The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Ads]

I found your answer for a yes or no to be too simplistic, because the history of IS is more nuanced, but suffice to say, firmly rooted in Anbar province. You want to defeat IS, then you need to fight them there, the same way AQI were forced to go dormant.

 

The two who were executed were old AQ, not necessarily paid up members of IS, but the Iraqi women is no different a product than any number of would be human ordinance from that neck of the woods.

 

If that sounds dismissive, then that’s unfortunate, but ultimately these brutal executions by IS are just a sideshow in their psyops campaign, it gets people quite rightly hot under the collar, but it’s still a sideshow.

 

They (and when we say they, we’re talking about the leadership) were hit hard, went quiet and came back with an inkling of how to show straight, which puts them towards the top of the class in the region. I said they’re an effective army and they are, because they’re significantly better at re-supplying and manoeuvring than the Iraqi Army (but it easier when you’re pillaging from the land and not faced with a bureaucratic/corruption nightmare is the Iraqi Army is)   

[Awol]

Same people, same mission statement, just rebranded. Solution is the same as it was then, unfortunately the job was left unfinished last time when we had the chance to end it.

Doesn't that kind of suggest that the solution doesn't work?

Or at least it does work, but in order to make it work are you actually suggesting a complete genocide of everyone fighting for ISIS or that might become ISIS in future, including those that used to be AQ and the modern equivalent of the woman picked up in 2005?

In short, I think we need a different solution and yours sounds a bit too close to the final solution for my liking.

What is your definition of genocide? If you mean the killing or destruction of a national, ethnic or religious group then it's clearly not genocide to destroy IS. They are multi national, multi ethnic and although all are Muslim targeting them is clearly not an attempt to destroy all Muslims.

IS is an armed group that has graduated beyond the mantle of a terrorist organisation to a territory and population controlling (about 7.5 million people) organisation, that is itself bent on committing genocide against the minorities in the areas it controls. While evil is a subjective term I don't see how they could be described as anything else.

Mentioning the Final Solution seems to be an emotive attempt to conjure images of poor defenceless people being herded into gas chambers. An entire ethnic group being murdered simply because of who they born, not anything they have done. Have you really read the equivalent of that into my post?

Until they are stopped these people are going to continue their reign of terror and attempt to conquer more territory where they can begin the cycle of murder, torture, rape and slavery all over again. Those are not emotive terms, they are facts as anyone following IS's progress knows very well.

IS will not simply give up, call it a day and go home realising the error of their ways. They are adherents of a death cult and the only limits on their depravity are set by access to new victims , not by intent or moral values. These are not reconcilable people and even the odd one who decides he has had enough has taken part in activities that SS death squads would be proud of.

The failure to finish of Al Qaeda in Iraq has led to the formation, evolution and growth of what is now called IS.

If a patient has cancer you don't treat 85% of it then say "ah well, that'll do. Cancer has rights too." Now the disease this ideology represents is back and is spreading like wild fire through it's host. It needs to be attacked and destroyed before it spreads any further. Sure some people would always believe in their vision of hell on earth, but if those who pick up arms to make it reality are killed it will remain nothing more than a dark thought in the subconscious of the terminally insane.

Obviously that's only my opinion and I understand you fundamentally disagree with it. That's fair enough. I am though very interested to hear what the 'other way' you think we should find to deal with people might be?

I'm not for a moment saying that they shouldn't be stopped, we should make every possible effort to prevent murder, genocide and terror everywhere it occurs.

Our approach to doing this has traditionally been to kill as many people who look like they might be trouble in any affected area that has something of value to us (we're not so keen where that's not the case). That approach has shown itself over the last fifty years to do nothing but perpetuate a cycle where we leave an angry vacuum ready to be filled with the next vile, violent group.

It also achieves our secondary aim whereby it prevents the growth of any sort of self governing democracy within those countries that might affect our control of their resources.

By rights, Iraq should be the second richest country on earth - we've spend half a century ensuring it's not, and have helped provide a breeding ground for extremism, taught a language of violence and murder and let a region that's always been volatile reach its current point.

To take your cancer metaphor further, we've given them sixty fags a day for ten years and the solution you seem to be proposing is kill the patient, and maybe kill the patient's brother too just in case, and maybe give the patients son 200 Rothmans by way of compensation.

