Islamic State

[elsuper]

Here is an interesting database graph of those killed in Iraq since our invasion.

 

That is interesting. I expect the numbers to be somewhat inaccurate because of the media blackout in IS territories, but this says that fewer civilians have died since IS began taking territory than died in the comparable timeframe between '06 and '07.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Something really does need to be done...

Just the other day, On the news (I live in the UK) They were reporting an attempted (attempted plot more like) assassination on the queen, The planning was done by Islamic extremists, Born and Bred in the UK, The plan was foiled by the local police, so no harm done.

Now, The thing is, I'm not religious, not even the teeniest of bits but, I do believe that these things being done by the Islamic Extremists is only adding to the Islamophobia, Someone, somewhere needs to deal with Islamic Extremists, And Extremists of any religion, whether it be Obama, Cameron, Putin or A tribe in the Amazon.

And the more Islamophobia, the more young Islamic men will consider radicalism.  That is the plan of terrorists, to make you murder their children to enrage their side to increase their numbers.  They want you to shoot them.  And hopefully miss and hit a daycare center instead.

[WISD0MTREE]

Terror is possibly the single greatest FA exploit. The west can justify doing anything, anywhere through fighting Terror. And by fighting terror, the west guarantees a future of terror to exploit. If politicians could wave a wand to eliminate terror they wouldn't. It's too damn useful.

Hardly. How many Americans pressured Obama to leave Iraq? 

If USA ordered drone strikes on schools in Iraq saying that they were terror cells, how many people would believe them? 

If the US military shot up a school in America that was "housing young jihadists", would people believe them? 

If we assassinated whatever queen those Brits are on (Elizabeth II?) in the name of counter terror, would our citizens believe? Would the Brits believe? 

[SoS]

Hardly. How many Americans pressured Obama to leave Iraq?

If USA ordered drone strikes on schools in Iraq saying that they were terror cells, how many people would believe them?

If the US military shot up a school in America that was "housing young jihadists", would people believe them?

If we assassinated whatever queen those Brits are on (Elizabeth II?) in the name of counter terror, would our citizens believe? Would the Brits believe?

I can't believe Muslims are the only people that are capable of killing civilians for politics. Our government wouldn't, of course, but if our government was a puppet of some foreign power our people would fight it. How else would a citizen fight in this situation?

 

They're not monsters is my point. They're men with the same motives as you and I.

[Fox Fire]

Hardly. How many Americans pressured Obama to leave Iraq? 

If USA ordered drone strikes on schools in Iraq saying that they were terror cells, how many people would believe them? 

If the US military shot up a school in America that was "housing young jihadists", would people believe them? 

If we assassinated whatever queen those Brits are on (Elizabeth II?) in the name of counter terror, would our citizens believe? Would the Brits believe? 

Its certainly not a conspiracy. Its just an issue thats seemingly impossible to defuse at this point. So I agree.

 

 

I can't believe Muslims are the only people that are capable of killing civilians for politics. Our government wouldn't, of course, but if our government was a puppet of some foreign power our people would fight it. How else would a citizen fight in this situation?

 

They're not monsters is my point. They're men with the same motives as you and I.

Our government/military has intentionally fire bombed and killed countless civilians on a number of occasions just for the sake of killing a few comabatants that they were unable to identify. This is effectively proven in Snowdens leaks, and other accounts from Vietnam says it was rather prevalent over there too. So I equally agree with this.

 

War is hell, but when you massacre civilians, you get a pissed off response. Thats why we invaded Afghanistan, thats why etremist muslims think the west is the devil. Its a never ending vicious cycle that nobody intentionally created. But no doubt, there are those who profit from it all.

[Greatnate]

So because it was against Britians personal greedy desires, its perfectly acceptable to exploit an entire continent and culture of people....

Got it....

 

Yep, that sounds like context. /s

 

I literally just said that the British made a bad decision by ignoring the Arab rebels that they had supported. They couldn't possibly hold this new hostile territory, so they cut it up arbitrarily and let it go.  Expecting the British to do a better job of deciding borders than the Ottomans is insane. The point was that the pre-British borders were already bad.

 

Its certainly not a conspiracy. Its just an issue thats seemingly impossible to defuse at this point. So I agree.

 

 

Our government/military has intentionally fire bombed and killed countless civilians on a number of occasions just for the sake of killing a few comabatants that they were unable to identify. This is effectively proven in Snowdens leaks, and other accounts from Vietnam says it was rather prevalent over there too. So I equally agree with this.

