The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[OptimusPrime]

Libertarianism is an interesting perspective.

This isn't 1939. Threats are not merely confined to symmetric threats or national militaries. Isolationism is as useful as the Queen Mary these days.

This discussion has zero to do with libertarianism. This is about common sense. There is nothing isolationist about staying out of the wars of other countries. There is nothing isolationist about refraining from inciting revolutions and overthrowing foreign governments.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

I don't think it's possible to say, with the amount of materials and sheer amount of weaponry that is available to the radical Islamist in that region, we should just leave that part of the world alone.

The problem started when we felt like Saddam had overstepped his bounds and got involved into the humans rights issues that the middle east had in the mid to late 80's. We opened pandora's box and found that maybe the homicidal maniacs we thought were the worst people on earth were really just keeping the devil at bay.

I'd assume the same thing would happen if we got involved in African problems. Which we would never do...since they don't have oil.

I think isolationism would lead to big problems, bigger problems than we have now. They view us as invaders, just trying to finish off the crusades and desolate Islam. The only way for them to prevail is to wipe us off the map. We invoked this hate, we have to deal with this hate.

I'm not sure if there is any exit strategy from the Middle East. I'm not sure there is a viable one that wouldn't end in mass genocide of a certain people.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Not a wise decision by ISIS to provoke the Jordanian Military.

It's one thing to try and take over the shattered state of Iraq. It's a whole other deal to try and take on Jordan. Good luck with that one, fuck faces.

Rather than blame IS for the protracted hostage crisis, the public at large and members of the pilot’s family have turned on the government. They are hitting the streets and faulting Amman for putting Jordanians into harm’s way in a war they say is not their own.

The finger-pointing has given rise to something even stronger: a full-throated antiwar movement.

Rallies in solidarity with Kassasbeh have quickly turned into anti-coalition protests, with participants denouncing the US and its allies as “cowards” who are “using Jordanian blood” to fuel their war against the Islamic State.

Protesters have even gone as far as challenging King Abdullah himself – rallying outside the gates of the Royal Palace and demanding “Abdullah, why are we fighting?” or resorting to more personal jabs such as “Abdullah II, where are you?”

The anti-coalition movement has also flourished online. Activists have gathered under an Arabic hashtag on Twitter that translates as #NotOurWar, organizing protests, calling on Jordanian authorities to withdraw from the war against IS, and detailing the civilian deaths caused by coalition bombing runs.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...s-feeding-an-antiwar-movement-in-Jordan-video

The Jordanian people are a lot smarter than we are apparently.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

I'd imagine a lot of those anti war people in Jordan have some sort of connections to ISIS in some way. The other half are probably anti-war from the start.

Make no mistake, Jordan will do anything the King commands. Because King Abdullah is both a strong US ally and has a strong military, it'd take full blown, massive insurgency for Abdullah to fall.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I trust our national security agencies enough to protect us from terrorist threats if they try to hit us here.

I know this will never happen though, just wish it would.

I have a lot more fear of our national security agencies than any terrorists, but on to your main point. You're right, the U.S. will never leave the Middle East until it falls apart economically. And main reason is to postpone falling apart economically. If OPEC started trading oil for something other than U.S. dollars, the demand for U.S. dollars worldwide would crash immediately. Trillions would wash back on our shores, the dollar would collapse, and we would get to enjoy Weimar style hyperinflation, almost certainly accompanied by martial law to keep the peasants in line. So in order to drag this out a little longer, we need American guns pointed at every brown skinned human with oil under his feet.

 

[JSS2306]

I have a lot more fear of our national security agencies than any terrorists, but on to your main point. You're right, the U.S. will never leave the Middle East until it falls apart economically. And main reason is to postpone falling apart economically. If OPEC started trading oil for something other than U.S. dollars, the demand for U.S. dollars worldwide would crash immediately. Trillions would wash back on our shores, the dollar would collapse, and we would get to enjoy Weimar style hyperinflation, almost certainly accompanied by martial law to keep the peasants in line. So in order to drag this out a little longer, we need American guns pointed at every brown skinned human with oil under his feet.

This post is the internet in a nutshell. Just uninformed, useless opinion based in fear and no specific facts from anyone associated with rational thought. No offense to Optimus, but I'm glad this type of sentiment has died down since the economy has improved. The end of the world did not happen and Obama wasn't a witchdoctor. Color me surprised.

