The ISIS threat to Europe

[villakram]

2 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said:

I actually think "barbaric death cult" is a fitting description, though I don't see this as legitimizing a bombing campaign. But my definition of "crazies"is probably different than your crazies. I don't think they know what they are doing. I think they believe they know it, but not all the time. They're as capable of faithlessness as any human beings. The "normal" inside the state looks pretty damn unstable to me, and hellish in its treatment of almost everyone who is not a fighter or in a fighter's family.

When you write,

you're actually describing an org that's more like what Al-Qaeda wanted to be at once point. You're describing a very common revolutionary trajectory, from insurgency to legitimacy. But these guys aren't on that programme. ISIS isn't trying to get organized for the long term. The famous plan for currency -- and I don't think that has really got off the ground -- seems more about propaganda than a functional economic tool. They aren't looking to form a stable equilibrium; they don't seek political ends. They're far more like Jim Jones in Guyana than Mullah Omar in Afghanistan. Stability is ipso facto a state of sinfulness. 

You are paying zero regard to history here or frankly the facts on the ground. They are following a well worn path.

[villakram]

17 hours ago, Awol said:

IS doesn't recognise the state system or any of the regimes surrounding it as representative or valid authorities. Only God's law (the Shariah) counts - although that doesn't restrict them from doing commercial business with individuals outside their Caliphate.

Anyway, given their actions how could any government negotiate with IS even if they were open to it? 

Really... just because they say it does not make it fact. They are intelligent and as demonstrated by their behavior, capable of coming to terms with the reality of their little empire and the contradictions resulting from its location. Caliphate/Empire/Nation-state... all much of a muchness and something that lawyers and admirers of imperial clothing like to argue about.

Deaths due to actions of USA in 2014 vs deaths due to ISIS... what about the period 2000-2015? ISIS can be negotiated with, now that they may not wish to negotiate with us because we are barbaric animals etc. is beautifully ironic. Unfortunately, there is a lack of will to solve this right now, regardless of the protestations and best/any intentions of our elected political class. It's not the first time this has happened, e.g., Vietnam. You can be sure that ISIS has various internal factions and power structure issues the same as the rest of us also. They have made significant gains, I'd be amazed if they haven't at least internally discussed the settling for what we have scenario.

[Marka Ragnos]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

You are paying zero regard to history here or frankly the facts on the ground. They are following a well worn path.

What well worn path is that? And what history? And what "facts on the ground?" Do tell.

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Really... just because they say it does not make it fact. They are intelligent and as demonstrated by their behavior, capable of coming to terms with the reality of their little empire and the contradictions resulting from its location. Caliphate/Empire/Nation-state... all much of a muchness and something that lawyers and admirers of imperial clothing like to argue about.

Deaths due to actions of USA in 2014 vs deaths due to ISIS... what about the period 2000-2015? ISIS can be negotiated with, now that they may not wish to negotiate with us because we are barbaric animals etc. is beautifully ironic. Unfortunately, there is a lack of will to solve this right now, regardless of the protestations and best/any intentions of our elected political class. It's not the first time this has happened, e.g., Vietnam. You can be sure that ISIS has various internal factions and power structure issues the same as the rest of us also. They have made significant gains, I'd be amazed if they haven't at least internally discussed the settling for what we have scenario.

Sorry to be flippant but just because you say they can be negotiated with does not make it fact. Frankly right now I'm with AWOL, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that ISIS can be negotiated with, in fact quite the opposite.

As for your assertion that a Caliphate is the same as a Nation state, no sorry that is just wrong. A nation state is a land of borders by its very definition, ISIS want their Caliphate to be the centre of their world and to which all Muslim's are bound and loyal above and beyond whatever nation they are from or in which they reside. They are utterly different and to claim otherwise is to completely underestimate what ISIS aim's are or what their Caliphate is or represents.

While I absolutely agree with you there will be internal factions and potentially right now if there are they aren't visible and they certainly aren't opening up lines of communication and on which to negotiate. 

As for settling for what they have, I think that just massively underestimates their intentions.

 

[OutByEaster?]

