IS

[trader/warrior]

My main take is that IS cannot be even compared to Taliban or Al Qaeda. Former never aspired to created Caliphate, while latter never managed to capture a state of their own.

Technically, IS is Al Qaeda who have captured a state of their own, at least Al Qaeda al Iraq. As an organization a direct line can be drawn from Al Qaeda in Iraq to the IS.

The Islamic State of Iraq, led by Al Qaeda al Iraq formed and supported the Al-Nusra Front in the Syrian civil war, leader of AQI Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and later "Caliph" announced that the two would merge to form the ISIL while al-Zawahiri of "vanilla" Al Qaeda denied this leading to a split between the two.

A lot of things have probably changed within the organization, but at it's base IS is the very same organization that was conducting attacks in Iraq over many years.

 

[Tigranes]

Do you even know what an emergency Security Council meeting is for?

For ... emergencies?

At present IS is an internal Iraqi problem.

Member-state problem makes it UN problem, no? Russia called emergency meeting for internal problems in Ukraine.

If the Security Council met for that they'd be in permanent session.

Not sure what you mean. Permanent as in meeting of 5 permanent members? Or permanent session as in session that never ends?

 

[El_Machinae]

Sorry, I think I was lost right out of the gate. What distinguishes IS from ISIS? Are these two acronyms being used as two intentionally different terms?

 

[Borachio]

Any slogan involving Israel would be interpreted as antisemitic (like "all the problems are from Jews"), so I would advise you against such distant extrapolations

But sinse we talk about IS here is a curious fact: when it comes to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, since IS regards the Palestinian Sunni group Hamas as apostates who have no legitimate authority to lead jihad, it regards fighting Hamas as the first step toward confrontation with Israel.

Yet Hamas and ISIS are both Sunni aren't they? I'd have thought that Shi'a dominated Iraq and Iran, and Alawite Syria would be regarded as more likely targets of the anti-apostatic zeal of ISIS than Hamas. Both in religious and geographical terms.

Still, ISIS seem to be keen to make enemies of everyone. It won't be long before they start fighting amongst themselves, as well. If they haven't already.

 

[Tigranes]

Sorry, I think I was lost right out of the gate. What distinguishes IS from ISIS? Are these two acronyms being used as two intentionally different terms?

Same group, larger ambitions. At the very beginning al Baghdadi wanted Islamic state in Iraq. Then they only wanted Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. Thus ISIS. Then in entire Levant, thus ISIL. Now he is proclaimed as a new Caliph. Head of Islamic State. Thus IS.

Before all the people in this thread dismissing IS as a group with too many enemies here is what I suggest to consider. They wage jihad in the digital age. Just like Internet helped with Arab Spring, it helps to recruit people now. Unlike Taliban, who mostly were local folks around the Afghanistan-Pakistan border -- IS gets fighters from all over. These are not regular world touring jihadists. People travel from places like UK even! And again Syrian Civil War helped to forge this international force. Which also now has local support in Northern Syria and Iraq.

 

[Tigranes]

Security Council resolution 2170 adopted August 15th. ... show they are quite engaged on the matter of IS

"Calling on all United Nations Member States to act to suppress the flow of foreign fighters, financing and other support to Islamist extremist groups in Iraq and Syria, the Security Council this afternoon put six persons affiliated to those groups on its terrorist sanctions list. "


Six! Six persons were slapped by sanctions! By the organization with 7.8 billion dollar peacekeeping budget.

Well it was quite ... engaging.

 

[Borachio]

If ISIS succeeds in establishing an Islamic state it doesn't bode well for the Middle East. Continued instability can be the only result.

If ISIS doesn't succeed, then all the surviving fighters who've gained experience will inevitably return to their countries of origin and reek havoc there.

It's a heads-they-win-tails-we-lose situation.

(I'm sticking with the acronym ISIS for the time being. It's got a nice flowery feel to it that I like.)

The only way round it is to throw a big net over the lot, and go in for some serious de-programming. Like with any cult.

 

[Tigranes]

If ISIS succeeds in establishing an Islamic state it doesn't bode well for the Middle East. Continued instability can be the only result.

If ISIS doesn't succeed, then all the surviving fighters who've gained experience will inevitably return to their countries of origin and reek havoc there.

It's a heads-they-win-tails-we-lose situation.

(I'm sticking with the acronym ISIS for the time being. It's got a nice flowery feel to it that I like.)

