What's in a name?

Throughout the world news media are doing their very best to confuse us, is it IS, ISIS or ISIL and what difference does a name make anyway?  The simple answer is, there is no simple answer.  In essence ISIS and ISIL mean similar things, ISIS is the acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria whilst ISIL is the acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (the old name for an area covering Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine).  Personally I keep to the simple catch-all, IS or Islamic State.
It gets really interesting when you look at the history of the group, founded in Iraq in 1999 as Jamaat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  In 2004 al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Osama bin-Laden's al-Qaida, simplifying the organisations English name to al-Qaida in Iraq, this despite there being ideological differences between the organisations.  In 2006, under the new leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group distanced itself from al-Qaida when they became Islamic State in Iraq or ISI and then in 2013 declared a Caliphate, a state for all Muslims adopting the name Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham.  Al-Sham is the Arabic name for the area known in English as Levant (ironically from the French).  IS have become so extreme in their actions that even al-Qaida, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in the USA and 7/7/ bombings in London, have now distanced themselves from the organisation following IS indiscriminately killing civilians in Syria

So, history lesson over, what are they.  In my December 2013 article entitled One man's terrorist..... I concluded that the definition of a terrorist will ultimately be decided by those that write the history books, which task is usually undertaken by the victors.  And here is the nub of it, IS are, without doubt, an extreme organisation, imposing their will upon thousands, if not millions, of others by force and terror but is that so very different to NATO sanctioned bombing campaigns, the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the abuse of the Boor by the British in South Africa?  The list goes on.  Are they terrorists, freedom fighters or is this a straight forward civil war?  I'm not sure it matters.

The United Nations employ a philosophy of self determination, as so peacefully and democratically exemplified in Scotland on the 18th September earlier this year, but where does this leave the people of Eastern Ukraine?  No matter what can be argued about Russian involvement, there is no denying that a significant part of the population of Eastern Ukraine no longer wish to be a part of the Ukrainian state yet when they have held elections they have been deemed illegal. 

Frankly I don't know what the answer is, better and more informed minds than mine have and are failing to resolve these situations, I therefore, feel safe in just one conclusion and that is: Regardless of the rights and wrongs of both situations, Ukraine and the Middle East alike, innocent people are being made to pay for the desires of others and when innocent people call for help we have a morale obligation to respond.

In the words or Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Scotland the Brave........or the Foolhardy?

 
So today is the big day, arguably the most important day in British history since the formalisation of the Union in 1623, will Scotland make that first step into the big wide world or will they remain in the cradle of, what is in effect, their own making when James the 6th of Scotland agreed to become James the 1st of England.  Time will tell but whatever the result, I expect it will be the wrong one.

From my perspective the biggest issue with the "Yes" campaign is that no one seems to know the answers to any of the important questions. Salmond and his crew have neglected to present any form of plan to show what the future will be like and how it will be funded other than repeating the mantra "North Sea Oil". They don't even know what currency they will use: If they want to keep the British pound they will have to apply to Westminster and the Bank of England, if they want the Euro they will have to join the list of applicants including member states like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - and what will they use in the meantime? Whichever currency they use, short of starting their own, they will immediately be surrendering a huge part of the independence they crave by surrendering control of their currency to a foreign bank/government for which they have no right to vote and as such no right to recompense or even reply. 
Neither do they know if they will be applying for EU membership whilst the EU have made it quite clear that membership will not be automatic, they will certainly not be fast-tracked, bypassing the current applicants Iceland, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey (Turkey being contentious on human rights issues). 
Are they planning on funding their own military? Who knows and what will happen to the Scottish battalions in the British army? 
I wonder what the Scottish representatives in Westminster intend doing, after all, who will they represent if Scotland go their own way? 
There are so many questions that have been glossed over by Salmond and the rest of the independence campaigners by waving the banner of Scottish Nationalism whilst seemingly hoping that no one will look close enough to see that the banner is being held up by an old broomstick and is printed on and old bed-sheet.

Why make such a big deal of the "Yes" campaign without mention of the "Better together" gang?  It's quite simple really, it's the independence campaigners that want a change so really they should let us know what changes they want.  I'm not actually opposed to an independent Scotland but before the people vote they should really know what they are voting for and the remaining parts of the Union should have a say in what they will be allowed to take with them in the "divorce settlement".