The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Awol]

To be honest, if IS attacked any of the surrounding nations I suspect it would signal them being attacked from all angles by a number of nations.

Mentioned earlier in the thread but when they took a town in Lebanon the Saudis immediately gave USD$1 billion in cash to France to be shipped as weapons to the Lebs. IS withdrew sharpish, but their strategic aim is to knock over both Jordan and Lebanon - i.e. the remaining countries of the Levant that put the L into ISIL.

[maqroll]

If IS attacks Russia, it will be a small act by a small group or single person already living there and claiming allegiance to IS. The idea that they would send an invading ground force into Russia is laughable.

[Vive_La_Villa]

Well funded at the moment.

You give them a good kicking somewhere, make them look small and stupid and the backers will pull out.

Who's going to spunk money when it's obvious who's going to lose?

This isn't AQ being funded out of the Saudi pocket or through small donations, IS have assets to the tune of about $1.5b and have their own revenue streams.

Where's all this money coming from? The whole situation stinks of US and Israeli involvement. Or am I sounded like a conspiracy theorist nutcase?

[TrentVilla]

There is a link to an article a page or two back about it.

[OutByEaster?]

Could someone explain something to me.

 

When we had Al Qaeda - essential a smattering of groups world-wide ranging from a handful of fellas in a UK bedsit to a couple of hundred organised fellas in a hole in a mountain in Afghanistan, all gathered under a flag of convenience invented to ensure the trial of a Saudi Arabian who'd blown up a US embassy and would go on to blow up the world trade centre - we had Osama Bin Laden - he was famous, he was on the front of the papers, he was always on the telly with a microphone in grainy black and white, making some threat or other - poster boy of world terrorism - the Elvis of rag tag bedroom terrorists and wannabe sleepers cells. 

 

Now we've got IS and they're an organised army/nation with thousands of trained, equipped, troops, an economy, tax, aims, politics and structure, and who's in charge? No one. At least not in our media - there's no face of IS, our desperation to make OBL the face of Al Qaeda is matched only by our determination not to let IS have a recognisable leadership - despite the fact that in principle, they're a group that are much more likely to have one.

 

I don't believe it's not happening, that IS don't exist, I'm sure they do, but I'm absolutely certain that our perception of what's happening in the middle east at the moment is being very carefully manicured to ensure that we react in a prescribed way. We're being prepped, we're having the right perception rammed down out throats and we're supposed to be angry and feel threatened. It's working.

 

At the moment, the reason we're not tackling IS is because we need them, in fact not only are we not tackling them, we're desperately bigging up the threat that they carry across all of our media. At the same time we're not without allowing them to appear to have any leadership, any aims, or indeed any other perceivable characteristic other than as a dangerous, murderous, crazed horde coming to kill us in our beds. Does that ring true, does that sound possible to anyone, that amongst a group as large as is claimed there wouldn't be factions, a section of moderates, some thought? 

 

If the IS is the size it's reported as, there ought to be an office of people deciding what sort of lampposts that the new caliphate will use, and what the right food labelling will be in the age of enlightenment - there's none of that anywhere - it's a faceless, nameless, hive of evil, nothing else. 

 

 

The beheadings are described as propaganda and I think they are (or at least I doubt they're done for fun) but I wonder what sort of propaganda, what is their purpose, what response do they seek to create? People say fear, but I suspect the answer is anger, the beheading of Americans, shown on American media as propaganda benefits most those that want American action. It doesn't benefit IS, they can create terror in all sorts of ways that serve them better and let them sleep more safely in their beds at night. This is propaganda for war and it doesn't ring true to me, something in this picture isn't right.

[lp_villa830]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/05/islamic-state-leader-muslims-caliphate-video-abu-bakr-baghdadi

 

The leader of the Islamic State jihadist group has purportedly ordered all Muslims to obey him in a video, released on Saturday.

The elusive Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who on 29 June proclaimed a "caliphate" straddling Syria and Iraq, made his appeal in a sermon delivered on Friday, in the militant-held northern Iraqi city of Mosul

 

Leader and goals?

