Well I think you'll find that the vast majority of the action was carried out by US/UK forces.

Same as Iraq really, there was a fairly big coalition (about 50 countries) that was led by also US/UK

 

Yes and it's the 'led by' that seems to be the issue as we are way too gung ho in our approach and have no planning for what happens next!

 

Well I agree with you on that

It's also worth noting that the Clinton was dragged 'kicking and screaming' in the Kosovo by Blair, who wanted the ethnic clensing of Muslims to be stopped.

 

Should we? Why's that then?

 

Because most Muslims are not Islamic jihadists hell bent on destroying everything western

 

Some are then.

 

That's just media bias though. The people fighting to join Russia in the Ukraine are rebels, yet the people fighting for a 'Islamic state' are a deranged cult...

 

Isn't that diffence between nationalist/separatists and a deranged cult?

I'm not sure what you mean by media bias (in this instance)

 

Because they are bad people first and foremost. They'd be bad people whether they followed a relion or not. Their religious beliefs are what they use to justify their appalling actions.

 

Would you describe Mohammad and his early followers as "bad people first and foremost"?

 

It tells me you have a very selective interpretation of the aggregate available information on this subject, from whichever media or other sources you might care to mention. Outside of Seymour Hersh and the Russians, pretty much nobody made any serious claim that the rebels were behind the attack, let alone tried to put forward any halfway convincing evidence that they were. As for why the event was 'suddenly dropped', as you put it, your selective interpretation seems to be going into massive overdrive again. It was only dropped when Syria agreed to the supervised removal and destruction of its entire chemical weapon stock, not because anyone had lost interest in the subject.

 

You, like so many, really do swallow all this Western media crap don't you? Well carry on if it makes you feel better. In fact you probably think Israel are in the right too

Cameron's and Obama's administrations were still talking about investigating the chemical attack long after Assad agreed to the decommissioning of chemical weapons!

Then one day the CIA pop up and say ... hmmm we're not so sure now and nothing more is heard of it from anyone! Buried like so many things that don't suit certain countries' agendas!

 

EFA. Sometimes you can go much too far out of your way to avoid what the Western media is saying, and end up believing an even bigger pile of horse excrement.

 

IS proclaim to be fighting for the formation of an independent Islamic state, much like how the Ukranian separatists are fighting for the formation of a state away from the central Ukraine. Both groups fight for a similar goal and yet one is described by tHe media as separatists/rebels and the other as terrorists.

 

How can you possibly equate these 2 situations?

I think you should read some of the reports from independent journalist on the horrors that are being carried out by IS.

They are not interested in creating a small Islamic state, they want to expand and expand, their ambition goes far beyond Iraq and Syria.

They have little on no local support, they've murder tribal leaders and ethnically clensed entire areas.

I'm sorry but it's just daft to compare Ukraine with IS. IS are terrorist in every sense of the words, as their action clearly show

 

It's really not the drastic leap you're making it out to be. Not when you boil it down.

 

It is.

The rebels in Ukriane are by definition separatist.

IS are terrorists, they are not fighting separation from someone, or somehwere, they are by all foul means trying to create a medieval state from which very few of them actually come. A state that will have no borders.