I would see no point in negotiating with ISIS, it's against their principles I think. I also see no point in feeding them more bombs. I don't think you can overthrow an idea, but I do believe you can undermine it.

 

[Awol]

6 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Sorry to be flippant but just because you say they can be negotiated with does not make it fact. Frankly right now I'm with AWOL, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that ISIS can be negotiated with, in fact quite the opposite.

As for your assertion that a Caliphate is the same as a Nation state, no sorry that is just wrong. A nation state is a land of borders by its very definition, ISIS want their Caliphate to be the centre of their world and to which all Muslim's are bound and loyal above and beyond whatever nation they are from or in which they reside. They are utterly different and to claim otherwise is to completely underestimate what ISIS aim's are or what their Caliphate is or represents.

While I absolutely agree with you there will be internal factions and potentially right now if there are they aren't visible and they certainly aren't opening up lines of communication and on which to negotiate. 

As for settling for what they have, I think that just massively underestimates their intentions.

 

Unsurprisingly agree with all of that and would add that comparisons to Vietnam etc are completely false. The aims of communist insurgents did not include ushering in the end times which is the explicit intention of IS' ideology. You don't have to read much about the subject to understand this is not a cover story for more temporal objectives like the seizure of personal power, wealth and status, it is exactly what they believe and are striving for.

I also don't see the value in comparisons to 'US caused deaths vs IS caused deaths' other than to try and draw some ludicrous moral equivalence.

However wrong the Americans may have got their response to 9/11 (with more than a little support from us), those intentions did not include genocide, mass enslavement and sexual exploitation of minority populations etc.   Trying to compare the two is frankly bizarre and morally bankrupt.

Their 'plan' is quite simple: destabilize and overthrow regimes in the Muslim world they consider to be apostates i.e. all of them;  Unify the global Muslim community under a single Caliphate; usher in the end times and the return of Jesus, at which time he will lead and fight with the Muslim world to defeat the non-Muslim world leading to God's rule on earth.

As batshit crazy as that sounds to most sentient beings it is also exactly what they are about.  Failing to grasp that might lead people to a belief that negotiation might be possible, but they would be wrong in every sense of the word.

I don't think anyone believes that defeating IS militarily will solve the Syrian civil war, the answer there can ultimately only be political. That said there can be no negotiated settlement until IS is defeated and removed from the vast area of Syria they currently control, for the reasons stated above.

[Wainy316]

Do they really believe that retarded bullshit or is it just an excuse for them to be absolute rocket polishers? I notice they don't abide by some Muslim rules, mainly those pertaining to sex and alcohol.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Do they really believe that retarded bullshit or is it just an excuse for them to be absolute rocket polishers? I notice they don't abide by some Muslim rules, mainly those pertaining to sex and alcohol.

Those are the citizens of western countries carrying out attacks rather than the leaders in Syria/Iraq, though, aren't they?

[Awol]

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said:

Do they really believe that retarded bullshit or is it just an excuse for them to be absolute rocket polishers? I notice they don't abide by some Muslim rules, mainly those pertaining to sex and alcohol.

Yes they do believe it in a very literal sense. The end times, the return of Jesus (who will appear in Damascus to lead them), the taking and trading of slaves, the permissibility of raping captives, the mass murder etc.

What is more they truly believe it to be righteous because it says so in their holy instruction book, direct from God himself.

Clearly a majority of Muslims do not choose to interpret the Quran in this way, but for those that do they believe they are earthly agents of God's will. 

Try negotiating with that!

 

[Wainy316]

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said: Do they really believe that retarded bullshit or is it just an excuse for them to be absolute rocket polishers? I notice they don't abide by some Muslim rules, mainly those pertaining to sex and alcohol.

Yes they do believe it in a very literal sense. The end times, the return of Jesus (who will appear in Damascus to lead them), the taking and trading of slaves, the permissibility of raping captives, the mass murder etc.

What is more they truly believe it to be righteous because it says so in their holy instruction book, direct from God himself.

Clearly a majority of Muslims do not choose to interpret the Quran in this way, but for those that do they believe they are earthly agents of God's will. 

Try negotiating with that!

