Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The more I read and hear about these bastards, I think some effort should be made on someone’s part to wipe them out. I don’t see this happening. The Iraqi army doesn’t have the freaking balls to go after them. The United States may get into a protracted bombing war against them like with the Taliban in Pakistan. I don’t see regional powers going after them, except Iran may fund Sadr’s militia, though I don’t see them making much of an impact.

I doubt the Kurds will move against them, they’ll probably just hold their ground and stop their advance into their area. And I am sorry for every thinking about making them an ally. But what can be done to stop them? Who, if anyone, will make the move against them? Will they end up being another Hezbollah in Lebanon, Taliban in Pakistan, Al Qaeda in Yemen, a shadow government within another nation?[/quote]

This is my read of the situation, which is just a humble opinion. I also don’t see any organized force that’s capable of stopping them putting in the effort. At least anytime soon.

The Iraqi’s don’t have the will or organization to do much. They simply are not a capable force.

The Saudi’s and other rich Arab peninsula states don’t have the ability to do anything despite having spent 100s of billions of dollars on their milataries the past few years. It’s really just an awesome deal for the US economy as the rich Arabs don’t know what to do with all their money.

You’re right on with the Kurds, they are interested in preserving their land, and I can’t blame them for their stance. They don’t even have a sovereign state of their own so why would they risk their lives when rich Western countries will not.

Iran does not have the money to take decisive action and it’s not Iranian style to deploy their own fighting forces in foreign countries (for the most part). Iran utilizes proxies and/or using their significant soft power to influence regional events, which is smart given their lack of funds. They will provide intelligence and military organization to the Iraqi’s but won’t sacrifice their own people. Further, Iran just needs a certain part of the current Iraqi state to be under their sphere for it to be useful. They don’t need influence in all of Iraq, just the Shia portion (which is rich in natural resources) and a segment that runs into Syria. Right now IS land does not impede a continuous path from Iran to Syria and I think as long as that is the case Iran will be satisfied.

The US just doesn’t seem too interested right now. Probably for a lot of reasons. One is we don’t want to be seen as allied with Iran. Two is Maliki isn’t a good partner for the US and he doesn’t seem interested in a “unity government” which seems to be a red line for the US. I don’t think the US wants to looked at as allies with Maliki’s apparatus because it oppresses Sunnis. So even if they propped up Maliki, Sunni’s would still be pissed and it might not prevent another incarnation of IS from forming.

And the rest of the countries in the world don’t really care or not enough to step in. To be fair it is a complex situation. But if this IS thing holds it doesn’t bode well for the world. When shit really hits the fan action will be probably be taken. But look at Syria, conflict has been going on for at least 4 years and it doesn’t look to be getting any better. So don’t hold your breath.

642

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So what do these crazies have against ancient monuments. I kind of understand the statues at Bamiyan because they were Buddhists and Buddhists are “infidels”. (Even Genghis Khan didn’t have the audacity to destroy those monuments.) But why are they blowing up ancient mosques in Iraq? Not churches, but mosques? I just don’t get it.[/quote]

They’re probably blowing up ancient Shia mosques. They view Shia’s as infidels in the same manner as anyone else. Maybe even more so because it’s heretical in their view. So it wouldn’t be any different to them than blowing up a church.

If they’re blowing up Sunni mosques, then I have no idea.

643

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who, if anyone, will make the move against them? Will they end up being another Hezbollah in Lebanon, Taliban in Pakistan, Al Qaeda in Yemen, a shadow government within another nation?[/quote]

I think the closest comparison would be the Taliban. Extreme, strict interpretation of Sharia law. No girls learning to read and swift and brutal killings of people declared infidels. Probably Taliban with some Al-Queda mixed in if they ever have a stable state to start planning terrorist attacks in other countries.

644

Yeah, I can’t figure it out. I know they shot a bunch of Sunni clerics who didn’t like their hard line. They’re ruthless in their consolidation of power, it seems.

