In the context of me claiming that we'd had a big influence, and being ridiculed by Octavious for claiming such a thing, the sensible interpretation is (2).

"UK policy in Syria died when Labour voted it down. Our influence over Syria is virtually non-existent. Syria's problems are overwhelmingly of Syrian making"

Is it not clear what that means? We in the UK had the chance to have a huge influence over Syria, but we voted not to. Now we have virtually none. What about that is contested or controversial? What about that says the UK has nothing to do with anything? The UK is a permanent member of the UN security council. In my view choosing not to act is as much an action as choosing to act.

But regardless of that, the major players in the Syrian crisis are Syrian. Chief amongst them is Assad. There are a number of significant non-Syrian players. We could have been one of them, but chose not to be. Now we no longer have the opportunity. Our part has been to stand by and watch, for which we carry no small degree of guilt. But we are neither the cause of nor one of the main actors in this tragedy.

Just a pair of questions

where does Isis get the weapons from?
who deals with Isis, regarding oil or human trafficking?

I think the underlying reasons for Isis to exist have many points in common with the reason for any big criminal organization like a drug cartel to exist: big corruption together with failing to see that the war cannot be fought only on the militar ground.

Anyway, I'm sorry for Paris, and @Hannibal, I'm also sorry for Beirut :/

@principians thanks, we've seen worse :)

I don't think the UK has ever had much influence on Syria. The highpoint was probably 1918, when the British Army (my grandfather amongst them) captured Damascus from the Ottomans. Since then the French, Russians, and Syrians themselves have had a much bigger say. I doubt that the decision not to carry out air-strikes against Daesh targets in Syria has made much difference.

The UK's influence on the Syrian situation, which I was suggesting, lies in the UK's enthusiastic participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 which created a power vacuum which has, in turn, allowed IS to emerge and to flourish.

France is pounding Isis strongholds in Syria with airstrikes as we speak

I remember a French minister going to Northern Syria in 2013 and then he proceeded to call the terrorists "revolutionaries" and shit like that. If Europe and and the US could fuck off, yeah that'd be great.

I think there is some confusion between our influence in Syria, that is being able to affect what happens there, and our responsibility for creating the situation.

The situation is primarily created by Assad and his brutal and clumsy attempts to cling on to power. It is added too in large measures by those in the IS rebellion movement who have surrendered their last ounces of humanity to be just as brutal or worse fighting back. Various other players have added their own fuel to the fire, of which we are one, but our share of the blame is relatively small. Our biggest failure was not acting when we could have made a difference.

What do you think "you" should have done when it would have made a difference?

Europe, the US, and their Turkish and Gulf Arab allies are responsible for the situation. The weapons and political support they gave to the opposition is what fucked Syria. The invasion of Iraq fucked Iraq, and made it a breeding ground for terrorists who would later take their experience to Syria. Accept responsibility.

And please stop fucking us. It's extremely painful.

AAAAIE and let's not forget the Israeli invasion and occupation of parts of Lebanon. Where was the US and Europe with their moral values then? 17,500 dead in the first few months, and 18 years of occupation.

I'm confused, Hannibal. Do you want more intervention or less?

"where does Isis get the weapons from?
who deals with Isis, regarding oil or human trafficking?"

The long and short of it is, Turkey.

Though Saudi Arabia has given a lot of support to ISIS, Turkey is where most of hte oil goes. Noteably this is a NATO ally who has the second largest army in NATO, and is not willing to engage.

Also the Turks have regional concerns, with their conflict with the Kurds having restarted and fears of Iranian influence - Iraq is now a democratic country where a Shi'a majority has turned to Iran as their main regional ally - this is a direct result of the US/British invasion of Iraq. And it has greatly strengthened Iranian influence in the region.

Syria, long an Iranian ally, became a target for anti-Iranian powers in the region when it fell into civil war. Hezzbollah, the Iranian/Syrian sponsored Shi'a milita has been supporting the Syrian government militarily, and you can see the bombing of Beruit (by ISIS) as a direct consequence.

"The situation is primarily created by Assad and his brutal and clumsy attempts to cling on to power."

Who propped up Assad? Who sold him weapons? Who... well Russia and Iran mainly. So there is that. The fact that this region has histroically been treated as a cold war theatre, where the USSR and US/NATO fight for allies is a big factor in the current situation.

But I will say this again, we should criticise our own actions first and foremost, because we have the power to do something about them.
Our voices do have an impact in our democratic states.

@orathaic I want no intervention at all.

