ISIS Atrocity Tipping Point

[Ten oz]

@ MigL, I was responding to "I think the American administration acually expected to find WMDs in Iraq" by explaining why I felt they did not really care one way another. I think we agree. As for a "master plan" I don't pretend to know what the administrations full motives were for misleading the public. Perhaps we shall never know.

[overtone]

I have nothing confused.

Well, somehow you got from my disparagement of your political faction to implying I "hate America".

 

Here's some more terminal confusion from you:

 

 

" - - -is that you pretend to love everybody

- - - -

Just to counter your expectation that Bush was going to "seed" some WMDs to save face

- - - -

It is not impossible he threw some of the evidence of his criminality into the trench. It is also not impossible he transferred a few items to Syria or had them buried there. The fact that the inspectors did not find anything "after" Saddam let them in, does not prove their non-existence.

- - -

if you add up all the people you figure are stupid and ugly, you are left with a "real America" that has no members. { Like I said: "You have yourself and your ugly, corrupt, ignorant, violent, and dangerous political faction confused with the entire country of America, apparently}

- - - - -

I asked you before who your confederates are, and you have not answered.

- - - - "

 

and so forth and so on.

 

Leaver the personal out of it, is my suggestion. Argue issues, not people. If you can.

 

 

 

More than likely they were looking for a Middle eastern country that could be easily/quickly converted to Western style democracy

If they were trying to install a Western democracy, why did they bring in Adnan Chalabi? Why did they work so hard to prevent elections? Why did they ban unions, Baath Party members, Federalist organization of the political entities, and legal defense of the internal economy against predation?

 

What it looked like was simply an extraordinarily incompetent attempt to replace a rogue strongman with a cooperative one, on the richest oil field remaining on the planet.

Edited February 22, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I don't like being lumped in with people that I myself think stupid and ugly, and at the same time do not like you disparaging an idea or feeling of mine by associating it with an ugly and stupid person. You are actually the one who has consistently spewed the mantras of the left...including your implications that my thoughts are controlled by Fox, and that I am a tea party member, neither of which are true.

 

I would love to talk the issues but you seem incapable of responding to what I say about the issue itself with anything but "sounds like what the hateful ugly bigots on Fox would say". That does not address the issue, even a little bit.

 

In terms of this thread, there are young women and young men in our country and many other countries who are flocking to Daesh for the adventure and excitement and romance and cause of Daesh. Pledging allegience to the Caliph. Protected and funded by the movement. The men are given "sex slaves". And the women are promised romance. There is a draw, the thing is happening in our world, our fellow humans are being paraded out on a beach and having their heads cut off with no trial or recourse. Women are having their pleasure parts removed as to not enjoy sex, so the "husband" will not be cheated on. Buildings are being bombed by us to stop this movement. Daesh and its supplies and its holdings and its people are being bombed to stop them.

 

My question to you, has been and still is, do you think commiting our blood and money to defeating Daesh is a good idea or a bad idea?

 

And the other aspect of fighting Daesh, other than the bombs and bullets, is to defeat their propaganda. I would rather have the assistance of a smart person like you, in this aspect, than have you repeat anti-american talking points at every opportunity.

 

I fully realize we should and do disuade bigotry in our own ranks. I fully realize we should remove the untrustworthy from the ranks of our leadership. I fully realize we should not operate, as a country calculating our own advantage, but operate in a manner consistent with the goals and desires of the greater world community. But we do these things. Republicans and Democrats both.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

Consistent with my drift here, and very pertinent to the discussion is our support of the "Arab Spring". Well intentioned, certainly, but not very well thought out. It is fine to remove an oppresive and backward power structure, through social media and the energy and passion of the young people of a society...but then what fills the power vacuum that is left after the overthrow?

 

There is a stability and workable reality imposed by a king. Especially if alligience is pledged to the King. Corruption and malfeasence is of course not desirable, But working through these issues one by one, attempting to disuade the king from oppressive or Marie Antionette type, or Mafiosa type behavior is one thing. Attempting to remove them by force, is another. The power vacuum is liable to be filled by Daesh.

 

Regards, TAR

To defeat Daesh we need to offer a workable alternative.