645

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yeah, I can’t figure it out. I know they shot a bunch of Sunni clerics who didn’t like their hard line. They’re ruthless in their consolidation of power, it seems.[/quote]

Salafists consider the veneration of graves and tombs to be a form of idolatry.

646

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
When the Serbians were ethnically cleansing the Muslims in Kosovo, America stopped them. And no Muslims vocally appreciate it anywhere around the globe.

Now Isis, Boko Harum and the Sudanese Government are ethnically cleansing Christians and no one moves a finger to help.

Wow.[/quote]

Good point/comparison. I honestly don’t think it has to do with a pro-Muslim or anti-Christian agenda, though. The Serbian situation was a sovereign state with a policy of genocide. IS is a marauding band of extremists taking advantage of two broken countries that have no ability to impede them. And it’s a fluid situation where their territory is changing constantly. Boko Harum is an extremist group operating in a corrupt and unorganized country that doesn’t have the capability to stop them. I don’t know much about the Sudanese government but that state is unorganized and corrupt so it’s hard to get a good read on anything.

I don’t think this is excusable, however. It is scary to think how all of these organizations are acting with increasing impunity and confidence. The Kosovo situation was just a lot easier to get a handle on. I think if the Indonesian government (or any Muslim country) had a state policy of eradicating Christians from their countries it would be forcibly stopped. It’s a lot different dealing with a sovereign state that has a policy of genocide versus a marauding band of extremists with no borders. Of course, IMHO.

647

The Kurdistan Regional Government’s efforts to export its own oil, against the wishes of the Iraqi and U.S. governments, saw a significant achievement last week: Reuters reported Thursday that a tanker carrying more than $100 million of crude oil was headed for Galveston, Texas. But just days later, on Monday night, a U.S. judge sided with an Iraqi Oil Ministry complaint that the KRG had “misappropriated” the one million barrels, and she ordered their seizure.

Prior to the court order, an Obama administration official had finessed the embarrassing predicament, clarifying that the government had never banned private companies from purchasing Kurdish oil. But the United States’ attempts to stem the autonomous flow of Kurdish oil have been well documented, in keeping with their goal of a unified Iraq. In fact, the administration’s opposition to Kurdistanâ??s oil sales will push the Kurds toward an independence bid. To understand why, we must look back several weeks.

When a private company in Israel purchased Kurdish oil in late June, many believed it was only a matter of time before the greater market for Kurdish oil broke open. Kurdish officials spoke with confidence about the impending sale of other shipments, and discussed the process for obtaining and disbursing the funds deposited in Turkeyâ??s state-owned Halkbank, an account established with the express purpose of granting the KRGâ??and not Baghdadâ??authority over its own oil revenues.

Yet, by mid-July, Rudawâ??Kurdistanâ??s largest media outletâ??reported that Turkey had backtracked, insisting on a deal between Erbil and Baghdad over revenue-sharing before Halkbank would release the money. With major financial disputes over budget allocations, provision of services regionally and nationally, and reparations for Saddam-era crimes, the chasm between the respective positions has never been wider. A deal in the near term is nearly unthinkable.

  • NewRepublic
648

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I believe that poverty is the swamp that must be drained for terrorism to be curtailed. If Chistians and Jews were as equally disenfranchised we would likely observe a comparable ratio of extremists within such societies. I believe contemporary terrorism to be more indicative of socio-economic conditions rather than purely religious.[/quote]

This is a fantasy indulged in not only by leftists but by pseudo-conservatives as well. Take Detroit for example. Most “conservatives” will argue that the problem is liberals and we just need to unleash the free market and get rid of the radical unions. Surely the problem isn’t “youths” and their culture. No no no! The “youths” are just victims of liberalism. After all, I’ve got a black friend and he’s perfectly tame.
[/quote]

I am not arguing from a position of domestic political identity. Terrorism is a tool of the weak and disenfranchised. To equate it to inherent traits within Islam is to ignore the history of irregular warfare itself. Poverty further exacerbates sociopolitical conditions that make terrorism an alluring course of action for some. This is not controversial within the terrorism literature.

