easier to target Iran's allies but the only one who gains the most with this are the Saudis not Israel, second the mess in the region was already explained with all the artificial borders created by foreigner countries.
 
After we followed the US into Afghanistan, they said it could take ten years to win the war on terror. That didn't work too well, did it? We're now at more risk than ever. Is that because we should not have become involved, or because it's a losing battle?

Would the world be a marginally safer place if the west had reacted differently to 9/11, or is it all a foregone conclusion and the hatred for the West is such that it wouldn't have made any difference?

Is David Cameron right to now be saying we will sanction air strikes? I can't see how that will make anything better, as proven after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Having said that, I don't know if there is any answer. These people don't seem interested in negotiation or compromise.
 
After we followed the US into Afghanistan, they said it could take ten years to win the war on terror. That didn't work too well, did it? We're now at more risk than ever. Is that because we should not have become involved, or because it's a losing battle?

Would the world be a marginally safer place if the west had reacted differently to 9/11, or is it all a foregone conclusion and the hatred for the West is such that it wouldn't have made any difference?

Is David Cameron right to now be saying we will sanction air strikes? I can't see how that will make anything better, as proven after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Having said that, I don't know if there is any answer. These people don't seem interested in negotiation or compromise.
Their spokesman, Adnani, has released a new message. He mentions some of your points for a brief second and basically says 'we only attacked you guys because you attacked us. just leave us'. Its worth a listen to.

 
Burn the flag or bin it, doesn't matter what is written on it.
 
Their spokesman, Adnani, has released a new message. He mentions some of your points for a brief second and basically says 'we only attacked you guys because you attacked us. just leave us'. Its worth a listen to.



But can you trust them - and can you just stand by and watch whilst they murder thousands?

Part of me - probably the biggest part of me if I'm honest - would prefer to be an ostrich and let them get on with it. But that's not really the right attitude is it?
 
Heck, I'd happily stage the most illuminating of bonfires with their flags, but its still not going to be popular amongst Muslims in the region.
 
Other than Iraq? If Saddam was still there do you think Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and potentially Jordan would have been in the mess that they are today? How about Hamas' control of the Gaza Strip, leading to several violent conflicts with Israel? Obama perhaps is not the cause for the Spring Arabs brought on themselves, but he has definitely become a symbol of the collapse of Americal influence in what were freindly Arab countries. Obama handed Mubarak, formerly a staunch US ally, to the MB on a plate and then did his best to undermine Al-Sisi from regaining control. Escalation here in the ME is at least partly a result of "moderate regimes" loss of trust in the US, a former ally. Little wonder that more than ever before oil money is channelled to non-state armed forces spreading terror when diplomatic leverages are no longer an option. A $2bn arms deal between Egypt and Russia is another sign of Obama's administration ME wonders.

I'll be frank with you about Arab extremism. As an Israeli I doubt there's a great difference to us. Arabs were extreme in their anti-Israeli sentiments before Islamic fundamentalism erupted. The fact that the West is now shit scared because this crap is soon going to served closer to home is the least of my concerns. At least some Israelis even take some pleasure at the prospect. Here it was all doom and gloom a couple of years ago when Secular Arab regimes fell, and neighbouring countries went into chaos. However, two years later we see collaboration (if quiet) between Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Gulf States. This area is full of dangers, but also opportunities. I doubt the IDF could be dismantled anytime soon, but prospects for a somewhat better future are not that far fetched. Until shit hits the fan again, of course.

Who knows? The situation in Arab countries has been bubbling for a while now, due to the inability of despotic 'moderate' secular regimes to provide any kind of dignity to their citizens. You have long bemoaned the inability of Arabs to do anything but blame outsiders for their problems and railed against American involvement. Ironically, when they do rise up to try to create a better situation for themselves, you see it as a situation to be controlled by the US and their continued support of the 'moderate' dictators they've risen up against (by killing more people and almost certainly stealing more money from their populations). Strange you don't mind that kind of American involvement.

