Jump to content

Islamic State


Vincent
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nah. It would have taken extensive Western intervention to depose Saddam Hussein. In Libya, Gaddafi was in the process of turning the tide of his civil war when Europe and the U.S. started launching airstrikes to destroy his ability to fight back, and in Syria, Assad has already decisively turned the tide of his civil war despite massive and unsubtle investment by the Sunni Arab monarchies in the rebels fighting against him. Most of the leaders who stepped aside during the Arab Spring were aging, indecisive, and tied more closley diplomatically to their Western allies than to other Arabic and Islamic governments; they were either unable or unwilling to fight for their survival, while Gaddafi and Assad were both able and willing to do so.

 

The point I was trying to make is that US intervention is not the only way that radicalism and chaos spring up, and that it is erroneous to assume that the Middle East would be a fine and dandy place if not for western influence. I think we agree?

hxvRjGK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make is that US intervention is not the only way that radicalism and chaos spring up, and that it is erroneous to assume that the Middle East would be a fine and dandy place if not for western influence. I think we agree?

 

Oh, certainly. But it's hard to argue that U.S. intervention hasn't consistently fanned the flames; such intervention not only legitimizes the anti-Western rhetoric of groups like the Islamic State, but it inevitably creates vacuums of power that can easily be filled by such groups. Still, that's not to say that the U.S. caused Islamism to pop into existence; I do agree that the Middle East will be pretty damn unstable for some time to come with or without further foreign intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that ISIS is popping up in Lybia now.

 

In a way that I see this is that we should of split Iraq up into 3 different nations, and we should possibly try to get Iran to do more work.  You know it would be good FA if we held our airstrikes hostage saying we will not do them if Iran doesn't dismantle some of their nuclear reactors.  When Iran doesn't let our inspectors in, halt airstrikes until Iran starts doing what we want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that ISIS is popping up in Lybia now.

 

In a way that I see this is that we should of split Iraq up into 3 different nations, and we should possibly try to get Iran to do more work.  You know it would be good FA if we held our airstrikes hostage saying we will not do them if Iran doesn't dismantle some of their nuclear reactors.  When Iran doesn't let our inspectors in, halt airstrikes until Iran starts doing what we want.

 

I'm not sure how threatened Iran actually feels about ISIS, though. Sure, there's mutual hatred and accusations of heresy, but I'd be shocked if ISIS caused strategically significant harm to Iran, and Iran might just be itching for a reason to interfere in Iraq anyway, which ISIS provides.

hxvRjGK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I late to the after-party? Nahhh.

 

 

I lol'd pretty hard when I read this. Were the Caliphates non-theocratic, then? Was Muhammad's original Islamic state, led by an indisputable (according to Islamic theology) prophet and governed according to the principles of Islam, a religion founded by the leader of the state, not a theocracy?

 

As for modern Islamic theocracies, they exist regardless of whether or not orthodox Islamic scholars approve of their existence. You argue against judging Muslims by the standards of the West, but you obviously have no qualms with judging one group of Muslims by the standard of another group.

 

 

Nah. It would have taken extensive Western intervention to depose Saddam Hussein. In Libya, Gaddafi was in the process of turning the tide of his civil war when Europe and the U.S. started launching airstrikes to destroy his ability to fight back, and in Syria, Assad has already decisively turned the tide of his civil war despite massive and unsubtle investment by the Sunni Arab monarchies in the rebels fighting against him. Most of the leaders who stepped aside during the Arab Spring were aging, indecisive, and tied more closley diplomatically to their Western allies than to other Arabic and Islamic governments; they were either unable or unwilling to fight for their survival, while Gaddafi and Assad were both able and willing to do so.

 

I think that Hussein would undoubtedly have fought back at least as vigorously as his contemporaries in Libya and Syria, but excessive vigor may well have attracted more attention from Iran than is healthy for a Sunni dictator in a Shi'ite country to have focused upon him in his time of greatest vulnerability. Still, at least Hussein commanded the loyalty of the Iraqi Sunnis, which means that he might have been best-positioned to prevent the Islamic State's sweeping victories in Iraq last summer, had he still been clinging to power at the time.

 

 

Where in the world did this come from? I'm starting to wonder whether you know what theocracy actually is.