 

War is hell, but when you massacre civilians, you get a pissed off response. Thats why we invaded Afghanistan, thats why etremist muslims think the west is the devil. Its a never ending vicious cycle that nobody intentionally created. But no doubt, there are those who profit from it all.

 

COIN operations have never been successful, but we have a vested interest in the resources of the middle east and preventing weird Theocratic governments and Sadrist economies. What exactly is the American government supposed to do to exert hegemonic control without angering the local populous? Because, let's be honest, pan-Arabism or pan-Islamism is not going to produce a viable state anytime soon, so the middle east remains a region open to hegemoney. The friendly option of not murdering the natives just allows the Russians or Chinese to murder the natives.

[Fox Fire]

Yep, that sounds like context. /s

 

I literally just said that the British made a bad decision by ignoring the Arab rebels that they had supported. They couldn't possibly hold this new hostile territory, so they cut it up arbitrarily and let it go.  Expecting the British to do a better job of deciding borders than the Ottomans is insane. The point was that the pre-British borders were already bad.

 

 

COIN operations have never been successful, but we have a vested interest in the resources of the middle east and preventing weird Theocratic governments and Sadrist economies. What exactly is the American government supposed to do to exert hegemonic control without angering the local populous? Because, let's be honest, pan-Arabism or pan-Islamism is not going to produce a viable state anytime soon, so the middle east remains a region open to hegemoney. The friendly option of not murdering the natives just allows the Russians or Chinese to murder the natives.

So its suddenly our problem if Muslims are doing somthing, but we dont care what Russia does to Chechens (though we seem to be all up in their !@#$ to defend racist Georgian nationalism and the inhuman treatment of ethnic Russians), what China does to their numerous minorities or what N. Korea does to numerous people for simply unexaplainable reasons?

 

You see, the problem here is that (conservative) Americans seem to think that it our job to be world police. That its our job to enforce our own idea of what is right upon the rest of the world. But, thats only if we gain some benefit by doing so.  If there is nothing that we can gain by invading a sovereign state, we wont. We will simply stand on the sidelines and shout "You're an evil (Insert censored N word here)" and do nothing, while at the same time we constantly send undisclosed ammounts of weaponry to mid eastern allies whom buy us off, whome we buy off ourselves, and litterally encourage them to kill eachother over boders that we created...... The killing itself is not a conspiracy. Its just a series of unfortunate events that American, Russian and numerous other corporations are consistently taking advatage of and cashing in on. The division itself is a conspiracy, if conspiracies ever existed. 

 

Who gives a !@#$ if what we think will happen will never work? This area is the cradle of all human civilization, so I imagine they can do !@#$ themselves. Whether or not we like it is irrelevent.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Fox Fire

[Greatnate]

So its suddenly our problem if Muslims are doing somthing, but we dont care what Russia does to Chechens (though we seem to be all up in their !@#$ to defend racist Georgian nationalism and the inhuman treatment of ethnic Russians), what China does to their numerous minorities or what N. Korea does to numerous people for simply unexaplainable reasons?

 

You see, the problem here is that (conservative) Americans seem to think that it our job to be world police. That its our job to enforce our own idea of what is right upon the rest of the world. But, thats only if we gain some benefit by doing so.  If there is nothing that we can gain by invading a sovereign state, we wont. We will simply stand on the sidelines and shout "You're an evil (Insert censored N word here)" and do nothing, while at the same time we constantly send undisclosed ammounts of weaponry to mid eastern allies whom buy us off, whome we buy off ourselves, and litterally encourage them to kill eachother over boders that we created...... The killing itself is not a conspiracy. Its just a series of unfortunate events that American, Russian and numerous other corporations are consistently taking advatage of and cashing in on. The division itself is a conspiracy, if conspiracies ever existed. 

 

Who gives a !@#$ if what we think will happen will never work? This area is the cradle of all human civilization, so I imagine they can do !@#$ themselves. Whether or not we like it is irrelevent.