How did Obama hand Mubarak to the MB? This is a continuation of your idea that Mubarak should have been left to finish his term, undoubtedly before passing his mantle onto another Israel friendly President. Obama somehow prevented this, undoubtedly by....controlling the millions on Egypt's streets? The traditionally pro-American 'Arab Street' right? Ready to listen to orders from US presidents.

And then how did Obama do his best to undermine Al-Sisi? By not praising his slaughter of thousands and imprisonment of many more?

Ironically of course, I can tell you for a fact that Al-Sisi's rise is making people that were previously peaceful turn to extremism, both Islamist and unfortunately even some secular youth groups. He is overseeing an exodus of Egyptian youth unrivalled in Egypt's history and perhaps most analogous to what happened in Iran after the revolution. People who planned to go back are no longer planning to do so. But hey, at least he's a 'moderate' secular leader right?

Who are the 'moderate regimes' in your eyes in the ME?

In my own experiences, both here and in my travels across the ME, there is one word that unites all Islamists (and increasingly all Arabs opposed to their regimes). Justice. From the most peaceful and moderate of Islamists to Salafists to Salafist Jihadis to fighters in ISIS, justice. You won't find justice by supporting despotic 'moderate' regimes that dish out injustice. You won't find any peace in the region either by supporting such regimes.

Do you foresee a situation in which the Arabs perpetually live under despotic 'moderate' regimes who create an undignified life for their citizens and perpetually stay quiet?
 
Its a war between Iraq and ISIS, kill or be killed. He was an Iraqi soldier according to the article. Fair play to this guy for escaping and having the will to live but my understanding is that if you sign up to become a soldier then you should be prepared for the worst case and thats death.

He was going to be killed for being Shia. His Sunni compatriots in the Iraqi army were spared.
 
Its a war between Iraq and ISIS, kill or be killed. He was an Iraqi soldier according to the article. Fair play to this guy for escaping and having the will to live but my understanding is that if you sign up to become a soldier then you should be prepared for the worst case and thats death.
He was a captured soldier. You die in the line of fire not in captivity. That is what you prepare for. He was also selected out for extermination due to his religious inclination rather than his nationality of service. This is not a war between iraq and isis.
 
He was a captured soldier. You die in the line of fire not in captivity. That is what you prepare for. He was also selected out for extermination due to his religious inclination rather than his nationality of service. This is not a war between iraq and isis.
If it isn't war between Iraq and ISIS then what else is it? War is barbaric, its not a surprise if one group decides to kill a soldier whos been fighting on the other side.
 
If it isn't war between Iraq and ISIS then what else is it? War is barbaric, its not a surprise if one group decides to kill a soldier whos been fighting on the other side.
It is an attempted creation of a caliphate with supporters and aggressors across the region. It's less to do with nationality and more to do with religious sectarianism. This is why the Kurdish and the Shia, Christian and Yazidi are being murdered. ISIS should never have got the gains in IRAQ as ISIS sent in a force of less than a 900 to take Mosul and routed a force of over 30,000 with modern military equipment. Sunni tribes colluded with ISIS and even turned on their own. It was basically a huge recruitment and equipment drive.

At the point of the executions there weren't fighting. They were captives, no longer fighting soldiers. They were taking far from the battle front and executed.
 
Can someone wiser than me on the region give the pros and cons of a western-led military intervention of (more so by air than boots-on-the-ground) places that are currently being occupied by ISIS? Genuinely don't know whether I'm siding with the doves or hawks on this one. Being Shia, I certainly don't want these bastards emboldened and would ideally like them defeated as soon as possible. Why are western powers biding their time here? Is it the wise thing to do?
 
There's a video of Shia militias beheading ISIS members after successful assaults on their positions.
 
There's a video of Shia militias beheading ISIS members after successful assaults on their positions.

