The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[kosis]

So...are you saying that to defeat ISIS, we need to withdraw from that region? I mean, their biggest period of growth coincided with us withdrawing most of our forces....

I don't know what the best solution is to eradicate ISIS. I just know that the US has had a stranglehold in the region for decades now and that influence doesn't seem to be going away. Groups like ISIS thrive on exploiting that real narrative and using it for their own gains.

I pretty much agree with this. There is certainly enough context/room for disagreement to follow Islam without violence.

Naturally. It's what virtually all Muslims do. Cannot stress enough that Islam wouldn't be popular, have high conversion rates, survive at all (specifically today) if it was a religion of hate and violence. You don't have to like it, but it's pretty ludicrous to think otherwise.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@kosis , there are those in this thread who believe that Islam is in itself, part of the problem; not willing to recognize that Islam is no different than Judaism or Christianity in this regard.

You mean in theory, or how they are actually practiced now?

Would you say that "Christianity itself was part of the problem" during the Crusades in the Holy Land, or the Albigensian Crusades, or the Inquisition, or any of the Church-inspired pogroms and persecution of heretics, etc.? I sure would. And I'd say that part of the problem in Palestine are Jews who adopt an extreme interpretation of the Old Testament. To that extent, Judaism is a part of the problem.

Those three religions all may be subject to interpretations that encourage violence -- on an individual if not state level -- but the reality in which we are currently living is that Christianity and Judaism both have, for the most part, moved passed such interpretations to a much greater degree than has Islam. And people are dealing with, and commenting upon, those religions as they are currently practiced. Although I do acknowledge there are also some people who believe that Islam is inherently and irretrievably violent. I'm not one of those, and I don't think anyone else here (at least) is making that argument.

As you pointed out, the Old Testament prescribes death for apostasy. But there aren't a lot of jews being put to death by other jews for abandoning their religion, and Israel does not forbid conversion by Jews. On the other hand, you have Muslim majority nations that have death penalties on the books for apostasy. And we're being pummeled almost daily with violent images of crimes being committed in the name of Islam. That doesn't make all Muslims guilty, and it doesn't make Islam inherently violent. But it does mean that Islam is part of the problem.

Issues such as apostasy, some aspects of sharia law, the relative unification of religious and secular authority in Islam as compared to Christianity and Judaism, are aspects of Islam that Muslims must address and correct.

 

[Sebastian]

Just going by what I read. Some retired military guy was talking about how ISIS would need a massive force to even think about assaulting the base, citing that the Marines there are not all Infantry but it's an academic distinction as every Marine is trained for combat.

So, like he said, moot point regardless.

Not sure what type of heavy weapons the Marines have, but I think the old doctrinal 3-1 numerical advantage when attacking a defended position is very inadequate in this case.

I would wager Daesh would need a 10-1 advantage to have a (small) chance.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't know what the best solution is to eradicate ISIS. I just know that the US has had a stranglehold in the region for decades now and that influence doesn't seem to be going away. Groups like ISIS thrive on exploiting that real narrative and using it for their own gains.

What U.S. "stranglehold"? The Ottomans ruled the Arabs for hundreds of years before we had any presence there at all. The French and British both ruled nations in that region as colonies -- we never did. The U.S. was instrumental in breaking French/British control over Egypt, and Suez in particular.

In fact, we basically had zero military presence there until Iraq invaded Kuwait, and radicalism already had a foothold there. As a matter of fact, I remember people saying that Saddam was keeping the lid on a nascent Sunni/Shi'ite civil war in Iraq. How are those pre-existing tensions our fault?

And if you want to point to U.S support that enabled the Saudi regime to stay in power, that pales in comparison to how the Soviets were arming/propping up dictators throughout that region for decades. It's no accident that the vast majority of the fighting over there is done with Soviet-supplied weapons.

Wholly apart from singling us out as the bad guy, or blaming "western interference", the truth is there was plenty of western interference in other parts of the world -- Africa, Asia (India in particular), etc.. Yet, we don't see non-Muslim oppressed Africans exploding bombs in London, or Hindus flying planes into the WTC. There was an extended U.S. occupation of Japan, and we still have troops in Korea. Yet, no Koreans flying planes into the WTC either.

And on the flip side, those two brothers who exploded that bomb at the Boston Marathon were Chechens. When the fuck have we ever oppressed Chechnya? Wouldn't the Russians have objected to that? And those Libyans who just murdered those Coptic Christians -- that's our fault? What "stranglehold" have we ever had over Libya?

There is a common thread among all those incidents, and it's not U.S. oppression.

Naturally. It's what virtually all Muslims do. Cannot stress enough that Islam wouldn't be popular, have high conversion rates, survive at all (specifically today) if it was a religion of hate and violence. You don't have to like it, but it's pretty ludicrous to think otherwise.