 

Yep, the Chechens are well within the Russian sphere of influence, as apparently the Ukrainians are too, since we haven't lifted a finger to help them. The problem is if we don't utilize our "Superpower" status for as long as we have it, we will lose out in the long run. While I wouldn't use the n-word, selling arms to both sides of a conflict created by British borders is something we have done and would do again. The division is not a conspiracy though, ill-informed British nobles thought it was a good idea, which any American could tell you meant it was a bad idea, but their territory, their bullshit. Nobody cares that it's the cradle of civilization, that was clearly demonstrated by US/NATO bombings of horrendously important archaeological sites. The problem of conspiracy is that it makes all of the power-grubbing governments look suddenly competent and lets them act as if everything was planned. In the real world, every country is scrambling, the US just has a lot wider net of scramble than everyone else.

 

Either way a unified Islamic state is a vile concept for both the hegemonic western powers and the local regional powers, so boo on those terrorists that support it as a way to independence. They should go back to focusing on their hatred for the west and tone down this theocratic bullshit.

[Fox Fire]

Theocracy, meritocracy, monarchy, democracy, who gives a !@#$? They can decide all that that for themselves. Us deciding for them has only created the thriving pile of shit we see now, known as the Islamic State. You seem to have a severe issue of ignorance here in several ways. For one, what works in one culture doesnt work in all cultures. American Democracy works great here, but monarchy didnt. Socialism worked great in Russia, Federalism has not. Socialism works great in China, the Republic did not. Similarly, socialism would never work in America.

Second, you seem to think that muslims are all about a theocracy. Thats just ignorant !@#$, and I cant even imagine where you cooked that one up. I suggest you go read about Islamic Law and authority. Theocracy doesnt, nor can it exist in Islam according to everything the religion has ever tought, anywhere, in any given time.

Third, I think you should take this qoute to heart:

With great power come great responsibility.

-Francois-Marie Arouet

You, like many Americans, seem to think that our actions, regardless of what they are, carry no responsibility and no reprocussions. You seem to think that whatever we do is just how it is. How in !@#$ is a unified Islamic state "vile" (as you put it)? Just because its against western interests? Those "local regional powers" are nothing but creations of the west. They were not created by the people who live there. They were observed by western empires and chopped up in a half assed way that some ignorant europeans saw as convenient for themselves, then exploited to the point that a false sense of nationalism was instilled in areas where it otherwise wouldnt even exist.

The west created this whole cess pool of problems back in 1915 when we decided that the Arab world would be governed by foreign power. The power to carry out those actions came with great responsibility. Responsibility that we ignored. And now we are seeing just what the above qoute really means.

 

You can deny or ignore it all you want. But its that kind of attitude that put us in this situation to begin with.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Fox Fire

[elsuper]

In the real world, every country is scrambling, the US just has a lot wider net of scramble than everyone else.

 

Absolutely. I might be comforted if there were a tight-fisted conspiracy; at least then someone would be in control.

 

Theocracy doesnt, nor can it exist in Islam according to everything the religion has ever tought, anywhere, in any given time.

 

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. I'm no scholar of Islam, but it definitely appears there are, and have been through history, plenty of self-proclaimed Muslims who disagree with that:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state(referring to the general concept of an Islamic state, not the current one by that name, unless we want to get nitty-gritty about "Islamic State" vs "Islamic Theocracy")

 

With great power come great responsibility.

-Francois-Marie Arouet

 

I do agree that the west dun goofed, and with Spiderman. Do you propose a laissez-faire approach to the middle east, no matter what? Is it our responsibility to never use our great power? What then is the point of power?

 

Side thought: For all we know, if the US hadn't invaded Iraq, that Arab Spring would have unseated him (edit: "him" being Saddam, sorry)(or attempted to) and plunged Iraq right into very similar chaos. Granted, that would have saved us money and lives, but who can anticipate things like that with any accuracy?

Edited November 18, 2014 by elsuper

[Aisha Greyjoy]

What would Rome do?  I think Rome would go in with 8-12 legions, take all Iraqi's as slaves and settle their retiring Legionaires in the province of Mesopatamia.

 

What wound Imperial Great Britian do?  Go in with a small, highly technical army, kill the enemy leaders, and convince his 2nd in command to rule the whole country as a British client.

 

What would Alexander the Great do?  Alexander would go in and marry a few muslim girls and force some of his greek soldiers to take muslim wives and promise that the children, a greco-iraqi mix would one day rule the world as conquerors.  Then he'd get assassinated and all his plans would be undone.

 

And what does America do?  We send a few advisors and drop a few bombs.  Half-measures don't win wars.  You want to pacify Iraq you need a draft and 200,000 american soldiers on the ground, and a willingness to see 2-3k dead every year.  When you wage war, fight to win.  If you can't afford to win, don't fight.  

