[iknowexactly]

Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
--Schiller

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schiller

[iknowexactly]

in reference to the speaker in the video about "defeating Islam"

he never gets to his point that I could see. He wants to crush Muslim supremacy movement like nazis and japanese military were crushed, but what do you do, nuke every Islamic capital? What's that-- 50 million deaths?

I certainly don't have the stomach to advocate that.

I don't see a direct analog to bombing the shit out of Germany and Japan like he argues.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

In case anyone did not see this from former General Wesley Clark:

Nowadays they can utter even publicly their plans for the Islamic world. Not that it would be any different under a democrat.

[Deluge]

(08-11-2014 05:46 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:03 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I don't see how the Islamic State can last in the long-term when it is enemies with every single player in the region. Can it really survive with the USA, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Iraq all hostile to it? Also, it's Al-Qaeda predecessor faced civilian unrest while based in Al Anbar province during the Iraq war, due to the unpopularity of some their stringent laws. Similar could happen to ISIS.

Saudi Arabia isnt hostile to the IS, in fact a lot of the sunni countries in the area have said nothing about the IS. It's the Shia governments in Syria, Iran and Iraq who are hostile to it.

Even the Israelis don't care for the IS, though they do support the Kurds.

Israel benefits from ISIS destabilizing the region (for now), but clearly they're not the best of of pals... The Saudi government is hostile to ISIS, they and Qatar are reaping what sowed here much the same as America is. It's important to make the distinction here between the Saudi government and it's citizens, much like you would with say Pakistan. ISIS is the only Islamist "state" in existence along with Iran (and the only Sunni one), despite what people may assume not even Saudi's government subscribes to Islamist political ideology.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/original...icion.html

Quote:

The most catastrophic scenario from the Saudis' perspective is the actual partitioning of Iraq into a south dominated by Iranian-controlled militias and a west and north dominated by jihadist organizations headed by ISIS. In other words, Riyadh does not want an Iraq in which its Sunni and Shiite radical adversaries each control portions of Iraq’s border with Saudi Arabia.

Do not make the dangerous assumption that just because ISIS are fellow Sunni's resisting Iran that Saudi does not consider them a threat. They last thing they want is ISIS's influence and returned fighters making possible an Islamist revolution in Saudi ala Iran in 1979.

[Phoenix]

Iknowexactly,

He basically thinks the US should smash Iran, since they are at the core of Islamic militancy, and that any other peripheral groups such as Hamas should also be smashed. He advocates this be done without concern for collateral damage to citizens in these states, which is basically how wars have always been waged successfully. Iran could not resist the US if the war was truly framed as defensive (not too hard given their prior actions and their rhetoric), was waged 'all out' to total occupation, the militant clerics etc purged from power, a new constitution written up and internal groups sympathetic with that peaceful constitution installed into power, and then the occupying forces leaving with a promise that 'if you do this again, we'll be back'. Again, this is basically what was done in Japan (which is now an awesome, peaceful country), and it was all over relatively quickly.

The state always creates compliance and support in its citizens, so there is no way of surgically 'clipping off the bad bits'. It has to be totally smashed, thereby delegitimizing the strength it appeared to have, and then the bad elements cleaned out (as was done in Germany and Japan).

There must, however, be no ongoing punishment against the citizens afterwards (which was the case after WW1 in Germany, but not after WW2 in Germany and Japan). They must associate pain with being militant and supporting or failing to resist militant governments, and associate the subsequent peace with lack of pain.

[Rutting Elephant]

(08-12-2014 06:24 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

He basically thinks the US should smash Iran, since they are at the core of Islamic militancy

Then he's fucking stupid, because Saudi Arabs are at the core.

[mikado]

(08-11-2014 09:22 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  

Waiting for mikado to tell us that IS is the WAY and the LIGHT!

What is your problem?

If you have an issue, then bring it NOW, instead of hiding behind a bad joke.