 

 

I hear that there's a WMD in my pants, Mr. Bush; you'd better unseat me and seize it. Oh, but only in defense of freedom and democracy, of course. ;)

1. It was my original understanding that a theocracy was lead only by a divine-ruler, not a teacher of one.  Or at least thats what I'd personally call a theocracy. I was wrong. (゜レ゜)

 

2. North Korea is pretty theocratic.... (゜-゜)

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how threatened Iran actually feels about ISIS, though. Sure, there's mutual hatred and accusations of heresy, but I'd be shocked if ISIS caused strategically significant harm to Iran, and Iran might just be itching for a reason to interfere in Iraq anyway, which ISIS provides.

 

The Islamic State is actually very much a threat to Iran's desired Middle Eastern order. Strategically, one of Iran's goals is to geographically link Iran itself with its allies abroad; that is, it hopes to build a contiguous Iranian Shi'ite sphere of influence spanning from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea by bringing Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon under Shi'ite dominance. The feasibility of this goal could be called into question - after all, although Shi'ites are a majority in Iraq, they are minorities in Syria and Lebanon, where the Alawites and Hezbollah are relied upon to make Iranian influence felt - but the goal itself is a relatively obvious one, and the rise of the Islamic State is a major challenge to its achievement, which was actually looking pretty bright until recently, as Iraq was starting to look almost stable and Assad was rapidly becoming dominant again in Syria with Iran's support.

 

Anyway, Iran is militarily capable of battling the Islamic State without U.S. support, and is not directly threatened at the moment, with Turkey, Kurdistan, and Shi'ite Iraq as buffers against any violent spillovers, but there's still a very good reason that it would want to cooperate with the U.S. to defeat the Islamic State as quickly and comprehensively as possible.

 

Something that's worth keeping in mind is that Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab monarchies - Iran's major regional rivals - funded the Islamic State in its infancy. They didn't do that for shits and giggles; they did it to threaten Shi'ite interests in the Middle East.

 

1. It was my original understanding that a theocracy was lead only by a divine-ruler, not a teacher of one.  Or at least thats what I'd personally call a theocracy. I was wrong. (゜レ゜)

 

2. North Korea is pretty theocratic.... (゜-゜)

  1. The definition is obviously not incredibly clear-cut, but very loosely speaking, essentially any state consistently led or heavily influenced by religious figures could qualify as a theocracy. Anyway, the Caliph is considered a divine figure, since he is supposed the be the successor of Muhammad, who was in turn a prophet of God. My understanding is that orthodox Islam does not recognize Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the Caliph, but he and his followers believe that he is the Caliph and that they are carrying out the will of God, so as far as I'm concerned, the Islamic State is a theocracy.
  2. Kim Jong-Un is not a religious figure. In fact, religion is heavily discouraged in North Korea; as a former communist state (now a Juche state, which isn't really very different in practical terms), it pursued an official policy of state atheism, and so traditional Korean religions are now marginalized in North Korean society. If Juche were a religion, rather than an ideology, then I would agree with you, but it is not, so North Korea is not a theocracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear that there's a WMD in my pants, Mr. Bush; you'd better unseat me and seize it. Oh, but only in defense of freedom and democracy, of course. ;)

http://humanevents.com/2014/10/15/the-new-york-times-discovers-wmd-in-iraq/

http://spectator.org/articles/60689/new-york-times-rediscovers-weapons-mass-destruction-iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Hmm... I wonder if in 10 years if you will say that Obamacare was actually a bad idea. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Muslims hate the western world for helping create the Israeli state. But how can we blame them? We kicked them from their homelands, though they've done they say to the Christians and Jews in history. The Islamic State is one of the many issues stemming from the hatred of Muslims by Jeudo-Christians and vice-versa. This is a problem I don't ever believe there could be a reasonable solution to. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Islamic State is actually very much a threat to Iran's desired Middle Eastern order. Strategically, one of Iran's goals is to geographically link Iran itself with its allies abroad; that is, it hopes to build a contiguous Iranian Shi'ite sphere of influence spanning from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea by bringing Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon under Shi'ite dominance. The feasibility of this goal could be called into question - after all, although Shi'ites are a majority in Iraq, they are minorities in Syria and Lebanon, where the Alawites and Hezbollah are relied upon to make Iranian influence felt - but the goal itself is a relatively obvious one, and the rise of the Islamic State is a major challenge to its achievement, which was actually looking pretty bright until recently, as Iraq was starting to look almost stable and Assad was rapidly becoming dominant again in Syria with Iran's support.

