IS

[NovaKart]

Sometimes I wish I didn't mess up my knee and could still serve in the Army and do something to fight these guys.

I read an article about a month ago about some surfer with no military training or experience who went over there to join the Kurds in their fight against ISIS. They accepted him and are training him before they send him to actual battlefields. His reason for going to fight was that he saw what ISIS was doing and it made him physically ill and he just couldn't live with himself if he didn't do something about it.

If I didn't have a family to take care of or if I thought they could survive without me for a while, you can bet I'd be over there fighting alongside the Kurds as well. If they are willing to accept someone with no military training, I'm sure they'd love to have someone who is not only trained, but has actual combat experience as well.

Do you have a link to the article? I'm curious about it because a friend of mine was talking to an American who wanted to join but said he wasn't able to because he's American. Maybe there's more to the story, like maybe he's just saying that to impress people or something or maybe there's more to the surfer's story, like he met someone in a senior position or something.

Anyone can help refugees. Sometimes people ask us about sending blankets and stuff. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me because most stuff like that can be purchased locally and it's better to just send money but I can understand why people would be reluctant to do that if they don't trust the people they're sending it to. I really should do more to help the refugees since I'm here but it's surprisingly easy to forget everything that's going on here sometimes.

 

[Tigranes]

There are fears that more members of an Assyrian Christian community in north-eastern Syria were abducted by Islamic State militants than at first thought.

Sources in the community said as many as 200 people might have been seized on Monday in raids on a string of villages near Tal Tamr, in Hassakeh province.

Most of the captives were women, children and the elderly.

Some 1,000 local Assyrian families are believed to have fled their homes in the wake of the abductions.

Kurdish and Christian militia are battling IS in the area.

At least 90 Assyrians were seized by the militants on Monday as they captured 12 villages along the southern bank of the Khabur river before dawn, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based opposition group that monitors the conflict in the country.

The Syriac National Council of Syria put the figure as high as 150, while Afram Yaboub of the Assyrian Federation of Sweden said sources on the ground had told him that at least 60 and up to 200 people were missing.

However, a spokesman for the Syriac Military Council, a Christian militia fighting alongside the Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG), told the BBC that between 350 and 400 civilians had been taken, and that some had already been killed.

Kino Gabriel said that the Syriac Military Council believed the captives had been taken to Abdul Aziz mountain but it was not sure about their exact location.

Osama Edward of the Sweden-based Assyrian Human Rights Network told the AFP news agency that the captives had been taken to the IS stronghold of Shaddadi, as did Syria's state news agency, Sana.

"People were expecting an attack, but they thought that either the Syrian army, which is just 30km [20 miles] from there or the Kurds or the [US-led] coalition's strikes would protect them," Mr Edward said.

Hundreds of Assyrians who were living in villages on the north bank of the Khabur river and elsewhere are reported to have fled following the attack to the largely Kurdish-controlled provincial capital of Hassakeh, to the south-east, and Qamishli, another city to the north-east.

 

[Phrossack]

If ISIS isn't destroyed quickly, there won't be any Yazidis, Chaldeans, or Assyrians left in their homelands. Just scattered refugees who will eventually assimilate out of existence.

 

[Ajidica]

If ISIS isn't destroyed quickly, there won't be any Yazidis, Chaldeans, or Assyrians left in their homelands. Just scattered refugees who will eventually assimilate out of existence.

Not directed at you, but this is sort of representative of a lot of the discussion I've seen regarding ISIS. The thought process seems to go:
1) ISIS is dangerous.
2) Lets destroy ISIS.
3) ?????
4) Profit!

It never quite seems to be addressed how ISIS is to be destroyed. From what I understand, the Kurds don't seem to have any desire to move beyond protecting Kurdish areas, the Iraqi Army seems to have degenerated into a Shia militia with no desire to fight against a well trained and dangerous enemy, and nobody else has any desire to send troops into what would easily develop into a nasty guerilla war. (One exception actually. Iran offered to send in the Revolutionary Guard to help the Iraqi Army, but the US and Gulf States torpedoed that idea pretty early on.)

