The ongoing ISIS massacres

[C0ckney]

Those same Gulf states that are currently sending fighter jets at them? Or other ones?

yes.

[Sava]

It's strange. ISIS seems more interested in governing than the Republican Party does!

[Colonâ„¢]

yes.

So you're claiming that the Gulf states have been supporting a group that had been fighting the US, their ally, in Iraq and whose ultimate goal is to eradicate those states from the face of the earth?

[C0ckney]

no.

[C0ckney]

i'm claiming that

western policy of arming 'moderate' rebels, will probably allow turkey and the gulf states the cover they need to arm and fund whoever they like (including ISIS) without attracting too much criticism.

[Colonâ„¢]

OK, you are just saying the Gulf states would want to to fund and arm a group that intents to whipe them out.

[Colonâ„¢]

Are you one of those people who likes to drop the term "geopolitics" in discussion? I've been finding that it's usually such people that come up with harebrained theories. As if the term is mutually exclusive to logics.

[C0ckney]

are you one of those people who, instead of responding to what's actually been said, or even asking an honest question if unsure, just makes a load of silly assumptions, constructs the necessary strawmen and ends up talking nonsense with themselves?

[Sava]

yes

[C0ckney]

i knew i could count on you

[Colonâ„¢]

are you one of those people who, instead of responding to what's actually been said, or even asking an honest question if unsure, just makes a load of silly assumptions, constructs the necessary strawmen and ends up talking nonsense with themselves?

"...will probably allow turkey and the gulf states the cover they need to arm and fund whoever they like (including ISIS)... "

I'm pretty sure I'm reading it right when I think you are saying the Gulf states would want to fund and arm the group they are presently bombing and who intends to whipe them out.

And I take it you indeed are one of those people who's happy to talk of "geopolitics".

[Colonâ„¢]

And actually was an honest question. I was genuinely curious about you.

[Nikolai]

What I find interesting, is the role of Turkey. It is a bit blurry at times. They are nominally allied to NATO, but refuse NATO to use their bases, buy ISIS' oil and turn a blind eye to smuggling of arms and other necessities over the border. One would think ISIS were a threat to them, but they act differently. I suspect the Kurds getting a beating has a role in the equation, but still.

[Dinner]

They're now allowing their baes to be used because ISIS finally let the Turkish hostages go. That said, they have no interest in helping the Kurds especially the ones associated with the PKK so they're probably hoping ISIS wipes them out. Also they're demanding the coalition target the Asad regime as well as ISIS before they contribute any forces.

[C0ckney]

nikolai: as i, and now dinner have said, the turks, while not wasting any love on ISIS, are more than happy to see the rojava kurds - who have strong links to the PKK - taking a beating. given the choice between ISIS, who (from a turkish point of view) are merely very unpleasant, and the rojava kurds, whose model represents a threat to turkish control of south eastern anatolia, it's obvious which they'll prefer. having said that they are of course somewhat constrained by three things: first not wanting to get too deeply involved in the syrian civil war, beyond supplying arms and money, second; ISIS's sheer unpleasantness and finally; international disgust at ISIS, making open support very problematic.