I'd just add that the exact same thing could be said about Christianity/Catholicism during its darkest days as well.

 

[gourimoko]

@The Human Q-Tip , @kosis is likely referring to the United States geopolitical influence and meddling in the region. It is widely known that we pursued a policy of encirclement around the Soviets by interfering in the governance of surrounding nations including Iran, Turkey, and Afghanistan in the Middle East, Asia, as well as Greece (particularly) in the Mediterranean. As part of this continued doctrine, Greece and Turkey were added to NATO in the early 50's. We also, since the end of WWII, used both diplomatic and covert means to prop up governments in many Middle East nations.

We talked about these revolutions, weapons deals, cash handovers, etc in another thread, almost all of which were largely hatched in the halls of the CIA and approved by various administrations going back to 40's and 50's.

Western dominance in the Middle East has been going on for over a century.

 

[gourimoko]

On the other hand, you have Muslim majority nations that have death penalties on the books for apostasy. And we're being pummeled almost daily with violent images of crimes being committed in the name of Islam. That doesn't make all Muslims guilty, and it doesn't make Islam inherently violent. But it does mean that Islam is part of the problem.

Concisely, how?

 

[JSS2306]

The problem with posting bits and not reading the actual Qur'an is evidenced above. Context paints a completely different picture.

I'm not trying to be religious in this thread, but let's not lie and twist text for your argument's sake...

Well I'm not lying or twisting anything. I merely posted verses from the Quran itself.

It also seems like the passages you posted that proceed the verses I quoted don't really say anything in regards to the violent rhetoric spewed just before it.

Am I missing something? I don't understand the context. To the ignorant, like myself, it looks like an ultimatum. "If you don't do this or you don't believe this, then beware. If you come around to my way of thinking, then we're cool."

Not trying to incite, just curious because one doesn't have anything to do with the other unless you really try to twist things into some subjective view. If that's the case, why not just... not say anything like that at all in the first place? I'd like to see your explanation of each verse and it's following verbage to see where you're coming from.

I'd also like to point out that those were only 8 paragraphs of the 109 that I found. I'd like to see what you have to say about each one if you have the time. I'm always trying to learn.

 

[Chris]

Not sure what type of heavy weapons the Marines have, but I think the old doctrinal 3-1 numerical advantage when attacking a defended position is very inadequate in this case.

I would wager Daesh would need a 10-1 advantage to have a (small) chance.

Even then, any sort of armor that ISIS can muster would have to be useless as they would be ridiculously easy targets for Coalition air power.

Would be kind of funny to see them try to attack the base as they'd probably be massacred, but who knows if they are that fanatical/dumb.

 

[Sebastian]

I'd just add that numbers can be deceiving, because there is a big difference between "troop" numbers, and numbers of actual trigger-pullers. The Daesh count is probably all/mostly all trigger pullers, with support being provided by other civilians. For us and the more conventional military forces, the tooth/tail ratio is a lot worse.

The big gorilla (potentially) is the Turks, but is there really a significant chance on them truly committing to the fight on a large scale? Because absent a major ground commitment by either the Turks or us, I don't see the RJA and IA having the necessary ground strength to defeat Daesh anytime in the foreseeable future. Although I still think that those forces plus heavy U.S. air support are probably enough to contain them from further expansion.

It seems the Turks are moving in the direction of active military operations.

That timetable will probably be shortened a great deal if/when Daesh burns some Turks on video.

 

[Sebastian]

Even then, any sort of armor that ISIS can muster would have to be useless as they would be ridiculously easy targets for Coalition air power.

Would be kind of funny to see them try to attack the base as they'd probably be massacred, but who knows if they are that fanatical/dumb.

If I were them I would do it. The chance to kill American troops is their scared cow. Not only will they be killing Satans incarnate, but also making further US intervention difficult. They don't have to take the base to gain a victory; US casualties is the real prize.

Imagine the uproar here if 50 Marines died repelling the assault. Obama may get boxed into the corner on further use of force.

 

[CleveRocks]

Yes. Their recruiting would be cut off. It would be a bit harder to convince people to die fighting other Arabs than it is to convince them to fight the occupiers and regimes propped up by the occupiers.

Not if you burn them alive or cut off their heads if they don't agree with you. If we leave, the native population capitulates to local power, whatever that is, just to survive.

As far as ISIL attacking the base, I would expect them to do it just for the advertising value. They don't have to win, just show they are willing to engage the Americans, knowing full well the American response will be limited.

 

[JSS2306]

Not sure where you are going with this..


The Qu'ran is no more bloody, or violent than the Bible.

There is plenty to question, for sure.

