Islamic State

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Shadow** » Fri May 22, 2015 9:50 am

The exact same can be said of Gadaffi and the way he kept Libya stable and Boko Haram in check.

These dictators' regimes kept all kinds of crazy feuding and zealotry on ice, and it should have been foreseen by the west's experts advising their leaders that removing what kept those conflicts and ideologies in check would inevitably lead to the situations now ongoing in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Iraq. Now, thanks to the Iraq War and the so-called "Arab Spring", the religious and cultural diversity (not to mention the scientific potential) of the region is under immediate threat of vanishing, and the region's heritage is in the process of being irrevocably harmed. There are no unforeseen consequences here: everything was eminently predictable, if unlikely.

You could say that IS would have emerged and done the same gooseberry fool if Saddam had been left in place, later to fall to the Arab Spring uprisings, and it may well have, but IS was formed when Islamic zealots teamed up with Baath party officials in American prison camps. That makes it a direct result of the Bush and Blair administrations' actions and policies. It makes me want them to go to trial in the Hague even more.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Meep** » Sat May 23, 2015 12:34 pm

Of course they kept the lid on things; it was designed that way by us and the other European powers when we carved up the territory now known as the Middle-East. States were created to fracture ethnic groups and then power was given to minorities within said states, forcing them crack down hard in order to stay in power and also making them (in theory) our faithful lapdogs because they would be dependent on our arms and military support. It was known that Christian empires could never hope to maintain control over Muslim colonies but we could put other Muslims in charge who would do our bidding. Even at the end of WW1 everyone could see that if you did not have access to oil then your future as a great power was over, so we engineered the situation after the Ottomans fell to grasp power in the area and ensure that the it remained fractured and dependent on western military support and arms. It worked brilliantly, for a time.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Moggy** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:30 pm

I read this article on Cracked at lunchtime.

Interesting stuff and shows some of the stupid things that America/Britain did in order to "pacify" Iraq. While we are obviously not completely to blame for the rise of ISIS, our governments really need to take a look at the mistakes they have made and ensure that we do not make the same mistakes next time we go into Iraq to sort things out.

Camp Bucca in 2006 is where and when Islamic State formed. You know, that prison camp ran by the Americans. The one that marks a direct link between the war in Iraq and ISIS' existence. Were it not for the war, ISIS probably would not exist, given that the specific preconditions for its formation would not have happened - the specific culture of the camp, the people held within and their personalities, etc. If Saddam had fallen during the Arab Spring, we still probably wouldn't be looking at ISIS today, although we would have had an Iraqi civil war.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Moggy** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:36 pm

Alvin Flummux wrote:Camp Bucca in 2006 is where and when Islamic State formed. You know, that prison camp ran by the Americans. The one that marks a direct link between the war in Iraq and ISIS' existence. Were it not for the war, ISIS probably would not exist, given that the specific preconditions for its formation would not have happened.

Yeah that's what the article is talking about. It also goes into details on the Sons of Iraq who were paid by the US and then basically murdered their way across Iraq before they ended up joining ISIS. :fp:

I think you are right that ISIS as it is at the moment wouldn't exist without Camp Bucca (as well as the other mistakes we made). There is more to it than just that though.

And now America is arming and training the Iraqi military, which frankly appears quite unwilling to take its country back, and a Syrian militia unwilling to be armed and trained to fight ISIS because it's too busy fighting Assad.

We need the Iranians and the Turks, not to mention the Saudis and Israelis to all work together to eradicate ISIS (and kick Assad out, while they're at it), but that's a lot of mutually hostile people I don't ever see working together on anything. ISIS' success hinges on its enemies hating each other too much to co-operate with each other.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Moggy** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:53 pm

I can't imagine Israel will be able to get involved but otherwise I think you are right. A big coalition of all of the states around ISIS would be the way to sort things out as the US/UK/Israel getting involved will only inflame things.