[CharonY]

ISIS has been getting away with a horrendous murder rampage across Syria and Iraq, but now they went too far burning the Jordanian pilot alive. Beheading is tame in comparison.

 

To go back to op one thing that is interesting is the use of social media by Daesh/ISIS to propagate their atrocities. Obviously this seems to be part of a propaganda campaign, though I am wondering what or whether they have precise goals. To demonstrate and attract followers while concealing that they actually have not state building plan?

 

In this context it is relevant to remember that in many wars, especially civil wars these levels are atrocities are not that rare. I still can remember the news stories of the war in former Yugoslavia. The difference was that it took some digging (in some cases, literally) to find the things that were done. The scope of the atrocities are quite a match (though precise numbers would are probably not easy to come by for the current conflict). As such, the savagery may not be unique, but the use for propaganda using modern technology is.

[overtone]

 

I don't like being lumped in with people that I myself think stupid and ugly, and at the same time do not like you disparaging an idea or feeling of mine by associating it with an ugly and stupid person. You are actually the one who has consistently spewed the mantras of the left...including your implications that my thoughts are controlled by Fox, and that I am a tea party member, neither of which are true.

If you read again with comprehension, you will note that I am not disparaging your ideas by associating them with people, but vice versa.

Tip: if you are trying to establish independence from the ugly and stupid propaganda barrage I have variously labeled above

that is, the currently dominating propaganda operations in the service of that peculiar US political faction we must refer to by euphemisms such as "conservative" or by its famous media identities such as "Fox" or "Tea Party" or "Limbaugh" or "Murdoch press" (since we are not allowed to refer to it by name), which we are currently awash in and find framing most of our public discourse,

those people and "ideologies" and "ideas" and so forth, that you don't want to be associated with,

you might want to do something about your habit of repeating their ugly and stupid and childish catch phrases, such as "spewed the mantras of the left". Because it's not me who's signing your name to those posts and lumping you in with the sources of that kind of language and "thought" - I'm just the messenger.

 

In terms of this thread, there are young women and young men in our country and many other countries who are flocking to Daesh for the adventure and excitement and romance and cause of Daesh. Pledging allegience to the Caliph. Protected and funded by the movement. The men are given "sex slaves". And the women are promised romance. There is a draw, the thing is happening in our world, our fellow humans are being paraded out on a beach and having their heads cut off with no trial or recourse. Women are having their pleasure parts removed as to not enjoy sex, so the "husband" will not be cheated on.

Most of that is ordinary Saudi and Egyptian and Yemeni and Kuwaiti et al practice - you know, the US allies, like the Daesh-of-its-time we supported in Afghanistan when it was fighting the Soviets (the Soviets were building schools for girls, talking about women's rights). One way for the US to work at opposing radical Sunni fundamentalism like Daesh would be to quit backing its religious and ideological base in the region.

Another way might be to build alliances with the local governments that oppose Daesh and its fundie ideology. You want to know who in the region manages to run their country without beheading people (last one in 2003, rumored) and mutilating women's genitalia and eliminating democracy for theocracy and committing atrocities in the service of a future Caliphate? - Iran.

Perhaps we could start our operations against the local Klan by rehabilitating our relationship with Iran, beginning with profuse and abject apology for a hundred years of colonial abuse, and helping them with their nuke development so it's done safely and they no longer have to live in fear of the Israeli nukes. Is that what you meant by devoting blood and money to defeating Daesh?

Edited February 25, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Iran already is against Daesh and supports the Syrian Government against Daesh, and supports Hezbollah against Daesh. The negotiations with Iran currently underway are to KEEP her from getting nuclear weapons she can use against Israel.

 

Politics wise, we are now in a mess in Washington because the Republican leadership invited the Israeli leader to speak to congress about NOT letting Iran develope nuclear capability. Now its Republican against Democrat, and we need to be unified. We have more history supporting Israel than supporting her enemies. We have more history being the enemy of Iran, than her friend.

Iran's "guard", that protects the power structure in Iran, just ran an operation attacking a mockup of an American carrier. They see us as enforcing crippling economic sanctions, more on Israel's side than theirs. They see us as the imperialist power you want us not to be. Perhaps it would be nice to be seen as not an imperialist power, but to accomplish that we would have to disown our friends, and allow bad stuff to occur in the area, without our intervention. We are friends with Germany and Italy. Countries we fought in WWII. They get oil from Syria to fuel their industries. It is to our benefit that they get their oil from somebody who does not cut off people's heads. The fact that they are Christians, does not prove religion inept. It proves Daesh bigoted.

