IS

[Borachio]

Actually, I agree. I think IS are expressly interested in establishing a Caliphate based on religious principles. Their ability to organize doesn't preclude their religiosity at all.

 

[Agent327]

The Baath party was actively secular - as was Hussein's regime. There's no factual reason to suppose that fiercely loyal Baath officers turn zealots overnight. Which was perfectly clear to visting al Qaeda representatives, who called them "false snakes" who betray the jihad. One can't get much clearer than that. It's not that hard to propagate zealous words while commanding the ISIS war machine.

I did read through it so don't assume that again, Just because they're organised doesn't mean they aren't religious.

That doesn't really comment on anything I pointed out. Nor does it show from your comment you actually did read through the whole article - otherwise you would not have asked that question.

But let me summarize. The former Baath officers who invented IS are the same officers who are in control since the beginning. They don't do any actual fighting, merely direct the willing jihadis to the targets they need to take. The so-called caliph does not control ISIS, the military do. The beheadings and executions, the so-called 'destruction of pagan artifacts' (while selling valuables found) etc hide the fact that ISIS is actually pursuing a clear military objective. Buying into their zealotry merely plays into ISIS's cards. That's exactly what the ones in control (the former Baath officers) want you to think. But in the end that is all irrelevant.

You may have noticed that the loose coalition fighting ISIS only focus on military objectives (there's no counterpropaganda going on to speak of or active campaign to 'reconvert' young people fooled by ISIS's religious propaganda). That seems the proper way to handle ISIS. Once ISIS is defeated militarily, the propaganda won't matter anyway.

(I did consider psoting the article in full, but if people don't actually read a quite long article through, that would be pointless, so I only linked to it.)

 

[Borachio]

There's much in what you say. Nevertheless, IS are interested in establishing a Caliphate under Sharia Law, unless I'm sorely mistaken. If that isn't religiously motivated, I don't know what is. But it may be that they're just interested in power for its own sake and are using the means they think are most likely to get them into, and keep them in, power.

However, I do agree that IS isn't being run by religious zealots. Though much of their support probably does come from that quarter.

 

[Agent327]

There's much in what you say. Nevertheless, IS are interested in establishing a Caliphate under Sharia Law, unless I'm sorely mistaken.

And you know this how? Have you spoken to anyone in charge with IS? Because the writer of said article actually has.

However, I do agree that IS isn't being run by religious zealots. Though much of their support probably does come from that quarter.

That's just the point. It's perfectly clever: there isn't any shortage of willing, young, aimless people who like a goal in their life - however short that may turn out to be.

 

[Borachio]

I can only refer you to your own link, I'm afraid.

What Bakr put on paper, page by page, with carefully outlined boxes for individual responsibilities, was nothing less than a blueprint for a takeover. It was not a manifesto of faith, but a technically precise plan for an "Islamic Intelligence State" -- a caliphate run by an organization that resembled East Germany's notorious Stasi domestic intelligence agency.

Notice the boxes bearing the legend "Sharia judges"?

 

[Tahuti]

Scientology guys seem to believe sincerely in preaching a true religion and make money at the same time. So why wouldn't IS?

 

[Agent327]

IS isn't about making money.

I can only refer you to your own link, I'm afraid.

Notice the boxes bearing the legend "Sharia judges"?

You may have heard the saying about the best laid plans. According to the article IS is the front, and the military operations are the essence. Feel free to believe the front if you wish.

 

[Tahuti]

IS isn't about making money.

It is about garnering political power though, aside from religion.

 

[kramerfan86]

I imagine you are completely right but its seems like these Baath members are short sighted. Hypothetically if they are successful how do the Baath commanders plan on gaining control from the zealots? Its a situation where the front can quickly become the true power.

 

[Tahuti]

I imagine you are completely right but its seems like these Baath members are short sighted. Hypothetically if they are successful how do the Baath commanders plan on gaining control from the zealots? Its a situation where the front can quickly become the true power.

Besides, IS doesn't seem really true to Ba'athist ideals. Most supporters of Ba'athism have a very secular lifestyle for Arab standards and I doubt they like what IS is doing.

 

[Joecoolyo]

The Baath party was actively secular - as was Hussein's regime. There's no factual reason to suppose that fiercely loyal Baath officers turn zealots overnight. Which was perfectly clear to visting al Qaeda representatives, who called them "false snakes" who betray the jihad. One can't get much clearer than that. It's not that hard to propagate zealous words while commanding the ISIS war machine.



That doesn't really comment on anything I pointed out. Nor does it show from your comment you actually did read through the whole article - otherwise you would not have asked that question.

But let me summarize. The former Baath officers who invented IS are the same officers who are in control since the beginning. They don't do any actual fighting, merely direct the willing jihadis to the targets they need to take. The so-called caliph does not control ISIS, the military do. The beheadings and executions, the so-called 'destruction of pagan artifacts' (while selling valuables found) etc hide the fact that ISIS is actually pursuing a clear military objective. Buying into their zealotry merely plays into ISIS's cards. That's exactly what the ones in control (the former Baath officers) want you to think. But in the end that is all irrelevant.

