|
illrepute posted:The view from my classroom in Amman: Cyprus got only a little bit of that dust  Sunglasses are unnecessary for a change
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
fspades posted:also stfu Liberal_L33t, you understand neither Turkey nor Egypt. We can leave the Egypt discussion for another time or PMs since it's likely to get me probated again, but what conclusion do you take issue with vis-a-vis Turkey? That the AKP is engaged in a movement to make their flavor of Islamism the sole legal and political power in Turkey? That the AKP's religious schooling programs are evidence of theocratic intent? That Erdogan has been so reluctant to hamper or engage Daesh that one might justifiably suspect he sees them as a de-facto ally against the various Kurdish organizations?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend me good books about the kurd independence movement in Turkey and the PKK? A friend of mine is researching the subject for a paper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
So at what point does the Turkish military pull its customary coup and remove an excessively Islamist politician from power?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:We can leave the Egypt discussion for another time or PMs since it's likely to get me probated again, but what conclusion do you take issue with vis-a-vis Turkey? That the AKP is engaged in a movement to make their flavor of Islamism the sole legal and political power in Turkey? That the AKP's religious schooling programs are evidence of theocratic intent? That Erdogan has been so reluctant to hamper or engage Daesh that one might justifiably suspect he sees them as a de-facto ally against the various Kurdish organizations? Erdogan cares about one thing only and its Erdogan. But besides that you don't know about the Turkish brand of Islamism and you couldn't distinguish between Turkish conservatives and Turkish Islamists if you tried. As a matter of fact, the relations between the Turkish Islamist community and Erdogan is icy these days. The Islamist old guard of AKP is not happy with the direction the party is taking and they are particularly disturbed by Erdogan's cult of personality. Erdogan also allied himself with the nasty "deep state" elements after the corruption scandal, which has been the arch-enemy of Islamism for a very long time. The Turkish right has always been content to spout Islamic-sounding bullshit while shoving their social values on others and pretend they are principled Muslims while doing it. But a comprehensive transformation of legal system along Sharia lines has never been their real program. Because they would lose from that. Badly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Frionnel posted:Can anyone recommend me good books about the kurd independence movement in Turkey and the PKK? A friend of mine is researching the subject for a paper. Specifically the PKK, Paul White's Primitive Rebels or Revolutionary Modernizers is good - He's got a more up to date one coming out next week that I think is designed for a more popular audience. deets here Outside of really theoretical politics of nationalism stuff, David McDowall's Modern History of the Kurds is comprehensive if a bit overly dense - powering through the opening chapters where he attempts to cram a couple of hundred years into every page can be a bit painful but it's good "just the facts" overview.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/DrPartizan_/status/641671841380179968 quote:Dabiq 11 released by terror group ISIS. At the end it notes 2 new foreign hostages; 1 Chinese and other Norweigan.   Does Norway pay ransoms for stuff like this? It seems like China probably won't/wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
I really really really really really really really really really hope ISIS is going to royally piss off China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
China doesn't really seem the type to be involved in a foreign war far from their own borders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
The UK is thinking about starting something against them but we seem to have been farting about the issue for ages. My personal opinion is that we should do something because ignoring it makes no sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I really really really really really really really really really hope ISIS is going to royally piss off China. china won't do poo poo sadly. they are busy with the economy imploading and trying to fight over lovely islands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/us-norway-syria-idUSKCN0R92GV20150909quote:"The government is taking this very seriously," she said. "We cannot and will not give in to pressure from terrorists and criminals. Norway does not pay ransoms. That is a principle we cannot give up in meetings with cynical terrorists." So I guess in a month or so, ISIL's gonna publish two more execution videos. Goodbye Fan Jinghui and Ole Johan Grimsgaard-Ofstad, it loving sucks. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Any word on how they captured those two?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
fspades posted:Erdogan cares about one thing only and its Erdogan. But besides that you don't know about the Turkish brand of Islamism and you couldn't distinguish between Turkish conservatives and Turkish Islamists if you tried. As a matter of fact, the relations between the Turkish Islamist community and Erdogan is icy these days. The Islamist old guard of AKP is not happy with the direction the party is taking and they are particularly disturbed by Erdogan's cult of personality. Not icy enough that they are saying or doing anything worth mentioning against him, and they seem "happy" enough to organize false-flag organizations and conduct terror attacks on his behalf. The fact that other Islamists aren't entirely happy with their priorities does nothing whatsoever to convince me that they are not wannabe-theocrats. Daesh thinks Al Qaeda isn't Islamic enough and only cares about themselves. That doesn't make me think any better of Al Qaeda. Both are so utterly horrible that drawing distinctions between which one is worse is pointless, and I feel the same way when it comes to AKP vs the Muslim Brotherhood vs Hezbollah (oh wait, those last two are the same thing). fspades posted:Erdogan also allied himself with the nasty "deep state" elements after the corruption scandal, which has been the arch-enemy of Islamism for a very long time. You seem to be arguing from the unspoken assumption that de-facto sharia law encouraged and enforced by the government through extra-legal means while leaving a theoretically secular legal framework in place doesn't amount to theocracy. I don't agree with that conclusion. By creating an environment where political and religious groups aligned with them are, in your words, "shoving their social values on others", the AKP invites being labeled a theocratic movement. And incidentally, another good reason to rhetorically associate Erdogan and the AKP with the broader current of "Islamism" is precisely because, as you point out, Erdogan is an egomaniac dictator. The better to blacken the name of political Islam - because until that ideology is dead and buried, the middle east will remain one of the worst places in the world to live, no matter what economic or political progress the region makes in spite of Islamism. Mods, please note that I am solely discussing a political ideology here and not posting about the religion as such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Wait, in what sense do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah are the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
quote:Russia has sent two tank landing ships and additional aircraft to Syria in the past day or so and has deployed a small number of forces there, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, in the latest signs of a military buildup that has put Washington on edge. Remember when the US doing this would have been ~WW3~?  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN0R91TA20150909 Also regime airstrikes resumed in Syria today. 