 

Just for the record, I would like to point out that many of the Western values that you and I hold dear are from the 10 commandments and from the Bible. Whether I am an Atheist or not, I was brought up with Christian values. Not the only way to be, certainly. But it works.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

Iran already is against Daesh and supports the Syrian Government against Daesh, and supports Hezbollah against Daesh. The negotiations with Iran currently underway are to KEEP her from getting nuclear weapons she can use against Israel.

 

Politics wise, we are now in a mess in Washington because the Republican leadership invited the Israeli leader to speak to congress about NOT letting Iran develope nuclear capability. Now its Republican against Democrat, and we need to be unified. We have more history supporting Israel than supporting her enemies. We have more history being the enemy of Iran, than her friend.

Iran's "guard", that protects the power structure in Iran, just ran an operation attacking a mockup of an American carrier. They see us as enforcing crippling economic sanctions, more on Israel's side than theirs. They see us as the imperialist power you want us not to be. Perhaps it would be nice to be seen as not an imperialist power, but to accomplish that we would have to disown our friends, and allow bad stuff to occur in the area, without our intervention. We are friends with Germany and Italy. Countries we fought in WWII. They get oil from Syria to fuel their industries. It is to our benefit that they get their oil from somebody who does not cut off people's heads. The fact that they are Christians, does not prove religion inept. It proves Daesh bigoted.

 

Just for the record, I would like to point out that many of the Western values that you and I hold dear are from the 10 commandments and from the Bible. Whether I am an Atheist or not, I was brought up with Christian values. Not the only way to be, certainly. But it works.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Actually Jewish, Christian and Moslem tradition all comes from the Bible. The Koran retells the stories of the bible, with "corrections" that show where the Christians and the Jews were in error. The whole thing is quite stupid from an Atheist's point of view, when people talk about God "wanting" this or that, or fighting on Allah's side or against him. Like the creator of the universe would pick favorites.

Edited February 26, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

Iran already is against Daesh and supports the Syrian Government against Daesh, and supports Hezbollah against Daesh.

Also, Iran is favorably disposed toward democratic politics, does not oppress women as much as the other States in the region, does not support violent jihad, and harbors a lot of oil. These are the makings of a good ally.

 

 

The negotiations with Iran currently underway are to KEEP her from getting nuclear weapons she can use against Israel.

That is another matter that might be relieved through an Iranian alliance with the US - with US guarantees of nuclear protection for Iran against Israel and military aid against Pakistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia if necessary, Iran would have much less need for nuclear weaponry. Failing that utopian possibility, collaboration with Iran in setting up a nuclear weapons program would help insure its safety and security.

 

 

 

 

It is to our benefit that they get their oil from somebody who does not cut off people's heads.

Everybody gets oil from Saudi Arabia, a country that has been beheading people routinely for as long as it has existed - in addition to severely oppressing women, harboring slavery, supporting violent Islamic jihad world wide, and setting itself up as a theocratic monarchy opposed to democratic reforms.

 

 

 

They see us as enforcing crippling economic sanctions, more on Israel's side than theirs. They see us as the imperialist power you want us not to be.

And they are correct in that assessment, as far as US /Iran relations are concerned.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it would be nice to be seen as not an imperialist power, but to accomplish that we would have to disown our friends, and allow bad stuff to occur in the area, without our intervention.

If there are entities that insist the US continue to damage its interests and dirty itself by doing wrong, abusing what should be allies, and in general behaving as an imperialist power, are you sure they are our "friends"?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Edited February 26, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Perhaps our friends are not trustworthy, and perhaps we are not trustworthy, but perhaps we are trustworthy and perhaps our friends are as well. We do have a history of befriending the wrong people for the right reasons, but as well we have a long long history of supporting the ideals of freedom, human rights, democracies and the rule of law. There are plenty of examples of where good intentions caused problems, but consider in this regard our support of the Arab Spring. Our support has empowered those against the brutality of the Assad Regime. In turn equipment and weapons, introduced into the area to support the revolution against Assad has fallen into the hands of Daesh. We did not intend to support Daesh, but they gain control of stuff we intended for the Iraq government, or for the Kurds, or for the non-Daesh opponents of Assad, and it winds up giving Daesh the power to operate in the area with impunity. And the University in London that produced Jihadi John, also produces the elite that controls the press, the business community, the artistic community, the diplomatic community, the military and the social services community. It would be unuseful to call the character of the president of the University into question, or to blame every alumnus of supporting Radicalization.