You may have noticed that the loose coalition fighting ISIS only focus on military objectives (there's no counterpropaganda going on to speak of or active campaign to 'reconvert' young people fooled by ISIS's religious propaganda). That seems the proper way to handle ISIS. Once ISIS is defeated militarily, the propaganda won't matter anyway.

(I did consider psoting the article in full, but if people don't actually read a quite long article through, that would be pointless, so I only linked to it.)

What he's objecting to, I think, is the idea that one idea precludes the other. The surprise at "oh wait, they're cold and calculating? I thought they were religious fanatics?" When in reality, one can be a zealot and still strategic.

In this case though, the zealotry is just a front for former-Ba'ath to get their revenge on America's Iraq, or something along those lines.

 

[Oruc]

That doesn't really comment on anything I pointed out. Nor does it show from your comment you actually did read through the whole article - otherwise you would not have asked that question.

It does, you're wrong time and time again. I read through the article and I asked that question. You're a buffoon, a mockery of a man, but fair enough I don't judge you can act how you please

I assume you're an atheist so it is no surprise you assume zealotry should equal absolute insanity. But you're wrong zealotry and fanaticism does not preclude organization.

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Agent327]

I imagine you are completely right but its seems like these Baath members are short sighted. Hypothetically if they are successful how do the Baath commanders plan on gaining control from the zealots? Its a situation where the front can quickly become the true power.

Gaining control? These former Baath officers are in control. they direct ISIS's military operations. Also, a front isn't a power. Though I'd agree that the miltary could be exposed as not being true jihadists. That is indeed a possibility. In fact, it has already happened. So the question is: will the jihadists believe this revelation and if os, what will they do about it?

Besides, IS doesn't seem really true to Ba'athist ideals. Most supporters of Ba'athism have a very secular lifestyle for Arab standards and I doubt they like what IS is doing.

We're speaking of former Baatist officers. Personally, I don't think these officers care very much what their zealot followers do or don't - as long as they follow orders.

What he's objecting to, I think, is the idea that one idea precludes the other. The surprise at "oh wait, they're cold and calculating? I thought they were religious fanatics?" When in reality, one can be a zealot and still strategic.

Obviously.

In this case though, the zealotry is just a front for former-Ba'ath to get their revenge on America's Iraq, or something along those lines.

Firstly, Iraq is close to being a failed state as a result of the US invasion. The chaos resulting from this invasion has actually led to al Qaeda presence in Iraq (which currently is not the main Iaqi problem though) and the surge of IS.

ISIS (miltary) target is, as the article mentions, to establish a base in Syria (which they succeeded in) in order to expand back into Iraq. The jihad idea is, of course, perfect for this: Assad's regime (which incidentally even lent support to IS until the realization that this was a seriously bad idea) is thoroughly hated, while the Iraqi regime is, as your own comment shows, seen as 'America's Iraq' - reason enough for any zealot to hate it thoroughly.

It does, you're wrong time and time again. I read through the article and I asked that question.

Which only shows you haven't read it properly. Your question is answered in the article.

I assume you're an atheist so it is no surprise you assume zealotry should equal absolute insanity. But you're wrong zealotry and fanaticism does not preclude organization.

I'm neither an atheist nor do I presume that fanaticism precludes organziation. The whole article is about the zealot organization of ISIS. Are you sure you've read the same article?

 

[Borachio]

You may have heard the saying about the best laid plans. According to the article IS is the front, and the military operations are the essence. Feel free to believe the front if you wish.

I have indeed.

Here it is:

The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,

Or in the vernacular (no, that's wrong: it's already in the vernacular), "The best laid plans of mice (why mice figure here is a mystery, except that the poem's entitled "To a Mouse") and men often go astray".

Just quite why you think it's relevant isn't immediately obvious to me, though.

 

[Agent327]

That's not a saying, but a rhyme. I was, of course, referring to the saying 'the best laid plans can go awry'. You might also think of 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', or the military experience that a well-thought out military plan will encounter unexpected contingencies when carried out.

Although, in this case, I'd say the officers' plan worked out very nicely indeed. If it will stay that way is, of course, another matter.

 

[Borachio]

But the Burns' poem is where the saying comes from.

 

[Tahuti]

We're speaking of former Baatist officers. Personally, I don't think these officers care very much what their zealot followers do or don't - as long as they follow orders.

That may work, but only for a while. It's like Christians supporting Gays in the face of another religion that is hostile to both. Most people don't want to change the way they live for the sake of political expediency.

 

[Flying Pig]

But the Burns' poem is where the saying comes from.

There's a variant attributed to Von Moltke which I think he was going for - 'no plan survives initial contact with the enemy's main strength'. Much better expressed by a parachute brigadier just before D-Day:

Gentlemen, in spite of your excellent training and orders, do not be daunted if chaos reigns. It undoubtedly will.

 

[Traitorfish]

And for the record, if we're quoting Burns it's "gang aft agley".

 

[Borachio]

I'm all for quote Burns just for the sake of it:

Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie, O, what a panic's in thy breastie!

Also "To a mouse".