 

Those who thing my 200k idea is a good one should read Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" and learn what "Imperial Overextension" is.  Then decide, is Iraq worth taking on more of that for the USA?  Our Empire has some lifespan left in it.  But it can't afford endless wars for little gain.  

[Fox Fire]

Absolutely. I might be comforted if there were a tight-fisted conspiracy; at least then someone would be in control.

 

 

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. I'm no scholar of Islam, but it definitely appears there are, and have been through history, plenty of self-proclaimed Muslims who disagree with that:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state(referring to the general concept of an Islamic state, not the current one by that name, unless we want to get nitty-gritty about "Islamic State" vs "Islamic Theocracy")

 

 

I do agree that the west dun goofed, and with Spiderman. Do you propose a laissez-faire approach to the middle east, no matter what? Is it our responsibility to never use our great power? What then is the point of power?

 

Side thought: For all we know, if the US hadn't invaded Iraq, that Arab Spring would have unseated him (or attempted to) and plunged Iraq right into very similar chaos. Granted, that would have saved us money and lives, but who can anticipate things like that with any accuracy?

I wouldnt consider an Islamic State to be quite a theocracy.

As for the power part, I'll say this:

The United Nations was essentially formed to recognize human rights and prevent another world war. Being a founder, we have an obligation to uphold its principles and purposes. That doesnt mean its our job to enforce our way of thinking on everyone else. And it always seems to be that America does all the military work across the world.

I think here is a good spot to respond to a specific think Nate said:

The problem is if we don't utilize our "Superpower" status for as long as we have it, we will lose out in the long run.

I would argue that we are already losing our superpower status, because we utilize it too much. Before WW2, America was a powerful, great nation. Despite that power, we were a rather neutral, keep to ouselves sorta place. After the war, we started competing with USSR in an arms race, and have become a military interventionist state ever since. We were afraid of Russians going mad with power, and now we have done precisely just that. We may have the power to police the world, but everyone seems to underestimate the size of that responsibility.

[Fox Fire]

Those who thing my 200k idea is a good one should read Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" and learn what "Imperial Overextension" is.  Then decide, is Iraq worth taking on more of that for the USA?  Our Empire has some lifespan left in it.  But it can't afford endless wars for little gain.

Precisely. All empires inevitably collapse. Oddly enough, the similarities between Romes last days and modern America are many.

[elsuper]

I wouldnt consider an Islamic State to be quite a theocracy.

 

What do you consider to be a theocracy, and how does IS differ from that?

 

I would argue that we are already losing our superpower status, because we utilize it too much. Before WW2, America was a powerful, great nation. Despite that power, we were a rather neutral, keep to ouselves sorta place. After the war, we started competing with USSR in an arms race, and have become a military interventionist state ever since. We were afraid of Russians going mad with power, and now we have done precisely just that. We may have the power to police the world, but everyone seems to underestimate the size of that responsibility.

 

I agree that we've wastefully overextended in recent years. Our hegemoney probably won't last through the mid-century (it can be argued it's already gone, in that we can't get our way on all kinds of issues), but all kinds of unanticipated things can happen.

 

Precisely. All empires inevitably collapse. Oddly enough, the similarities between Romes last days and modern America are many.

 

I see it more like we're the Republic on our way toward the true Imperial phase (not that I desire that, but I think America has a lot more steam left than a lot of people seem to. I see potential for dictatorship to develop, though). Maybe the Axis was our Carthage, but maybe not. Maybe it was the USSR, or maybe it will be China.

[Fox Fire]

What do you consider to be a theocracy, and how does IS differ from that?

 

 

I agree that we've wastefully overextended in recent years. Our hegemoney probably won't last through the mid-century (it can be argued it's already gone, in that we can't get our way on all kinds of issues), but all kinds of unanticipated things can happen.

 

 

I see it more like we're the Republic on our way toward the true Imperial phase (not that I desire that, but I think America has a lot more steam left than a lot of people seem to. I see potential for dictatorship to develop, though). Maybe the Axis was our Carthage, but maybe not. Maybe it was the USSR, or maybe it will be China.

1. N. Korea is pretty theocratic. An Islamic State is just some idiot claiming authority over Islam, when in all honesty, I dont think that authority has ever existed since Muhammad.