(08-11-2014 10:45 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Mikado will speak for himself but all his comments I have read on Islam stress that Middle East Arab Islam does not represent all of Islam, and that his version is not at all like the crazy stuff you see there.

I don't get your point.
I mean, there are no (or very few, you can try to prove me the opposite) religion crimes from Muslims outside the Middle East.
The world's biggest population of Muslims is in Asia.
Muslims are not a united people who believe exactly the same, on contrary to what Svenski7 and Samseau would like us to believe.

So isn't my point true then?

If svenski7 or anyone for that matter have a problem with Islam then they are free to expose their points. Exactly as me.
But at least if you do it then bring arguments, pertinent examples, avoid generalizations, and possibly bring examples you experienced IRL.
Resorting to ridicule and shaming attempt shows a lack of arguments.


AND NO, I do not recognize the Islamic State, nor approve their methods. And am opposed to any killing or violence towards someone who never attacked you personally, or your family or relatives.


I think I will avoid from now taking defense of Islam, and let you criticize it as much as you want. Because I am the only one to do it (JDresden was banned, I don't know why) and I am tired of repeating the same sentences and arguments over and over.

[Peter Pan]

I'm under the impression that the USA was supplying Isis and Al Nusra with weapons throughout the whole FSA uprising. Hilary Clinton talking about how 'not supporting' the FSA movement enough against Assad caused the power vacuum and thus allowed ISIS infuriates me.

I partly blame you Americans and your CNN. You don't hear any cries any longer about Assad killing his own civilians via gas etc.... Why do you think this is???

[Peter Pan]

Sorry I don't mean to blame America specifically. All media has shown their stupidity throughout the Syrian FSA conflict.

[Peter Pan]

(08-12-2014 09:18 AM)mikado Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:22 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  

Waiting for mikado to tell us that IS is the WAY and the LIGHT!

What is your problem?

If you have an issue, then bring it NOW, instead of hiding behind a bad joke.

(08-11-2014 10:45 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Mikado will speak for himself but all his comments I have read on Islam stress that Middle East Arab Islam does not represent all of Islam, and that his version is not at all like the crazy stuff you see there.

I don't get your point.
I mean, there are no (or very few, you can try to prove me the opposite) religion crimes from Muslims outside the Middle East.
The world's biggest population of Muslims is in Asia.
Muslims are not a united people who believe exactly the same, on contrary to what Svenski7 and Samseau would like us to believe.

So isn't my point true then?

If svenski7 or anyone for that matter have a problem with Islam then they are free to expose their points. Exactly as me.
But at least if you do it then bring arguments, pertinent examples, avoid generalizations, and possibly bring examples you experienced IRL.
Resorting to ridicule and shaming attempt shows a lack of arguments.


AND NO, I do not recognize the Islamic State, nor approve their methods. And am opposed to any killing or violence towards someone who never attacked you personally, or your family or relatives.


I think I will avoid from now taking defense of Islam, and let you criticize it as much as you want. Because I am the only one to do it (JDresden was banned, I don't know why) and I am tired of repeating the same sentences and arguments over and over.

Sorry I didn't read what I assume is an ignorant post you responded to.

What do you suppose be done about the extremism that exists in 'current' Islam?

I can't think of a Christian population or area in present day that beheads people they see as infidels. I know it's the 0.00001 of Islam that does this.

[mikado]

(08-12-2014 10:36 AM)Peter Pan Wrote:  

Sorry I didn't read what I assume is an ignorant post you responded to.

What do you suppose be done about the extremism that exists in 'current' Islam?

I can't think of a Christian population or area in present day that beheads people they see as infidels. I know it's the 0.00001 of Islam that does this.

I don't know. To be fair, I don't know.
I often hear people saying "If you don't approve of what they do, then have some protests!"