Volkerball fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Is that naval base the only Russian interest in Syria?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:Is that naval base the only Russian interest in Syria? It's debatable how much of a role Tartus plays in Russian support for Assad. Syria is in Russia's sphere of influence, and has been for a very long time. Personally I think trying to uphold their geopolitical status is the biggest motivator, as there's been multiple reports about how Tartus is in a state of, uh, disrepair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
If it weren't for the misery that it'll heap on the Syrian civilians on the receiving end, I would welcome the idea of Putin sticking his hand in that meatgrinder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Remember when the US doing this would have been ~WW3~? Russia's aiding their longstanding ally in defense of one of their naval bases, whereas we would have been attacking a longstanding ally of Russia's which hosts one of their naval bases. Do you see the difference yet? I'm not under any impression that Assad's a good guy, and I doubt Russian intervention is going to be the magic bullet that brings peace to the devastated country (any more than US intervention has been or will be if we escalate), but given that there is disagreement between permanent members of the Security Council on the issue, Russia's actually abiding by international law more than we are in Syria since they're intervening at the request of the guy who still holds Syria's seat at the UN, whereas we've been dropping bombs in Syria's territory without any sort of authority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
quote:Assad, a longtime Russian ally, has seen the area he controls whittled down to a fifth or less of Syria’s territory after more than four years of grinding civil war. Worth noting that that's with arms shipments from Russia, probably tens billions of dollars worth of financial and military aid from Iran, on the ground miltary support from Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces, Hezbollah, (tens of?) thousands of Shia Islamist militiamen from Iraq, other smaller groups like the SSNP, and even Hazara fighters from Afghanistan. And now Assad is ramping up the recruitment drive at home even further, basically asking all military-aged men to join the fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Why has nobody from the regime taken out Assad yet? Are they all insanely loyal to him?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Remember when the US doing this would have been ~WW3~? Yes, because Russia was going to stop the US from intervening against Assad. Now NATO and the US are tut-tutting about Russia reinforcing Assad. This isn't something to be cheeky about. There is always more and it is always worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:Why has nobody from the regime taken out Assad yet? Are they all insanely loyal to him? Who the hell are they going to negotiate with after they've removed Assad? The jihadist portion of the opposition (I.E. virtually all of them) wants all Alawites and non-Muslims expelled or dead and hasn't been shy about saying so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:Why has nobody from the regime taken out Assad yet? Are they all insanely loyal to him? There was a busted coup attempt just recently. Nationalists within the regime are pissed at how dependent Assad has made Syria on foreign nations due to his incompetence necessitating it. Edit: Apparently the "mastermind" behind this coup has been seen at diplomatic meetings since then, so it's probably bs. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:Wait, in what sense do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah are the same thing? They're brown people who talk about Allah a lot. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Who the hell are they going to negotiate with after they've removed Assad? The jihadist portion of the opposition (I.E. virtually all of them) wants all Alawites and non-Muslims expelled or dead and hasn't been shy about saying so. Why do you think they can negotiate with Assad, who has inflicted the lions share of civilian casualties, attacked civilians with chemical weapons, and uses ceasefires as a tool to wipe out his opposition? Keeping ISIS around is objectively better than Assad remaining in power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
If you aren't good at stopping coups you don't last long as a lovely dictator. Of course setting up your army so it can't depose you cripples it, and then it starts losing to ISIS, but when nobody has any reason to be loyal to you, that's the risk you've got to take. Alternatively you could not be a dictator but let's not get crazy here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Seriously gently caress Assad for not conceding and holding elections when the demonstrations began. Let him rule his pile of ashes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
If he's still alive at the end of this, what does he even have? A small Alawite state by the coast, propped up by Russian aid and utterly devastated?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Why do you think they can negotiate with Assad, who has inflicted the lions share of civilian casualties, attacked civilians with chemical weapons, and uses ceasefires as a tool to wipe out his opposition? ISIS is a threat both inside and outside Syria's borders, whereas a victorious Assad would be ruling over a battered Syria posing no threat to anyone but his own people. Assad is a horrible tyrant who's unleashed unimaginable violence against the people of Syria, but he's fighting to hold on to power as a status quo entity, which is still better than ISIS' universalist theological insanity that they feel obligates them to wage war against even those of their own faith who mostly agree with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