 

Anyway, Iran is militarily capable of battling the Islamic State without U.S. support, and is not directly threatened at the moment, with Turkey, Kurdistan, and Shi'ite Iraq as buffers against any violent spillovers, but there's still a very good reason that it would want to cooperate with the U.S. to defeat the Islamic State as quickly and comprehensively as possible.

 

Something that's worth keeping in mind is that Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab monarchies - Iran's major regional rivals - funded the Islamic State in its infancy. They didn't do that for shits and giggles; they did it to threaten Shi'ite interests in the Middle East.

 

  1. The definition is obviously not incredibly clear-cut, but very loosely speaking, essentially any state consistently led or heavily influenced by religious figures could qualify as a theocracy. Anyway, the Caliph is considered a divine figure, since he is supposed the be the successor of Muhammad, who was in turn a prophet of God. My understanding is that orthodox Islam does not recognize Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the Caliph, but he and his followers believe that he is the Caliph and that they are carrying out the will of God, so as far as I'm concerned, the Islamic State is a theocracy.
  2. Kim Jong-Un is not a religious figure. In fact, religion is heavily discouraged in North Korea; as a former communist state (now a Juche state, which isn't really very different in practical terms), it pursued an official policy of state atheism, and so traditional Korean religions are now marginalized in North Korean society. If Juche were a religion, rather than an ideology, then I would agree with you, but it is not, so North Korea is not a theocracy.

 

The leader of North Korea is literally considered divine, despite how Juhce is defined.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, you're referring to the decade(s)-old chemical weapons built with the full knowledge and support of the U.S.? These were not the "weapons of mass destruction" that the U.S. was seeking during its invasion. The fact is that we overthrew a stable, relatively secular government under Saddam Hussein for no good reason except that Bush Jr. felt like he needed to live up to the legacy of Bush Sr., and now we're facing the consequences in the form of a country torn apart by religious and ethnic strife.

 

Slightly off-topic: you seem to believe that I'm a liberal. Trust me when I say that I'm not. I'm not against wars in general by any means; I'm just against dumb wars.

 

The leader of North Korea is literally considered divine, despite how Juhce is defined.

 

...by whom, exactly? I mean, I know it sounds vaguely divine to us in the West - "supreme eternal president" and whatnot - but it's not, as far as I'm aware. There are no religious denotations that I've ever read about or heard of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you're referring to the decade(s)-old chemical weapons built with the full knowledge and support of the U.S.? These were not the "weapons of mass destruction" that the U.S. was seeking during its invasion. The fact is that we overthrew a stable, relatively secular government under Saddam Hussein for no good reason except that Bush Jr. felt like he needed to live up to the legacy of Bush Sr., and now we're facing the consequences in the form of a country torn apart by religious and ethnic strife.

 

Slightly off-topic: you seem to believe that I'm a liberal. Trust me when I say that I'm not. I'm not against wars in general by any means; I'm just against dumb wars.

 

 

...by whom, exactly? I mean, I know it sounds vaguely divine to us in the West - "supreme eternal president" and whatnot - but it's not, as far as I'm aware. There are no religious denotations that I've ever read about or heard of.

The great leader theory is of a man who is incorruptible, pure and flawless. Their leader cannot make mistakes. He is literally thought incapable of such. The entire rule of law in North Korea is focused on the divine status of the Kim dynasty.

 

Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System

1. We must give our all in the struggle to unify the entire society with the revolutionary ideology of the Great Leader Kim Il-sung.

2. We must honor the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung with all our loyalty.

3. We must make absolute the authority of the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung.

4. We must make the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung's revolutionary ideology our faith and make his instructions our creed.

5. We must adhere strictly to the principle of unconditional obedience in carrying out the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung's instructions.

6. We must strengthen the entire party's ideology and willpower and revolutionary unity, centering on the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung.

7. We must learn from the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung and adopt the communist look, revolutionary work methods and people-oriented work style.

8. We must value the political life we were given by the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung, and loyally repay his great political trust and thoughtfulness with heightened political awareness and skill.

9. We must establish strong organizational regulations so that the entire party, nation and military move as one under the one and only leadership of the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung.