But what so you want? A french muslim will not have the same concerns on the matter as an Iranian one.
Some muslims just do not care about what's past their frontier ( to be fair, it's not only Muslims).
Others are so concerned that they take any opportunity to steal, break glasses, throw rocks etc, even if they don't really care.
Some care, but their efforts go vastly ignored. No one on TV/internet reports about their efforts.
Medias, progressism and feminism also want to enclose Muslims in a box, like what they do for blacks already. They want to maintain them in a victim state, and do not really care about Islam, except for pushing their own agendas. This is why it's the same public people that are invited on debates on TV. The same polarizing guys.

There is also the fact that Islam's place in people's heart is diminishing everyday. People are too bothered by their own problems (like economic crisis) to have time to do protests.
To all of the Christians here: would you go and make protests about the Christians who are killed in Irak? I don't think so.

Generally, people care less and less about religion, or the correligionnars of other countries.

I think people already covered on this board why is extremism rampant. I don't have enough knowledge to do it myself.
But you must understand that it's hard to go and fight yourself against the extremist, when they themselves consider you as a "bad muslim", and will also try to kill you if you step a foot there.
There is also a problem of culture: an Arab will generally care less about what happens in Centrafrica , where black Muslims are murdered, and beheaded by the Christians ( here is your example) . Almost only the French Government (who still interferes with ex-colonies's policies) and other black people care. Even most of the Islam haters here, when I remind them of this fact, just brush this question off, and refocus on the Middle East.

The extremism has also gone wild because of the extreme poverty in its home bases (Middle East). When you suffer from a blocus ( Gaza) , when a foreign country invades yours and try to control it ( USA, Israel) , etc, it's hard to stay objective and condemn those who try to resist, even if it's by terrorism.

I don't know what to do, and this really saddens me.
I can't do more than discuss this with some people IRL and here, and bring my brick to the wall.

[Vronsky]

(08-12-2014 11:20 AM)mikado Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:36 AM)Peter Pan Wrote:  

Sorry I didn't read what I assume is an ignorant post you responded to.

What do you suppose be done about the extremism that exists in 'current' Islam?

I can't think of a Christian population or area in present day that beheads people they see as infidels. I know it's the 0.00001 of Islam that does this.

I don't know. To be fair, I don't know.
I often hear people saying "If you don't approve of what they do, then have some protests!"

But what so you want? A french muslim will not have the same concerns on the matter as an Iranian one.
Some muslims just do not care about what's past their frontier ( to be fair, it's not only Muslims).
Others are so concerned that they take any opportunity to steal, break glasses, throw rocks etc, even if they don't really care.
Some care, but their efforts go vastly ignored. No one on TV/internet reports about their efforts.
Medias, progressism and feminism also want to enclose Muslims in a box, like what they do for blacks already. They want to maintain them in a victim state, and do not really care about Islam, except for pushing their own agendas. This is why it's the same public people that are invited on debates on TV. The same polarizing guys.

There is also the fact that Islam's place in people's heart is diminishing everyday. People are too bothered by their own problems (like economic crisis) to have time to do protests.
To all of the Christians here: would you go and make protests about the Christians who are killed in Irak? I don't think so.

Generally, people care less and less about religion, or the correligionnars of other countries.

I think people already covered on this board why is extremism rampant. I don't have enough knowledge to do it myself.
But you must understand that it's hard to go and fight yourself against the extremist, when they themselves consider you as a "bad muslim", and will also try to kill you if you step a foot there.
There is also a problem of culture: an Arab will generally care less about what happens in Centrafrica , where black Muslims are murdered, and beheaded by the Christians ( here is your example) . Almost only the French Government (who still interferes with ex-colonies's policies) and other black people care. Even most of the Islam haters here, when I remind them of this fact, just brush this question off, and refocus on the Middle East.

The extremism has also gone wild because of the extreme poverty in its home bases (Middle East). When you suffer from a blocus ( Gaza) , when a foreign country invades yours and try to control it ( USA, Israel) , etc, it's hard to stay objective and condemn those who try to resist, even if it's by terrorism.

I don't know what to do, and this really saddens me.
I can't do more than discuss this with some people IRL and here, and bring my brick to the wall.