 

[Sebastian]

This discussion has zero to do with libertarianism. This is about common sense. There is nothing isolationist about staying out of the wars of other countries. There is nothing isolationist about refraining from inciting revolutions and overthrowing foreign governments.

Your views have everything to do with your Libertarian values. Far from common sense, using the widely accepted definition, you espouse a far from common and unique world-view that is clearly from the Libertarian handbook. I think most can guess your opinion on any given topic based off what the standard Libertarian line on the issue is. Not saying it is a bad thing; like I said, I find it interesting at an intellectual level.

Your views are either Isolationist or Non-Interventionist. You have frequently said the US should only use force if someone is "about to cross the ocean" or if the Homeland is directly attacked. You are against any sort of military intervention and dismiss the notion that the US has valid interests outside the Homeland.

So, the question is, do you believe the US should remain engaged at the international level via treaties, agreements and various other international agencies? If your answer is no than you are an Isolationist. If yes, a Non-Interventionist.

 

[theSwayze]

It's more complicated than that, but, yes, the United States from 2008-2012 funded, armed by proxy, and even trained -- yes trained -- Syrian rebels in Jordan and many of those rebels broke with the al-Nusra Front and other Syrian rebel factions and joined al-Baghdadi in Iraq. It is widely believed that the majority of Syrian components (personnel, armaments, etc) to the Islamic State were funded and provided by other Arab and/or Western powers originally intended to combat Assad.

Had the United States not involved itself, or it's proxy states, it is highly unlikely the Islamic State would have had the means, motive, or opportunity to do what they've done; beginning with the decision to invade Iraq, to the botched attempts to overthrow Assad, to the failed attempt to nation-build in an Iraq that should have been broken apart into three states.

I'm a little confused by the response.
I was responding to Optimus saying "the U.S. essentially created the Islamic State to overthrow Assad" Which doesn't track with my understanding of this at all. Assad played a significant role in the creation and success of ISIS. Assad let some hardcore jihadis out of jail for no reason- many of them are now highly placed within ISIS-coincidence?. He helped them grab some oil resources (or at least made sure the Syrian army left them alone) and continues to fund and support them on multiple levels- including buying oil from them. He's buying oil from the squatters on his own oil fields. Assad strikes me as a bathe in the blood of your enemies kind of guy- not the buying oil from squatters on his own oil fields kind of guy. His motive is to help to create an Islamist threat that can and will prevent the US from getting fully into his business and he's done a really good job of it.

In attempting to quell the opposition in 2011, Assad opened prison doors, letting out jihadists who later became the founders of ISIS, a radical group that has been terrorising the Syrian population, and in doing so, confirming the regime's narrative that it is engaged in a fight against Islamist extremism. Reports from Syria show that the regimehas been cooperating with ISIS both directly and indirectly, allowing ISIS access into certain towns, refraining from bombing areas under ISIS control, and even buying petrol from oil wells run by ISIS in the north.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html

 

[Sebastian]

Evidently, the Jordanians are pulling those six ISIS prisoners out of their cells right now. Looks like they are making good their promise to hang them from a gibbet. For perspective, Jordan has only executed eleven prisoners since 2006; far less than Texas.

Good job, ISIS. Piss off the Jordanians. Always a good idea.

 

[Chris]

Evidently, the Jordanians are pulling those six ISIS prisoners out of their cells right now. Looks like they are making good their promise to hang them from a gibbet. For perspective, Jordan has only executed eleven prisoners since 2006; far less than Texas.

Good job, ISIS. Piss off the Jordanians. Always a good idea.

Ha, I didn't know that. Jordan doesn't fuck around I guess.

The pilot being burned alive was just horrific. Every time I think they can sink no lower, ISIS shocks me again.

At this point they are pissing off everybody though and they don't care. Eventually something has to give.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

Jordan, for the hell of it, also executed one of the aides to Zarqawi tonight.

Jordan is pretty much in fuck the world mode right now.

 

[JSS2306]

Ha, I didn't know that. Jordan doesn't fuck around I guess.

The pilot being burned alive was just horrific. Every time I think they can sink no lower, ISIS shocks me again.

At this point they are pissing off everybody though and they don't care. Eventually something has to give.

Did you happen to see the video? I just watched it... The pictures are nothing compared to the actual clip.