"The situation is primarily created by Assad and his brutal and clumsy attempts to cling on to power."
So he should step aside so that the bastards who tried to take him down win? Yes he is clinging on to power, and stepping aside isn't the solution. Not trying to get rid of him (fucking off as I said earlier) is the solution

@Hannibal: i suspect this is an aside, but the Irish have had their falling outs with Israel over Lebanon - see http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/falling-out-with-israel-over-the-safety-of-irish-soldiers-in-lebanon-218080.html#!
(having only data which is 30+ years old isn't helpful but after 30 years most government documents become public knowledge, so we do at least ahve this; can't find anything more recent.)

Whether this counts as 'western moral values' depends on what you define as the west. If you use it to mean 'The major military power, and anyone who agrees with them at the time...' then no, this clearly doesn't count.

So the answer to your question "and let's not forget the Israeli invasion and occupation of parts of Lebanon. Where was the US and Europe with their moral values then? 17,500 dead in the first few months, and 18 years of occupation", would be that they were behaving exactly as you'd want them to?

@orathaic no you're right sorry for overlooking that

@Octavious they could have pressured them. Israel relies on them, especially the US for weapons. They could have made them leave, but they didn't.

@Hannibal76 Don't apologise, I'm only responding to my own country's part. And it has been a minor one. Your general point is entirely valid.

As for Assad, the media fed version of event, as told in the West was of an uprising by the people against a dicatator (*long propped up by the East-West conflict) One where the army started to defect to the rebel side.

I don't know how much accuracy there is in that media and they don't seem to mention the part 'we' have been playing in it. But the resulting development was not Assad's doing...

@octavious, it would be nice if you expand on Assad's brutality. I've heard about certain attack with biological weapons that was attributed to Assad's regime, and later a UN report showed it was actually responsability of the oposition. Not that I know much about the subject, but doubts I do have.

Trying to work out if it's ironic or just hypocritical that Octavious is now engaging in wider political/philosophical discussion in this thread even though he criticised me and others for not sticking rigidly to the OT of Paris and messages of shock, condolence, and well-wishing.

Disapointing really. And for someone whose clearly intelligebt, to choose to be indignant, rude, and patronising, and then proceed to be hypocritical.

I'd much rather people engage each other meaningfully in debate, and try to win each other round through reason and measured discourse, rather than turn up and just be insulting and superior. This would also likely be a more positive way of engaging people.

"AAAAIE and let's not forget the Israeli invasion and occupation of parts of Lebanon. Where was the US and Europe with their moral values then? 17,500 dead in the first few months, and 18 years of occupation."

The only country that can force Israel to do anything is the US. In the meantime Europe voted in favour of UNIFIL, and continues to provide a significant part of its forces, and also contributed to the MNF.

I agree that outside intervention in the region has generally made things worse but I am not sure that is the case with Lebanon, where things just remained as bad as they were before.

I agree that our (western) efforts in the Middle East have been poorly thought out. We are, however, where we are.
Let’s be clear that this problem (that is militant Islam, Shia and Sunni) is not confined to the Middle East but encompasses virtually the whole globe. I could give multiple examples, but perhaps this recent one from Bangladesh will suffice - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/31/asia/bangladesh-blogger-killed/
In my view there are actually analogies to be made with the history of the last century. Germany was treated harshly at Versailles- history has largely judged this to be a mistake. Indeed, this view largely emasculated the response to the rise of Nazism in the thirties. It would be a mistake to go along these lines now. We must be clear who and what our enemy is and fight them and it without our hands tied behind our back – to do so will only be taken as a sign of weakness by our enemies.

@fullhamish, no.

Looks a militant Buddhists in Myanmar, there is nothing limited about Islam which makes their violence different.

State violence on the other hand is a multi-trillion dollar industry. Dwarfing all non-state actors.

I will say this again, just like charity, criticism starts at home.
In a democracy your voice can influence your government's policies.

Thus it is your duty to criticise what you see as evil done in your name, by your democracy. Let the Muslims deal with their own militants.

Also @:"I'd much rather people engage each other meaningfully in debate, and try to win each other round through reason and measured discourse, rather than turn up and just be insulting and superior. This would also likely be a more positive way of engaging people."

The very word 'win' makes your version of debate sound competitive. How do you win? Well by any means necessary...

It is like you are calling for rules of war. Because you don't like the tactics being employed by the other guy.

What we need is to have discussions, where we manage to understand the other person's point of view; not convince them, but empathize with them.

We will not end this global state/non-state violence by 'winning' anything, only by understanding, and acting in enligthened self-interest can we end the violence. Through empathy and understanding.

We're not playing a zero-sun game here. Everyone can win at the same time. We have ample evidence of societies ending the use of violence, and as the world continues to globalize, we are becoming more ad more one society. The wealthy, not the west; who can fly anywhere, and share ideas online...