These aren't sub-human people - people are people wherever they are - they have different beliefs, different politics, they're angry about different things, but they're still exactly the same as you and I in every way that counts - they feel the cold, they get hungry, they love their moms, they miss their families, they get scared at night in the desert, they want societies that are ordered, governed and safe. Their method might be bonkers, but people are people. I don't and will not buy into the subhuman monsters of propaganda, it's got echoes of baby eating Germans; surely we've moved on from that?

Have they committed atrocities? Of course they have. Has every armed force throughout history? Of course they have. War is war. Media is media.

The evil we need to face, can for me be defined in two ways - criminal activity and ideas.

We do nothing to address the ideas end of that, the key to success in Iraq isn't killing enough people so that it stops being a problem, it's building a successful Iraq. One with a government that matches the will of the Iraqi people, within the boundaries of international law - one with Universities, factories, hospitals, roads, railways, banks, parks, housing and shops - that's how you beat ISIS - you offer an alternative. We can't just continue to knock the country to rubble and hope no rats appear.

To some extent that means allowing Iraq to disagree with us, allowing them some control over their own resources, allowing the rights of the Iraqi people to become the defining principle of government in the country, allowing them a government that does what they want and not a government that does what we want under an Iraqi flag. It also means your gas bill going up.

You're proposing that we beat down ISIS - ISIS is a nasty, aggressive fighting unit, being beaten down is what it is for - they aren't expecting to win; they're expecting to be angry.

A fire needs oxygen, fuel and heat and to put out the fire of extremism, you have to take one of those things away - I don't think you achieve that by bombing, I think you achieve that by changing things and giving people alternatives.

I might be completely wrong - but we've tried the other way for 50 years and all we've got is a really angry country - and a whole load of cheap oil - if the current situation in Iraq looks like success to you then, in the words of the great man himself - "We go again."

I understand where you are coming from but it ignores the problem of the here and now, and continuing the sayings theme, "we are where we are". I don't think anyone apart from Blair is still arguing that the invasion was anything but dumb, but you are totally mischaracterising (real word??) the efforts to stand up a democratic government after the insurgency was defeated.

Iraq controlled its own resources and the biggest influence on Maliki's sectarian but democratic government was Tehran not Washington - who were told in no uncertain terms to GTFO. That absence of US special forces (JSOC) was one the reasons AQI was able to reconstitute and get back to business.

On the meat of your post though, yes it would be great to help build a stable Iraq and we put an awful lot of blood and treasure into that cause, but you are still dodging the basic question of what to do about IS? As long as they are there controlling territory, raping, crucifying, burying kids alive (Huff post today for that joyous article) and generally acting like Satans storm troopers then all the talk of better futures etc is just fluff. It can't be wished into existence through a wave of love, good will and humility.

With the best will in the world local Arab government forces (which includes the Iraqi army) are more than a bit shit when it comes to proper war fighting stuff. The Kurds, brave and feisty mofo's to a man and woman, can hold their own areas with a little help from us but they lack the numbers and incentive to do much more than that.

So, IS are there with numbers still increasing as the mad, bad and deranged from the Ummah answer the Caliph's call to arms and pouring in to join the fight. They are commiting unspeakable crimes and fully intend to carry on doing so for as long as they can. These aren't war crimes of soldiers killing other unarmed soldiers when full of adrenaline, it really is akin to the worst elements of Nazism. So, I ask again, if the answer is not that the west plays a major role in wiping these people out and creating the space for a political solution what is the answer?

BTW, there really is no need to write things like "if the situation in Iraq looks like success to you". I've pretty clear that it is a horrendous mess which is why I'd strongly support doing something to improve it. I think that is best achieved by wiping out as much of the IS death machine as possible.

[snowychap]

I found your answer for a yes or no to be too simplistic...

It was (as this is) pedantic (rather than simplistic) as I acknowledged above. Edited February 5, 2015 by snowychap

[maqroll]

 

 

The Kurds, brave and feisty mofo's to a man and woman, can hold their own areas with a little help from us but they lack the numbers and incentive to do much more than that.

IMO, the international community needs to give them incentive to fight beyond just for their immediate survival. An independent Kurdish state is long overdue in northern Iraq. Kurdistan, FTW. That would be one big step towards the ultimate goal of stabilizing the area.

[blandy]

Sadly, I think perpetual war in the Middle East is what buoys the stock of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon et al and thwarts any meaningful and effective attempts at resolving these conflicts. Eisenhower's warning was spot on, but nobody listened.

I'm sure it helps the share prices, but where I differ slightly is that it doesn't need perpetual wars to boost the share prices of them. Just the fear of attacks on a country will lead, naturally, that nation to sek to bolseter their capabilities, and thus keep arms co.s in business.