 

Well when you put it like that, they gottsta go. At least the things Western Governments commit atrocities for are real, oil, money, land etc

How about the brutality IS show to people living under their control? Do they believe the punishments are just or is it more of a control tool?

[Awol]

Jihadology - evolution of the Syrian Jihad

An hour long interview with a Brit called Charles Lister who works for the Brookings Institution in their Doha office. It's a really good explanation of how the whole thing has developed, Assad's influence on the Jihadis and the origins of the main groups involved. 

It would be a useful way for our MP's to spend an hour of their time before the debate on air strikes, but worth a listen for anyone who is interested.

[Awol]

28 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

How about the brutality IS show to people living under their control? Do they believe the punishments are just or is it more of a control tool?

All punishments are a tool of social control wherever they happen, but the punishments dished out by IS are in line with an ultra conservative Wahabbi Islamic outlook. So death for apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, infidelity (and many other things IS will give you the chop for) are in line with the punishments dished out in Saudi Arabia, for example. 

The manner of the executions such as the burning alive, throwing from tall buildings, crucifixions (although Saudi do you use this as well) seem in large part to be for effect, both to intimidate people under their rule and to titillate or excite those potential recruits and donors overseas who would glory in such violence.

The interesting thing is the lack of gradual escalation in the punishments which reach the death penalty for some pretty trivial things. So for example maybe you'll only get your hand chopped off for stealing, but IS have executed loads of people for smoking cigarettes because it's specifically un-Islamic. Yet, raping the bejesus out of a Yazidi women or a Christian child is no drama at all, as long as you are their legal owner.    

  

[TrentVilla]

13 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I would see no point in negotiating with ISIS, it's against their principles I think. I also see no point in feeding them more bombs. I don't think you can overthrow an idea, but I do believe you can undermine it.

 

Sorry to pick out this post, the following rant is less about this post and more the general use of the 'you can't bomb an idea' argument against air strikes in Syria.

For a start I'm not sure that a single person (except perhaps George bus Jnr) think you can so its a little bit of a strawman point.

Nobody thinks you can destroy an idea with bombs but you can seriously impact upon an organisation with their use. You can destroy their resources, kill their personnel, target their leadership, cut off their supply lines, their vehicles, their weapons/bomb factories, their means of funding. You can restrict their movement, you can influence the battle on the ground for those on the other side, you can also seriously impact upon the less tangible things like the sense of impunity with which ISIS has operate, the fear felt by local communities and entities such as the Syrian and Iraqi army and weaken the sense of God given authority they think they have and which through their early victories was seemingly so intoxicating and attractive to would be soldiers of the Caliphate both domestic and foreign.

Now as it happens I'm not eager to see us bomb Syria, if I were voting tomorrow I'd vote against it for reasons I'll come onto in a moment. But for me it is every bit as disingenuous to dismiss the notion of bombing because you can't bomb an idea as it is to suggest bombing is the solution as Cameron has seemingly done ahead of this vote.

Boots on the ground and the systematic removal of ISIS and its followers from Iraq and Syria is the only real solution but there is simply not the appetite for that either in the Western wold or the Arab world for very different reasons.

So what do we do? Do we allow ISIS to continue to spread, to enslave, rape, murder? To commit ethnic cleansing while building their Caliphate? Do we allow them to build their wealth and territory until they are an even bigger issue? Frankly that just makes me think of Chamberlain, his piece of paper and "peace in our time" while Hitler was amassing his army. Do we negotiate with them? I think its clear that isn't going to happen. Do we get the likes of the Suadi's, Turkey and Iran to sort their shit out and stop fueling this mess? Good luck with that one, or perhaps we should wait for Jordan to send an army over the border...

I asked this question months ago in this thread to nobody in particular and got no answer. For those who oppose bombing, what should we do? Its a genuine question because I don't see many sensible suggestions of real tangible and realistic things that can be done right now to impact on ISIS. And note I say impact not stop because I totally accept you can't stop an idea.

Sure Western intervention and general policy to the Middle East is wrong (hasn't it been since WW2?) but even if that were to change over night it isn't going to put ISIS back in their medievil box. They need to be disrupted and impacted upon in the hear and now.

