|
McDowell posted:They're anti-moderns, so they don't really fit neatly into American left/right categories. ISIS could be described as post-modern, really. They're brutal terrorists appropriating social media and menes to impose an anachronistic medieval kingdom.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
whatever7 posted:Iran really is the most progressive country in the Middle East with a working political system and a progressive society. I don't see much different between Iran's political system and the China's. Thanks to Bush getting rip of two of Iran's main foes Saddan and Taliban the US can't keep Iran down that much longer. Just a quick reminder that Iran hangs people from construction cranes for being gay. Lebanon is by far the most 'progressive' country in the Middle East, followed by Turkey (morso pre-AKP).
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I keep seeing this drive-by being called random. Alright, from a "gently caress them up on Christmas, Washington-Style," guerrilla warfare perspective I get that, but then why the MLG#360noscope$$$420$$$ video to glorify it? gently caress, why TAPE it? I mean, besides the very clear motivation to people not to help your enemies... well, thanks for helping me understand they're very good at using fear and propaganda, I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:ISIS could be described as post-modern, really. They're brutal terrorists appropriating social media and menes to impose an anachronistic medieval kingdom. That is the funny thing about post-modernity, you can be both post and anti-modern. Or you could say that a complete rejection of modernity is one outcome of a post-modern mindset, using the tools available regardless of dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, at least on the legislative level and partly at the executive, Iran is multi-party even if a un-elected authority has effectively a veto. If anything Ahmadinejad was a boon to the neo-conservatives simply because he made Iran seem far more extreme than it really was and is. From what I remember of my comparative government class in college, I was really surprised (especially learning this in the height of the bomb-bomb-Iran era in 2006) to learn the Iranian system of government/Majlis, when taken together, practically mirrored the American system of government. All you need to do is make the Supreme Court clerics instead of lawyers, and also give them the final say on legislation instead of the president. Boom, Iran. Funniest thing is the people in the US that are itching for war with Iran desperately want their system of government the most.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:Alright, from a "gently caress them up on Christmas, Washington-Style," guerrilla warfare perspective I get that, but then why the MLG#360noscope$$$420$$$ video to glorify it? gently caress, why TAPE it? I mean, besides the very clear motivation to people not to help your enemies... well, thanks for helping me understand they're very good at using fear and propaganda, I guess. I wonder if it's possible to engender empathy this way as well. Perhaps the solution to the I/P conflict is fifteen years of Facebook games featuring Israeli and Palestinians living peacefully side by side?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
So... What happens if ISIS actually manages to take Baghdad and assume control of Iraq? Does Iraq get glassed by Israel or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:So... What happens if ISIS actually manages to take Baghdad and assume control of Iraq? Does Iraq get glassed by Israel or what? Not immediately, no, but yeah the end result is probably nukes fly, everyone dies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Not immediately, no, but yeah the end result is probably nukes fly, everyone dies. Realistically wouldn't the surrounding countries just arm their boarders (except Syria who doesn't really have that capability at the moment), then put in some international sanctions in place occasionally condemn anything they do that happens to make it to the international news, but pretty much just let it play out. Pretty much just treat it as another North Korea. I could see Iran, Russia, Turkey or the US arming rebel groups inside a IS run state, but would any of those countries have the political will for an actual invasion? (legitimate question, I really have no idea.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:My fear is that this ends up like the Taliban, where everyone goes, "Not my problem. This has got me wondering: What similarities are there between ISIS and the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Are any of which on speaking terms with each other (I know Al Qaeda isn't)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 07:19
|
|
" until they, I don't know, harbor an international criminal when a major western power wants revenge or something.
