Fuck Isis

And Ironic that the song is about grave robbing mercenaries

 

You're right of course - if you're getting bombed it's a different story. But I meant that the bombing doesn't seem to be having much effect on ISIS. They don't care how many innocent civilians die.
Personally I think it's unlikely that just bombing is going to do the job.

I think the Israelis would be very uncomfortable if the Arabs started massing armies - but I don't think that's really likely to happen.

I don't know what the rules are for who can be caliph.

 

The bombing isn't going to do the whole job, but since we and the civilians themselves care a lot about how many innocents die it is a worthy effort (in general). Unfortunately with such bombings there is always a large chance some of the wrong people get bombed too.
I don't really care about how the Israeli's would feel about that. They have to suck it. What if IS would not be battled with the help of surrounding countries? Israel wouldn't be better of then in the long end. But this is hypothetical, the arab armies first have to do such a thing.

 

I think the trouble is that the 'collateral damage' including civilian deaths may be for nothing because an air campaign by itself has never really won any kind of war.
I also think that military planners etc know this.
It seems to me that the western powers want to be seen to be doing something, and since they're not prepared to send in ground troops in the large numbers that would be needed, they have settled on a campaign of attrition by bombing.

Meantime, ISIS continue to kidnap christians, destroy ancient artefacts, commit numerous abuses of human rights etc. And it's hard to see that the present approach is really weakening them significantly.

 

Seems like that indeed. Maybe western powers were hoping by doing this others would follow with ground support or something. Anyway, i can't fully blame them or hold it against them for not wanting to send in ground troops themselves if surrounding countries won't do it.

 

I don't think there's any public support for another big military operation in the area, and the cost of it would be eye watering. I agree that the regional powers ought to be the ones to act.

My feeling is that it was previous western military intervention that helped get ISIS to where they are now. It's tempting to think that all these military adventures have done is to make a bad situation even worse. And on top of that there's the suspicion that the west is playing some kind of game where we tolerate and support governments like the Sauds, and don't like people like Assad. I would have thought a secular dictator is a better option than an Islamic state - but what do I know?
It seems to me though that Assad might have been a valuable ally in the fight against ISIS.

 

Clearly there are multiple conflicting and not inherently morally sound interests there for the west. And yes, we don't have to line up with the conspiracy department to acknowledge western military and political activities in the middle east in the past have helped ISIS in their current position... We do have to question our own governments and country's actions too!

Well, when Assad's regime was getting 'boycotted' by western countries and rebelled against by his own countrymen (not own people, as it is fair to state his own people are just the Shi-ite minority, which is part of if not the main reason the sunni and progressive syrians rebelled against him) there still wasn't a big ISIS threat Otherwise the situation might appeared a bit more simple and 'we' would have tolerated him a bit longer But yes, not tolerating Assad and supporting the saudi royal family is a very good example of inconsistent 'righteous' foreign policy


edit: man, dunno why i spelled threat as thread several times. Too quick I guess

 

Part of it is that western governments seem to have little real grasp on the situation on the ground in the region.

Prior to the Iraq war, and in regard to the Assad regime we are told that the aim is to establish democracy in Arab countries.
(Actually when they get it as they did in Egypt, US, UK and friends don't always like the results)

But it took the west centuries to move from feudalism to democracy. I doubt it can be achieved overnight in the middle east.
I'm no big fan of Assad, but the way I see it even if he's a part of a minority, at least it's a secular country with a clear delineation between religion and the state.
There's also the schism in Islam itself to be considered. To some extent the west, in condemning Assad, have got drawn into the sunni/shia conflict.

 

Assad has lost his legitimacy as a leader already for me when he started violently attacking his countrymen who were peacefully demonstrating in the streets. That he was governing in a secular way does not make that forgivable imo.