Mikado, I understand why you're frustrated.

The Islam that is practiced in non-Middle Eastern countries traditionally tended to be of a milder, less dogmatic and more neighbourly version. I believe Islam the way it's practiced in Senegal is like that; it is Sufi based (gentler form of Islam) and evolved along with local customs and traditions. Luckily, from your comments, I believe it is still like that and I hope it remains like that.

However, other countries have not been as fortunate.

You try to make a distinction between Middle Eastern and non-Middle Eastern Islam but that distinction is fading away as Saudi Arabia has had a major role in exporting its version of harsh Islam to other Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia, due to its geography, oil money and position as steward of the holy sites, has a leadership role and has spent A LOT of money in expanding its version of Islamic ideology.

So far the country had used its wealth in a way that has radicalized Muslims in many parts of the world. Through it's petro-dollars, it has exported its harsh Wahabi version of Islam to places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Chechnya, Philippines, Thailand, etc...and that has resulted in greater radicalization of the Muslim populations of those countries leading to greater violence internally, and externally. You even see it in the streets, with women in places like Indonesia and Somalia wearing niqabs and abayas when it was never their local custom to do so.

The question is how come the Saudis been so successful in exporting such a militant ideology that defeated the locally evolved version of Islam?.

The answer, and that is something so many Muslims want to avoid, is Islam itself. It has an expansionist mentality, superiority complex and texts that can be interpreted to support the most radical position.

The Prophet and his Companions have set an example of violence to spread their ideology. Not only that but many Muslims think these people (the Prophet and his Companions) are noble and worthy of emulating, accepting that they spread Islam with the sword and forcefully converted majority of people in its path.
The ISISs, Al-Qaedas, Boko Harams, Al-Shababs et al want to take Muslims to that age, where they follow what they were instructed to do in the name of Allah.
Furthermore, in order to be a Muslim you HAVE to believe that the Koran is the literal word of God. We have people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and we call those people Christian fundamentalists. By that definition, to be a Muslim is to be a fundamentalist as the Koran is taken literally. And the Koran has 100+ verses in the Quran that encourage hostility. The Hadith adds an even more violent twist. So the militant, radical Islamists have a lot of religious justification, as well as the examples of the prophet, for their actions.

In contrast the non-violent Muslims never developed a parallel school of thought that condemns the militant jihad (because that would be going against the teachings of the Koran).

My argument has always been that Islam at its core has a violent ideology and I am very happy that most Muslims have strayed from the teaching (i.e. they do not act on it even though they believe in the teachings).

My position, so that I am not misinterpreted, is most Muslims are not extremist by majority. Most Muslims, practicing cognitive dissonance, stray from the violent teachings. A lot of Muslims, like yourself, would likely be killed by the radicals for not being "true Muslims" because you don't adhere to the ugly parts of the religious texts.

My issue is with the religious ideology that sanctions forcible conversions, violence, the taking of slaves, and the justifications for very militant and radical actions. It is up to Muslims themselves to marginalize or eliminate large portions of religious text that supports militancy.

[mikado]

Check this site about Jihad

This is one of the biggest lies about Quran.

The Quran does not advocate for free violence, expansion through weapons , killing innocents etc.

Quote:

the favorite verse of Islam-bashers:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush." [Quran 9:5]

Based on these verses, if anyone draws or "wants" to draw the conclusion that Islam is violent and it preaches violence, they would be violating almost all the premises listed earlier in this essay. Islamic guidance is to help people find a balance between life's conflicting priorities. It is not static or predefined, but a dynamic search for an equilibrium. Whether in self-defense, to resist the evil of injustice and oppression, or to struggle toward a more just society, Islam requires its adherents to uphold certain norms and parameters. In the verse quoted above in which Muslims are urged to make ready their "strength to the utmost" of their power, one needs to take into account (a) the context of the entire Chapter, where it deals with treachery, hypocrisy and unilateral abrogation of a treaty that was imposed upon Muslims by their adversaries, and (b) the verse that comes after it.