[OutByEaster?]

Thank you lp_villa830 - and I'm now gutted that I didn't just write "Where's wali?"

[DanishVillan]

Mercenaries do not need leaders or to make statements of intent. They just need orders and a check.

 

Who stopped the war escalation in Syria earlier and what is going on in Ukraine?

[snowychap]

How genuine is it though?

Would it be too surprising if it is genuine (at least up to a point)?

If the recruitment of followers has gone beyond those in the region to malcontents and others in the west then surely it would make sense for the next area to be places like Chechnya and so on?

If it confuses matters all the more in terms of who is siding with whom against them then perhaps they see that as something which may come back to bite all of those parties (enemies' enemies alliances are surely always very tense and pretty temporary arrangements with a huge danger of backlash) that they enrage?

[TrentVilla]

 

How genuine is it though?

Would it be too surprising if it is genuine (at least up to a point)?

If the recruitment of followers has gone beyond those in the region to malcontents and others in the west then surely it would make sense for the next area to be places like Chechnya and so on?

If it confuses matters all the more in terms of who is siding with whom against them then perhaps they see that as something which may come back to bite all of those parties (enemies' enemies alliances are surely always very tense and pretty temporary arrangements with a huge danger of backlash) that they enrage?

 

 

Genuine in the sense that they are actually a member of IS, quite possible, genuine in the sense its a signal of intent from IS the movement highly improbably in my view.

 

Yes IS are clearly on a recruitment drive but I don't personally see people leaving Chechnya going to join IS. Besides, that video isn't a recruitment video its the opposite of that it is saying they will travel there and take the fight to Russia.

[snowychap]

Genuine in the sense that they are actually a member of IS, quite possible, genuine in the sense its a signal of intent from IS the movement highly improbably in my view.

 

Yes IS are clearly on a recruitment drive but I don't personally see people leaving Chechnya going to join IS. Besides, that video isn't a recruitment video its the opposite of that it is saying they will travel there and take the fight to Russia.

I largely agree with you but I wonder why we don't treat the output of organizations such as this in the same way that we would treat the output of any other political organization - genuine does not mean truthful in the world of politics and PR.

Edit: Obviously, it might well be a complete crock and that wouldn't be surprising, either. What it does highlight is that things in world politics are just as mirky and muddy as they ever were - maybe more sophisticated and thus more so.

Edit 2: Why would you not see people from Chechnya (for example but anywhere else with Islamist rebels) gravitating towards some declared caliphate?

Edited September 4, 2014 by snowychap

[Ads]

IS have a well defined religious and political outlook. Its been stated in this thread time and again. They idea that they're a phantom bogeyman is nonsense. The fact some of what they believe is historically contradictory is neither here nor there.

In respect of Chechnya, lines of supply and Turkey/Iran being in the way suggest that is a no go. Southern Syria, Jordan and the Lebanon are where IS may logical turn their insurgency and more conventional means of conquest to next. To paraphrase old Bill; It's logistics stupid (and demographics, I.e. compliant Arab Sunnis).

Edited September 4, 2014 by Ads

[TrentVilla]

Why would you not see people from Chechnya (for example but anywhere else with Islamist rebels) gravitating towards some declared caliphate?

 

Well I specifically talking about Chechnya so on that point, I see them as being fundamentally nationalists as opposed to Islamists their religion may be the same but their cause and motivations are not. Seeking autonomy and independence from Russia isn't the same as wishing to establish a Islamic state in the middle east and I'm not sure that many from Chechnya would be drawn from their own cause to that of IS.

 

As for those elsewhere in the world, in the West for example I see disaffected individuals being far more likely to be drawn to the cause of IS in the absence of a cause of their own and their own lack of a sense of belonging to the society in which they live.

[snowychap]

Is the argument that nationalism trumps the ideology (in Chechnya. for example)?

I don't get that declared Islamists (unless I have got the rebels in Chechnya wrong) would be less likely to join(not that they have but that they may do) declared Islamists than disaffected westerners unless the bogeyman has really come to town.