 

2. Who knows? I do know one thing. Pretty much every empire thought that they were destined to reign supreme forever.

 

3. I think the USSR was our Carthage if anything. I dont see a war/cold war going down with China any time soon. But Its apparent that they are expanding as we are receding. Maybe we will actually be Chinas Carthage.

[SoS]

We're fighting over there for the right to do business there. In a sense we are fighting Chinese interests there.

 

We should just give a letter of mark and reprisal to the oil companies and let them go over there like the eic. Of course, that wouldn't be subtle enough for our sensitive hearts.

[WISD0MTREE]

You see, the problem here is that (conservative) Americans seem to think that it our job to be world police. That its our job to enforce our own idea of what is right upon the rest of the world. But, thats only if we gain some benefit by doing so.  

"Oh, I'm a cop and I don't deserve to get paid." 

[Fox Fire]

"Oh, I'm a cop and I don't deserve to get paid." 

Wut is this even supposed to mean? O.o

[Grillick]

"Oh, I'm a cop and I don't deserve to get paid."

Cops don't get paid for enforcing what they think is right on the community. They get paid for enforcing the laws as determined by all the people.

 

Disingenuous metaphor is disingenuous.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Grillick

[WISD0MTREE]

Cops don't get paid for enforcing what they think is right on the community. They get paid for enforcing the laws as determined by all the people.

 

Disingenuous metaphor is disingenuous.

There were WMDs in Iraq. 

[Fox Fire]

There were WMDs in Iraq. 

You mean the nukes that never existed? Or the chemical weapons that the west sold them and helped them build?

[Greatnate]

I wouldnt consider an Islamic State to be quite a theocracy.

As for the power part, I'll say this:

The United Nations was essentially formed to recognize human rights and prevent another world war. Being a founder, we have an obligation to uphold its principles and purposes. That doesnt mean its our job to enforce our way of thinking on everyone else. And it always seems to be that America does all the military work across the world.

I think here is a good spot to respond to a specific think Nate said:

I would argue that we are already losing our superpower status, because we utilize it too much. Before WW2, America was a powerful, great nation. Despite that power, we were a rather neutral, keep to ouselves sorta place. After the war, we started competing with USSR in an arms race, and have become a military interventionist state ever since. We were afraid of Russians going mad with power, and now we have done precisely just that. We may have the power to police the world, but everyone seems to underestimate the size of that responsibility.

 

Any Islamic state is a theocracy. The main cultural different is that when you have a local legal dispute, under Western Democracy you consult your local Judge and under an Islamic state you consult your local Imam. The whole concept of "Human Rights" is a western concept that we apply to non-western states on an ad-hoc basis. If you asked your average Iraqi citizen to define the inalienable rights of man, he would not come up with the same list as an American citizen. The American military is overburdened and over-relied on from a global perspective, a couple of years ago we were spending half of total global military expenditures, without recompense that is unsustainable. We cannot maintain an Athenian hegemoney with a Roman level of military expenditure. Before WW2, the US was a strong secondary power, maybe a lot of economy, but no power projection and a laughable military. We were the Brazil of the 1940's. We still have the ills of the cold war upon us, but even under Bush we finally started shifting from conservative dictatorships to conservative democracies, which is a huge step for the US. Have we gone overboard with power? Yes. Have we jeopardized our former forms of hegemoney, like the UN and NATO? Yes. Has this hurt the USA in the long run? We'll see, but the answer is likely to be an unfortunate no.

[elsuper]

Has this hurt the USA in the long run? We'll see, but the answer is likely to be an unfortunate no.

 

Why would this be unfortunate?

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Wut is this even supposed to mean? O.o

I think he means that maybe we should reap some benefits from being the World Police.  Its not easy and its not free to be Team America, World Police.  The world owes its cops some pay!  And we'll take it one oil barrel at a time!  

Edited November 20, 2014 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Dietrich]

Am I late to the after-party? Nahhh.

 

Theocracy doesnt, nor can it exist in Islam according to everything the religion has ever tought, anywhere, in any given time.

 

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.

 

Side thought: For all we know, if the US hadn't invaded Iraq, that Arab Spring would have unseated him (edit: "him" being Saddam, sorry)(or attempted to) and plunged Iraq right into very similar chaos. Granted, that would have saved us money and lives, but who can anticipate things like that with any accuracy?

 

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.

 

N. Korea is pretty theocratic.

 

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

 

There were WMDs in Iraq. 

 

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.