|
McDowell posted:That is the funny thing about post-modernity, you can be both post and anti-modern. Or you could say that a complete rejection of modernity is one outcome of a post-modern mindset, using the tools available regardless of dissonance. Its not just the tools they use they, by being so gung-ho against "innovation" in their religion they have become on of the biggest "innovation" them selves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
*edit: bugger how do I delete posts?*
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
The US evacuated the Libyan embassy today amid rising militant violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:This has got me wondering: What similarities are there between ISIS and the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Are any of which on speaking terms with each other (I know Al Qaeda isn't)? I wouldn't think IS and the Taliban are on speaking terms at all. We know the split about leadership between ISIS and al-Qaeda occurred after ISIS tried to absorb al-Nusra. That pissed al-Qaeda proper off and Mullah Omar was always seen as the heir apparent to any officially sanctioned Caliphate that bin Laden wanted. Speaking of which, al-Qaeda just renewed allegiance to Omar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Would it make any sense for any state to infiltrate IS given how open it is and probably lacks any good intelligence capability to detect spies? Or are their plans and assets pretty transparent that you wouldn't need to spy on them to get intel?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Concerning infiltraton of IS: It is not quite as easy as one may think. While basically anyone can become a rank and file ISIS dude, becoming a commander, or just a seargeant equivalent is a completely different story. If you came in from the "cold", you would have to do some pretty "intense" stuff to get enough brownie points to get there. Some stuff the Mudjahedeen demanded of Soviet infiltrators made pretty drat "tough" GRU agents flinch. IS is even worse. Even if you are there, there is a big problem with relaying that information back to your superiors. To this, you have to add Arab cultural mores concerning information sharing. The basic thing is, if they suspect an infiltrator, they have a couple of very legitimate ways to get him killed and not loose anything in exchange. In addition, there are the common issues with agents going native etc. What would be the most "usefull part" to infiltrate are the areas of IS that communicate with supporters/temporary allies outside of IS. Like, the links with the Baath faction in Iraq. These are people that have sources, than have enough C&C capacities to communicate their findings, and that arent very expendable. Russia very likely has such sources, although these are more on the other side (Baath side in this case, easier to infiltrate, and if caught, the Russians could likely extract their spies with a ransom) of such contacts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Would it make any sense for any state to infiltrate IS given how open it is and probably lacks any good intelligence capability to detect spies? Or are their plans and assets pretty transparent that you wouldn't need to spy on them to get intel? At least with Iraq, I think the situation is more likely to be reversed. Lots of rumors of ISIS sympathizers or even members in mid and upper echelons of the ISF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:This propaganda video was posted a while back in thread, its an hour of them randomly executing civilians and giving speeches: Someone's been watching way too much Menace II Society and Boyz n the Hood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:Alright, from a "gently caress them up on Christmas, Washington-Style," guerrilla warfare perspective I get that, but then why the MLG#360noscope$$$420$$$ video to glorify it? gently caress, why TAPE it? I mean, besides the very clear motivation to people not to help your enemies... well, thanks for helping me understand they're very good at using fear and propaganda, I guess. They taped it because it's good PR. It appeals to hotheaded Iraqi kids who don't like the government, which is good for ISIS, and it scares people who aren't hotheaded Sunni Islamists, which is also good for ISIS, at least in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
we should probably just put the ba'athists back in power. they did a ok job and its not like they can run the country further in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:we should probably just put the ba'athists back in power. they did a ok job and its not like they can run the country further in the ground. Anything but Maliki would be better at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Anything but Maliki would be better at this point. Baghdadi?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 11:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I don't want to cause a debate or insult anyone but a few months ago, when Obama was considering an intervention against Assad, I and other posters told you that "the others" were far worse. Assad as bad as he is, is considered in continental Europe as the only stable and not crazy-rear end motherfucker in the area, along with Iran. Putin is right when he says that the american foreign policy of the last 20 years has been run by incompetent idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I don't want to cause a debate or insult anyone but a few months ago, when Obama was considering an intervention against Assad, I and other posters told you that "the others" were far worse. Yeah, because Assad isn't the one who started this whole mess, right? It was Assad protecting the country from ISIS from day one by shooting peaceful protesters. Are you saying the legitimate Syrian opposition is crazy or has been crazy from the start? Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I don't want to cause a debate or insult anyone but a few months ago, when Obama was considering an intervention against Assad, I and other posters told you that "the others" were far worse. I don't mean to say I told you so, but my theory lead to the Islamic State taking over half of Iraq and a big chunk of Syria. Checkmate interventionists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Yeah, because Assad isn't the one who started this whole mess, right? It was Assad protecting the country from ISIS from day one by shooting peaceful protesters. I am saying that americans are idiots and when it comes to foreign policy even a guy like Putin is better than them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I don't want to cause a debate or insult anyone but a few months ago, when Obama was considering an intervention against Assad, I and other posters told you that "the others" were far worse. To be clear were you in favour or opposed to intervention by Obama?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