I gotta say, I'm pretty desensitized and it got to me. It's up there with the worst all-time. This was not an instantaneous death. You hear stories about WW2 and the Nazi's but this just happened for the world to see in 2015.

 

[gourimoko]

Did you happen to see the video? I just watched it... The pictures are nothing compared to the actual clip.

I gotta say, I'm pretty desensitized and it got to me. It's up there with the worst all-time. This was not an instantaneous death. You hear stories about WW2 and the Nazi's but this just happened for the world to see in 2015.

Dunno how on Earth this video could be considered in the "worst of all time," but maybe I've just seen more fucked up shit, it's all subjective so I guess.

My main point is that, while watching the video, and because I speak Arabic, I think that maybe I got the message more so than most other Americans. I'm not saying I agree with them or their message by any means, but you can surely, even through only the images at least understand what they were doing right?

This wasn't like the slaughter and beheading of the aid workers and journalists like before -- this was a full on production. They literally staged a major scene like this, and then burned a man alive and then buried him in the rubble that "he created."

Thousands of Arabs and Muslims will see this video, and embrace the message a lot more than they would of journalists and aid workers being butchered.

Instead, this was a pilot who was obviously waging war on Iraq and Syria. However we or ISIS choose to frame it, this guy was not innocent, and the makers of this film made sure that anyone watching it without any preconceived notions would get that from the perspective of the Islamic State, this man was not only a murderer, but a traitor.

Do I think he deserved what he got? Definitely not. But I can understand why those being bombed might think a bit differently.

With that, I think it's important that I re-emphasize that I'm 100% behind the Geneva Convention, even though our government and the Islamic State is not. I'm 100% against torture, even though our government and the Islamic State is not. And 100% behind the humane and dignified treatment of those captured while waging war, even though our government and the Islamic State is not. But those aren't the rules that either side have been playing by; again, including ours.

I just can't get behind the idea that it's seemingly beyond comprehension what they've done over there to a captured pilot, when we have committed similar acts to varying degrees to those we have captured, innocent, guilty, or otherwise. Not only that, but you don't have to go far in this thread and others to see posters justifying those acts of torture, rape and murder against people in our custody. Now indignation?

What am I missing? And I'm not saying this rhetorically. I genuinely think I am in another universe than some of you and I just want to understand the rationale. Am I wrong to think these acts are marginally equivalent?

From my perspective though, I can't really understand why I see the world so very differently than some of you. I grew up in America, in Cleveland, just like most of you did. I'm not Muslim, I'm Roman Catholic, but as an Arab-American I have studied Islam extensively.. I love my country, and I've done everything I can from activism to volunteerism and yes, even protesting, to make it the best place on Earth for me and my family. But with that said, I don't understand how some can just turn a blind eye to what our government has done and how that affects perceptions of those around the world who would be radicalized.

How can you not really see the parallels between the Islamic State killing someone and our own government killing someone? In the video, they describe the civilian deaths that resulted from the Arab coalition bombing thus far. Again, they are attempting to justify their propaganda piece, of course, but surely this - the killing of a combatant - is very similar to what we have done in the name of preserving the peace?

I'm just trying to understand the logic from a rational viewpoint. I'm trying to nullify any double-standards, any self-contradictory logic, doublethink that might allow one to justify the actions of his own state while criticizing the same actions by another state.

Maybe it's just late and I'm not fully grasping the ethical, logical, portion of this; and this doesn't seem like something I'd say as I actually support the bombing of ISIS in Iraq and Syria (in fact, I think it should be ramped up). I'm just trying to understand if and why some think this act is somehow worse than the things we as a nation have done in very recent history to these same people.

 

[Sebastian]

Dunno how on Earth this video could be considered in the "worst of all time," but maybe I've just seen more fucked up shit, it's all subjective so I guess.

My main point is that, while watching the video, and because I speak Arabic, I think that maybe I got the message more so than most other Americans. I'm not saying I agree with them or their message by any means, but you can surely, even through only the images at least understand what they were doing right?

This wasn't like the slaughter and beheading of the aid workers and journalists like before -- this was a full on production. They literally staged a major scene like this, and then burned a man alive and then buried him in the rubble that "he created."

Thousands of Arabs and Muslims will see this video, and embrace the message a lot more than they would of journalists and aid workers being butchered.

