ISIS Thread

Now?
Agree, although it depends on what and where something is exactly done. I'd tolerate some exceptions.

Never? (well, this isn't immediate)
Disagree. If ME can't do it alone in period X, then I refer to bearfan's last post on page 12.

I have trouble with defining X though.
 
Forostar said:
That was before they experienced how IS operated, probably before they heard how IS operated, perhaps even before IS manifestated.
Click to expand...

I've tried so hard to explain what is wrong with the "whatever it happens, it can't get worse" approach, and yet I see I utterly failed to communicate it.
 
Somebody (if he ever dared) failed to communicate it to that guy who twittered. I am just saying that I can understand why the guy is saying it, at this moment.
He hasn't read the article, he hasn't read anything out here. He just experienced some of the worst horror on earth, that happened in the last couple of years.
 
Yes Foro, but why did you just follow his words? After all the discussion we had? Could it be that this guy has a limited scope on things? Could it be that to him this may seem true, but that he may be wrong with it? Could it be that he wants anything to happen unaware that it may get worse because he can't imagine it getting worse?
 
I can't judge if his scope is limited. His scope is what he's experiencing now. I think it is not unlikely that a large portion of people who are in the midst of it, would take the risk of having a change of regime. It is not sure that it will become worse.

Actually, right now as we speak, Iraq's army is attacking Tikrit. Can we already weigh how good or bad this is?
 
Forostar said:
I think it is not unlikely that a large portion of people who are in the midst of it, would take the risk of having a change of regime. It is not sure that it will become worse.
Click to expand...

It's not certain that things will become worse, but it is also not certain that they will become better. What I've meant all along is that a regime change or any change, must be planned carefully so that things don't get worse. Because things can get worse. It is a possibility that must be taken into equation. To the best of knowledge, any plan must be analysed for its potential to make things worse - tomorrow, in five years, in ten years. This is not being done, as far as I can see. Instead, we get the "whatever happens, it can't get worse" way of thought over and over again. The way of thought that brought us things like the Taleban and IS. And thus, just doing anything the people experiencing this right now demand, although humanly understandable and morally commendable, may simply not be the right thing to do. It's the story with the empath and the tumor that I gave you. A cry for a "change of regime" - that's vague. Who will replace it? How will you guarantee that a change of regime won't mean civil war? Just by assuming there will be a truce?
 
Assuming that getting rid of bad will equal good is the George W. Bush method of foreign policy.
 
"What if it gets worse", is for me not the ever ongoing blocker when there are people in need. Certainly not if there is still a "what if it gets better" possibility. I am afraid that the tumor comparison is the one part that I have the most problems with. It goes against my character. I understand the rational part of it. Every word of it, but it can't change my view on current matters. Call it a handicap, but at least we're still having discussions. ;)

I can't judge if there is no plan. If there is a plan then it certainly wouldn't be put on internet.
Perun said:
Who will replace it? How will you guarantee that a change of regime won't mean civil war? Just by assuming there will be a truce?
Click to expand...
Reading the second half of this, we can see this is a matter of great concern indeed. How will the victors deal with the civilians. It's unknown.
 
Forostar said:
I am afraid that the tumor comparison is the one part that I have the most problems with. It goes against my character. I understand the rational part of it. Every word of it, but it can't change my view on current matters. Call it a handicap, but at least we're still having discussions. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not going to call it a handicap, but I think that this does mean we're ultimately going to be unable to reach a consensus here. Basically, I tried to state that I fully understand this statement of sympathy and that it speaks for a noble character, but it's counterproductive if you are trying to solve a problem. I'm not saying that I am right, I just used the parable to explain my point of view.

Forostar said:
How will the victors deal with the civilians. It's unknown.
Click to expand...

That's one important aspect of it. Another one is that a successful regime change has in the past almost always meant a power vacuum that competing factions would fight over. It's what happened in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviets, and I simply see that the factions are there in Iraq and Syria, and they are just waiting to fight over what IS will eventually leave behind.
 
It does indeed mean that we cannot reach a 100% consensus, but that is not that terrible, I hope. In a few years or more, we'll see what regime change has brought and cost.

EDIT:
Unfortunately we won't see what would have happened if there was no regime change
 
It's not terrible - after all, we're not the ones to make the decisions.
 
ISIS "bulldozed" the ancient Assryian city of Nimrud, Iraq, according to Baghdad. Iraq's tourism and antiquities ministry said on its Facebook page that ISIS "assaulted the historic city of Nimrud and bulldozed it with heavy vehicles." Last week, ISIS released video of forces destroying ancient artifacts at the Mosul Museum because the pieces of antiquity were deemed forms of "heresy."
 
I read an excellent and pretty exhaustive article about Saudi Arabia - ISIL relationship. It's a very complex and centuries long story between Saudi monarchs and extreme Wahabbi movements, movements whom ISIL declare as forefathers. Currently, KSA is starting to deploy a "wall" on Iraq border (against ISIL). Wall is quoted because it's last iteration of Berlin wall times 10. A defense strip with multiple layers of trenches, barbed wire, walls, defense towers, radars, etc...

Because ISIL also wants Mecca wiped. They hate the Black Stone particularly, for them it's an ultimate symbol/material worship and it's a no-no.

Maybe that's why world powers had a mellow reaction on the whole "caliphate" business. ISIL by definition wants almost everyone dead, now they're turning against their sponsors. Perhaps everyone is waiting for that point where a hypothetical Middle East coalition just wipes out ISIL because they surrounded themselves with enemies. If they lose mobility over their southern borders, they're effectively done for in a matter of 6 months.
 
Trying to wipe out ancient history feels shocking indeed. Some earlier examples:

The Romans destroyed Palmyra, 273 A.D., the Persians under Xerxes wrecked complete Spartan monuments and the Dutch... didn't have problems with blowing up some temples in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia).
 
Forostar said:
The Romans destroyed Palmyra, 273 A.D., the Persians under Xerxes wrecked complete Spartan monuments and the Dutch... didn't have problems with blowing up some temples in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia).
Click to expand...

Those are pretty random examples, and not even entirely correct (the Persians under Xerxes never reached Sparta). The complete destruction of cities is something that happened thousands of times in history. What the Romans did in Palmyra was something different from the destruction of Nimrud, for instance, because it was a hostile city they were at war with. There were reasons the Romans destroyed the town, even if we find them morally wrong today, but in antiquity, it was considered a feasible battle strategy to wipe out a city. It's been done up until the Second World War and beyond.
The ruins of Nimrud were at war with nobody, and nobody lived there anymore. Their destruction has a different background and different reasoning. It's a war on an uncomfortable history that questions IS ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top