IGX

Just been reading the latest batch of news items related to these cunts. But I'm wondering, are they actually beneficial to western strategic aims? I know they horrify us generally, but is their destabilising effect and the subsequent in-fighting between middle eastern countries part of a strategy?

I have no evidence other than the following assumptions;

1) it was entirely predictable that removing sadam and gadaffi would lead to a power vacuum

2) it was equally predictable that the democratic wet dream that western governments peddled to the press as the outcome of the arab spring was not gonna happen. Democracy is not a universal value.

3) If ISIS really did pose a serious threat to the region then Israel would wade in and take them out, surely? They aren't exactly renowned for their tolerance.


Just thinking aloud really. I am pretty appalled by them, but can't help thinking the western powers would be far more proactive in diminishing anyone who was a genuine threat.

Discuss. And avoid stupid religious/racist bullshit for bonus points.

odin wrote:I am pretty appalled by them.

why?

Just not very keen on filmed decapitations by knife. Perhaps I've gone soft.

Is it to be killed by bullet or bomb much better than by knife?

Yes. No debate in my mind on that.

odin wrote:Yes. No debate in my mind on that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf8bnYF-WxE[/youtube]

An seriously, why you appalled by them?
I mean, some crazy fucks murdered someone thousands of miles away from your home...

1. Destabilize region by taking out key thugs
2. Allow rise of organized extremist faction in resulting power vacuum.
3. Let extremist organization grow to legitimate regional threat and broadcast mass atrocities to build public resolve against the new threat. The more nations that get bit by this new mad dog, the better.
4. You now have a legitimate reason to wade in hip deep with a serious ground force and take permanent control of the region.

I'm serious too. I think decapitation by knife is appalling. Didn't expect that to be such a contentious stance. Not saying it keeps me awake at night, just find it unpleasant.

I think the only sense in which they help us is that they attract radicalized assholes from Western countries who might otherwise attack us and convince to fight for a "caliphate" somewhere else.

the atlantic has a long, thoughtful article about isis. sees them as a serious religious organization--anti-modern and apocalyptic. here's one small bit from the piece:

The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

the article is here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ts/384980/

What is there to really say about these murdering pricks? They are another flowering branch on the tree of Islam, and Islam is really nothing but fascism disguised as monotheism. If bombing them into extinction from a safe distance is not a viable option, then 5.56x45mm NATO delivered from the freedom and liberty dispensing end of an American infantry rifle sounds just fine to me.

There are individuals and collectives that can be reasoned and negotiated with...and then you've got the ISIS types who have long gone over the deep end and are not coming back. They have pushed their entire stack of chips to the middle of the table and called everyone else's bluff. Only one thing left to do.

Honestly, this is the closest thing to an all-in-one visual meme to represent Islam and its very real global threat that I could find...

I love when they try to alpha Western forces and say we should fight them face-to-face. Nah, we'll just get rid of you from vehicles and weapon systems that we created. The very education you forbid, let us do this. The very education that allowed us to build that AR-15 you're now using because you stole it...

The other day I realised - since my early teens - there've been beheading videos. It's ridiculous.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:

Blonde haired, blue eyed All-American QB type?

odin wrote:3) If ISIS really did pose a serious threat to the region then Israel would wade in and take them out, surely? They aren't exactly renowned for their tolerance.

Worth reading this article at the Occidental Observer as to why this isn't taking place:

UN Reveals Israel’s Support for ISIS

what islam needs is the fucking boss Imam laying down doctrine. it's like the 100000s of goofy as fuck Christian cults that pervade the south. The Right Handed Church of Michael's Sword and shit, population 43....with a penchant for fucking their daughters and handling snakes. Only the muslims are violent as fuck instead of being concerned about knocking up their daughter

odin wrote:Just thinking aloud really. I am pretty appalled by them, but can't help thinking the western powers would be far more proactive in diminishing anyone who was a genuine threat.

Discuss. And avoid stupid religious/racist bullshit for bonus points.

I posted elsewhere that peanut allergies kill a lot more Americans than ISIS, which got some people spun up.

The whole thing is a great endorsement of non-interventionist foreign policy. I didn't buy the 2003 argument of "Well, we know Saddam, maybe what comes after Saddam will be worse." Turns out people who chop Americans' heads off on the Internet are worse than Saddam.

The methodology of George H.W. Bush has never looked better. In a military crisis in the M.E., create a shield for governments you want protected where the goals are a) definable and b) achievable.

Destroying ISIS is not possible. Pushing ISIS out of a specific geography is possible, if you're willing to put in ground forces and have Americans die. Escalating airstrikes for the sake of appearing to be "doing something" is a bad idea, because you start investing more and more political capital in something that ultimately won't work.

A bunch of failed states in the region with Christians being beheaded is ultimately not in America's interests. But this looks a bit like a Captain Hindsight situation, where we can't put Saddam back, and the Iraqi military is never going to pull it together as long as they think we'll bail them out

I'd reluctantly provide evacuation or refugee support for people who'd rather be in a refugee camp than get their heads cut off, and let the rest go.

the egyptians just bomed isis targets in libya a few days after jordon blew up isis personnel and materiel. knowing where the bad guys are and destroying their stuff isn't tough. can we and our friendly middle eastern despots in saudi arabia, jordan, egypt and bahrain simply contain these guys?

the problem seems that after you reduce them as a threat, others will emerge. (who the fuck are the houtis who taken over yemen?)

the middle east currently is just a big game of whack-a-mole.

we can play or not. we may help control the moles a bit, but we won't eliminate them.

Saudi is fucking finding them

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Saudi is fucking finding them

finding them or funding them?

Jonny Canuck wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Saudi is fucking finding them

finding them or funding them?

See, the problem is people believe it can't be both.

goddamn auto correct. Funding...however Phaedrus may be correct...can be both, just like how the US intelligence funds some shit behind everyone's back.

If Libya were to fall under their sway there may be a need for Europe to employ some more aggressive policies. Bit too close to where I go on holiday for my liking. I mean I love seeing topless birds on the beach but headless ones would spoil the vista considerably. And hiding the inevitable boner in my vilbrequin's would be tricky.