10. We must pass down the great achievement of the revolution by the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung from generation to generation, inheriting and completing it to the end.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great leader theory is of a man who is incorruptible, pure and flawless. Their leader cannot make mistakes. He is literally thought incapable of such. The entire rule of law in North Korea is focused on the divine status of the Kim dynasty.

 

Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System

1. We must give our all in the struggle to unify the entire society with the revolutionary ideology of the Great Leader Kim Il-sung.

2. We must honor the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung with all our loyalty.

3. We must make absolute the authority of the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung.

4. We must make the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung's revolutionary ideology our faith and make his instructions our creed.

5. We must adhere strictly to the principle of unconditional obedience in carrying out the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung's instructions.

6. We must strengthen the entire party's ideology and willpower and revolutionary unity, centering on the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung.

7. We must learn from the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung and adopt the communist look, revolutionary work methods and people-oriented work style.

8. We must value the political life we were given by the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung, and loyally repay his great political trust and thoughtfulness with heightened political awareness and skill.

9. We must establish strong organizational regulations so that the entire party, nation and military move as one under the one and only leadership of the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung.

10. We must pass down the great achievement of the revolution by the Great Leader comrade Kim Il-sung from generation to generation, inheriting and completing it to the end.

That sounds like an intense cult of personality, but that doesn't make North Korea a theocracy any more than it made the Soviet Union, Maoist China, or Germany-that-shall-not-be-named theocracies. If there's no actual religion, then there's no theocracy.

 

The Islamic State has an official religion, from which all of its laws and policies are derived, and a divine religious leader, the Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This is what makes it a theocracy. The fact that the majority of Muslim people and Islamic religious authorities disagree with its theological basis does not mean that the Islamic State is not a theocracy; it just means that the Islamic State is not orthodox Islamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Islamic State has an official religion, from which all of its laws and policies are derived, and a divine religious leader, the Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This is what makes it a theocracy. The fact that the majority of Muslim people and Islamic religious authorities disagree with its theological basis does not mean that the Islamic State is not a theocracy; it just means that the Islamic State is not orthodox Islamic.

The Caliph isn't divine. A bishopric state is a theocracy but the leader is not divine. The state controlled by the Teutonic Order in the Baltic's was a Theocracy even though the Grand Master was not technically a religious figure.

 

A rulers status has next to no bearing on whether a state is a theocracy or not. 

Edited by underlordgc

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Caliph isn't divine. A bishopric state is a theocracy but the leader is not divine. The state controlled by the Teutonic Order in the Baltic's was a Theocracy even though the Grand Master was not technically a religious figure.

 

A rulers status has next to no bearing on whether a state is a theocracy or not. 

 

I agree with your point - after all, kings were chosen by divine right, but that didn't make every kingdom a theocracy - but I was under the impression that the Caliph was divine. I suppose that depends on your definition of "divine", though.

 

EDIT: I just looked it up, and I'm thinking of the Shi'ite perspective on Caliphate (that the Caliph should be selected by God), rather than the Sunni perspective (that the Caliph should be elected by ordinary Muslims) which would apply to the Islamic State. However, as Baghdadi was not elected to his position as Caliph, this obviously can't be the Islamic State's position on the matter. I would be interested in hearing their theological justification for that.

Edited by Dietrich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

such intervention not only legitimizes the anti-Western rhetoric of groups like the Islamic State

 

 

Yes, because toppling a dictator justifies the beheading of civilians. Sorry, but that's bullshit.

bwjfk.jpg


 


The Realm of Wyldwood


Member of the Brotherhood of the Clouds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your point - after all, kings were chosen by divine right, but that didn't make every kingdom a theocracy - but I was under the impression that the Caliph was divine. I suppose that depends on your definition of "divine", though.

 

EDIT: I just looked it up, and I'm thinking of the Shi'ite perspective on Caliphate (that the Caliph should be selected by God), rather than the Sunni perspective (that the Caliph should be elected by ordinary Muslims) which would apply to the Islamic State. However, as Baghdadi was not elected to his position as Caliph, this obviously can't be the Islamic State's position on the matter. I would be interested in hearing their theological justification for that.