 

[classical_hero]

Oh Im not denying the Israeli groups started off as terrorist groups, but there was an actual legitimate mantle for statehood for them to assume control over. There is no state mantle for ISIS to assume control over so I do not feel when discussing the terrorist group or state argument it is quite as relevant as he thinks.

If the British didn't violate the agreement they signed, then the Jews wouldn't have had to resort to violence to get what was legally assigned to them. The British had themselves to blame for their illegal activities in the region, which is why we still have a mess there. But we have a mess with ISIS because they unilaterally choose to rebel first against Syria and then Iraq. There is certainly isn't any legal justification for ISIS.

 

[Phrossack]

Not directed at you, but this is sort of representative of a lot of the discussion I've seen regarding ISIS. The thought process seems to go:

1) ISIS is dangerous.

2) Lets destroy ISIS.

3) ?????

4) Profit!



It never quite seems to be addressed how ISIS is to be destroyed. From what I understand, the Kurds don't seem to have any desire to move beyond protecting Kurdish areas, the Iraqi Army seems to have degenerated into a Shia militia with no desire to fight against a well trained and dangerous enemy, and nobody else has any desire to send troops into what would easily develop into a nasty guerilla war. (One exception actually. Iran offered to send in the Revolutionary Guard to help the Iraqi Army, but the US and Gulf States torpedoed that idea pretty early on.)

My point is that every day that ISIS exists, they complete more ethnic and religious cleansing. That's one of their goals; ISIS isn't open to negotiations on that issue, so either ISIS goes or the minorities do.

As for how ISIS is to be eliminated, that's tricky. It's sad that it has to be the US leading this, once again, because those who are willing to fight aren't able and those who are able aren't willing. Iraq is quite content to leave non-Shia peoples to their fate. Assad is too busy. Turkey is trying very hard to stay out of it. Iran isn't allowed in. The Jordanians and Kurds can only do so much, and aren't prepared for the full-scale ground invasion that's needed to eliminate ISIS. Not to mention that a lot of western Sunni Iraqis actually support the genocidaires. I don't see an easy solution to this. Iraq doesn't mind the loss of the west and if it's Shia-dominated, it'll be unwilling and unable to govern the west ever again unless it grants it autonomy. Which is a huge obstacle, since this is Iraq's territory and Iraq's citizens. The US never should have invaded Iraq, and once it did, it never should have dismantled the army. By this point, the only solution seems to be a ground invasion by an international coalition led by either the US or (hah!) Iraq, followed by an Iraqi government reform that properly represents and protects all religious and ethnic groups. But the Iraqi government doesn't care.

This is why genocide should be nipped in the bud. But as long as the world says "not my problem" and "peace at any price," it'll keep happening.

 

[Tigranes]

So I have two questions for those who follow what is going on in the world: was "Arab Spring" a good thing, after all, and do you personally believe that West had any involvement in starting it?

Egypt is back to dictatorship, more brutal than before. Shia minority in Saudi Arabia and Shias in Bahrain were suppressed. Yemen plunged into Civil War. Libya plunged into Civil War, with IS sympathizers gaining ground. Syria plunged into Civil War, which helped IS to establish base in Syria and expand into Iraqi Mosul. Only Tunisia (original birthplace of the Spring) gained a little more democracy, but given the number of Tunisian fighting for IS -- things can get worse when they return. On 6 February 2013, Chokri Belaid, the leader of the leftist opposition and prominent critic of Ennahda, a former dissident movement who has 1/3 sits in new parliament, was assassinated.

Tunisia's and Egypt's dictators were friendly to US, so I don't know how it could be in US interest to change them. Libya under Gaddafi was stable Oil seller to Europe, which is more challenged now, even dislike for Gaddafi should bleak in the radiance of Oil. This leaves Syria, which was the only ally of Russia in the region. Could CIA act opportunistically in light of the unanticipated Arab Spring and help with unrest in Syria as a means to annoy Russia? Or the whole Arab Spring thing was fueled by grassroots only?

 

[Commodore]

Do you have a link to the article? I'm curious about it because a friend of mine was talking to an American who wanted to join but said he wasn't able to because he's American. Maybe there's more to the story, like maybe he's just saying that to impress people or something or maybe there's more to the surfer's story, like he met someone in a senior position or something.