The other utterly implausible thing for me in all this is the importance we are placing on a line on a map, on a boarder that has long since ceased to exist between Syria and Iraq. The line is nothing but symbolic, its currently as much of a part of the hear and now as Yugoslavia. To be operating on one side of the line and not the other when the organisation we are trying to impact is spread either side is frankly idiotic.

Now as I said previously, if I were voting tomorrow I'd vote no. I'd vote no because between Russia, Syria, France and the U.S. there is more than enough fire power and machinery in the skies without us adding to it. I'd rather us not put our pilots at risk of a trigger happy Turk or Russian or an murdering neanderthal on the ground with a video camera, metal cage and a plentiful supply of gasoline. I'd rather we didn't spend the money on bombs, I'd rather we spent it on the important stuff like schools, hospitals and tax cuts for millionaires. I'd rather we didn't risk the lives and ultimately take the lives of innocent civilians. And a few more reasons still.

I'd vote no tomorrow, but not because you can't bomb an idea and not because I think we can sit down with ISIS and negotiate without losing our heads. Clearly we can't. I just wish those who would also vote no would offer up more than you 'can't bomb an idea'.

 

 

[choffer]

Dave's case for the bombs here

I've only skimmed it so far but the bit about what happens post-bombing does seem a little idealistic.

At 40+ pages, I can't find a suitable summary paragraph so won't quote any of it but it's worth a read.

 

 

[Chindie]

I think the 'you can't bomb an idea' comment is (and it certainly is in my case because I'm more less OK with bombing (though agree it doesn't go at all far enough in a combat sense as you NEED a ground element)) an attempt to acknowledge that the idea is what is causing this at it's root and attacking ISIS with bombs won't cure that. And it'll probably make things worse in the medium term by playing into the discourse that sends young Muslim men to Syria and Iraq, amongst other things.

That's the point I think most people are making with that comment on ideas being bulletproof. Bombs are treating the symptoms but not the disease. It's a case of kicking a can down the road. You could (and should) wipe ISIS and all it's adherents from the face of the earth and you'd just end up with another one in 5 years. It's not an excuse to sit and watch Syria turn into Hell. It's a comment to encourage thinking about a much broader issue. To think about a wider strategy internationally that has a military campaign against ISIS as 1 element, but also long term more importantly maybe, looks to deal with extremism and it's roots.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I just wish those who would also vote no would offer up more than you 'can't bomb an idea'.

Well, yes.

But there's many sides to this. Not least of which is the question as to whether joining in with the bombing will make things better or worse. If it'll make them worse, then doing nothing is better than bombing.

Until the attack on Paris (by French and Belgians) Cameron et al were sat there, relieved perhaps that they'd not won the vote last time to Bomb Assad. That would have helped ISIL quite a lot.

ISIL want us to bomb them. They want us to put troops on the ground. So perhaps not doing exactly the thing that your enemy wants you to do is a good plan?

Maybe that's not enough. Well what about some things we pretty much know.

We won't commit troops. We cannot win without committing troops. ISIL wants us to commit troops. the US, Russia and others have been bombing ISIL for years. ISIL's still there. it may have contained them. It may have acted as a recruiting tool for them, it may have done both, or neither. It hasn't got rid of them.

Turkey hates Assad. Turkey supports the Islamic fighters in the turkish civil war. Turkey hates the kurds and peshmerga and attacks the kurdish fighters. Russia likes Assad and Russia defends and protects Assad and attacks the fighters attacking Assad. Turkey shot the Russians. The Russians now are cross with Turkey. The US and France hate Assad. They won't attack Assad, though. They will attack the Islamic fighters (including ISIL) attacking Assad (thus helping Assad, who they hate). Iran sort of supports Russia, broadly. Saudi and Qatar, sort of support ISIL a bit, not at Gov't level, then below that level. and they definitely don't support Iran.

So the UK, with a few planes, a very few planes - are we going to really sort anything out with these planes? No are we heck.

