^ so we just ignore them? that’s not going to do anything. they will continue doing exactly what they want. and maybe even escalate it even more until you can’t ignore them
Yes, I actually think that ignoring them is probably the best thing. They are not going to expand anywhere, and I do not have high hopes for their demise. There is only one country that has the ability and willingness to crush ISIS, but its efforts are being limited by western sanctions and arab armies, and chances are they are going to give the same type of payback to the civilians in the region.
This has never happened in a world where an interrogator has the full realm of capabilities at their disposal. In mideival days, one form of torture was to cut people open, pull out their intestines while they were conscious and burn them with a scalding iron. I’m just saying, people have this completely silly concept of what real interrogation is like because in Hollywood it involves bright lights and some guy punching you in the head. Kind of like when the documents came out showing CIA had actually been using real torture in the Middle East as opposed to the “enhanced interrogation” we had been hearing about.
With respect to Isis and the Houthis, what is going on is a full on proxy war rather than some isolated event with extremists and the US is best served by stepping away and letting this resolve itself. This situation is inherently different from what has occured in the past 15 years that the US has been involved in as the forces are larger and more unified. Basically, major Arab powers have armed and cobbled together the militarized extremists we’re used to dealing with for a more politcally driven purpose.
On the one hand you have Iran (Shi’a) and then Iraq and Yemen with a significant proportion of their populations both being Shi’a. On the other hand you have basically the rest of the Arab world which is Sunni. It’s not a major news flash, but the two idealogies don’t get along, and like all major religions, there are power plots at stake.
Now, Iraq is majority Shi’a, but Saddam had been Sunni, and as a result, the Sunni minority had largely been ruling the country, which neighbors Iran (also Shi’a). Iran (idealogical leader of the Shi’a world) never really liked that, but Iraq had a decent military and the backing of its Sunni neighbors so everything was left alone. Since the US went in and rearranged the peices, the new democratic government and much of the militias are now more representative of the population, that is Shi’a. Iran is happier with this, the Sunni neighbors are not. Together with warming ties to the western world, Iran’s influence has been growing in the region.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia (which is the ideological leadership of the Sunni world) has long been known to fund Al Quaeda (Sunni) both to keep the extremists off their back, and at times because it allows them to have some influence on the direction of the organization. More recently it has been backing away from its association, although at this point its a little late for that. Al Quaeda is a primary component of the newly branded ISIS, which has been putting much of Iraq back under Sunni juridiction. So Iran deployed ground forces to try to maintain its newly favorable position with a Shi’a neighbor.
Meanwhile, Iran has been funding and arming the Shi’a Houthis in Yemen in a play to possibly gain another Shi’a nation and also because Yemen borders Saudi Arabia so the move was designed as a response to get under the Saudi’s skin in return. Now the Saudi’s have been threatening ground force operations in Yemen.
So the US has a stake in the Iraqi government which is partnered with Iran in fighting Saudi Arabia’s proxy militia, while also being allied with the Saudi’s as a regional power and wanting to see stability returned to Yemen which is pressured by Iran’s proxy militia. Pakistan has wisely voted not to get involved in this pissing match, and if the US has half a brain, we’ll follow suit. The situation will ultimately iron itself out with the militias being subdued by the larger government forces after some form of agreement. Or you know, it could always escalate, but either way, US involvement will not help.
Personally, I don’t believe ISIS to be a major threat to anybody outside their immediate vicinity. This is a movement that’s primarily there to “cleanse” Islam, and their biggest goal seems to be to push other Muslims back into Salafi ways, and that means the rulers of all nearby Muslim countries are considered apostates, and should be the ones worried. Much more like the Taliban rather than Al Qaeda.
True, the group is not the same as al qaeda, but the point I was making is that a significant portion of its base is made of former Al Qaeda groups that are / were backed by the Saudis.
Saying lets ignore ISIS is like saying lets all be good and happy.Its good advice but on paper,how are you exactly going to ignore an organization that is using internet and various marketing/psychological tricks into getting more followers?I guess the same could have been said years ago about UBL and his organization.
