Real-Life Civilization

Unfortunately there's no way to have a religion split, so no way to recreate the schism between Orthodox and Catholics or the Reformation in Civ IV, or similarly the emergence of Christianity from Judaism or Islam from Judaism and Christianity.

Or the syncretic formation of modern Hinduism in (I think) the nineteenth century from a hodgepodge of various traditions in India.
 
If you want Christian splits, go to RFC DoC. The first Christian religion in it is Catholicism, and eventually once something is done, Orthodoxy is founded, and once someone researches the Printing Press, Protestantism is founded.

Different civs have different religions they prefer (like Byzantium with Orthodoxy and Britain with Protestantism), and they could cause wars.
 
I think bin Laden is a Great Spy.


Hard to pin down what a stateless terrorist organization's Civ equivalent would be. I'd almost want to refer to them as a city-state, but one who is invisible, except for their conventional land units.

Or...maybe a Civ V-type religion? Hard to pin that one down.
 
He's a Barbarian Great Spy. Technically impossible in the game I guess. Or alternatively you could have him be a (Saudi) Arabian Great Spy.
 
He's a Barbarian Great Spy. Technically impossible in the game I guess. Or alternatively you could have him be a (Saudi) Arabian Great Spy.


Eh. He hates the Saudi government, however. Al Qaeda, to be properly implemented, would almost have to be a civ of its own with entirely different game mechanics - no holding land or cities, etc. - even more radical than Venice's changes.
 
Eh. He hates the Saudi government, however. Al Qaeda, to be properly implemented, would almost have to be a civ of its own with entirely different game mechanics - no holding land or cities, etc. - even more radical than Venice's changes.

That's how that ended up didn't it?
Bin Laden- >al Qaeda- >ISIS
Didn't it?
 
reddishrecue said:
That's how that ended up didn't it?
Bin Laden- >al Qaeda- >ISIS
Didn't it?

Sort of, not really though. I can't remember exactly but I think ISIS was originally a splinter group of Al Qaeda (started out as Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria IIRC).
 
It's a pretty simplistic overview, but not entirely incorrect I suppose. Of course the rise of all those three actors/groups has quite a bit to do with what happens in the region, both by Western and local hands, and in a more proper analysis those aspects must be taken into account.
 
Sort of, not really though. I can't remember exactly but I think ISIS was originally a splinter group of Al Qaeda (started out as Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria IIRC).


That's exactly correct. To put it most simply, in Civ terms ISIS would have been (since Al Qaeda is inherently a collection of semi-autonomous franchises) a civ that started out the game vassaled to Al Qaeda, then split off later to become a rival (though not actually an enemy) independent civ.

Bin Laden is simply the leader of Al Qaeda.
 
Eh. He hates the Saudi government, however. Al Qaeda, to be properly implemented, would almost have to be a civ of its own with entirely different game mechanics - no holding land or cities, etc. - even more radical than Venice's changes.

I heard different, I heard that the government hated him and didn't want him near Saudi Arabia.
 
I heard different, I heard that the government hated him and didn't want him near Saudi Arabia.

Bin laden's issues with Saudi Arabia go back to the first desert war in the 90's. He hated Saudi Arabia for allowing the U.S. and the coalition forces from using the Arab region as a launching base against Saddam's Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
 
Bin laden's issues with Saudi Arabia go back to the first desert war in the 90's. He hated Saudi Arabia for allowing the U.S. and the coalition forces from using the Arab region as a launching base against Saddam's Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Yup, he got mad at their governments for allowing the U.S. to be on or near the Islamic holy shrines.
 
Bingo. Reportedly he offered his services to the Saudi government, but they said "nah, we got it covered", the Americans showed up, bin Laden got steamed about it.
 
Sort of, not really though. I can't remember exactly but I think ISIS was originally a splinter group of Al Qaeda (started out as Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria IIRC).
Principally, Isis is the product of a genocide that continued unabated as the world stood back and watched. It is the illegitimate child born of pure hate and pure fear – the result of 200,000 murdered Syrians and of millions more displaced and divorced from their hopes and dreams. Isis's rise is also a reminder of how Bashar al-Assad's Machiavellian embrace of al-Qaida would come back to haunt him.