So how about we do something different. How about we (as a I posted t'other day) do somethign a bit radical, and do a ....plan.... yes. An actual plan. One that would mark a precedent. Instead of bombing yet another bit of the middle east (it never works out well, does it? have you noticed, or more importantly has the gov't noticed?). What if we were to stay out of the bombing and instead do talking. talk to the Russians, the Americans the Saudis, Iranians, Iraq, Qatar and everyone else, and say,

" look,it's all a bit vexing all this. everyone is fighting everyone else, but this ISIL business is quite beastly. How about we all work together to get them out of the way - they're chopping of the heads fo the people of the middle east, they're bombing the folks in the west, they're flooding refugees into all our countries, they're causing a bit of an unseemly fuss. Why don't we, basically the rest of the world, tell them off very strongly indeed and get some stability in the area? Why don't we say "we the UK don't know how to do that, but we'd like to help, and we'd like to listen". Why don't we do something of initiative, leading rather than just following on with our current best friend forever (was USA, now France).

There is no 70,000 moderate army. There is no difference to be made by 8 or 10 tonkers dropping paveways on ISIL tankers (driven by civilian drivers). Why don't we stop out stupid addiction to thinking we can solve everything. We can't and we won't. Unl;ess you can make a difference, just stay out. Don't mess. And where you can offer something, like diplomacy and trying to get people to work together, why not do that?

[omariqy]

I think we need to put political pressure on the Muslim countries to get their act together and help sort this mess out. 

[OutByEaster?]

5 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I just wish those who would also vote no would offer up more than you 'can't bomb an idea'

What I'd like us to do is ten posts up from the one you quoted. I don't think you can pick out one element of everything that's wrong with the middle east, kill it and expect everything to be fine. I don't think that's what we're doing anyway, I think we're bombing so it makes Dave look good and makes Jeremy look bad (or good I guess depending on the vote) and so it makes some people richer and because our mates are doing it too. I think we just want to be part of the gang. 

To fix the middle east, you need to make a friend of moderate Islam and help to effect change from within across the whole region. More bombs isn't change, it won't change a thing - it will kill some people and add to the idea that the middle east is a dangerous and volatile place where the only way to survive is to become more violent and more volatile.

 

[snowychap]

6 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I asked this question months ago in this thread to nobody in particular and got no answer. For those who oppose bombing, what should we do?

I must have missed it when you posed the question before because my response would be and is now, "I don't know."*

I wish that more of us would say (and admit) that we don't know, that we aren't sure, that we can't foresee the future.

Lack of certainty should not be confused with a call to do nothing nor should criticism of one action only be permitted or considered on the production of an alternative action.

 

*There are lots of things I'd like us not to do: increase laws, change constitutions, fetishize 'security' and above all fail to be of the opinion that the things we hold most dear (i.e. [western] liberalism) will out in the end.

There was a Grauniad piece about 'alternatives' (much of which I didn't rally take to) yesterday which contained the following which says something which isn't being said enough, I feel:

Quote

The concept of “resilience” has begun to edge its way into the counter-terrorist debate to describe measures taken to lessen the potential impact of an attack on a society, nation and community. Much of this has been technical and involved training, better tactics and considerable amounts of cash spent on equipment.

But resilience, as some of the more perceptive policymakers realised, meant something deeper: the ability of those who are subject to attack to collectively resist the power of the violence to cause irrational fear. That is, after all, what terrorism sets out to do: prompt anxiety that is disproportionate to the actual risk run by an individual in their daily lives in order to change their behaviour. As that anxiety contaminates an entire society, it creates new circumstances that make the terrorists’ goals easier to reach.

So a very important part of beating Isis is accepting that further terrorist operations are inevitable, and so are the deaths of more innocent people, and more horrific scenes in our newspapers and on our various screens.

 

Edited December 1, 2015 by snowychap

[Genie]

It's the large areas of ungoverned areas that are a big issue here. Nutters exist all over the world but in 95% of the places they'd never be able to get an army together before being arrested/shot/sectioned.

I'm sure it's been said over and over in this thread that Sadam would have suppressed this kind of kind if it was on his doorstep. 

So solution? Do we help the likes of Syria manage their own back yard with money or military support? I know that sounds pretty far fetched but might just work as a long term solution...