"But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah" [Quran 9:61].

The importance of this later verse is that peace is the ultimate goal. It ought to be the ideal and norm that a society should seek. Islam insists that its adherents work and incline toward peace."

The number of times the Quran pushes for peace among people is way greater than the instances it calls Muslims to fight.

But of course, there is always some cherry picking, and not enough interpretation of the whole book.
Here, you will probably say : -But if it's the word of God until the end of ages, then it is literal and can't be interpretated!
Answer

Quote:

(1) Muslims hold the Qur'an as the ultimate source of divine guidance. Even the Prophet could not have contradicted the Qur'an, let alone anyone else. (2) The Qur'anic verses should not be taken in isolation from other verses or from the Prophetic experience. (3) The Qur'anic verses, commands or otherwise, have different levels of priority; some are general in scope and are to be treated or upheld as norms, while other verses might be contextual, delimited or transitional. (4) Life is an integrated whole, and Islam is a guidance for the whole life in a comprehensive or holistic manner, where a sense or goal of balance is of supreme importance. And (5) life needs to be treated as life, which from the Islamic viewpoint should be understood as based on Fitrah, the innate human nature.

""But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah" [Quran 9:61].
"
No need to comment on this verse.

You says that the Prophet used violence to spread the religion.
What about the violence from the Meccans? If you check true sources, you would see that the Meccans were the first ones to attack the neo converts to Islam. This state of things lasted for a while, before God ordered to counter attack. They also violated unilateraly a treaty they proposed , as quoted previously.

Take the Quran, report me all the verses calling people towards peace, all the verses saying to fight against the infidels, put every verse into context, compare them, then you will see if really violence is advocated more than peace.

You would see verses saying that whoever takes the other's life when that one person did not do any harm is not a muslim.
"Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." [Quran 2:193]


""...if any one slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." [Quran 5:35]


"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid...If God did not defend one set of people by means of another, then monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure, would surely have been destroyed..." (22:39-40)"
Intolerance much?

Now tell me that Islam is violent at its core?





For me, this is just THE quote

""...if any one slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." [Quran 5:35]

[mikado]

I made a double post because I wanted to respond this time to your question about Saudi Arabia.

For me the main answer is quite simple, yet so obvious : money, poverty and loss of hope.

Usually they will come to a poor area, where people do not really have much hope left, give money and a good speech on brotherhood and stuff like that.
I think that when you are in that state, you're ready to adhere to almost everything your helper believes in.

This was the same for colonization. Colons would come to a village, give "treasures" (in fact some trash, from European's perspective) to the chief of the village, mothers, or even some robust guys. Those would then go truly believe they needed to be saved by the Christ, or that the colons were good and cared about them, etc, and go hunt for some future slaves, or even sell their own sons for money. At the end, money would always be the central point.

[Peter Pan]

(08-13-2014 01:16 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Check this site about Jihad

This is one of the biggest lies about Quran.

The Quran does not advocate for free violence, expansion through weapons , killing innocents etc.

Quote:

the favorite verse of Islam-bashers:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush." [Quran 9:5]

Based on these verses, if anyone draws or "wants" to draw the conclusion that Islam is violent and it preaches violence, they would be violating almost all the premises listed earlier in this essay. Islamic guidance is to help people find a balance between life's conflicting priorities. It is not static or predefined, but a dynamic search for an equilibrium. Whether in self-defense, to resist the evil of injustice and oppression, or to struggle toward a more just society, Islam requires its adherents to uphold certain norms and parameters. In the verse quoted above in which Muslims are urged to make ready their "strength to the utmost" of their power, one needs to take into account (a) the context of the entire Chapter, where it deals with treachery, hypocrisy and unilateral abrogation of a treaty that was imposed upon Muslims by their adversaries, and (b) the verse that comes after it.