Sadly, to a large extent, human nature will lead to conflicts/disagreements and the desire for protection and thus a business for bow and arrow/catapult and oil pouring/sword and armour/blunderbuss and cannon/cruise missile tank and satelite makers.

 

I think the bigger issue is political power seeking - seeking to dominate or control resources. As much as you've got all these mad religionists, there's also the whole natural resources, or "strategic interest" stuff. Both of those are IMO more to blame than Boeing or whoever. That's not to absolve weapons companies of any part in it, but they don't in my view lead it by a long way and they don't stop it being resolved.

 

disclaimer - I work for an international defence co.

[OutByEaster?]

AWOL (I thought I'd break up the giant quotes) - the problem for me in the approach of killing as much of the IS death machine as is possible is that as you've stated, the IS death machine consists of 7.5m people. That's a lot holes to dig, a lot of grieving widows, angry sons and cousins, it would be an escalation, not an ending. The answer to stopping IS (and I do absolutely agree with you, they need to be stopped), isn't in empowering either other troops within the region or allowing ours to kill 7.5m people, it's in persuading the large amount of those people that aren't psychotic loonies, who maybe have a sympathy for the cause, or feel a religious bond, or are hungry and need the cash to pack it in. To do that I think we have to provide an alternative. In a nation with the second largest oil supply on the planet, none of which is controlled by IS, that ought to be a very real possibility - the reason it's not is that very little of the money that comes from that oil is available to Iraq.

 

Let Iraq build an alternative, fight where you need to fight and let IS break up on the idea that there's a better way to find an independence. 

 

I know that sounds like a wooly "lets all hug and make up" approach and to an extent it is, but we're talking about killing millions of people and hoping it works out okay. My opinion might be littered with wishful thinking, but just killing everything in sight is insane.

[blandy]

AWOL (I thought I'd break up the giant quotes) - the problem for me in the approach of killing as much of the IS death machine as is possible is that as you've stated, the IS death machine consists of 7.5m people. That's a lot holes to dig, a lot of grieving widows, angry sons and cousins, it would be an escalation, not an ending. The answer to stopping IS (and I do absolutely agree with you, they need to be stopped), isn't in empowering either other troops within the region or allowing ours to kill 7.5m people, it's in persuading the large amount of those people that aren't psychotic loonies, who maybe have a sympathy for the cause, or feel a religious bond, or are hungry and need the cash to pack it in. To do that I think we have to provide an alternative. In a nation with the second largest oil supply on the planet, none of which is controlled by IS, that ought to be a very real possibility - the reason it's not is that very little of the money that comes from that oil is available to Iraq.

 

Let Iraq build an alternative, fight where you need to fight and let IS break up on the idea that there's a better way to find an independence. 

 

I know that sounds like a wooly "lets all hug and make up" approach and to an extent it is, but we're talking about killing millions of people and hoping it works out okay. My opinion might be littered with wishful thinking, but just killing everything in sight is insane.

You don't need to kill millions. You need to stop the nutters at the top. The rest, the followers, given what you propose - some hope of peace and a better life will disappear. Humans are humans. We setlle down when there's a reason to. We play up when we think there's no risk of consequences. A demonstration of consequences re-aligns people's priorities.

 

I don't think the UK (or US) should be the ones doing the demonstrating, but a spot of harsh discipline from the other nations in the area is what's needed, as much as your rightly expresed desire for the place to have civilisation and education and health and hope and all lthe rest.

[omariqy]

IMO the Muslim countries need to step up and unite to fight both IS and terrorism.  There is a real lack of strong leadership in that region. 

[Wainy316]

If IS want to be true to Wahhabism and their desire to revert to Islam as they saw it in the 7th century then they need to stop fighting using guns for starters.

[Awol]

AWOL (I thought I'd break up the giant quotes) - the problem for me in the approach of killing as much of the IS death machine as is possible is that as you've stated, the IS death machine consists of 7.5m people. That's a lot holes to dig, a lot of grieving widows, angry sons and cousins, it would be an escalation, not an ending. The answer to stopping IS (and I do absolutely agree with you, they need to be stopped), isn't in empowering either other troops within the region or allowing ours to kill 7.5m people, it's in persuading the large amount of those people that aren't psychotic loonies, who maybe have a sympathy for the cause, or feel a religious bond, or are hungry and need the cash to pack it in. To do that I think we have to provide an alternative. In a nation with the second largest oil supply on the planet, none of which is controlled by IS, that ought to be a very real possibility - the reason it's not is that very little of the money that comes from that oil is available to Iraq.