No sympathy for isis, these vile beasts should instead be thrown into industry size meat grinders.
 
Ugh just watched it. I fail to understand humanity sometimes.
I guess the only way to fight terror you need to use terror as well, now Isis terrorists know they are going to have the same fate and if US gets a bit more involved then they will run straight to the infidels to escape death from the militias.
 
Who knows? The situation in Arab countries has been bubbling for a while now, due to the inability of despotic 'moderate' secular regimes to provide any kind of dignity to their citizens. You have long bemoaned the inability of Arabs to do anything but blame outsiders for their problems and railed against American involvement. Ironically, when they do rise up to try to create a better situation for themselves, you see it as a situation to be controlled by the US and their continued support of the 'moderate' dictators they've risen up against (by killing more people and almost certainly stealing more money from their populations). Strange you don't mind that kind of American involvement.

You don't have to convince me that the secular Arab regimes have been anything but horrible for their own citizens. However, we all had a very recent living example right in front of our faces about the false dawn that promised instant democracy would be. It would have been wonderful if the Mubaraks of this world gave way to liberal, secular democratic alternatives, but these were never on offer. The idea that letting Islamist barbarians take control in the hope that in time the peole would have a democratic way to oust them was going to cost thousands of lives, and following Obama's example many preferred to bury their heads in the sand. Why should they care if the Egyptians pay a price for their exercise in "democracy"?

How did Obama hand Mubarak to the MB? This is a continuation of your idea that Mubarak should have been left to finish his term, undoubtedly before passing his mantle onto another Israel friendly President. Obama somehow prevented this, undoubtedly by....controlling the millions on Egypt's streets? The traditionally pro-American 'Arab Street' right? Ready to listen to orders from US presidents.

Obama should have shown public support for a gradual transition from Mubarak to a democratically-elected alternative. From an Egyptian POV this could have allowed enough time for developing alternatives to the MB, which were the most organized of opposition parties practically making the elections a one-party exercise. Expecting a swift transition to democracy (envisaged in his infamous Cairo speech) was every bit as daft as his predecessor's "mission completed" attempt. Crucially, this poor understanding also led to diminishing American influence in other countries in the region. Whether democratic or not is irrelevant in terms of US influence. Traditionally US-ally regimes understood that the US would not be there for them in times of trouble, because Obama doesn't like their undermocratic nature. While the president's values are to be admired, the bottom line is that US influence here is weaker, non-state armed militias are stronger and eventually having lost trust in a global superpower regimes feeling under threat would look for alternatives.

And then how did Obama do his best to undermine Al-Sisi? By not praising his slaughter of thousands and imprisonment of many more?

By picking the MB during the coup? Obama is paid for taking care of America's interests, and not those of the MB. Overthrowing Mubarak was not the smoothest of exercises too, and it wasn't long after that when it was fairly clear to all that he was not replaced by a liberal democratic regime.

Ironically of course, I can tell you for a fact that Al-Sisi's rise is making people that were previously peaceful turn to extremism, both Islamist and unfortunately even some secular youth groups. He is overseeing an exodus of Egyptian youth unrivalled in Egypt's history and perhaps most analogous to what happened in Iran after the revolution. People who planned to go back are no longer planning to do so. But hey, at least he's a 'moderate' secular leader right?

It's a shame realy, although I doubt many were on the way back to a MB-run Egypt (?).

Who are the 'moderate regimes' in your eyes in the ME?

Other than the puppet-regime across the river I can't think of any, tbh. It's typically a code for US allies.

In my own experiences, both here and in my travels across the ME, there is one word that unites all Islamists (and increasingly all Arabs opposed to their regimes). Justice. From the most peaceful and moderate of Islamists to Salafists to Salafist Jihadis to fighters in ISIS, justice. You won't find justice by supporting despotic 'moderate' regimes that dish out injustice. You won't find any peace in the region either by supporting such regimes.

Forgive me for not caring much for Islamic "justice".