The only way round it is to throw a big net over the lot, and go in for some serious de-programming. Like with any cult.

I agree with you. Loose-Loose situation.

My bet is that this is just starting and will escalate. If Iraq does split in 3 states, Suni state will be associated with IS legacy.

IS and ISIS are used as synonymous by media, but by using ISIS you can bring forth wrath of Ancient Egyptian Pantheon !

Spoiler :

 

[El_Machinae]

Same group, larger ambitions. At the very beginning al Baghdadi wanted Islamic state in Iraq. Then they only wanted Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. Thus ISIS. Then in entire Levant, thus ISIL. Now he is proclaimed as a new Caliph. Head of Islamic State. Thus IS.

Oh, I see. tbh, I'm barely following this situation. I won't deny it's important, just that there are a lot of things I find important. Thanks.

 

[kochman]

Here's my take on it... as an Iraqi War Veteran/Airborne Ranger.

IS isn't going to make it to America in any meaningful way... the only way they harm us is if we come to them.

F 'em. Let's stop going to them. We can arm preferred states, such as Kurdistan, whoever else, but stop putting our people in harm's way.
You get a lot less enemies by supplying arms than you do by applying arms.


That being said...

IS and ISIS are used as synonymous by media, but by using ISIS you can bring forth wrath of Ancient Egyptian Pantheon !

This name thing is a war or words.
If you say, Islamic State, which is really them saying "Caliphate", you have one meaning.
If you say the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, now you're getting into a different meaning... Levant is a Western/Crusader word.
If you say the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, you're accepting the map as drawn up by the west in the last centuries (ie colonialism)...

IS is what they prefer. Let them have it. That's what they want... they clearly don't want to stop with Iraq and the Levant. They want Dar-Islam (the House of Islam).

 

[GoodSarmatian]

F 'em. Let's stop going to them. We can arm preferred states, such as Kurdistan, whoever else, but stop putting our people in harm's way.
You get a lot less enemies by supplying arms than you do by applying arms.

Maybe, but supplying arms has the disadvantage that those arms stay there once the conflict is concluded one way or another. I wouldn't advocate boots on the ground, but air strikes seem to be the better solution than handing out weaponry that could end up 'in the wrong hands'.

 

[kochman]

Depends on the level of weaponry. I'm not saying lets start handing out nukes... but...

 

[Tigranes]

Here's my take on it... as an Iraqi War Veteran/Airborne Ranger.

IS isn't going to make it to America in any meaningful way... the only way they harm us is if we come to them.

Let's stop going to them.

First, I really appreciate your participation in this thread.

Your opinion is quite remarkable. Did you develop it gradually, while serving there, or you never had a change of heart and always believed that going there was wrong even under Bush- Cheney?

 

[Agent327]

Member-state problem makes it UN problem, no? Russia called emergency meeting for internal problems in Ukraine.

Russia's stance on Ukraine is decidedly twofaced. On the one hand there are ethnic Russians in Ukraine (even after Crimea's annexation, which certainly didn't spur a Security Council meeting). And of course Russia is a permanent member of the SC.

Secondly, a membership internal problem does not warrant a Security Council meeting.

Thirdly, the UN is not the Security Council. There's also the General Assembly.

Not sure what you mean. Permanent as in meeting of 5 permanent members? Or permanent session as in session that never ends?

Speaking rhetorically. Internal issues will habitually be vetoed by Russia and/or China. If this turns into an intermember war that might certainly warrant a SC meeting, but at that point that might be null and void, seeing as Russia is a party in the conflict.

Here's my take on it... as an Iraqi War Veteran/Airborne Ranger.

IS isn't going to make it to America in any meaningful way... the only way they harm us is if we come to them.

F 'em. Let's stop going to them. We can arm preferred states, such as Kurdistan, whoever else, but stop putting our people in harm's way.

Kurdistan is not a state. It is still part of the Iraqi state, which seems fast on its way to becoming a failed state in the wake of the 2nd Gulf War and its aftermath.

 

[kochman]

Kurdistan is not a state. It is still part of the Iraqi state, which seems fast on its way to becoming a failed state in the wake of the 2nd Gulf War and its aftermath.

That would depend on how you define state.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If ISIS succeeds in establishing an Islamic state it doesn't bode well for the Middle East. Continued instability can be the only result.

I hate to break the humanitarian bad news here.

Continued instability in the middle east is a win.

