IS

Here is the answer:

Curtis family said the government of Qatar was involved in the release, which was carried out on a humanitarian basis without ransom.

The family believes the 45-year-old Curtis was captured shortly after he crossed into Syria in October 2012.

What prompted Curtis’ release is unclear. However, the United Nations said it helped with the handover to U.N. peacekeepers in a village in the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights and that Curtis was released to American authorities after a medical checkup.

This is a very good news overall!

 

The answer to threats of violence is more violence of course. It's been working so far...

 

"What prompted Curtis’ release is unclear."


the possibility of a widespread demand about doing something to ISIL . Syrains will "allow" US bombing only if US also bombs the rest of the Irresuction ; meanwhile US was counting on the brilliant prospects of stealing the Syrian victory , by "We bombed ISIL, that's how Damascus won." and stuff .

 

I hear that Islamic leaders, anxious to distance themselves and Islam from this "Caliphate", are calling for ISIS to be called something else in the media.

I haven't tracked down exactly what acronym is to be used, having only vaguely listened to it on the news. Something along the lines of Al Qaeda Inspired Something or other. I forget.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslim-leaders-worldwide-condemn-isis/5397364

 

I would love to see Saudis directly join any fight against any Sunni Islamic radicals, given the strength of Salafism and Wahhabism in that country.

 

I would like to see this opportunity to form a new alliance be taken. ISIS is spread across the Syria Iraq border. Despite having no particular jurisdiction in Iraq, the US is perfectly willing to drop bombs there. Syria is in Russia's sphere of influence, so Russia could bomb ISIS there. Nothing builds a spirit of international cooperation like coming together to bomb the snot out of somebody.

 

ISIS is legitimately the one thing that could unify rivals as big as Russia, US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia for a common purpose.

 

Iran isn't needed, and the House of Saud will do anything they are told, so I wouldn't call them rivals. A joint US-Russian operation would sure be great though.

 

I can't help feeling that taking serious military against ISIS might not be a mistake. If that's what you're hinting at.

Hitting them hard is just likely to recruit more jihadists, imo.

I bet the last thing they want, or could handle, is being listened to and engaged in religious/political debate.

Attacking them ferociously is just playing into their hands.

On the other hand, I'm all for common purposes.

 

I tend to agree a straight war against them would be a mistake and in Iraq i think that can be avoided if the new Iraqi government can win over Sunnis, I am not so sure if it can be avoided in the anarchy that is Syria though.

 

Iran's the only actor that's got any pull with SAA, Hezbollah, and the developing Hezbollah-style organizations in Syria and Iraq. These are the only forces with any realistic ability to militarily and politically defeat the Islamic State. Iran is essential to any such effort.

 

Is 'recruiting jihadists' a bad thing?

Consider the three English guys who went over there for their opportunity to behead someone. Would you rather those three were on the streets of London?

Get them all over there is fine with me. Bomb any weapon they have bigger than a heavy stick. Let the locals mop them up. Let the Russians do the same in Syria without a whole lot of 'how dare you support a government that likes you?' nonsense, since that's what everyone else does. Move on.

 

It worked against Germany and Japan.

 

Another possibility is that young potential jihadists get a handle on their lives and settle down to become productive members of a tolerant society. Instead of throwing their lives away, possibly beheading a few other people, in a meaningless conflict which is not really any of their concern.

I think the attitude you express there is a dehumanizing one. Though I suspect you're not being serious.

 

Unless... unless the guy is using British passport and traveling back undercover, after seeing and learning how effective jihad should be conducted. And start acting after seeing couple of his friends killed by the drone. People with tooth for tooth mentality must have a very long bill to present to the West. And if saints are those who practice tooth for tooth, imagine the excuse for the average dude who would knock out couple of teeth instead.

 

You can't engage someone in debate if his idea of a counterargument involves beheading you or blowing you and him both up with a bomb strapped to his chest. Engaging in debate requires both sides be willing to talk.

 

Well, I was a little serious. I'm thinking that someone who is at a point where they are loading onto a plane to fly to Iraq and sign on is past the point where settling down to become a productive member of society is an option.

As for using the British passport to travel back undercover...if the Brits let that happen shame on them. Even so, 'seeing how effective Jihad is conducted'...in a war zone in Iraq...doesn't necessarily translate back to the streets of London anyway. Whatever he does when he comes back will be mostly based on his already existing knowledge of the environment from before he left.

 

So you want us to annex Iraq for about 20 years then?

 

That only happened because of the USSR.

 

What the hell are you on about? How did the Soviets have anything to do with the decades of US troops occupying Japan and West Germany to stabilize the country? That the kinda thing it's gonna take with direct military action against ISIL. We'd have to literally run the country like a colony for a generation.