Do you foresee a situation in which the Arabs perpetually live under despotic 'moderate' regimes who create an undignified life for their citizens and perpetually stay quiet?

Nothing changed my opinion, which I had expressed a few years back in the Arab Revolution thread, that Arab states were a million years away from becoming stabe democracies. In the meantime i think the region would be better for secular rather than religious dictatorships there.
 
It is an attempted creation of a caliphate with supporters and aggressors across the region. It's less to do with nationality and more to do with religious sectarianism. This is why the Kurdish and the Shia, Christian and Yazidi are being murdered. ISIS should never have got the gains in IRAQ as ISIS sent in a force of less than a 900 to take Mosul and routed a force of over 30,000 with modern military equipment. Sunni tribes colluded with ISIS and even turned on their own. It was basically a huge recruitment and equipment drive.

At the point of the executions there weren't fighting. They were captives, no longer fighting soldiers. They were taking far from the battle front and executed.

Good post, thanks
 
I guess the only way to fight terror you need to use terror as well, now Isis terrorists know they are going to have the same fate and if US gets a bit more involved then they will run straight to the infidels to escape death from the militias.

See, the reason I watched it was because a part of me thought I'd feel vindicated watching these savages get a taste of their own medicine. But seeing it has just made me feel terrible - no human being deserves a fate like that, regardless of who they are and what they've committed.

Seriously disappointed in the militias, they shouldn't have matched their barbarism, even in a revenge context.
 
You don't have to convince me that the secular Arab regimes have been anything but horrible for their own citizens. However, we all had a very recent living example right in front of our faces about the false dawn that promised instant democracy would be. It would have been wonderful if the Mubaraks of this world gave way to liberal, secular democratic alternatives, but these were never on offer. The idea that letting Islamist barbarians take control in the hope that in time the peole would have a democratic way to oust them was going to cost thousands of lives, and following Obama's example many preferred to bury their heads in the sand. Why should they care if the Egyptians pay a price for their exercise in "democracy"?



Obama should have shown public support for a gradual transition from Mubarak to a democratically-elected alternative. From an Egyptian POV this could have allowed enough time for developing alternatives to the MB, which were the most organized of opposition parties practically making the elections a one-party exercise. Expecting a swift transition to democracy (envisaged in his infamous Cairo speech) was every bit as daft as his predecessor's "mission completed" attempt. Crucially, this poor understanding also led to diminishing American influence in other countries in the region. Whether democratic or not is irrelevant in terms of US influence. Traditionally US-ally regimes understood that the US would not be there for them in times of trouble, because Obama doesn't like their undermocratic nature. While the president's values are to be admired, the bottom line is that US influence here is weaker, non-state armed militias are stronger and eventually having lost trust in a global superpower regimes feeling under threat would look for alternatives.



By picking the MB during the coup? Obama is paid for taking care of America's interests, and not those of the MB. Overthrowing Mubarak was not the smoothest of exercises too, and it wasn't long after that when it was fairly clear to all that he was not replaced by a liberal democratic regime.



It's a shame realy, although I doubt many were on the way back to a MB-run Egypt (?).



Other than the puppet-regime across the river I can't think of any, tbh. It's typically a code for US allies.



Forgive me for not caring much for Islamic "justice".



Nothing changed my opinion, which I had expressed a few years back in the Arab Revolution thread, that Arab states were a million years away from becoming stabe democracies. In the meantime i think the region would be better for secular rather than religious dictatorships there.

I would say there isn't a 'liberal' secular democracy anywhere in the Middle East (though of course Israel does a far better job in that regard than its surrounding countries). Who said that they would immediately give way to a wonderful Modern Western style democracy? The Western countries themselves didn't give way immediately to a wonderful modern Western style democracy. These things unsurprisingly tend to take time and effort, a road travelled on by pretty much every single democracy on the planet now. The Arabs seemed to be seen as different. If they don't give rise immediately to these excellent democracies, then they have failed and they deserve to go back and live in the squalor of their 'secular' dictators.