[snowychap]

..

Edited September 5, 2014 by snowychap

[LondonLax]

Could someone explain something to me.

 

 

Now we've got IS and they're an organised army/nation with thousands of trained, equipped, troops, an economy, tax, aims, politics and structure, and who's in charge? No one. At least not in our media - there's no face of IS, our desperation to make OBL the face of Al Qaeda is matched only by our determination not to let IS have a recognisable leadership - despite the fact that in principle, they're a group that are much more likely to have one.

 

 

Are you sure you have been following this? Their goals and aims have been pretty well stated. Their base of operations in Raqqa has been documented with the admisnistration staff running the operation there and their leader (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) has been on TV loads of times giving speeches wearing his trademark fancy rollex on his wrist.

[Dodgyknees]

@Trent, 

 

Sorry for taking ages to reply. I saw you ask the question about how they might use the planes, but my phone died and then I forgot.

 

Genuinely not sure, like you said it would be impossible for them to fly them out of the country. Maybe they could smuggle them out on the ground, but it'd be spotted straight away. 

 

One thing I do know, I feel a little uncomfortable about the 9/11 anniversary next week. Never felt that way before and to make matters worse, I keep looking at my clock when it is 9/11! Has happened 10/12 times this week!

[Awol]

On the Chechens, they have been at the vanguard of international Islamist terrorism for years. During their wars against Russia post the collapse of the Soviet Union they started out with a broadly nationalist agenda, but weren't doing very well and lacked meaningful international support.

Enter the Saudis (shock) who provided, money, weapons, fighters and the always attached dollop of Takfiri ideology. When the choice is extermination by the Russian bear (who by this time were using chemical weapons against them) or being "a bit more Muslim" and getting Saudi support in return it wasn't a hard choice.*

Although the post war authorities in Chechnya do not subscribe to the head banging Wahhabi world view of a global Caliphate (sound familiar?), the cancer of fundamentalism had spread through Chechen society and produced several generations of tough, vicious and utterly committed fighters. The mosques that are supported by Saudi largesse still pump out their nihilistic message ensuring a steady flow of fresh recruits.**

The Beslan school massacre and Moscow theatre siege being some of their more famous solo ops, but they were/are heavily involved in Afghan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen - with last two also being big contributors to global Jihad.

The north Caucuses are best described as a tier two priority on the list of areas for reconquest into the Caliphate, and as others have said are best described as an 'aspiration' currently. If it ever looked likely to come about the Russians would just level the place again.

*this is a particularly effective tactic in areas with mainly tribal populations like Yemen. Exploit grievances against a weak central Government, give money, weapons and training in return for safe harbour and access to the young male population for indoctrination and recruitment. The incoming fighters also marry into the tribes which then compels the tribe to protect them against outside forces, including the Government of that country. Once they are established it becomes very difficult indeed to root them out.

**it would be an interesting exercise to examine the correlation between Saudi investment in UK mosques and the radicalisation of individuals who attend them.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Awol

[Vive_La_Villa]

Why would you not see people from Chechnya (for example but anywhere else with Islamist rebels) gravitating towards some declared caliphate?

Well I specifically talking about Chechnya so on that point, I see them as being fundamentally nationalists as opposed to Islamists their religion may be the same but their cause and motivations are not. Seeking autonomy and independence from Russia isn't the same as wishing to establish a Islamic state in the middle east and I'm not sure that many from Chechnya would be drawn from their own cause to that of IS.

As for those elsewhere in the world, in the West for example I see disaffected individuals being far more likely to be drawn to the cause of IS in the absence of a cause of their own and their own lack of a sense of belonging to the society in which they live.

Especially when they start getting branded as terrorists because of their religion. Being brown and wearing a rucksack does not mean it's about to blow up!

[TrentVilla]

It looks like a new alliance is being formed for increased action against IS comprising of the US, UK, Turkey, Poland and a few other nations but a complete absence of support from any Arab nation as you would expect.