649

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
In case you haven’t figured it out, this “jihad” shit works. Everyone (governments) are skeeeerd of pissing the crazies off. It’s much better to let them kill people and cut off women’s genitals as long as it’s not in THEIR country… Or else they’ll put a jihad on your ass and blow up your kids on the way to school because they are fucking animals.[/quote]

Your growing on me AC… As long as we tolerate Jihad, it does work. And tolerate and pacify we will, until it’s too late. Then we will act when the odds and collateral damage are horribly against us.

It’s something that plays out in history over and over and we refuse to learn. But I guess in the end, also in history the evil empire always ends up destroyed. So there’s a plus side. It’s just how many bodies it takes that changes.

650

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I believe that poverty is the swamp that must be drained for terrorism to be curtailed. If Chistians and Jews were as equally disenfranchised we would likely observe a comparable ratio of extremists within such societies. I believe contemporary terrorism to be more indicative of socio-economic conditions rather than purely religious.[/quote]

This is a fantasy indulged in not only by leftists but by pseudo-conservatives as well. Take Detroit for example. Most “conservatives” will argue that the problem is liberals and we just need to unleash the free market and get rid of the radical unions. Surely the problem isn’t “youths” and their culture. No no no! The “youths” are just victims of liberalism. After all, I’ve got a black friend and he’s perfectly tame.
[/quote]

I am not arguing from a position of domestic political identity. Terrorism is a tool of the weak and disenfranchised. To equate it to inherent traits within Islam is to ignore the history of irregular warfare itself. Poverty further exacerbates sociopolitical conditions that make terrorism an alluring course of action for some. This is not controversial within the terrorism literature.
[/quote]

The weak and disenfranchised are the pawns in the terror game. It’s like Stalin’s Chicken.

[i]"On one occasion, so it was narrated, Stalin called for a live chicken and proceeded to use it to make an unforgettable point before some of his henchmen.

Forcefully clutching the chicken in one hand, with the other he began to systematically pluck out its feathers. As the chicken struggled in vain to escape, he continued with the painful denuding until the bird was completely stripped.

“Now you watch,” Stalin said as he placed the chicken on the floor and walked away with some bread crumbs in his hand. Incredibly, the fear-crazed chicken hobbled toward him and clung to the legs of his trousers.

Stalin threw a handful of grain to the bird, and it began to follow him around the room, he turned to his dumbfounded colleagues and said quietly, “This is the way to rule the people. Did you see how that chicken followed me for food, even though I had caused it such torture? People are like that chicken. If you inflict inordinate pain on them they will follow you for food the rest of their lives.”[/i]

Whether it’s a true story or not, I do not know, but the lesson is clear enough. It’s the same with dictators or terrorists. You take away people’s hope and throw them a little grain and you own them.

651

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
In case you haven’t figured it out, this “jihad” shit works. Everyone (governments) are skeeeerd of pissing the crazies off. It’s much better to let them kill people and cut off women’s genitals as long as it’s not in THEIR country… Or else they’ll put a jihad on your ass and blow up your kids on the way to school because they are fucking animals.[/quote]

Your growing on me AC… As long as we tolerate Jihad, it does work. And tolerate and pacify we will, until it’s too late. Then we will act when the odds and collateral damage are horribly against us.

It’s something that plays out in history over and over and we refuse to learn. But I guess in the end, also in history the evil empire always ends up destroyed. So there’s a plus side. It’s just how many bodies it takes that changes.[/quote]

I don’t know if it’s necessarily tolerated. We did wage recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were marketed as fighting terrorism (Iraq wasn’t all WMDs but also links to jihadist/terrorist groups). We were able to get both countries relatively stable for a time, but now look at where they are. We put in a serious effort in terms of money and the lives of soldiers.

And that’s just two countries geographically close to each other. Think about all the jihadists in Africa (west and east), Southeast Asia, Eurasia, the rest of the ME, etc. America also has to worry about it’s own soil as we are the prized target among the Western world.