Anyone can help refugees. Sometimes people ask us about sending blankets and stuff. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me because most stuff like that can be purchased locally and it's better to just send money but I can understand why people would be reluctant to do that if they don't trust the people they're sending it to. I really should do more to help the refugees since I'm here but it's surprisingly easy to forget everything that's going on here sometimes.

Here's a link to the story:

http://nypost.com/2015/01/01/american-surfer-gives-up-paradise-to-fight-isis/

He apparently has been keeping friends and family updated on his status through social media.

 

[kramerfan86]

If the British didn't violate the agreement they signed, then the Jews wouldn't have had to resort to violence to get what was legally assigned to them. The British had themselves to blame for their illegal activities in the region, which is why we still have a mess there. But we have a mess with ISIS because they unilaterally choose to rebel first against Syria and then Iraq. There is certainly isn't any legal justification for ISIS.

Dont try to defend Israeli terrorism, you'll only embarrass yourself.

and by israeli terrorism I mean legitimate terrorism, not their campaigns against Gaza and such.

 

[NovaKart]

Here's a link to the story:

http://nypost.com/2015/01/01/american-surfer-gives-up-paradise-to-fight-isis/

He apparently has been keeping friends and family updated on his status through social media.

Thanks. I think it's because he joined the YPG and not the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga. Maybe they're really eager for anyone.

 

[Oruc]

One could, if one was so inclined, just live one's life according to certain principles and leave it to others whether they follow your example or not.

I don't see why believing something strongly means that one must necessarily force it on others.

In fact, quite the contrary: forcing someone else to follow what you believe seems to indicate a weakness in belief, not a strength. Because you may be seeking further justification, by (what's the technical word for it? I forget) validation through thingy.

Proselytizing shows that you need the validation that the greater numbers of the "faithful" brings. "This thing must be true. Just look how many of us believe it!"

Or is that just too counter-intuitive?

I think that's a view that shows a lack of self awareness

 

[Oruc]

Why not instead of wasting so much effort on kidnapping folks, they repair damaged infrastructure from battle? That would be a much better use of their time. Will also stimulate the local economy. But they will not, because it would be too much like right.

My point is, they really, seriously, need to reevaluate their priorities if they want to be taken in the least bit remotely as a country in the world stage and not just a group of thugs.

But they already do that?

 

[Borachio]

I think that's a view that shows a lack of self awareness

That's no doubt very true.

But then, you see, my lack of self-awareness is rivalled only by my notorious obliviousness of the world around me.

 

[MacAttack]

But they already do that?

You have evidence of their public works projects? If so, please share with the group. From a reliable and credible source is preferred.

 

[Oruc]

You have evidence of their public works projects? If so, please share with me. From a reliable and credible source is preferred.

Well they're just pictures and I think they're from IS (but for me that would be a good source to see what IS is upto rather then western media)

 

[MacAttack]

So these pictures are of construction crews, cement trucks, or what? Can you post the link and pictures? Because right now it just seems like you're telling me to take your word for it, and hearsay won't cut it.

IS completely lost all credibility when they published on their Website (which i refuse to link on principle, so you go ahead and google it) that Islam is not religion of peace but a religion of the sword.

I know deep in my heart that is not what God intends for his children.

 

[Joecoolyo]

So I have two questions for those who follow what is going on in the world: was "Arab Spring" a good thing, after all, and do you personally believe that West had any involvement in starting it?

Egypt is back to dictatorship, more brutal than before. Shia minority in Saudi Arabia and Shias in Bahrain were suppressed. Yemen plunged into Civil War. Libya plunged into Civil War, with IS sympathizers gaining ground. Syria plunged into Civil War, which helped IS to establish base in Syria and expand into Iraqi Mosul. Only Tunisia (original birthplace of the Spring) gained a little more democracy, but given the number of Tunisian fighting for IS -- things can get worse when they return. On 6 February 2013, Chokri Belaid, the leader of the leftist opposition and prominent critic of Ennahda, a former dissident movement who has 1/3 sits in new parliament, was assassinated.