"But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah" [Quran 9:61].

The importance of this later verse is that peace is the ultimate goal. It ought to be the ideal and norm that a society should seek. Islam insists that its adherents work and incline toward peace."

The number of times the Quran pushes for peace among people is way greater than the instances it calls Muslims to fight.

But of course, there is always some cherry picking, and not enough interpretation of the whole book.
Here, you will probably say : -But if it's the word of God until the end of ages, then it is literal and can't be interpretated!
Answer

Quote:

(1) Muslims hold the Qur'an as the ultimate source of divine guidance. Even the Prophet could not have contradicted the Qur'an, let alone anyone else. (2) The Qur'anic verses should not be taken in isolation from other verses or from the Prophetic experience. (3) The Qur'anic verses, commands or otherwise, have different levels of priority; some are general in scope and are to be treated or upheld as norms, while other verses might be contextual, delimited or transitional. (4) Life is an integrated whole, and Islam is a guidance for the whole life in a comprehensive or holistic manner, where a sense or goal of balance is of supreme importance. And (5) life needs to be treated as life, which from the Islamic viewpoint should be understood as based on Fitrah, the innate human nature.

""But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah" [Quran 9:61].
"
No need to comment on this verse.

You says that the Prophet used violence to spread the religion.
What about the violence from the Meccans? If you check true sources, you would see that the Meccans were the first ones to attack the neo converts to Islam. This state of things lasted for a while, before God ordered to counter attack. They also violated unilateraly a treaty they proposed , as quoted previously.

Take the Quran, report me all the verses calling people towards peace, all the verses saying to fight against the infidels, put every verse into context, compare them, then you will see if really violence is advocated more than peace.

You would see verses saying that whoever takes the other's life when that one person did not do any harm is not a muslim.
"Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." [Quran 2:193]


""...if any one slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." [Quran 5:35]


"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid...If God did not defend one set of people by means of another, then monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure, would surely have been destroyed..." (22:39-40)"
Intolerance much?

Now tell me that Islam is violent at its core?





For me, this is just THE quote

""...if any one slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." [Quran 5:35]

What's the deal then? These extremists can't read or they are naturally inclined to kill and just happen to use religion as the scapegoat? I think it's a bit of the latter mixed in with the fact they actually believe in each verse without interpretation.

[mikado]

I just answered above.

For me, it's just the need for power/money ( both being relatively linked) over people.
You are more bound to polarize, but attract on the end more people to your own ideology if you preaches a return to "true islam", violence, reclaiming back what you owned, and still deserve, etc. Especially when the choir is ready to believe in whoever grants them the tiniest piece of land/money/food etc, or even "good-feeling" from having the so-called oppressor (USA, Israel etc) harmed (bombs, killings etc)
Preaching for peace, helping others even if they aren't from your own religion, and the like, is not that lucrative/ power granting.
It only worked when those who did it truly believed in what they said ( for example, I think early Christian missionaries thought like that. But on the end, money/power (again) came into the picture).
These violent speeches are not restricted to Islam actually. Even Christians did them. And still do, in Centrafrica for example.
Outside the religion too, you know that well with politicians who preach for kicking out inmigrants, giving back America to the true owners, etc.

Quote:

It is up to Muslims themselves to marginalize or eliminate large portions of religious text that supports militancy.

What do you want the (majority) non violent people to do? Islam is not a country, or has a unique body. People have different teachings, and culture too. Maybe you would like something like a Concile on the question? The idea is good. However, there is no Muslim central figure (like the Vatican). There is no such thing as cardinals too . Every country would have to bring,like, 100 Imams because of the diversity of opinions.
Organising it would be quite difficult too. Problems of logistics, violence threats from the terrorists too... Racism issues, Iran Chiites would not sit next to Iran Sunnites, etc etc.

[Phoenix]

If only people would start afresh and derive their morals from first principles, instead of trying to scrape them from an old book some dude(s) wrote thousands of years ago.