And the lack of grasp of western governments in that region is of course also because it is not the area they are supposed to govern in the first place (or ideally neither have to intervene in) Especially if the real motives behind it were dubious in the past (and continue to be so in the background) we can't blame the localities for not playing along with what the west ideally would like to see there.
But it seems a lot of people in different middle eastern countries favor a democracy like a lot of western countries have.
Still... how the west and some of their 'progressive' and socially and cultural 'enlightened' civilians dare to judge the whole middle east, their cultures and the majority of it's people as backwards and idiotic just because we happen to live in an (indeed relatively only just aqcuired) society full of freedoms and rights for everyone is of course just as convicting and pretty much intolerant and inconsiderate as the view of fundamentalists on ours (I mean it though). It's like in the fear of how certain islamic extremists want to make us believe our culture(s) with all its acquired freedoms and rights are threatened by their culture and mindset it seems righteous for us to impose our way of life onto them. Just because they are not in the same spot as us and we think we are right (just like certain extremists ) doesn't make that as right as it may seem to us of course. Their culture and society may hold certain customs that according to us should be in the past, but our society and most people in it would not have thought the same one or 2 generations ago. Something to take in account as well when people are convicting their whole society and culture (stupid anyways).

 

I keep thinking about that museum in Mosul. How many different governments have ruled that part of Iraq since those artifacts were created? All of them had respect for history, until now. It's an all-time new low for tolerance and diversity.

 

Spot on !! They are fucking retarded morons

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/us/bringing-a-rare-perspective-to-authorizing-war.html?_r=1

Veterans in Congress Bring Rare Perspective to Authorizing War..

 

It is thought that the World Heritage at Hatra may be next on the list for destruction of non-muslim artifacts. That's been around since the reign of my 77th Great Grandfather, Seleucus I Nicator, King Of Syria.

It reminds me of the burning of the library at Alexandria.

 

Come on guys. The official Iraqi government finds it has horrible as anyone else. Do I really have to explain to you that ISIS is not the legitimite government of Iraq

 

No you don't have to explain anything no one suggested that they were (they are still retarded morons )
Do I have to explain how to spell Legitimate

 

It's the functioning government of a territory that includes Mosul.

 

It does read in Karens post as if after many different governments there now is a government carrying out these actions against historical artifacts, and that it is a government that now has lost this respect for historical artifacts. This was only amplified to me by that addition that it is an all time low for tolerance and diversity as if it is (some of) the iraqi people that gave their support to it but I admit that could be all me. I don't expect KarenJ to make such a conclusion deliberate anyway so I was a bit suprised.

If I read that all into it myself then my bad Just with the spelling mistake (this is not my first language, if you would like we can continue in dutch though :-D See how you will do then ). I thought I'd just ask for clarification, or so other readers might not have to read that into it.

Look: seems like I did not interprete her that wrong after all. No, ISIS is not the government around Mosul, and is not representing the people around there (obviously). It is a criminal organisation that occupies land by force and under false pretentions.
There still is the official government of Iraq and although they may not be very impressive, they do not have destroying historical artifacts on their agenda (nor does the iraqi people obviously, otherwise most of it would have been long gone I would think )

 

Tell that to the people who live there. The government in Baghdad is useless to them now, no matter what any legal document or international body says.

This particular nuance of the meaning of the word "government" has been debated many times, in many situations, such as the American Civil War. Was the Confederate government in Richmond the legal government of the South for four years, or was it a criminal organization? The whole war was fought to answer that question. My answer is that Richmond functioned as a government, legal or not.

ISIS is now in that role.

 

I'm just going to leave this here

 

I don't see why you would seriously argue that ISIS can be really seen as a government. You just worded it wrong, even Malli seems to agree about that with me (we seem to not agree often on these matters). I don't care about Richmond and the south in the time of the american civil war in this thread or for the comparison with this situation (they with a lot of people in the south declared independancy, it is really a different situation than just getting occupied by a terrorist organisation like ISIS).

ISIS may be assuming that role, as they assume and portray many things that do not fit reality. This does not mean it makes sense to write it like that on here when discussing these matters. The goverment of Iraq inclusive Mosul just doesn't have any power around there. But it still is the goverment of Iraq.

I don't think I have to. Maybe you should tell them ISIS is the government now and see if they agree with you.