Let Iraq build an alternative, fight where you need to fight and let IS break up on the idea that there's a better way to find an independence.

I know that sounds like a wooly "lets all hug and make up" approach and to an extent it is, but we're talking about killing millions of people and hoping it works out okay. My opinion might be littered with wishful thinking, but just killing everything in sight is insane.

I'm talking about liberating 7.4 million people, not killing 7.5 million.

[OutByEaster?]

 

AWOL (I thought I'd break up the giant quotes) - the problem for me in the approach of killing as much of the IS death machine as is possible is that as you've stated, the IS death machine consists of 7.5m people. That's a lot holes to dig, a lot of grieving widows, angry sons and cousins, it would be an escalation, not an ending. The answer to stopping IS (and I do absolutely agree with you, they need to be stopped), isn't in empowering either other troops within the region or allowing ours to kill 7.5m people, it's in persuading the large amount of those people that aren't psychotic loonies, who maybe have a sympathy for the cause, or feel a religious bond, or are hungry and need the cash to pack it in. To do that I think we have to provide an alternative. In a nation with the second largest oil supply on the planet, none of which is controlled by IS, that ought to be a very real possibility - the reason it's not is that very little of the money that comes from that oil is available to Iraq.

Let Iraq build an alternative, fight where you need to fight and let IS break up on the idea that there's a better way to find an independence.

I know that sounds like a wooly "lets all hug and make up" approach and to an extent it is, but we're talking about killing millions of people and hoping it works out okay. My opinion might be littered with wishful thinking, but just killing everything in sight is insane.

I'm talking about liberating 7.4 million people, not killing 7.5 million.

 

Well I'm happy to hear it, so am I - your first post reads that last time we were unsuccessful because we left some of them alive and they mutated into IS, this time we need to make sure we get all of them - this one I'm right behind, and if you and me agree on it, then it's probably a pretty sound idea!

 

I guess that just leaves the questions on whether you'd start by offering the alternative and shielding the population until IS starts to fall apart before going in and dealing with the core membership, or whether you start by fighting the big beast and targeting the core membership - I'm in favour of the former, you the latter I'd guess. I'm also in favour of arrest and imprisonment wherever possible for those at the top and I'm guessing you'd advocate a more military solution as more practicable.

 

Still, we're getting somewhere. 

[Rugeley Villa]

i see jordan have dropped 56 airstrikes on isis and they say thats just for starters.

[AshVilla]

Scorched earth

 

Obliterate the war torn areas

 

Time to take the gloves off

Edited February 8, 2015 by AshVilla

[Ikantcpell]

I see that thousands of british muslims are protesting in london against the charlie hedbo magazine, wouldn't it be better if they protested against isis for doing such horrible things in the name of their religion ?

[chrisp65]

 

It calls for “global civility” and says the production of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad are “an affront to the norms of civilised society”.

Shaykh Tauqir Ishaq, a senior spokesman for MAF, said: “Perpetual mistakes by extremists, either by cold-blooded killers or uncivilised expressionists, cannot be the way forward for a civilised society. The peace-loving majority of people must become vociferous in promoting global civility and responsible debate. At this time of heightened tension and emotion, it is crucial that both sides show restraint to prevent further incidents of this nature occurring.”

Shaykh Noor Siddiqi, another MAF representative, said: “The actions of the UK media in not publishing the cartoons is highly appreciated by British Muslims and we hope that this kind of self-restraint and mutual respect will ultimately lead to a harmonious society.”

 

Guarniad

 

My first instinct, was 'well they can **** off'.

 

I think it was my second and third instinct too.

 

Then I read the article and they appear to be asking people to stay calm and be polite and respect each other, even praising the British media for its restraint.

 

 

It's too easy at the moment to take a reactionary stance, goaded on by the media of your choice. Bloody difficult this modern world, on the one hand I demand the 'right' to draw allah, just as much as I might want to point out the utter fallability of the gangster Pope. On the other hand, why deliberately poke people with a stick where there's no need?

 

 

Think first and count to 10 and do unto others and all that, I guess?

[snowychap]

I see that thousands of british muslims are protesting in london against the charlie hedbo magazine, wouldn't it be better if they protested against isis for doing such horrible things in the name of their religion ?

Better for whom?