 

The bottom line here, is not to find somebody to blame for Daesh, but to find the reasons and the ways to keep our children from joining up. I agree with you that women should not be chattle. Idealogically we are on the same team. I would like to keep it that way.

 

Regards, TAR

Of primary concern to me here is that young women are lured into Daesh to be the wifes of Jihad fighters. Sex slaves? Certainly not equal partners. And the question still remains in my mind of whether or not the women's clitori will be forcefully removed. And whether or not they know about this eventuality when they sign up. Understanding what 'role" they are to take in the movement, might disuade a few brilliant young women from piling in on the wrong side of this thing. Daesh is evil, bigoted, sexist, savage, and criminal. We need to stand against them, together.

[imatfaal]

...And the University in London that produced Jihadi John, also produces the elite that controls the press, the business community, the artistic community, the diplomatic community, the military and the social services community. ...

Citation required. As any fule kno the ruling classes in England go to Eton and then Oxford. The London Universities have - since foundation and perhaps excepting King's - been fountains of revolution, agitation, and annoyance to the elite.

[tar]

Imatfaal,

 

I am seeing reports on the news and internet this morning that Jihadi John has been IDed.

 

British and U.S. officials are declining to comment as active murder investigations are underway, and lives are at stake.

 

From mediaite.com the Washington Post reported he had associations with Westminster University, and was from a well off family in West London.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadi-john-the-islamic-state-killer-behind-the-mask-is-a-young-londoner/2015/02/25/d6dbab16-bc43-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html?tid=pm_pop

 

 

CNN reported he had a computer degree from Rutgers (in my home state of NJ) and was born in Kuwait.

 

Just heard on CNN a U.S. government offical talking about the radicalization happening in all 50 U.S. where slick propaganda on social media says "trouble souls, come and join the Caliphate and fight for IS and live a life of glory in these apocolytic times fighting for the cause, and if you can't come, kill somebody at home."

 

Regards, TAR

I am not thinking there is any evidence what-so-ever, that these are the last days. People have had those "the end is near" sandwich boards on for at least 50 years. There is zero reason to think the end will come in your particular life time. Your end, yes, your children's end, no. Might be a human need/want/desire to have their life and their time, be the most important, the ultimate thing. Evidence however shows that life goes on, even after a person or a company or an institution, or a country or an ideology passes. Great Empires have risen and fallen. The best, workable story is therefore a sustainable, all inclusive one, not a story that picks winners and losers. And certianly not any story that promises the reward comes "after" death. I am rather sure that we should take care of the place for our children, and take care of each other, while we are alive. Now is the always the most important time, but seeing that others will have a good now, is superior a goal then to destroy anybody's now, for a false promise of last days glory and satin couches and rivers of honey and 20 virgins.

Edited February 26, 2015 by tar

[Airbrush]

ISIS vs the entire World is technically WW3. They are conquering territory and making lots of money, just like the Nazis of WWII. How long before they have enough money to purchase a nuke from either N.Korea, Pakistan, or the former Soviet Union? Can you think of any organization that is MORE extreme than ISIS? They will execute in mass, behead, burn alive, and so why not destroy a major city to set an example? They are the level of delusion that would justify destroying entire cities. How do you retaliate against an organization living within human shields? ISIS is the prime candidate for the first nuclear attack since WWII. They feel invulnerable.

 

Like the pundits on CNN say, ISIS is VERY Islamic. The good news is we have their game plan, the Quran and those other "holy" texts that they are following literally. They believe they are going to fight Armageddon soon and Jesus will return to reward them. This should allow us to ambush them, figuratively speaking.

 

What is it like living the daily life of an ISIS fighter? Is their commanding officer abusive? Do they threaten recruits with death for minor infractions? Do you think some of the foot soldiers are somewhat disillusioned? How do you get out after you sign a contract with ISIS?