I'm interested as to what indications you think the MB gave that showed that they were not going to give up power peacefully? What did they do that was particularly out of sync with a country lumbering out of a 60 year military dictatorship and in a revolutionary time?

It is funny actually. My wife is part Egyptian so I keep an eye on goings on there. Everything with the MB was about the 'hope' that they would give over power, despite doing little to prove that they were going to build this dictatorship people feared. Rather than not giving them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps people should do the opposite? They were of course too busy fantasising about how they were going to sell the canal to the Qataris but hey ho, what happens happens.

And if we're going to talk about elections, the 2nd round of the presidential elections showed more votes for non-Islamists than Islamists and a roughly equal split of 'moderate' liberals and conservatives, religious or no. Though I of course understand to others, being Arabs, it was simple 100% dangerous and 100% stupid.

So the Americans don't care...but you do? How kind. Has any country not paid an initial price for its 'exercise in democracy'?

Obama's Cairo speech was in 2009. I have explained to you before that the American president has no impact on the 'Arab Street'. So Obama pushes for the gradual transition that Mubarak himself advocated partway through the revolution. And then what? By that point, the protesters didn't want to stand down; they knew his secret police would go after them once they were out of a big group, that 6 months was more than enough time to rig elections in favour of another establishment candidate and they were rather less willing to listen after he had the day before released many of the country's major criminals from prisons, taken the police off the streets and unleashed armed thugs onto Tahrir Square. So Obama advocates this solution, the solution already advocated by Mubarak and rejected by protesters....then what? This is the question I asked you last time that you failed to answer. Unleash the army? A mass killing? What role exactly do you think Obama has in this?

How did Obama pick the MB? I think you (and others) are overplaying the influence the USA actually has over its allies in the Middle East. Sure, it could blow any of the countries in that region to bits. Sure, it could enforce crippling sanctions on any of them. Sure, it can protect or attack them through diplomatic channels in the UN or other international organisations. But the reality is that its allies in the region pretty much do as they want don't they? The Saudis will carry on with their appalling human rights record in every field. The Egyptian Army will carry on killing and stealing from its own citizens (and performing virginity tests and arresting gays and atheists. Who needs Islamists when you have 'secular' leaders like this eh?). The Qataris will carry on with a system that is effectively a form of modern slavery. And the Israelis will carry on building settlements and subjugating the Palestinians. And what will happen? Pretty much business will carry on as usual, regardless of who's sitting in the White House.

Not particularly no but the exodus now is unlike under the MB at all. I know people may find it impossible to believe because in the ME, Islamists= spawn of the devil and Army men= our friendly 'secular' chums but there was far more political and personal space under the MB than there is now under Sisi. There was a level of accountability to the people never before seen in contemporary Egyptian politics.

I don't care much for Islamic law or Justice either. That wasn't my point though. As long as injustice carries to rule throughout the Arab world, Islamists peaceful and violent will find fertile ground for recruitment. A lot of people link the rise to extremism to poverty or Islam itself. You can make arguments for both, I see it as more to do with the lack of justice. And continuing to support these known secular dictators in fear of a potential Islamist dictatorship will not solve the problem.
 
i think we're getting off topic with many of these points, on which we have debated in the Egypt thread before. It is true that transition to democracy was gradual in the West too, but it occured during times when atrocities were not served Live on TV to living rooms worldwide. Moreover, political unrest in the largest Arab states could have catastrophic consequences not only to other countries in the region, but others further away.