[Libertas]

I do not think they will last. The only reason that ISIS is getting all the support it's gotten is that the Iraqi government sucks and Sunnis hate it.

Eventually though, after the triumph of the ouster of Maliki's government loses its luster, I think the Sunnis are probably going to get sick of ISIS' rule. Sure, they might share their beliefs to a point, but I think ISIS is too radical for anyone, and groups like this are prone to infighting in the long run anyway.

With that, plus all the enemies they've made, I do not see them lasting. But they can do major damage in the short term (and are).

[Sonsowey]

Libertas, what evidence do you have that the Sunnis do not like ISIS's strict rule? Why do you think they are prone to infighting?

These are not communists who will bicker about nonsense and splinter, in my view. They are obedient to their Caliph. It seems like theybare very focused and not factious, rather united around a central authority figure who they will obey.

[mikado]

Even when you disagree with someone , it does not mean you will go fight them about it.

Especially if they have 100 pounds on you, or more weapons than you.

And as I said in an above post ( and like Libertas said) the feeling that ISIS will destroy America, Israel etc , or purge the country from the wicked pals of Al Maliki is enough to make Sunnis shut up for the moment.

[RexImperator]

I'm starting to think the US should just withdraw from the Middle East and let Saudi Arabia and Iran fight out their proxy war for the levant/Mesopotamia. Now I'm sure there would be many negative consequences, but this region has been a mess since the end of WW1, and it's the people who live there who need to sort it out.

It seems obvious that a big reason the US can't "let go" is because of the fear that further instability will drive up oil prices.

That being said, the US does have some responsibility to mitigate the situation where possible since it invaded Iraq and "kicked the hornets' nest." Being totally "hands off" at this point isn't exactly moral, either.

[Sonsowey]

The U.S. intervention caused instability and bloodshed.

And you argue it's our moral responsibility to cause more?

No.

We need to stop.

There has been enough of this BS. We do not help in these situations. We get involved and many more people die.

Say enough is enough. This is not WW2, this is not Nazi Germany, we do not understand the things we're setting off and we're just harming people.

Time to leave that region of the world.

[svenski7]

Sonsowey: What do you mean "this isn't WW2, this isn't Nazi Germany?"

Did we understand WW2 in the moment? Or is hindsight 20/20?

Did we enter that war to save the world or was their financial benefit involved?

[Sonsowey]

People think that our success after WWII turning Nazi Germany into modern peaceful democratic germany can be recreated the world over.

I think our myriad interventions throughout the world show that it is not so easy to topple a government and install a peaceful democratic state that will be strong enough to last. We should stop trying.

[Phoenix]

(08-16-2014 11:43 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

People think that our success after WWII turning Nazi Germany into modern peaceful democratic germany can be recreated the world over.

I think our myriad interventions throughout the world show that it is not so easy to topple a government and install a peaceful democratic state that will be strong enough to last. We should stop trying.

No, in WWII the entire country was smashed; the citizens reward for supporting and creating such a state (Hitler was voted in democratically) was pain, death and destruction; and the country was then occupied and all militant and nazi-sympathizing people and institutions were dismantled, purged, or executed. It was much more thorough than the 'clip the offending government off the top' style of 'war' that was Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq and Afghanistan were small peripheral parts of the militant body (militant Islam), and Iraq barely met that criteria (Saddam was not really a militant Islamist, he was more concerned with his own personal power). The guts of it are in Iran, with a major sympathizer in Saudi Arabia. A true all-out 'winner takes all' war, which would stop ongoing Islamic militancy, would be for the US and its allies to name Iran as the center of 'militant Islam', attach on the grounds of self-defence, see who joined the Iranian side, and then fight all those groups to total destruction.

None of this will happen, so expect this to all drag on and get much worse. Perhaps one day it will get bad enough that the mess gets a bit too close to our own back yards. Perhaps then, scared shitless that these people will start to exert real control over our lives, will we do a total war all over again.