Tunisia's and Egypt's dictators were friendly to US, so I don't know how it could be in US interest to change them. Libya under Gaddafi was stable Oil seller to Europe, which is more challenged now, even dislike for Gaddafi should bleak in the radiance of Oil. This leaves Syria, which was the only ally of Russia in the region. Could CIA act opportunistically in light of the unanticipated Arab Spring and help with unrest in Syria as a means to annoy Russia? Or the whole Arab Spring thing was fueled by grassroots only?

Revolutions are a messy affair. There's no getting around that. It isn't a simple change of government, or replacing the head of state, it is an upheaval in the social-fabric of a nation. Everything gets turned on its head, previously understood societal relationships are completely destroyed, people's understanding of place change, and new contracts are negotiated. With this of course goes the previous governing entity. The real trick, however, is that these are long term events. One does not flick a switch and expect massive change to occur. Revolutions are decades in the making, and decades in the renegotiating. Radical changes are to expected year to year as the population, caught in this upheaval, try to reassert a new order and place. Culture and government are caught up in this tide, and will sway back and forth depending on the actions of the people.

Essentially, what I'm getting at, is that this is just the beginning for the Arab Spring, as cheesy as that sounds. Revolutions are something that take decades of time to figure out; a new stable pattern to society is very hard to create. Expect multiple phases, as people react and counter-react to each others actions, all are a part of the revolutionary dialogue recreating a new society.

I've heard it said that Iran is still in revolution, its current phase being conservative or reactionary backlash. I've also heard it said that the American revolutionary period didn't end until the war of 1812, which was the "last hurrah" of instability and violence emanating from 1776. The Arab Spring is a presence that will not leave the Middle East for decades to come. And just like with other revolutions, there will be blood and chaos as society is reformed.

As for Western meddling, I think two things. One, outside of the "top-down" revolution -- societal change imposed by a governing entity without the influence of the population -- I find it very hard to believe a foreign government could successfully instigate an entire population into revolution. Revolution is a feeling that can only be created within the population itself. A revolution doesn't occur a majority of people don't want it to, it's not a revolution then.

Secondly, I think it's very possible an outside government could sense revolutionary feeling in a populace and can help instigate the start. However, that is just the speeding up of a process that was already in development. To think the West instigated the Arab Spring is one thing, to think it created it is another.

As it stands now, instability is not something that is advantageous to the West, or specifically the United States. If the US' foreign policy has any sort of consistent theme, it's keeping the world as stable as possible. From stability comes trade and revenue. That being said, if this does end well in the creation of grassroots democracy, it could very well end up being a long-term gamble for stability in the Middle East. Relations with democratic regimes could prove far more stable and fruitful than despots. This is all conjecture on my part though, I'm no expert.

 

[classical_hero]

Dont try to defend Israeli terrorism, you'll only embarrass yourself.

and by israeli terrorism I mean legitimate terrorism, not their campaigns against Gaza and such.

The British got what they deserved for their treachery. None of this would have happened without the British violating an agreement they signed and should have honoured. The Jews had to resort to violence because the British refused to do their legal duty and basically made them occupiers.

 

[kramerfan86]

The British got what they deserved for their treachery. None of this would have happened without the British violating an agreement they signed and should have honoured. The Jews had to resort to violence because the British refused to do their legal duty and basically made them occupiers.

Oh so Iraqis and Afghans bombing soldiers wasnt terrorism then because they were occupiers, which makes it open season to kill them correct?

And you are right, the jews had to resort to things like bombing hotels, which unlike when islamists blow up things like hotels was most definitely not terrorist behavior.

 

[Ajidica]

The British got what they deserved for their treachery. None of this would have happened without the British violating an agreement they signed and should have honoured. The Jews had to resort to violence because the British refused to do their legal duty and basically made them occupiers.

The British Israeli Government got what they deserved for their treachery. None of this would have happened without the British Israeli Government violating an agreement Oslo and Camp David they signed and should have honoured. The Jews Palestinian militantshad to resort to violence because the British Israeli Government refused to do their legal duty and basically made them occupiers.

Do you have any idea how silly you sound?

I assume you are referring to the Balfour Declaration, and this is the text for what it is worth:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of the object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E210CA73E38D9E1D052565FA00705C61

The British government wasn't stupid enough to sign away the future Palestine Mandate or to completely squash the concept of an Arab state.