My wife is not Egyptian, which perhaps explains why I didn't remember all the events clearly. I therefore turned to Wiki's help:

"Within a short period, serious public opposition developed to President Morsi. In late November 2012 he 'temporarily' granted himself the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts, on the grounds that he needed to "protect" the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure.[81][82] He also put a draft constitution to a referendum that opponents complained was "an Islamist coup."[83] These issues[84]—and concerns over the prosecutions of journalists, the unleashing of pro-Brotherhood gangs on nonviolent demonstrators, the continuation of military trials, new laws that permitted detention without judicial review for up to 30 days,[85] and the seeming impunity given to Islamist radical attacks on Christians and other minorities[86]—brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the streets starting in November 2012.[87][88]

By April 2013, Egypt had "become increasingly divided" between President Mohammed Morsi and "Islamist allies" and an opposition of "moderate Muslims, Christians and liberals". Opponents accused "Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood of seeking to monopolize power, while Morsi's allies say the opposition is trying to destabilize the country to derail the elected leadership".[89] Adding to the unrest were severe fuel shortages and electricity outages—which evidence suggests were the result of Morsi's mismanagement of the economy.[90]

On 3 July 2013 Mohamed Morsi was arrested and detained by the military,following a popular uprising of millions of Egyptians[86][91][92][93][94] demanding the resignation of Morsi. There were also limited counter-protests in support of Morsi."

It therefore appears that people's fear of MB was well founded. Not only that, but during Mursi's time sinai became a safe haven like never before to Islamic fundamentalist loons of the type we're discussing here in this thread. It also saw unprecedented traffic of arms to Hamas across (or underneath, to be precise) the Egyptian-Gaza border.

Obama's "leading from behind" strategy appears to have lost its way. He should have led a strategy which would stabilize the ME rather than promote an impossible transition to Arab democracy. The choice between secular dictatorship and a MB one should have been clear to the leader of the Western world, with all due respect to the will the masses. The toppling (or the logic in supporting it) Saddam and Mubarak were just as wise as each other. Thankfully, the latter was corrected by the people of Egypt and their army. It's unfortunate indeed that following the short experience in Egypt, but ample evidence in nearby Arab states, the next democratic exercise is not going to be in the near future.
 
Ah so we're never going to achieve gradual reform to democracy in the Arab world because they are not going to be afforded the same time and ability to do so as the rest of the world was? Because Egypt is apparently too important, they will not be afforded the same opportunities?


Let's be clear, I'm not at all a supporter of the MB, nor are the half of my Wife's family that are Egyptian. My wife was in Egypt at the time of the constitutional problems and actually went down to protest. But why not set the scene? This was a 'post revolutionary' Egypt in which nothing but the President of the old regime had fallen. The Judges of his reign were still there, the journalists, the army men and the businessmen. The Judges had dissolved the first democratically elected parliament in Egypt's modern history, a completely free election and the election which was the basis for the constitutional assembly. He gave himself those powers, set the referendum for the constitution and then once the referendum was done, he gave up those powers. The sort of move that undoubtedly would have been hailed as a brave move had it been done by a liberal, secular politician against the old regime but done by an Islamist....

Pro-brotherhood gangs? Perhaps that is true but I can't really say I saw too much evidence of these, except on one occasion.

As I said, I'm not sure exactly what the end point for your theory is. So we have a bunch of 'secular' army men running Egypt, completely unaccountable to their populations but at least Israel and the wider world are safe apparently. You imagine that eventually they will bring some kind of democracy and yet these men, as army dictators are wont to do, have shown little interest beyond lining their own pockets, launching silly national projects, keeping their populations stupid and destroying even secular, peaceful opposition. So the Arabs forever stay in a state of stagnation, all in the name of stability. Ironically, making the populations progressively more and more angry.

The electricity and power problems (as well as water now) are actually getting worse. Much much worse. A lot of people who went down to protest didn't go down because of some inherent dislike or distrust of the Islamists but because they were angry at rising prices, electricity cuts and were starting to believe the incessant media lies about the Islamists, ranging from Morsi is selling state secrets to Qatar to how he's going to sell them the Suez Canal to how he was released from prison during the revolution by a crack team of Hamas and Hezbollah!!! operatives (the Hezbollah thing is actually in the charges he is facing).