[Rugeley Villa]

I see that thousands of british muslims are protesting in london against the charlie hedbo magazine, wouldn't it be better if they protested against isis for doing such horrible things in the name of their religion ?

unnreal but im not a little bit surprised. i know there are two sides to the coin but yeah lets all protest over a stupid cartoon drawing that took the piss out of our so so special prophet. makes me sick and they wonder why muslims are getting a bad name.

[YGabbana]

I see that thousands of british muslims are protesting in london against the charlie hedbo magazine, wouldn't it be better if they protested against isis for doing such horrible things in the name of their religion ?

unnreal but im not a little bit surprised. i know there are two sides to the coin but yeah lets all protest over a stupid cartoon drawing that took the piss out of our so so special prophet. makes me sick and they wonder why muslims are getting a bad name.

Did the jewish population of Britain march to condemn Israels mass murder of 2200 people?

No, because they live here and not Israel.

Same rule for Muslims here surely?

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

I see that thousands of british muslims are protesting in london against the charlie hedbo magazine, wouldn't it be better if they protested against isis for doing such horrible things in the name of their religion ?

unnreal but im not a little bit surprised. i know there are two sides to the coin but yeah lets all protest over a stupid cartoon drawing that took the piss out of our so so special prophet. makes me sick and they wonder why muslims are getting a bad name.

Did the jewish population of Britain march to condemn Israels mass murder of 2200 people?

No, because they live here and not Israel.

Same rule for Muslims here surely?

 

I'm confused. I think the Jewish population of Britain were split on the mass murder of Palestinians last/every year - they didn't march because for a number of them, it didn't make them particularly angry - incidentally, there was a march in New York against last years attacks on Palestine which was organised and lead by the Jewish population of New York in an effort to make the point that the actions of Israel weren't necessarily representative of the feelings of Jewish people worldwide. I think that's hugely important, the need to distinguish between a people and the actions of a state or organisation have never been more important, and that goes for a number of different peoples worldwide right now.

 

If they'd lived in Israel, it's very unlikely they'd have marched in protest against the attacks on Palestine, as they'd have a.) most likely have been in favour of them and b.) been subject to attacks from other Israeli's or arrest from the police if they'd marched.

 

I don't understand the point you're making about "the same rule" - I can't join the two things up and I'm not sure I understand your original point about British Jewish people as opposed to Israelis.

 

In short, no they didn't, I don't think it's anything to do with where they live, what rule are you describing?

[YLN]

Islam is a terrible religion because it makes active demands on its believers to right wrongs done to its prophet. What any rational and mature debate about religious freedom really should come down to is that any magical features of the religion are total nonsense and should not even be allowed as a platform for any discussion about what someone else can do. You don't like that they depicted the prophet? No. Why? Because he's magic. Conversation over.

 

Remove that there are so many Muslims on the planet, and imagine it's that starfish god or whatever he's called. And it's 100 people who believe in him. Now someone does a picture of him, and as a result two of his followers go into a cafe and shoot 10 people. The following week, the other 98 people take to the streets in protest about the picture. They would be destroyed for their insensitivity to people who are actually on this planet. And yes their argument would be that the secular world was insensitive to them by insulting their starfish man, but the answer would be that they are sensitive about starfish man because of magic - the families and friends of the ten people who died are upset because their father was murdered, or their wife. Things that are real and that have definitely happened. Not your version of the world that you believe only because you were born in a particular part of it.

 

The only reason we don't tackle Muslim inconsistency and their gross and sometimes violent interference in what the secular world does is because there's so many of them and we're afraid. Not because of our respect for their religious beliefs, because if their religious beliefs are so weak that they can't ignore a cartoon, then they don't deserve our respect.

 

There's a poster in the picture on that article, 'Insult my mum and I'll punch you'. That's fine. Your mother is or was on the planet very recently and you have an emotional connection to her on the basis that she gave birth to you, and cared for you. It is a fair reaction, although a little childish, to punch in response to that. 'Insult a person from history that I claim to be magic and in his name, retaliation by those in my faith will range from protest, to the murder of innocent people'. It's not quite an appropriate reaction.

 

Whether or not their awareness of it is total, Muslims are being afforded protection for their aggressive and intrusive beliefs by the fact that the international community fears their associated potential for extremist terrorist attack. Anyone else would be keeping a low profile after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, but thousands of Muslims engaged in protest yesterday over that very thing. A small section of the secular community printed a cartoon and in response a small section of the people in your faith murdered 17 innocent people. And now you're reminding us that we need to have more respect and consideration for your magic thing? Bit rich fellas.