ISIS Thread

.. in the news just today

Scores of Turkish troops and vehicles have entered Syria to evacuate and destroy a mausoleum where the forefather of the Ottoman empire was buried. The BBC's Matthew Davis considers why the site was so important.

The now ruined tomb of Suleyman Shah stands on a football pitch-sized spit of Turkish land inside Syria, but its historical and political significance belie this humble geography.

Shah was a Turkic tribal leader who lived from about 1178 until 1236, when according to an epigraph in his mausoleum he "drowned in the Euphrates along with two of his men, in search for a home for himself and his people".

Official accounts are questioned by some, but the story goes that Shah's followers headed north into modern-day Turkey.

It was there that his grandson, Osman I, founded the Ottoman Empire, which at the height of its powers centuries later controlled swathes of territory across south-west Europe, the Middle East and North Africa from its capital in Constantinople (now Istanbul).

_81159871_syriasuleyman4640215.png


_81161433_tomb_close.jpg


The Ottoman empire had disintegrated by the early 20th Century, and the new state of Turkey emerged - but such was the national importance of Shah's burial complex that the site was protected under a 1921 agreement with France, which then occupied the area now located in Syria's Aleppo province.

Since then, Turkey has invoked its right to station troops there and fly its flag over the site, which was relocated some 80km (50 miles) to the north when the original area was flooded by the creation of the reservoir Lake Assad in 1974.

Turkey's only foreign enclave has retained immense emotional value for its people, but the chaos engulfing Syria in recent years has seen it assume a growing political significance.

In August 2012 President Recep Tayyip Erdogan - then prime minister - warned all parties in the Syrian conflict that an action against the tomb would be considered an attack on Turkish territory "as well an attack on Nato land".

And amid reports that the soldiers stationed there had been besieged for months by Islamic State militants, last year the Turkish parliament authorised the use of force against the jihadists.

However despite recently joining the US in training some rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad, Turkey has resisted playing a full role in the US-led campaign against Islamic State.

Correspondents say that if the historic Suleyman Shah tomb had come under attack, the effect on public opinion would have made it harder for Turkey to avoid a full-scale military campaign against the group.

So the fact that the tomb is now moved and the Turkish soldiers evacuated is a great relief for the nation and its leaders, local commentators say.

"We had given the Turkish armed forces a directive to protect our spiritual values and the safety of our armed forces personnel," Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said after Saturday's operation.

Turkish media later showed images of three soldiers raising the flag at a new site closer to the Turkish border, which is likely to host a new tomb that authorities hope will provide a final home for Suleyman Shah.
 
They popped up in Libya. That's perhaps not enlargement of territory but it has impact on the region.

I know this, and that's why I specified IS - this being the contiguous entity of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - . I like to talk about one thing at a time. Libya is a different matter, and I haven't looked into it properly yet. I was always only talking about what is happening in Iraq and Syria here.

And how much have they been oppressed by these nations / other folk?

What does this matter? Is there a scale for how much oppressed a people is until they deserve their own state?
Here's some info on the Assyrians, anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrians_in_Iraq#Post-Saddam_Iraq
And here on the Turcomans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Turkmens#Kurdification
You will be sad to find that the Kurds are among those happiest to enact violence against these peoples.

but my point is that borders can be changed if it removes breeding ground for violence, and if it gives more prospect of a better life.

The problem, Foro, is that the Balkans conflict was one where something called "ethnic cleansing" happened. Heterogeneously populated areas are usually ones where people live in one area together. What happened in former Yugoslavia was that there were genocidal acts that homogeneised these territories, so that border changes were eventually possible because a certain area could be declared "Serb", another "Croatian" and so forth. You can't possibly want to suggest this for the Middle East.
 
The problem, Foro, is that the Balkans conflict was one where something called "ethnic cleansing" happened. Heterogeneously populated areas are usually ones where people live in one area together. What happened in former Yugoslavia was that there were genocidal acts that homogeneised these territories, so that border changes were eventually possible because a certain area could be declared "Serb", another "Croatian" and so forth. You can't possibly want to suggest this for the Middle East.

Just to add onto this note, it wasn't just genocide - it was the creation of national ghettos by some states, such as what Serbia did to Kosovo, much as what Israel is doing to Palestine - that allowed for borders to be conveniently drawn on a map.

Unfortunately, this is how we have drawn successful, long-lasting borders in the West for some time. Consider the MILLIONS of Poles and Germans that died when they were pushed from their old borders to their new ones in 1945 - after VE Day.
 