A common misconception. The SCAF released a huge amount of Islamists from prison during their time in power before the Presidential elections, some of them convicted terrorists. Many of those unsurprisingly rocked up in the Sinai. Morsi released a small amount of political prisoners, many of them secular opposition locked up during SCAF's time.

Performing virginity tests (and justifying it as Sisi did 3 years ago when SCAF were performing them by telling Egyptians that 'these girls are not like our daughters. They lie in tents with men. We have to perform these tests to ensure they cannot accuse out soldiers of having raped them).
Massacring hundreds of civilians in peaceful protests.
Imprisoning many thousands more
Hundreds disappearing in the military courts
Labelling of all opposition as enemies of the state
Bassem Youssef shut down
Journalists attacked in the streets
Journalists arrested by the state
Arresting and imprisonment of homosexuals
Showing sectarian tendencies by imprisoning Christians who dare show Atheist tendencies
Not rebuilding the Churches they promised they would
Not protecting the churches post their breakup of the protest camps, despite everybody knowing that some of the more extreme elements of the Islamists would go after them
Also imprisoning some Muslims who have become Atheists
Forming a police division specifically to arrest Atheists
A constitution which is disturbingly similar to the 'Islamist' one passed a couple of years ago

Amongst many many other things. I have to say, even on a social level, before we even get onto how the military in Egypt continue to steal from and mismanage the country, I'm struggling to see exactly how our friendly secular friend Sisi is particularly different from the MB? Sure he kills Islamists and Arabs in general but genuinely is he that different? He even believes in religion in politics.


Well, there we go. A little window perhaps into one of the reasons that 'the masses' in the Arab world are so angry at the United States and Israel.
 
Anyway, back on topic,


Syria crisis: British jihadists becoming disillusioned with fighting rival rebels and want to come home
isis-fighter-reuters-v3.jpg











One fighter claimed they would be willing to undergo deradicalisation and submit to surveillance if they were assured of avoiding jail terms on their return







British jihadists fighting in Syria are increasingly disillusioned and want to come home, it has been reported.


The jihadists have become frustrated that instead of fighting President Assad’s forces they are finding themselves in fire fights with rival rebel groups.

Dozens of them are reported to want to return to Britain but are afraid they will be locked up for years if they do so.

One jihadist claiming to represent 30 British fighters with a group linked to Islamic State said they would be willing to undergo deradicalisation and submit to surveillance if they were assured of avoiding jail terms on their return, according to The Times.

“We came to fight the regime and instead we are involved in gang warfare. It’s not what we came for but if we go back [to Britain] we will go to jail,” he is said to have told researchers at the International Centre for Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) at King’s College London. “Right now we are being forced to fight - what option do we have?”



Peter Neumann, the director of ICSR, told the newspaper he believed up to a fifth of British jihadists could be looking for a way to disengage from the fighting in Syria: “The people we have been talking to... want to quit but feel trapped because all the government is talking about is locking them up for 30 years.”

He said the government should consider setting up a deradicalisation programme and suggested that disillusioned jihadists could become powerful spokesmen against Isis propaganda.

More than 500 British citizens are believed to have travelled to Syria as jihadists and 20 have been killed there, at least six of them in fighting between rebel factions. About 260 have returned, with 40 awaiting trial.

Social media posts have revealed that some jihadists fighting in Syria are concerned that if they are killed in fighting other jihadist groups rather than the Assad regime they will forfeit any chance of martyrdom and paradise.


What do people think? I have to admit, I have developed a quite healthy hatred of these people but who better to dissuade people from joining the group than people who've been there and seen it?

Then again, from the way the article is worded (if we're to believe it of course), they're more bothered by the fact that they're fighting other rebel groups.....rather than actually thinking that what they've done is wrong morally.
 
30 left who want to come back or 30 British Jihadis left with ISIS total?