Facing Assad's army and intelligence services, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Iraq's Shia Islamist militias and their grand patron, Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Syria's initially peaceful protesters quickly became disenchanted, disillusioned and disenfranchised – and then radicalised and violently militant.

The Shia Islamist axis used chemical weapons, artillery and barrel bombs to preserve its crescent of influence. Syria's Sunni Arab revolutionaries in turn sought international assistance, and when the world refused, they embraced a pact with the devil, al-Qaida.

With its fiercely loyal army of transnational jihadis, al-Qaida once again gained a foothold in the heart of the Middle East. Fuelled by the hate and fear engendered by images of dismembered children or women suffering from the effects of chemical weapons, disaffected youth from around the world rushed to Syria, fuelling an ever more violent race to the bottom.

Next door in Iraq, an emboldened Nouri al-Maliki waged his own sectarian campaign to consolidate power, betraying promises to his political partners to share it around. Within days of being welcomed at the White House and praised by Barack Obama for his leadership, Maliki returned to Baghdad to mastermind the arrest of his principal Sunni rival, vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi.

Supported by Iran and armed with US-made Humvees, M-16s, and M1A1 tanks, Maliki's forces closed in on Hashimi, only to see him flee to Kurdistan. Dozens of his guards were imprisoned on terrorism charges. At least one of them died under interrogation.

Another Christmas purge followed a year later, when a second prominent Sunni rival, the finance minister Rafea al-Essawi, found his home surrounded by Maliki's US-made tanks. He fled to the sanctuary of his tribe in Iraq's Anbar province, and was eliminated from Iraqi politics.

Facing mass unrest, Iraq's Sunni Arab provincial councils voted for semi-autonomous rule like that of the neighbouring Kurdistan region. Maliki blocked the implementation of a referendum through bureaucratic ploys, in contravention of Iraq's constitution.

Demonstrations of civil disobedience erupted across the Sunni provinces, as millions of Iraqis once again saw that they had no stake in Iraq's success – only its failure. Claiming intelligence that al-Qaida had penetrated the protest camps, Maliki crushed them with lethal force. Several dozen were killed during an Iraqi military raid in Hawija in April 2013, further inflaming what were already spiking sectarian tensions.

Despite pleas from the highest levels in Washington, Maliki's government did virtually nothing to halt the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' flights to resupply the Assad regime with thousands of tons of military hardware and ammunition. Meanwhile, a Shia Islamist ally of Maliki privately conceded to me last year that senior officials in the Iraqi government were turning a blind eye – or even actively supporting – the dispatch of thousands of Iraqi Shia fighters to participate in the spiralling Shia-Sunni holy war in Syria.

These militias – the Badr Corps, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, the Promised Day Brigades, among others – were warmly embraced by Maliki. Indeed, Badr's commander is none other than Iraq's incumbent transport minister, Hadi al-Ameri.

Ironically, al-Qaida's wholesale introduction into Iraq came at the hands of Assad's regime. From 2005 until the end of the American occupation of Iraq, Assad's military intelligence services and their Iranian backers sought to defeat the US forces by training, financing and arming al-Qaida operatives inside Syria and dispatching them across the border to foment chaos and destruction.

General David Petraeus and other senior American officials warned Assad that he was igniting a fire that would eventually burn his house down, but Damascus did nothing to stop the flow of fighters, culminating in a crippling blow to Maliki's government the day Iraq's foreign and finance ministries were bombed. Maliki publicly condemned his future ally in Damascus for the attack.

And so, Syria's unravelling spilled into Iraq, and vice versa. Powerful regional tribes such as the Shammar and Anezah, faced with countless dead and persecuted members in both countries, banded together with former Iraqi and Syrian military officers, embracing Isis jihadis as their frontline shock troops. Cash poured in from sympathetic donors around the region.

Iraq's four Sunni Arab provinces fell within days, entire Iraqi army divisions evaporated, and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of advanced American military equipment was seized by Isis and its allies. Fuelled by what was increasingly a regional Sunni-Shia proxy war, Iraq and Syria had become incubators for transnational jihad and religious hate.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/syria-iraq-incubators-isis-jihad
 
The "rebels" were the ones to first attack not Syria, and that included those who would eventually form ISIS. Basically both sides were committing atrocities against each other, which is why so many people have died in the conflict.
 
I can't be bothered to read all the previous pages, what is the premise for the discussion?
 
Back
Top Bottom