It seems like mindless drivel to me reading that. People have treated each other like that based on religion since the dawn of human intelligence. It sucks. At one time or another, the Christians did some of the very same things that we see a considerable portion of the Muslim population (not most) do to this very day.


There are 29,000,000 people in Saudi Arabia. They cut off the hands of thieves and behead women for crimes of murder. They stone women for adultery.

I think... that might be a problem. That doesn't include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran (who is moderate compared to others) or neighboring countries in time of transition from coalition forces.

There are tens of millions, possibly hundreds, that live in an "Islamic state" and that's not including extremists. By that I mean there is a large portion of the Arabic world that adhere's to laws strictly based on the religion of Islam.

 

[gourimoko]

There is plenty to question, for sure.

It seems like mindless drivel to me reading that. People have treated each other like that based on religion since the dawn of human intelligence. It sucks. At one time or another, the Christians did some of the very same things that we see a considerable portion of the Muslim population (not most) do to this very day.


There are 29,000,000 people in Saudi Arabia. They cut off hands and behead women for crimes of adultery.

I think... that might be a problem. That doesn't include Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Iran (who is moderate compared to others) or neighboring countries in time of transition from coalition forces.

There are tens of millions, possibly hundreds, that live in an "Islamic state" and that's not including extremists. By that I mean there is a large portion of the Arabic world that adhere's to laws strictly based on the religion of Islam.

Jss, the point is that if we adhered to the literal laws of the Bible, we'd be doing the exact same thing.

Our civilization, that being Western civilization has marginalized and reimagined the scriptures to be something other than the unique and exclusive source of morality and jurisprudence.

Some nations have not moved past this phase of thinking. But to say that's a fault of Islam is ridiculous. Again, we can both go on ad infinitum citing scripture to point out which religion is philosophically more inclined to violence than the other. I think that's an uninteresting conversation that's based more on personal perceptions than reality.

Instead, I think it's more constructive to talk about the geopolitical situations in these countries and how the differences between secular Islamic nations like Turkey, somewhat "moderate" Islamic nations like Malaysia, and more fundamentalist Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia and how these differences can account for the variances in public opinions towards fundamentalism, radicalism, and terrorism.

Why is radicalism more likely to take root in Pakistan than Indonesia?
Why is radicalism less likely to take root in Mindanao than in Morocco?
Why is radicalism less apparent in countries like Egypt and Tunisia and more so in countries like Saudi Arabia?

Where is this radicalism focused? Is it internal or external in it's goals? Is it internal or external in it's supply?

The answers to these questions is far more useful to a discussion about the causes of global terrorism than any comparison of myths and fables.

Simply saying "it's their religion" is just factually wrong, and not grounded in reality. There are other, far more important, driving forces towards terrorism.

 

[Chris]

If I were them I would do it. The chance to kill American troops is their scared cow. Not only will they be killing Satans incarnate, but also making further US intervention difficult. They don't have to take the base to gain a victory; US casualties is the real prize.

Imagine the uproar here if 50 Marines died repelling the assault. Obama may get boxed into the corner on further use of force.

Killing 50 Marines is worth the thousands of lives it would take for them to achieve that? They would kill 50 if they are lucky. But I do think they are crazy enough to do it. Killing 50 Americans really does nothing to help their cause. You think if they attack the base, are repelled, but kill some Marines in the process it will make us less likely to intervene more? I would think it would be the opposite.

Another serious thought: how many American troops died as a result of gunfire in firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan? This is strictly a guess but it seemed like IEDs and suicide bombers kill so many more. When these extremists go toe to toe with trained soldiers and Marines how many casualties are they really going to inflict in a conventional fight?

Not that they wouldn't use bombs...they've already tried attacking al-Assad with suicide bombers, right? And they failed miserably.

 

[JSS2306]

Jss, the point is that if we adhered to the literal laws of the Bible, we'd be doing the exact same thing.

Our civilization, that being Western civilization has marginalized and reimagined the scriptures to be something other than the unique and exclusive source of morality and jurisprudence.

Some nations have not moved past this phase of thinking. But to say that's a fault of Islam is ridiculous.

That's the point. Christians have.

The blame was on ideological Christian's in times of pure ignorance (which is as rich in history) just as the blame is on ideological Islamist's for their ignorance today. It shouldn't be tolerated either way.

There's no difference, I agree. The difference is, you and I are living in it when we are also having scientific discussions about the big bang. Based on the freedoms that I now enjoy as a human being, all forms of ignorance that delay the progression of our species due to philosophical ideology need to be eradicated.

The type of Islamic belief that is practiced by millions upon millions (a minority of the almost 2 billion), needs to be eradicated for the betterment of human society as a whole.

Something has to change.