Edited February 27, 2015 by Airbrush

[overtone]

We do have a history of befriending the wrong people for the right reasons,

We also have a history of assaulting good people for bad reasons, and supporting horrible people for unforgivable reasons.

 

 

 

 

but as well we have a long long history of supporting the ideals of freedom, human rights, democracies and the rule of law.

The US has overthrown more democratically elected governments, and replaced them with cooperative strongmen of one kind and another, than any other country on earth. In the Middle East, for example, the US overthrew freedom and human rights and democracy in Iran and installed the medieval Shah, corrupted democracy and damaged the progress of human rights in Iraq in order to install the more modern dictator Saddam Hussein, and meddled in Syria in various ways preventing progress toward human rights or freedom etc (including employing friendly Syrians as proxy torturers of US detainees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria–United_States_relations), while allying itself with all of the most oppressive, unfree, human rights violating, undemocratic regimes in the area: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar, etc etc.

 

So if you are as focussed on women's clitori as you seem to be, and wish to protect these vulnerable young women from the blandishments of Daesh propaganda, you might improve your odds of success by recognizing that many of the women joining Daesh are thereby (in their view) freeing themselves from worse oppression in their US allied home cultures. Add to that the draw of having a cause, a future worth fighting for, and you might recognize that approaching the matter of recruitment as a matter of countering false offers of reward with more realistic depictions of hardship is unlikely to make much impact.

 

 

This notion that being an American and being opposed to this or that bad guy means one's country is on the side of the good has got to go. It's a species of naivety not excusable in a wannabe empire's citizens - if your army is at home defending your borders from dangers that's one thing; if your government is sending soldiers and pilots halfway around the world to kill people in your name you have to know better what's going on. This, for example, has to change:

 

 

There are plenty of examples of where good intentions caused problems, but consider in this regard our support of the Arab Spring. Our support has empowered those against the brutality of the Assad Regime. In turn equipment and weapons, introduced into the area to support the revolution against Assad has fallen into the hands of Daesh

The US did not, in general, support the Arab Spring at all, let alone with weapons and military gear. The main source of US supplied weaponry captured by Daesh has been the Iraqi Army's abandonment of its equipment, which had nothing to do with US support of any springtime in Arabia, and everything to do with the long established pattern of inexplicably poor morale among soldiers supposedly allied with the US and trained by the US.

 

It's been a long time since America allied itself with a military force that fought harder and with more courage than its enemies.

Edited February 27, 2015 by overtone

[Airbrush]

These young women believed their manipulative recruiters, then they discovered living under ISIS is worse oppression. Too bad. What do they do, complain? We will probably never hear from them. They are only pons to be used by the higher cause.

 

Here is a new "tipping point" with ISIS. I'm seeing on CNN that ISIS is destroying ancient artifacts in Mosul museums. They control 1800 archeological sites. Their belief is these should all be destroyed! This is almost funny, in a bitter way, excellent material for many Saturday Night Live comedy skits.

 

Looks like the attack on Mosul in April or May will be comparable to D-Day on Normandy 6-6-44.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

These young women believed their manipulative recruiters, then they discovered living under ISIS is worse oppression. Too bad. What do they do, complain? We will probably never hear from them. They are only pons to be used by the higher cause.

 

 

I really don’t understand how you can be so sure (bolded mine)?

 

You have absolutely no evidence to support your assertion.

In England, those that have returned from ISIS haven’t done so through duress; in fact they seem determined to a, recruit more fighters or b, commit/plan atrocities on home soil, probably both.

 

 

Here is a new "tipping point" with ISIS. I'm seeing on CNN that ISIS is destroying ancient artifacts in Mosul museums. They control 1800 archeological sites. Their belief is these should all be destroyed!

 

 

 

Why do you care?

 

 

Looks like the attack on Mosul in April or May will be comparable to D-Day on Normandy 6-6-44.

 

 

 

How?

Edited February 27, 2015 by dimreepr

[overtone]

 

 

Here is a new "tipping point" with ISIS. I'm seeing on CNN that ISIS is destroying ancient artifacts in Mosul museums. They control 1800 archeological sites. Their belief is these should all be destroyed!