As has been pointed out...extremists from all over are rallying to the ISIS flag. Great! Did anyone really want them to stay wherever they were? Other than some moral outrage, is there any reason the UK misses the 500 people who went to fight for ISIS? The concern is 'they will be hardened fighters when the war ends and they come back'...so as long as the war never ends, no problem.

As has been a fact for decades...they have oil, and everyone else wants it. If governments in the middle east look around their peaceful region they want stuff for their oil so that they can build up their region and start using their own oil. Nobody wants that. We all want them to look around their region and say "Holy crap, we need some GUNS!". That way we can establish an exchange rate of guns for oil that will allow us to continue burning the blood of prehistoric creatures as if it were still being produced by the ocean full.

And since they will be so busy shooting at each other we only have to give them guns that they can't hurt us with. If we bomb them heavily enough along the way we will be able to make them trade oil just to get longer sticks and bigger rocks than their neighbors have.

All we have to do is give up the pretense that we give the back end of a rat about the lives of people in the middle east.

 

[kochman]

First, I really appreciate your participation in this thread.

Your opinion is quite remarkable. Did you develop it gradually, while serving there, or you never had a change of heart and always believed that going there was wrong even under Bush- Cheney?

I willingly went in, heavily indoctrinated by the media/my bosses/and the fact that I felt I would be a good leader for my men.
I took our training/preparations quite seriously.
I was not sure that it was the best idea, but it didn't matter. I knew it was out of my hands and I had signed up (before 9/11) and owed time.

One of the first things I did after parachuting in was guard the oil refinery on the NW outskirts of Kirkuk... that's when the disillusionment started to set it.
During this period in Iraq I also took trips into Kurdistan, which for all intents and purposes, even in 2003, was a state, other than per the UN.

Over the years I've come to see more and more how ludicrous our Middle East foreign policy is... and I'm fully cynical at this point.

 

[Tigranes]

Over the years I've come to see more and more how ludicrous our Middle East foreign policy is... and I'm fully cynical at this point.

I can certainly understand that sentiment. And yet .. Iraq is not Afghanistan and not Vietnam.

See, if you are Vietnam vet after the fall of Saigon -- you feel like what a wasteful war. Americans killed so many people (my landlord was a pilot, quiet man, and he was very matter-of-factly when he said "Oh yeah, I killed a lot of people"). Many Americans got killed too. North captured South and they stay Communist to this day. Which did not spell the end of the World. And no one would think going back to war after fall of Saigon.

There is no vested interest in Afghanistan other than USA don't want any country to be a breeding ground for terrorists. They got mountains and poppies. And they are really far. Just say no to drugs.

Now Middle East is a different story. USA got important allies there: Turkey, Kurds, Israel, Jordan, Saudis. Important enemy: Iran. Important annoyance: Syria backed by Russia. The region is very rich in Oil and close to everything. A lot of vested interest there. Lots of military bases there. That part of the world is not Vietnam and Afghanistan. So there is at least a pragmatic incentive to avoid being cynical.

How about getting things right? USA was desperate to get UN SC force authorisation resolution, but never got one then. While lying about WMD. There is no need to lie now. IS is extreme even for Al Qaeda. Why not help sending UN force there. Indonesia and Saudi Arabia call IS terrorists too -- Obama must have some influence in those countries. Get some moderate Muslims fighting terrorists or stop calling them moderate. At some point we need to set the right precedent in war with terror. Or, at least, try to.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How about getting things right? USA was desperate to get UN SC force authorisation resolution, but never got one then. While lying about WMD. There is no need to lie now. IS is extreme even for Al Qaeda. Why not help sending UN force there. Indonesia and Saudi Arabia call IS terrorists too -- Obama must have some influence in those countries. Get some moderate Muslims fighting terrorists or stop calling them moderate. At some point we need to set the right precedent in war with terror. Or, at least, try to.

Saudi Arabia is doing just fine. They are a despotic monarchy that needs all the guns they can get just to keep their own people subjugated and will give up the oil to get those guns. Leave them out of this.

 

[timtofly]

Saudi Arabia is doing just fine. They are a despotic monarchy that needs all the guns they can get just to keep their own people subjugated and will give up the oil to get those guns. Leave them out of this.

Are you implying that IS will never incorporate Saudi Arabia? They were not contained in Syria. They may not be contained in Iraq. Is the UN going to wait until Amman or Jordan is part of IS?