There is no theological justification for it. The Caliphate has been more or less a secular title since the fall of the True Caliphate. Hell, one of the first Ummayad rulers said "I will behead anyone who tells me to fear Allah." Hardly an Islamic viewpoint. The Caliphate has been used as a title by Monarchies since 650 and literally means successor, as in they are the successor of the title (not the Prophet) and has come to mean that they are the leader of Islam. The biggest problem is that people equate the Caliph to the Pope, which they should never do. The Caliph is subject to the same principles and rules in the Qu'ran as a farmer or soldier and may not change anything.

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because toppling a dictator justifies the beheading of civilians. Sorry, but that's !@#$.

 

...when the &#33;@#&#036; did I say that? Nothing justifies the beheading of absolutely innocent civilians. You're either dense, illiterate, or deliberately misinterpreting my words; I said that intervention legitimizes their rhetoric, not that it justifies their actions.

 

The way I see it, the U.S. and its Western allies have two options in every conflict: intervene, or don't intervene. It gets more complex than that, but at the heart of the matter, you either keep your hands clean or you don't. Every time that intervention is chosen as the U.S.'s course of action, nothing good comes of it; U.S. lives are lost and the situation only deteriorates more rapidly than it was already deteriorating. It makes no sense to continue intervening.

 

There is no theological justification for it. The Caliphate has been more or less a secular title since the fall of the True Caliphate. Hell, one of the first Ummayad rulers said "I will behead anyone who tells me to fear Allah." Hardly an Islamic viewpoint. The Caliphate has been used as a title by Monarchies since 650 and literally means successor, as in they are the successor of the title (not the Prophet) and has come to mean that they are the leader of Islam. The biggest problem is that people equate the Caliph to the Pope, which they should never do. The Caliph is subject to the same principles and rules in the Qu'ran as a farmer or soldier and may not change anything.

 

Well, I'm sure that there's some theological justification. I've read translated samples of some of the material released by the Islamic State, but unfortunately most of the really theological stuff is beyond me; I haven't read the Bible, the Quran, or any other religious text of that nature, so I'm not used to navigating the complexities of such material.

 

Anyway, again, I'm aware that the Caliph isn't at all like the Pope - to begin with, he can't reinterpret the Quran and he's a primarily political rather than religious leader - but, as I understand it, the Caliphate is still a theocracy. It's at least as much a theocracy as the Teutonic Order was, anyway; theoretically, Islam is the foundation for its existence, and Islamic law is supreme within it.

 

The problem, I suppose, is that many people (myself included) have some difficulty forgetting our Western perspective when discussing Islam. Obviously it's hard to equate a Christian theocracy to an Islamic theocracy, because the two religions have fundamentally different views on how religious and political leadership should interact under any circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, again, I'm aware that the Caliph isn't at all like the Pope - to begin with, he can't reinterpret the Quran and he's a primarily political rather than religious leader - but, as I understand it, the Caliphate is still a theocracy. It's at least as much a theocracy as the Teutonic Order was, anyway; theoretically, Islam is the foundation for its existence, and Islamic law is supreme within it.

I'm not saying the Islamic State isn't a Theocracy. I'm just pointing out the fact that they are not divine and, historically, most Caliphs inherited the title as monarchs, in fact, the Ottoman Empire took the title in the 1500's but never really cared for it much. They just used it as an excuse to fight fellow Muslims if anything. 

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying the Islamic State isn't a Theocracy. I'm just pointing out the fact that they are not divine and, historically, most Caliphs inherited the title as monarchs, in fact, the Ottoman Empire took the title in the 1500's but never really cared for it much. They just used it as an excuse to fight fellow Muslims if anything. 

 

Ah. I can agree to that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you're referring to the decade(s)-old chemical weapons built with the full knowledge and support of the U.S.? These were not the "weapons of mass destruction" that the U.S. was seeking during its invasion. The fact is that we overthrew a stable, relatively secular government under Saddam Hussein for no good reason except that Bush Jr. felt like he needed to live up to the legacy of Bush Sr., and now we're facing the consequences in the form of a country torn apart by religious and ethnic strife.

 

Slightly off-topic: you seem to believe that I'm a liberal. Trust me when I say that I'm not. I'm not against wars in general by any means; I'm just against dumb wars.

 

 

...by whom, exactly? I mean, I know it sounds vaguely divine to us in the West - "supreme eternal president" and whatnot - but it's not, as far as I'm aware. There are no religious denotations that I've ever read about or heard of.