That's a standard pattern - we saw it in Afghanistan, with the Buddhist sites in particular.

 

ISIS still has a little ways to go, to hit the level of Boko Haram. It turned out there was no tipping point in Africa - even in the oil countries.

[Ten oz]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is simply the counter insurgency to the U.S. led Iraq war. When Bush said "bring them on" the them he was unknowingly referencing is what ISIL is today. We (United State and western nation allies) can not successful intervene today if we fail to understand or acknowledge the cost of such intervention previously. No Iraq war, Saddam is still in power, no ISIL.

 

The belief that democracy is superior to the dictatorships that rose after western nations took a ruler to the region following WW1 has only replaced tyranny with terrorism. Are Libya, Egypt, and Iraq better off now that Gaddafi, Morsi, and Saddam are gone? Has Pakistan become a better place since Musharraf was forced out ending his quasi military rule?

 

If the answers to the above questions are no, unclear, or not sure than this far all interventions in the modern era have only made matters worse. That should caution/humble our policies moving forward. Democracy is great but peace is even better.

[imatfaal]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is simply the counter insurgency to the U.S. led Iraq war. When Bush said "bring them on" the them he was unknowingly referencing is what ISIL is today. We (United State and western nation allies) can not successful intervene today if we fail to understand or acknowledge the cost of such intervention previously. No Iraq war, Saddam is still in power, no ISIL.

 

The belief that democracy is superior to the dictatorships that rose after western nations took a ruler to the region following WW1 has only replaced tyranny with terrorism. Are Libya, Egypt, and Iraq better off now that Gaddafi, Morsi, and Saddam are gone? Has Pakistan become a better place since Musharraf was forced out ending his quasi military rule?

 

If the answers to the above questions are no, unclear, or not sure than this far all interventions in the modern era have only made matters worse. That should caution/humble our policies moving forward. Democracy is great but peace is even better.

 

 

Just a note - Morsi was surely democratically elected? He was removed by a quiet but completely illegal military coup after widespread protests. It is worth bearing in mind the huge numbers of dissidents sentenced to death, journalists imprisoned, and freedoms revoked since the despotic Morsi was replaced with the US and Army friendly puppet government.

[Ten oz]

Just a note - Morsi was surely democratically elected? He was removed by a quiet but completely illegal military coup after widespread protests. It is worth bearing in mind the huge numbers of dissidents sentenced to death, journalists imprisoned, and freedoms revoked since the despotic Morsi was replaced with the US and Army friendly puppet government.

 

You are right. I meant Hosni Mubarak. Morsi can to mind instead. I would edit my post but I general dont think editing posts that have already been responded to is appropriate.

Mubarak is considered to have been a corrupt leader taking bribes and using his position to make himself and family incredibly wealthy.

[overtone]

 

 

The belief that democracy is superior to the dictatorships that rose after western nations took a ruler to the region following WW1 has only replaced tyranny with terrorism. - -

- - - - -

That should caution/humble our policies moving forward. Democracy is great but peace is even better.

Historically, the governments that arose after WWI and WWII were more democratic than the strongman governments the colonial powers imposed before independence and re-imposed as soon as they could after independence. Iraq, for example, was a constitutional monarchy - like England, and modeled after England's - with a bicameral legislature of popularly elected House members and an appointed Senate. The military coup that destroyed this setup was followed by power struggles between various foreign interests as well as army factions etc, ending with the US backed strongman Saddam Hussein taking over.

 

Strongman governments are not peaceful, in general. Even when they look orderly to outsiders, the ongoing violence by which they maintain themselves is often significant, severe. Saddam's certainly was.

 

Furthermore, there is no particular reason to think that events such as the US invasion of Iraq were or have been in the service of democracy - it was the Iraqis, after all, not the US, who insisted on holding actual elections rather than accept the US program of "temporary" strongman rule.

 

So a narrative that assumes the current mess is a result of attempting to bring democracy to the unprepared has no basis in history.

[Ten oz]

 

So a narrative that assumes the current mess is a result of attempting to bring democracy to the unprepared has no basis in history.

 

You are right. I conflated the past with the present. My point was more directed toward those who have shared opinions regarding the need for western military action to some how create or foster democracy in the region. As you pointed out my specifics about the past were too linear. Western interests and approaches in the region have changed with time.