As you say the trouble is all the states around ISIS hate each other as much as they hate ISIS. Which means nothing will be done until ISIS provoke a reaction from the US or Israel and then everything starts all over again.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Ironhide** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:28 pm

They basically need to ignore their hatred of each other and get rid of IS before it's too late, US and EU troops being sent in will only make things worse in the long run but I suspect it'll happen anyway while all the Arab/middle east countries continue their long running feuds.

I don't think we'll ever see peace in the region but the current situation can't be ignored any longer.

I think that Israel needs to be a cooperative partner in the anti-ISIS coalition because it will engender more friendly relationships with the other big players in the region. They're a paranoid lot though, so fear of their tech being stolen by Iran will probably prevent them from playing any role at all. They could do a lot of good though.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Moggy** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:44 pm

Alvin Flummux wrote:I think that Israel needs to be a cooperative partner in the anti-ISIS coalition because it will engender more friendly relationships with the other big players in the region. They're a paranoid lot though, so fear of their tech being stolen by Iran will probably prevent them from playing any role at all. They could do a lot of good though.

The hatred/mistrust/fear of Israel in the region would cause more harm than good if they got involved.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **TigaSefi** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:00 am

Trust me, you do NOT want Israel to get involved officially... gooseberry fool will go off and not in a good way at all. Western countries need to do more.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **That** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:52 pm

In "lighter" news:

Today's headlines wrote:Baghdad: Military Plane Accidentally Bombs City Because of Technical Error, Iraqi Air Force Says

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **That** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:53 pm

Apparently the shitty Russian plane they were using is to blame.

This is a bonkers read:

FBI says 'Australian IS jihadist' is actually a Jewish American troll named Joshua Ryne Goldberg

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australi ... jk852.html

This troll/agent provocateur may have been responsible for inciting the attack in Texas earlier this year.

I hope he sees the inside of a cell for a very long time indeed. I would also love to know what the wannabe terrorists who followed him are thinking, after they learn this guy is Jewish. :slol:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Rocsteady** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:32 pm

Wow, that is crazy. I remember reading that Times of Israel article and thinking it was absolutely awful, as that page you posted stated - turns out it was him that wrote that :fp:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... -of-israel

NickSCFC · PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **NickSCFC** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:47 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34399164

Is this the beginning of the end for ISIS?

I think Russia/Assad will reduce ISIS to a point that they can be contained. A mostly stable Syria that lives under the threat of ISIS would be a massive tool for Assad and Putin.

As for the non-ISIS rebel groups, it doesn't appear that Russia has any issue bombing them either. The sooner they're gone the idea that there's a legitimate alternative to Assad will be gone too.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **False** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:10 pm

tbh there is no end for a group that can quite happily exist as guerilla splinter factions

blow up a load in one place and the others will fill the hole

are there any instances ever where just bombing the bad guys over and over has 'won' the conflict and returned the region to peace?

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **Trelliz** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:31 pm

Movements like ISIS live on being victims; we're being attacked by infidel westerners, the Caliphate is under threat, come save it etc. Modern states don't like putting troops on the ground anymore, so airstrikes are a low-risk low-bodycount way of appearing to do something, however is a terrible way to run a COIN campaign. ISIS is built on ideas, and it's the idea that they are a credible alternative to conventional state systems is the one that has to be challenged on the ground, backed up with military force to prove the point. Either that or go full invasion again; lock down the borders and occupy the gooseberry fool out of 3 countries.

I love how all the far-right political pundits slag off Putin but turn around and tickle his balls when he starts bombing places that the West doesn't want to get involved in, same with the view on Assad.

NickSCFC · PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State by **NickSCFC** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:47 pm

Falsey wrote:are there any instances ever where just bombing the bad guys over and over has 'won' the conflict and returned the region to peace?

Killed an ideology overnight and, arguably, went on to create the greatest country ever.

Islamic State

Who is online

Affiliates