 

If they were so old and inconsequential then why were US troops warned by the Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense regarding their dangers? Why did the Bush Administration, at Karl Rove's behest claim that the reason nothing went public was because the risk of the information on the locations of these caches could fall into AQ's hands, was too great? If they werren't potent, then they wouldn't have been sushed up. That's ridiculous.

bwjfk.jpg


 


The Realm of Wyldwood


Member of the Brotherhood of the Clouds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your point - after all, kings were chosen by divine right, but that didn't make every kingdom a theocracy - but I was under the impression that the Caliph was divine. I suppose that depends on your definition of "divine", though.

 

EDIT: I just looked it up, and I'm thinking of the Shi'ite perspective on Caliphate (that the Caliph should be selected by God), rather than the Sunni perspective (that the Caliph should be elected by ordinary Muslims) which would apply to the Islamic State. However, as Baghdadi was not elected to his position as Caliph, this obviously can't be the Islamic State's position on the matter. I would be interested in hearing their theological justification for that.

Baghdadi believes he is related to Muhammad. But aside from that, Kuwarij don't believe in any special ways of choosing a Caliph. They literally believe in overthrowing and replacing any Caliph they deem as unfit to rule. When it comes to Islamic States leadership, I wouldn't be calling them Sunni.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were so old and inconsequential then why were US troops warned by the Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense regarding their dangers? Why did the Bush Administration, at Karl Rove's behest claim that the reason nothing went public was because the risk of the information on the locations of these caches could fall into AQ's hands, was too great? If they werren't potent, then they wouldn't have been sushed up. That's ridiculous.

 

I never said that they were inconsequential; I simply pointed out that they were not what the U.S. was looking for. These chemical weapons were still dangerous, potent, and not at all something that should have been allowed to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. But they weren't what the U.S. was looking for.

 

In the late 1990s, the U.N. oversaw the destruction of the vast majority of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, a large majority of which were constructed with U.S. and Western assistance a decade before during the Iran-Iraq War. What the U.S. discovered during and after its invasion was about a tenth of the stockpile that the international community had already been well aware of the existence of, thanks to the earlier U.N. inspections and destruction plan. This is because nine-tenths of the stockpile was destroyed by the U.N. during the 1990s.

 

What the U.S. was looking for was new weapons of mass destruction, which Bush and his administration believed to have been built in the five years between the withdrawal of the U.N. observers (which was made necessary by the U.S.'s Operation Desert Fox, after Clinton authorized the funding of destabilizing elements within Iraq and despite the fact that Iraq was essentially complying with the destruction plan) and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush believed that Saddam Hussein had been working to reconstruct Iraq's chemical weapons stockpile, and had possibly even begun working to build nuclear weapons; however, this was entirely incorrect. Iraq never reconstructed its chemical weapons stockpile, and it never built nuclear weapons.

 

Were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Yes. Were they still potentially dangerous? Yes. I will admit that much, although I would urge you to look more closely at the context of those answers; context is everything in a discussion like this.

 

It should also be noted, however, that there were at the time also potentially dangerous weapons of mass destruction in Syria, Libya, and Israel; none of them were invaded. For that matter, the U.S. and its Western allies, Russia, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and various other countries around the world are in possession of weapons of mass destruction in some form or another, but again, the U.S. hasn't called for an invasion of any of those countries. Even if we assume that Bush knew exactly what he was talking about, and sought to destroy only the small remainder of the old chemical weapons stockpile constructed with U.S. assistance, that justification for the Iraq War is ultimately disingenuous and outright hypocritical.

 

Baghdadi believes he is related to Muhammad. But aside from that, Kuwarij don't believe in any special ways of choosing a Caliph. They literally believe in overthrowing and replacing any Caliph they deem as unfit to rule. When it comes to Islamic States leadership, I wouldn't be calling them Sunni.

 

That's interesting. I don't know if I believe that the Islamic State is consciously Khawarij, though they do seem to have some obvious similarities, especially in their mutual belief that the Caliph should be chosen by what I would liken to the Chinese "Mandate of Heaven". Nonetheless, they are supported by Sunni Muslims in Iraq and seem to consider the Sunnis their brothers and the Shi'ites their enemies; from what I understand, wouldn't Khawarijites consider both Sunnis and Shi'ites their enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that they were inconsequential; I simply pointed out that they were not what the U.S. was looking for. These chemical weapons were still dangerous, potent, and not at all something that should have been allowed to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. But they weren't what the U.S. was looking for.