I was against it. Each and every american involvement in the middle east after the second world war has had long-lasting negative effects. In this specific case, Obama was going to bomb the only good guy in the area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
I was right, see guys, told you so! Assad isn't that bad! Putin rules! America drools! I think that's a BINGO for me. Cippalippus posted:In this specific case, Obama was going to bomb the only good guy in the area. Please, please, please do a few hours of research and realize how utterly ridiculous and insulting this is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I was against it. Each and every american involvement in the middle east after the second world war has had long-lasting negative effects. In this specific case, Obama was going to bomb the only good guy in the area. So if Assad were to have stepped down in the face of large protests instead of bombing and killing said protests do you think ISIS would be even stronger?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
It's funny until you realize that american interventions in the Middle East have only worsened the situation, and then you come to realize that Bush and Obama's only difference with Assad doesn't lie in their ability or will to do good deeds for the world, but simply in how they seized power. As for Putin, you'd really be crazy to think he has caused less problems to the world than the last 13 years of american foreign policy. ReV VAdAUL posted:So if Assad were to have stepped down in the face of large protests instead of bombing and killing said protests do you think ISIS would be even stronger? Assad stepping down has never been a serious option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Calling Assad a good guy is ridiculous, but is he the lesser of two evils? How was Syria before their civil war started, I thought it was one of the better places in the Middle East? The only good guys are certain parts of the Syrian opposition that are both weaker than ISIS or Assad. It will probably end very badly. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Concerning infiltraton of IS: This. We're talking participating in rape, mutilation and probably even worse poo poo. It's not that there's not HUMINT agents willing to do it, it's that it's really hard faking being a nihilistic torture-executioner till you make it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:
Funny that the "only good guy in the region" would rather bomb protesters than relinquish his dictatorial powers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:Please, please, please do a few hours of research and realize how utterly ridiculous and insulting this is. Just because you don't agree it doesn't mean that it's true. I've been in Syria a number of times in the 90s, and the only reason why minorities weren't busy in the area's favorite hobbies (mass torture and murder) was the Syrian regime. Democracy simply isn't the best solution to every problem, and while Assad's Syria definitively needed modernization and better democratic participation of its people, throwing him out with a revolution was a bad idea from the first minute. Now, wether you like it or not, he is effectively the good guy in the area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Assad stepping down has never been a serious option. That isn't a response though. Assad created the civil war with his extremely brutal response to the protests and the civil war undeniably empowered ISIS given at that point they were a small faction in Iraq. If Assad is a necessary and good guy then you really need to prove how a Syria without Assad would be in an even worse state now. Syria pulled out of Lebanon in the face of protests that had US backing and that multi-ethnic region, while certainly not in amazing shape, is far from an ISIS hell hole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
That makes little sense. While things were -stable-, the regime still carried out the murder, kidnapping and torture. What we're seeing in Syria would happen anyway, just instead of now, it would happen when an Assad died without having an heir palatable to the rest of the junta. It is not inherently worse or better that the destabilization happens now. What IS bad is that the international community just funnels money and arms into the hands of psychos even worse than Assad, and that we can do something about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:If Assad is a necessary and good guy then you really need to prove how a Syria without Assad would be in an even worse state now. This is a probatio diabolica at best and a futile waste of time at worst. You can't seriously make "what if" scenarios that aren't strictly fiction. Tias posted:That makes little sense. While things were -stable-, the regime still carried out the murder, kidnapping and torture. What we're seeing in Syria would happen anyway, just instead of now, it would happen when an Assad died without having an heir palatable to the rest of the junta. It is not inherently worse or better that the destabilization happens now. Do not overestimate Assad's crimes. His main crime, if we want to talk about it, is inheriting a brutal state and not doing enough to change it, but Syria as a whole was improving under his helm. Enough? Certainly not. But now there aren't other options on the table. Realistic options, I mean. Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Suffice to say I disagree. Improvements in economy and infrastructure mean precisely gently caress-all if you can't say what you want without being disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Do not overestimate Assad's crimes. His main crime, if we want to talk about it, is inheriting a brutal state and not doing enough to change it, but Syria as a whole was improving under his helm. Enough? Certainly not. But now there aren't other options on the table. Realistic options, I mean. If only those pesky protestors didn't leap in front of those bullets! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:42
|
|