The world’s a big place with lots of places to hide and jihadists don’t require the comforts the West is accustomed too. In addition, jihadists generally operate in corrupt and chaotic countries. We can’t count on Pakistan to help with the Taliban and we can’t count on the Nigerian government to stop Boko Haram. Either there is no interest or no capability.

IMO to fight jihad effectively the rest of the world has to engage. America can’t do it alone. Maybe it does have to get to another level of shit hitting the fan before everyone else begins to contribute to an effort that benefits all. We might get there sooner than later.

652

America should finance and back any enemy of the Jihadists anywhere. That’s how it should be done. The governments which have a stake in this and something to loose should create an alliance against the Jihadists regardless of East/West/non-aligned old Cold war alliances.

653

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
America should finance and back any enemy of the Jihadists anywhere. That’s how it should be done. The governments which have a stake in this and something to loose should create an alliance against the Jihadists regardless of East/West/non-aligned old Cold war alliances.[/quote]

So you are calling for a Jihad on a Jihad? And I thought Americans didn’t get irony.

654

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

And that’s just two countries geographically close to each other. Think about all the jihadists in Africa (west and east), Southeast Asia, Eurasia, the rest of the ME, etc. America also has to worry about it’s own soil as we are the prized target among the Western world.

The world’s a big place with lots of places to hide and jihadists don’t require the comforts the West is accustomed too. In addition, jihadists generally operate in corrupt and chaotic countries. We can’t count on Pakistan to help with the Taliban and we can’t count on the Nigerian government to stop Boko Haram. Either there is no interest or no capability.

IMO to fight jihad effectively the rest of the world has to engage. America can’t do it alone. Maybe it does have to get to another level of shit hitting the fan before everyone else begins to contribute to an effort that benefits all. We might get there sooner than later.[/quote]

If America lived a bit more sustainably, made friends with South America and stayed well clear of the rest of the world (e.g. no oil or resources or trade), within a generation Americans wouldn’t even know what a Muslim was.

655

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
In case you haven’t figured it out, this “jihad” shit works. Everyone (governments) are skeeeerd of pissing the crazies off. It’s much better to let them kill people and cut off women’s genitals as long as it’s not in THEIR country… Or else they’ll put a jihad on your ass and blow up your kids on the way to school because they are fucking animals.[/quote]

It works the other way round. Governments, in particular successive American governments, are crazies who don’t care who they exploit and hurt providing it has few negative domestic consequences. They generally exploit foreign countries. This creates terrorism as normal people want to rid themselves of the people exploiting them. Then the foreign governments who are at bottom doing the exploiting retreat, and then support whatever group allows them to exploit some more, while normal people rip each other apart, unsure as to how to respond to the extremity they are placed in.

There hasn’t been a single foreign conflict in America’s history that hasn’t actually been a result of America trying to unduly influence the rest of the world (even when the Japs bombed you, it was because you cut off their oil).

656

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

And that’s just two countries geographically close to each other. Think about all the jihadists in Africa (west and east), Southeast Asia, Eurasia, the rest of the ME, etc. America also has to worry about it’s own soil as we are the prized target among the Western world.

The world’s a big place with lots of places to hide and jihadists don’t require the comforts the West is accustomed too. In addition, jihadists generally operate in corrupt and chaotic countries. We can’t count on Pakistan to help with the Taliban and we can’t count on the Nigerian government to stop Boko Haram. Either there is no interest or no capability.

IMO to fight jihad effectively the rest of the world has to engage. America can’t do it alone. Maybe it does have to get to another level of shit hitting the fan before everyone else begins to contribute to an effort that benefits all. We might get there sooner than later.[/quote]

If America lived a bit more sustainably, made friends with South America and stayed well clear of the rest of the world (e.g. no oil or resources or trade), within a generation Americans wouldn’t even know what a Muslim was.
[/quote]

So, we’d get all our gas from Venezuela?

657

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

And that’s just two countries geographically close to each other. Think about all the jihadists in Africa (west and east), Southeast Asia, Eurasia, the rest of the ME, etc. America also has to worry about it’s own soil as we are the prized target among the Western world.