A great point there. ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc. have everything to do with Islam. They don't, however, necessarily have everything to do with Muslims, the people. And that's where a lot of people miss the mark and knowing that, Obama (and the likes) try to avoid making the connection between Islam and Islamic extremists. They know there's a misconception where term "Islamic extremist" has the connotations to "All Muslims are extremists". Religiosity depends on human interpretation. Everyone has to draw the line between Islam and Muslim, Christianity and Christian, Judaism and Jewish and so on. Got to treat people like what they are: People.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's what Assad opposers had been saying for months prior to ISIS. "Nothing can be worse than Assad".
 
Last edited:
The problem, Foro, is that the Balkans conflict was one where something called "ethnic cleansing" happened. Heterogeneously populated areas are usually ones where people live in one area together. What happened in former Yugoslavia was that there were genocidal acts that homogeneised these territories, so that border changes were eventually possible because a certain area could be declared "Serb", another "Croatian" and so forth. You can't possibly want to suggest this for the Middle East.

This is generally true but I'll do two corrections just on details level,

Border changes weren't eventually possible because of Banditer commission and Yugoslav 1971/74 constitution amendments. First of all, Socialist Yugoslavia was defined by federation of states with clearly defined borders right from the start. Settling internal conflicts between states. External conflicts, like territories across Dalmatia which were given out to Italy by Rapallo agreements in 1920s and then won again throughout WW2, were all settled before 1971. Therefore by the rule of international law Croatia and/or any other state was free to leave the federation and retain it's original borders. That's why border changes weren't possible, even "eventually". Kosovo story is more complicated (eg. not completely clear with international laws) since inside Yugoslavia it wasn't a constituent republic, it was one of two autonomous provinces inside Socialist Republic of Serbia.

And ethnic cleansing isn't genocide. They're both atrocious crimes against humanity and usually serve same purpose. Ethnic cleansing does not automatically mean mass killings, it's more of a typical Stalinist forceful deportation mechanism. In Yugoslav wars the perpetrators would usually kill a smaller percentage of targeted population, while others would run away or be deported. A lot of Serbs from occupied territories in Croatia ended up on Kosovo, after Operation Storm which liberated Croatia in 1995. Milosevic did that to balance Kosovo population, and a lot of Janjevci population from Serbia and Kosovo ended in these Croatian territories etc. Point is that in these wars there were both genocide and ethnic cleansing. IMHO a borderline case would be Serb attack on Vukovar while a clear case of genocide is what Serbs did in Srebrenica.
 
Yeah, that's what Assad opposers had been saying for months prior to ISIS. "Nothing can be worse than Assad".
That was before they experienced how IS operated, probably before they heard how IS operated, perhaps even before IS manifestated.
 
That was before they experienced how IS operated, probably before they heard how IS operated, perhaps even before IS manifestated.

So? Are you naive enough to think that ISIS is the worst of worst? Nothing can be worse than them? If you're blunt in your approach, you might create the foundations of a terrorist group that is far stronger than ISIS. It might lead to a group that has 10x the military force ISIS has and one that is even more reckless. You might have a terrorist group that constantly attacks Western countries.

It has happened time and again. Countries supported groups that had a common opponent as them and years later those groups came back to haunt them even more harshly. Soviets in Afghanistan was tought to be a nightmare for the US, they supported the Afghan rebels that fought against them. Years later a terrorist group formed by one of those rebels crashed planes into World Trade Center. Noone would've seen it coming.
 
Last edited:
That was before they experienced how IS operated, probably before they heard how IS operated, perhaps even before IS manifestated.

Only if those people turned a blind eye on Libya after Gaddafi's demise.
 
You've been saying that you want West to do something and stop ISIS ever since you joined the conversation. Saying that they shouldn't be holding a truce. Isn't that what mainly you, Perun and I have been going on about?
 
Last edited:
I can't say yet that I did. Certainly not in the last months. I find "immediate military action by the West" a too broad term to deny or affirm.
 
You want West to meddle in and fight on the field, true or false?

Where on the map should the defence be put? In other words, what are the boundaries in which the world gives IS the time to fail? You say "Give up on the territory it controls for now" but isn't their territory (or at least impact) expanding rapidly? I hope we do not underestimate this aspect. If the West keeps a truce, then IS will head direction to Africa.

You posted this on February the 22th. That's nine days ago.
 
Back
Top