[Airbrush]

....this far all interventions in the modern era have only made matters worse. That should caution/humble our policies moving forward. Democracy is great but peace is even better.

 

Then you propose we leave ISIS alone and mind our own business, and let them conquor all the territory they want? Then the enslaved people of Iraq and Syria can live peacefully subservient to their overlords.

 

When the allies attack Mosul in April or May, do you think our forces will be successful outright, or will we get bogged down in endless street to street fighting (urban hedgerows)? Will everything be booby trapped? Will they use human shields? Stay tuned folks, the casualties may approach the D-Day landing.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Airbrush

[Beshears Brad]

If ISIS gets defeated, another group will emerge just the same. The reason. Three little verses in the Quran. 4:95.....8:12....& 9:29. The only way. Would be to convince Muslims as a whole to agree to change the wording so it cannot be interpreted the way moderate Muslims say that radicals mis interpret. Also moderates will argue that smithing of the heads of infidels and it is the right for Muslims to fight infidels, which is what you will read in these three verses, comes from reference to a war that happened thousands of years ago. And that Allah gives them the right to defend themselves and shield their kind from anything not like them so their kind aren't corrupted. That's a load, because it doesn't say anything about that war in the verses, it only states what Muslims must do. So moderate or radical, the words are ment to be interpreted the way ISIS puts them into action. Only the blind an lame can be free from these duties, all are urged t take action because the quaran says hthey will be the closest to Allah. That's all one would need when being brainwashed to be live this. The only difference between the moderates and the radicals are the radicals are willing to put the words into action and the moderates will only cheer them on. But, Muslims are speaking out against ISIS and saying they aren't of Islam. They are half right, ISIS came from Islam and graduated into something far worse but like the saying goes, he who is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that is why moderate Muslims secretly agree with what ISIS does but Not everything Isis does.

[Ten oz]

Then you propose we leave ISIS alone and mind our own business, and let them conquor all the territory they want? Then the enslaved people of Iraq and Syria can live peacefully subservient to their overlords.

 

When the allies attack Mosul in April or May, do you think our forces will be successful outright, or will we get bogged down in endless street to street fighting (urban hedgerows)? Will everything be booby trapped? Will they use human shields? Stay tuned folks, the casualties may approach the D-Day landing.

Do nothing and mind our own business is not what I am advocating. Though is does seem to be the approach towards handling the radical Islamic Terror in Africa. Rather we need to understand our limits and failures. Understand that what we consider best may actually be worse in the long run like when we armed and trained Al Qauada and gave the Taliban power in Afghanistan during the 80's. Seemed right at time. Had we done nothing and minded our business Russia and communism may have gotten a permanent hold on part of the region. Who knows? In these matters hindsight does not appear to be 20/20.

In the United States it took a few wars to figure out our borders. An independence war, Civil War, Mexican American war, and other conflicts like the Quasi war and Spanish American war. Took lots of death to finalize the country. In the Middle East many of the countries were draw on the map by the British. Perhaps we should consider that mistakes were made. Perhaps some of the countries in the Middle East should not be Countries or that some should be a different size? Maybe the Kurds should have there own country,perhaps tiny little massively wealthy countries like Kuwait and Bahrian should be a larger bringing a better standard of living and capitalism to more people? There are a lot of very hard decisions to be made and thus far all we have done is play wack o' mole in the middle east. Can you name any western intervention into the middle east that had a long term positive effect?

[dimreepr]

Can you name any western intervention into the middle east that had a long term positive effect?

 

 

I agree with your position on this topic, as my posts in both threads will testify, but in fairness we have no real idea what the recent interventions, by the allies, will have in the long term; it’s entirely plausible that my suggestion, of a peace seeking leader to emerge from the aftermath of this current skirmish.

[Ten oz]

I agree with your position on this topic, as my posts in both threads will testify, but in fairness we have no real idea what the recent interventions, by the allies, will have in the long term; it’s entirely plausible that my suggestion, of a peace seeking leader to emerge from the aftermath of this current skirmish.

 

I don't disagree. I just can't picture in my mind how that would be executed. Perhaps I am too accustom to military solutions. What steps would be taken between now and the arrival of peace seeking leaders?