The world’s a big place with lots of places to hide and jihadists don’t require the comforts the West is accustomed too. In addition, jihadists generally operate in corrupt and chaotic countries. We can’t count on Pakistan to help with the Taliban and we can’t count on the Nigerian government to stop Boko Haram. Either there is no interest or no capability.

IMO to fight jihad effectively the rest of the world has to engage. America can’t do it alone. Maybe it does have to get to another level of shit hitting the fan before everyone else begins to contribute to an effort that benefits all. We might get there sooner than later.[/quote]

If America lived a bit more sustainably, made friends with South America and stayed well clear of the rest of the world (e.g. no oil or resources or trade), within a generation Americans wouldn’t even know what a Muslim was.
[/quote]

No U.S. trade outside of the Western Hemisphere? Are you serious? What you are advocating is effectively the reversal of globalization, which is not only an impossibility, but a clear demonstration of a hopelessly feckless understanding of the global economy.

658

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
In case you haven’t figured it out, this “jihad” shit works. Everyone (governments) are skeeeerd of pissing the crazies off. It’s much better to let them kill people and cut off women’s genitals as long as it’s not in THEIR country… Or else they’ll put a jihad on your ass and blow up your kids on the way to school because they are fucking animals.[/quote]

Your growing on me AC… As long as we tolerate Jihad, it does work. And tolerate and pacify we will, until it’s too late. Then we will act when the odds and collateral damage are horribly against us.

It’s something that plays out in history over and over and we refuse to learn. But I guess in the end, also in history the evil empire always ends up destroyed. So there’s a plus side. It’s just how many bodies it takes that changes.[/quote]

I don’t know if it’s necessarily tolerated. We did wage recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were marketed as fighting terrorism (Iraq wasn’t all WMDs but also links to jihadist/terrorist groups). We were able to get both countries relatively stable for a time, but now look at where they are. We put in a serious effort in terms of money and the lives of soldiers.

And that’s just two countries geographically close to each other. Think about all the jihadists in Africa (west and east), Southeast Asia, Eurasia, the rest of the ME, etc. America also has to worry about it’s own soil as we are the prized target among the Western world.

The world’s a big place with lots of places to hide and jihadists don’t require the comforts the West is accustomed too. In addition, jihadists generally operate in corrupt and chaotic countries. We can’t count on Pakistan to help with the Taliban and we can’t count on the Nigerian government to stop Boko Haram. Either there is no interest or no capability.

IMO to fight jihad effectively the rest of the world has to engage. America can’t do it alone. Maybe it does have to get to another level of shit hitting the fan before everyone else begins to contribute to an effort that benefits all. We might get there sooner than later.[/quote]

I wasn’t singling out the U.S. as the sole tolerant of jihad, it is a global phenomenon. And wars alone are not the solution. One cannot just kill everybody nor would anybody save for the jihadist, want to. It does have to be a worldwide consistent effort by peace loving people fought on many fronts, socially, educationally, economically, academically, morally, etc.
You cannot fight an ideology with bullets and missiles alone. Dead bodies won’t end jihad, it may contain it for a bit, but it won’t end it.
In essence I agree with you. I think we are technically on the same page.

659

At this rate, we need to just take a look at the UK. Look what the fuzzy Muzzys have done. That will be us in 20 years. Then the slow creep of the Jihad. I just can’t wait the Liberals reaction!! It will be freakin priceless! These Jihadist aren’t very tolerant of transgenders, Hollywood and the like.

Will be pretty damn entertaining actually.

660

[quote]Bismark wrote:

No U.S. trade outside of the Western Hemisphere? Are you serious? What you are advocating is effectively the reversal of globalization, which is not only an impossibility, but a clear demonstration of a hopelessly feckless understanding of the global economy. [/quote]

Globalization will inevitably reverse as inequality decreases. In 30 years, what on earth is America going to offer China or India? And vis versa? 60 years, even less.