I do agree that by paying attention to the whole thing you are giving it credit,but by sitting back or arguing with the only nation(Iran) that is fighting the whole damn thing you do not solve any real problems.I do agree that Iran and the west have developed better relationships but Irans role as a nation capabale of setting balance in ME area is forgotten(given the right incentives that is)
Well let me clarify, by no means did I suggest that we sit back and do nothing.
Since common men and women (like majority of the members in this forum) cannot participate in the war against terrorism (esp ISIS, etc) I suggest that we fight it by not speaking of it, at all. By doing this I do not think we are causing any damange or contributing to making the situation worse.
Bchad said they’d carry on what they do till we notice - well, that might happen but they’re surely not taking it any easier now just because we’re reading about it and shaking our heads in silence or because a granny is shedding a tear here or there.
Let me use an example, I’m sure a lot of you would’ve read of this term called homegrown terrorism. Here in the UK, police launched a large scale crack down on fundamentalist mosques that preached hate crimes in the name of Islam they were or are being dealt with effectively. These guys then moved on to using internet, chat forums, islamic websites, etc to inspire British nationals who would otherwise go completely undetected by the regular checks at the airport, to travel to countries like Yemen, Syria, etc with hopes of training them and sending them back to cause havoc in the country. And since these kids don’t attend classes at a fundamentalist mosque or are part of some hate group, their name never shows up on the database when they present their passport for entry or exit from the UK. Australia too has recently stopped hundereds of teenages from travelling abroad to train, with the objective of coming back to cause havoc. IMO, the only way this happens is when you read about terrorism, use search engines to explore agendas and happen to stumble upon the wrong kind of websites which aims to inpire those who are most vulnerable to such influences to join in on this rediculous “war to save Islam”.
Hence, the reason why I say - we should completely stop printing or reporting such heinous crimes because the benefits significantly outweight the potential downsides of not reading them.
While I’m at it, let me clarify - I am no “lets close our eyes and hope for the best” type of guy. I strongly advocate fighting terrorism with force, whether its in the homeland or outside in a vulnerable country. You have to fight it, without compromising - but I do believe that the only way we can change things and ensure that parts of new generation don’t get accidentally inspired is by banning coverage of these incidents.
Eliminating detailed coverage of what we already know is happening would go a long way to create a more peaceful society and drastically reduce the means available to these institutions to influence the younger one’s.
I understand your point but I was just trying explain using a scenario - i.e, psychology and refusing to be intimidated is a large part of the war against terror and given that we read about these things everyday, I doubt there’s a terrorist out there thinking “hmm…lets take it easy for a while since the west seems to be talking about us a lot and common men/women are now afraid of us…”. Given their current capabilities, t** hey’re already doing the max of what they can i.e. not holding back.**
Hence, not reading about them, wouldn’t make the situation any worse. I should’ve probably chosen a better example to explain but now I hope you get what I mean.
What is the difference between KKK and ISIS?
Both were in control of large territories
Both had religious idealogies
Both Burned People Alive and Hung People
Both had strong support from the local population
The same way people justified the KKK is the same way people justify ISIS.
Have to agree with this. External intervention is generally effective and justifiable when one side is unarmed and getting the crap kicked out of them. Eg : Bosnia , early stages of Libya etc. (Rwanda was a place it should’ve happened)
When both sides balance out , picking a side and declaring them the lesser of two evils has always backfired. I can’t think of many Irani terrorists that have carried out attacks on American soil and the 9/11 hijackers were almost exclusively Saudi yet one nation is on the terror watch list and Saudi Arabia is a designated ‘ally’ despite being the largest monetory backers for Wahabi expansion. It makes zero sense.
The lesser ‘involvement’ in countries like the Congo where in elected leaders are disposed because of selfish interests leading to a complete break down of law and order , the better it will be for the world in general.
Have to agree with this too.
ISIS aren’t going to expand much further. Kurds are basically operating their own country in the North , the Iraqi government has regrouped in the South and even assuming they run over Syria they will hit a wall with Hezbollah , Lebanon and Israel waiting and Turkish borders on the North.