Instead, this was a pilot who was obviously waging war on Iraq and Syria. However we or ISIS choose to frame it, this guy was not innocent, and the makers of this film made sure that anyone watching it without any preconceived notions would get that from the perspective of the Islamic State, this man was not only a murderer, but a traitor.

Do I think he deserved what he got? Definitely not. But I can understand why those being bombed might think a bit differently.

With that, I think it's important that I re-emphasize that I'm 100% behind the Geneva Convention, even though our government and the Islamic State is not. I'm 100% against torture, even though our government and the Islamic State is not. And 100% behind the humane and dignified treatment of those captured while waging war, even though our government and the Islamic State is not. But those aren't the rules that either side have been playing by; again, including ours.

I just can't get behind the idea that it's seemingly beyond comprehension what they've done over there to a captured pilot, when we have committed similar acts to varying degrees to those we have captured, innocent, guilty, or otherwise. Not only that, but you don't have to go far in this thread and others to see posters justifying those acts of torture, rape and murder against people in our custody. Now indignation?

What am I missing? And I'm not saying this rhetorically. I genuinely think I am in another universe than some of you and I just want to understand the rationale. Am I wrong to think these acts are marginally equivalent?

From my perspective though, I can't really understand why I see the world so very differently than some of you. I grew up in America, in Cleveland, just like most of you did. I'm not Muslim, I'm Roman Catholic, but as an Arab-American I have studied Islam extensively.. I love my country, and I've done everything I can from activism to volunteerism and yes, even protesting, to make it the best place on Earth for me and my family. But with that said, I don't understand how some can just turn a blind eye to what our government has done and how that affects perceptions of those around the world who would be radicalized.

How can you not really see the parallels between the Islamic State killing someone and our own government killing someone? In the video, they describe the civilian deaths that resulted from the Arab coalition bombing thus far. Again, they are attempting to justify their propaganda piece, of course, but surely this - the killing of a combatant - is very similar to what we have done in the name of preserving the peace?

I'm just trying to understand the logic from a rational viewpoint. I'm trying to nullify any double-standards, any self-contradictory logic, doublethink that might allow one to justify the actions of his own state while criticizing the same actions by another state.

Maybe it's just late and I'm not fully grasping the ethical, logical, portion of this; and this doesn't seem like something I'd say as I actually support the bombing of ISIS in Iraq and Syria (in fact, I think it should be ramped up). I'm just trying to understand if and why some think this act is somehow worse than the things we as a nation have done in very recent history to these same people.

You bring up an interesting point regarding their perception of his perfidy. As you say, the production values and the sheer venality employed in this execution can only be the product of the venom reserved for traitors. This is their magnum opus of terror and it was directed at who some would perceive as one of their own; a fellow Arab in the employ of Satan.

Regarding your other points, I don't disagree insofar as I hold the US to a higher standard than our enemies and that our conduct reflects on everyone in America. What is done in all our names is horrific and it is far from being worthy of cheer. When one claims the moral high-ground, one must practice what one preaches. Even from a pragmatic stand-point, those who supported our use of torture (and it was, trust me) cannot be so deluded as to think it gave us any real tactical advantage to say nothing of the strategic damage it did to our entire war effort. Those who think the torture was justified should read A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962 and understand how counter-productive such actions are.

Vengeance is a poor substitute for victory.

 

[gourimoko]

You bring up an interesting point regarding their perception of his perfidy. As you say, the production values and the sheer venality employed in this execution can only be the product of the venom reserved for traitors. This is their magnum opus of terror and it was directed at who some would perceive as one of their own; a fellow Arab in the employ of Satan.

Regarding your other points, I don't disagree insofar as I hold the US to a higher standard than our enemies and that our conduct reflects on everyone in America. What is done in all our names is horrific and it is far from being worthy of cheer. When one claims the moral high-ground, one must practice what one preaches. Even from a pragmatic stand-point, those who supported our use of torture (and it was, trust me) cannot be so deluded as to think it gave us any real tactical advantage to say nothing of the strategic damage it did to our entire war effort. Those who think the torture was justified should read A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962 and understand how counter-productive such actions are.

Vengeance is a poor substitute for victory.

Great post.

Also kudos for the mentioning of the Algerian revolution, my grandfather was martyred in that war against the French.