 

In the late 1990s, the U.N. oversaw the destruction of the vast majority of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, a large majority of which were constructed with U.S. and Western assistance a decade before during the Iran-Iraq War. What the U.S. discovered during and after its invasion was about a tenth of the stockpile that the international community had already been well aware of the existence of, thanks to the earlier U.N. inspections and destruction plan. This is because nine-tenths of the stockpile was destroyed by the U.N. during the 1990s.

 

What the U.S. was looking for was new weapons of mass destruction, which Bush and his administration believed to have been built in the five years between the withdrawal of the U.N. observers (which was made necessary by the U.S.'s Operation Desert Fox, after Clinton authorized the funding of destabilizing elements within Iraq and despite the fact that Iraq was essentially complying with the destruction plan) and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush believed that Saddam Hussein had been working to reconstruct Iraq's chemical weapons stockpile, and had possibly even begun working to build nuclear weapons; however, this was entirely incorrect. Iraq never reconstructed its chemical weapons stockpile, and it never built nuclear weapons.

 

Were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Yes. Were they still potentially dangerous? Yes. I will admit that much, although I would urge you to look more closely at the context of those answers; context is everything in a discussion like this.

 

It should also be noted, however, that there were at the time also potentially dangerous weapons of mass destruction in Syria, Libya, and Israel; none of them were invaded. For that matter, the U.S. and its Western allies, Russia, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and various other countries around the world are in possession of weapons of mass destruction in some form or another, but again, the U.S. hasn't called for an invasion of any of those countries. Even if we assume that Bush knew exactly what he was talking about, and sought to destroy only the small remainder of the old chemical weapons stockpile constructed with U.S. assistance, that justification for the Iraq War is ultimately disingenuous and outright hypocritical.

 

 

That's interesting. I don't know if I believe that the Islamic State is consciously Khawarij, though they do seem to have some obvious similarities, especially in their mutual belief that the Caliph should be chosen by what I would liken to the Chinese "Mandate of Heaven". Nonetheless, they are supported by Sunni Muslims in Iraq and seem to consider the Sunnis their brothers and the Shi'ites their enemies; from what I understand, wouldn't Khawarijites consider both Sunnis and Shi'ites their enemies?

Khuwarij caliphate wouldn't be calling itself Khuwarij.

IDK if IS leadership is consciously Khuwarij, but I don't think any modern Khuwarij is consciously Khuwarij either. Or at least, they likely consider themselves Sunni (even though most Sunni scholars would disagree). And technically speaking, they do consider Sunni and Shia both to be enemies. The first priority of Islamic State is not to start shit with the west, but to "purify" Muslim society by enforcing their own interpretation of Sharia and wiping out all other Salafist/Wahabbi groups who don't pledge allegiance to their Caliph. Assuming that we weren't bombing them and Assad was taken out, I can guarantee that their next move would be Lebanon, wiping out Hamas, and wiping out Al-Nusra Front.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khuwarij caliphate wouldn't be calling itself Khuwarij.

IDK if IS leadership is consciously Khuwarij, but I don't think any modern Khuwarij is consciously Khuwarij either. Or at least, they likely consider themselves Sunni (even though most Sunni scholars would disagree). And technically speaking, they do consider Sunni and Shia both to be enemies. The first priority of Islamic State is not to start !@#$ with the west, but to "purify" Muslim society by enforcing their own interpretation of Sharia and wiping out all other Salafist/Wahabbi groups who don't pledge allegiance to their Caliph. Assuming that we weren't bombing them and Assad was taken out, I can guarantee that their next move would be Lebanon, wiping out Hamas, and wiping out Al-Nusra Front.

 

Oh, I agree. I'm sure you're at least as aware as I am that they've already come into violent conflict with al-Nusra Front and other Sunni Islamist groups. I suppose they're most likely Sunni Muslims who happen to have adopted Khuwarij ideas without realizing it.

 

I imagine that it would be very interesting to study the intellectual roots of the Islamic State at greater depth, since all that we have right now is speculation by outside sources (authoritative as they may be in some regards), since I doubt that Baghdadi is open to interviews. xP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.