When the Russians decide who to back, they literally just say "Who does the US oppose", don't they?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:ISIS is a threat both inside and outside Syria's borders, whereas a victorious Assad would be ruling over a battered Syria posing no threat to anyone but his own people. Assad is a horrible tyrant who's unleashed unimaginable violence against the people of Syria, but he's fighting to hold on to power as a status quo entity, which is still better than ISIS' universalist theological insanity that they feel obligates them to wage war against even those of their own faith who mostly agree with them. The status quo being what we have now. This is the best Assad has to offer. There's no stability, and drat sure no end to ISIS as long as he's in power. The US had more leverage towards ending the insurgency in Iraq than Assad has in ending it in Syria. You're also not taking into account that ISIS is not all encompassing of other rebel groups. They primarily own desert, and the majority of rebels fight against them. When Assad goes, you'll see just how true that is. In the meantime, we get this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:When the Russians decide who to back, they literally just say "Who does the US oppose", don't they? Tyrants gotta stick together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The status quo being what we have now. This is the best Assad has to offer. There's no stability, and drat sure no end to ISIS as long as he's in power. The US had more leverage towards ending the insurgency in Iraq than Assad has in ending it in Syria. You're also not taking into account that ISIS is not all encompassing of other rebel groups. They primarily own desert, and the majority of rebels fight against them. When Assad goes, you'll see just how true that is. In the meantime, we get this. ISIS hasn't exactly been stamped out in Iraq even without an Assad figure to point to. I do think they'll be defeated eventually just because their continued existence is an irritant to just about everyone, but so far every estimate about them losing has proven to be wildly optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:ISIS hasn't exactly been stamped out in Iraq even without an Assad figure to point to. I do think they'll be defeated eventually just because their continued existence is an irritant to just about everyone, but so far every estimate about them losing has proven to be wildly optimistic. Here comes Volkerball to say that if only Anbar had gotten control of the army and government of Iraq that there would be no ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:ISIS hasn't exactly been stamped out in Iraq even without an Assad figure to point to. ISIS was essentially gone in Iraq until Maliki tried to imprison al-Hashemi, disbanded the sahwat, and cracked down on protests. Then things got violent, the Shia militias showed up, courtesy of Iran, burning people alive for being named Omar, and poo poo went downhill fast. quote:I do think they'll be defeated eventually just because their continued existence is an irritant to just about everyone, but so far every estimate about them losing has proven to be wildly optimistic. Well yeah, but the initial estimates were that ISIS was the JV team. They obviously are not. The biggest issue is that the US is unprepared to work with any of the main forces fighting against them. Taking who those groups are out of the equation, when you are fighting a war against someone with like 50 ground troops on your side, you just aren't going to have much of an impact. Especially considering the US is only averaging about 18 airstrikes a day. During Desert Storm, they averaged over 1,000 a day. That the strategy is not working is not a testament to the strength and resolve of ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:When the Russians decide who to back, they literally just say "Who does the US oppose", don't they? Not precisely. They want people who are more beholden to them than to other competing major powers. This usually means focusing on folks who aren't even remotely in the US' pocket. Much like Priority A in Ukraine (secure Sevastopol at any cost), one of the original big reasons for supporting Assad is the naval base in Tartus, more-or-less Russia's only decent naval facility in the Mediterranean. Although they're working on an alternative in Cyprus, what with this whole minor dispute in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:If he's still alive at the end of this, what does he even have? A small Alawite state by the coast, propped up by Russian aid and utterly devastated? An Allawite rump state is leagues better than total annihilation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Not precisely. The base in Tartus is tiny compared to Sevastopol, it really can't support major fleet operations and there is a reason it exists, it wasn't enough to care about during the Cold War. Nevertheless in all honesty it is a probably a combination of factors, one of them simply may be much like the US, they are there to stomp out Islamic militants. If anything Russia itself is more vulnerable to Islamic militancy than the US and Russia has hqd its own "war on terror" for 2 decades. Russia really has no use for ISIS while they have plenty of experience in Afghanistan (in a sense at least) and Chechnya/North Caucasus with (very) mixed success. It will be interesting what equipment they are going to be using. Also, sure most of the rebels may oppose ISIS...they also include JaN and other Salafists in the Islamic Front. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 06:40
|
|
