ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Husar]

In fact, I'd say that the German type has created far more problems than the French one.

Our police aren't as brutal and corrupt nowadays. Maybe the french idea of aligning the people to the state gets in the way there.

[...]This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Or they should just pay the Jizza.

[HoreTore]

Our police aren't as brutal and corrupt nowadays. Maybe the french idea of aligning the people to the state gets in the way there.

When you start with the people instead of the state when building the nation, you will usually end up with parts of your people living outside the current state. Some such states may be willing to join into the new nationstate willingly(ie. Bavaria), but others may not want to join willingly(ie. Sudetenland).

If you start with a state and create a people, you won't end up with any people outside the nationstate.

[Viking]

Has splitting up a country ever resulted in the peace it was supposed to bring?

Take Sudan, did splitting that country up really make the north and south any more peaceful?

Yep, right under your feet is an example. In 1814, Sweden waged a war against Norway. In 1905 they threatened to do so again (but didn't). They aren't doing any of that stuff any more. The split-up of the country was most successful.

The problem with South Sudan is that many of the same elements that made the South Sudanese seek independence from Sudan are also present within South Sudan itself: several separate fundamental group identities exist. Most or all of these groups even have their own languages.

If the Sami had had their own sizeable cities* in Northern Norway, problems could have continued in Norway as well after the split-up; because of the strong Sami nationalism such cities likely could have given rise to.


* i.e. Sami-dominated cities. Even today the largest Sami-dominated municipalities seem to have less than 3 000 inhabitants.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Or they should just pay the Jizza.

ISIS aren't the legitimate authorities, they are a band of brigands.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Modern nation state building was done in two main ways. The German way, where they had a people, but needed a state, and the French way, where they had a state, but needed a people.

Iraq has a state, but lacks a people. I don't see why Iraq shouldn't be able to create a people like the French did. The German way of nation building is not the only one proven to work. In fact, I'd say that the German type has created far more problems than the French one.

The culture is different and the intellectuals are not involved in public affairs if they have chosen to remain at all. There was a time when Arab intellectuals attempted to lead the middle east into a pan-arab state in the "German" manner you have described. But Cold War politics killed that movement and the reality is that self determination not conglomeration is the goal among those who lead the public AKA the religious authorities.

This is where a distinction comes in that not many people are aware of - many of these Iraqi Christians are members of the Roman Catholic Church, but not the Latin Church. Confusingly, you have many churches within a church. Kind of like in the UK where you have four countries within a country.

The Roman Catholic Church is made up of 23 churches. The overwhelming majority of its followers belong to the Latin Church, which is what most of us know as Catholicism - the church of Western Europe and the New World. But there are 22 much smaller churches which are mainly Eastern/Orthodox churches that have chosen to recognise the claims of Papal supremacy. In retaining their status as separate churches within the Roman Catholic Church, they are able to carry out their rituals and worship in their traditional manner (which is more in line with Eastern/Orthodox churches than the Latin Church), while still enjoying communion with the Pope in Rome.

It is to these smaller churches within the Catholic Church that many Iraqi Christians belong. Whether or not it is a majority of Iraqi Christians, I am not sure. Still, those I described above are ultimately Catholics.

Well by your own admission, the classification of these sects are confusing. Even if they fall under the umbrella of Catholicism, it is a question of whether or not Latin Church members and Protestant sects will identify with these orthodox but Papal recognizing Christians. That is something I highly doubt.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well by your own admission, the classification of these sects are confusing. Even if they fall under the umbrella of Catholicism, it is a question of whether or not Latin Church members and Protestant sects will identify with these orthodox but Papal recognizing Christians. That is something I highly doubt.

Well, Western Catholics don't call themselves 'members of the Latin Church', they call themselves Catholics. If the media was calling these Iraqi Christians 'Catholics', then I think there would be more of an uproar in the West.

But to call them Catholics would be inaccurate because not all of them are in communion with Rome. Sadly we in the West don't feel such a shock factor when we see Eastern/Orthodox Christian involved in tragedies, we're used to that after all - eg Serbs in the Yugoslav Wars, Russian Christians under communism, etc.

If they heard this was happening to fellow Catholics it might hit home a bit more.

[HoreTore]

Yep, right under your feet is an example. In 1814, Sweden waged a war against Norway. In 1905 they threatened to do so again (but didn't). They aren't doing any of that stuff any more. The split-up of the country was most successful.

And if our politicians had any brains back then, we would have continued in the Union and refer to ourselves as Swewegians today. And there would have been much rejoicing.

Anyway, Viking, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sweden-Norway was not one country, but a union of two. We're talking about splitting countries, not unions with well-defined borders between countries.

The general point is that I can't see why splitting up Iraq will result in peace&prosperity&unicorns rather than brutal wars of dominance and border drawing. Ie. Yugoslavia.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Eventually, the wars will give away and the borders will be cemented between the new nations to emerge. This will ultimately give a better longer lasting peace than continuing resentment and hostility between different ethnic groups forced to share a parliament.

Multi state solution in Iraq, multi state solution in Palestine. Let communities rule over themselves.

[HoreTore]

Eventually, the wars will give away and the borders will be cemented between the new nations to emerge. This will ultimately give a better longer lasting peace than continuing resentment and hostility between different ethnic groups forced to share a parliament.

Multi state solution in Iraq, multi state solution in Palestine. Let communities rule over themselves.

And the current French republic sees a lot of resentment and hostility between the Occitans and Bretons? Several harmonious nationstates have been created in the French way. Eventually, like the border wars, the resentment will go away. Eventually, the feelings of identity will (all but) disappear.

What happened last time a piece of Iraq split from the motherland? Did it create peace on earth, or a rather brutal war?

[a completely inoffensive name]

And the current French republic sees a lot of resentment and hostility between the Occitans and Bretons? Several harmonious nationstates have been created in the French way. Eventually, like the border wars, the resentment will go away. Eventually, the feelings of identity will (all but) disappear.

Remember that Kuwait split from Iraq not that long ago. That didn't create any wars, did it?

Remember that the French and Flemish created a collapsed Belgian government? Where is that harmonious French way you are talking about there?

[Viking]

Anyway, Viking, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sweden-Norway was not one country, but a union of two. We're talking about splitting countries, not unions with well-defined borders between countries.

Iraqi Kurdistan has it's own flag, parliament, language (Kurdish is Indo-European while Arabic is Semitic) and official borders. It's more like comparing two types of apples.

The general point is that I can't see why splitting up Iraq will result in peace&prosperity&unicorns rather than brutal wars of dominance and border drawing. Ie. Yugoslavia.

Or you could say that Yugoslavia should never have been created in the first place as it had a high likelihood of leading to conflict.

And the current French republic sees a lot of resentment and hostility between the Occitans and Bretons? Several harmonious nationstates have been created in the French way. Eventually, like the border wars, the resentment will go away. Eventually, the feelings of identity will (all but) disappear.

The French state was created in a different time. The role of central authority has changed a lot since then. Things like schoolbooks, official languages and media broadcasts change the way minorities experience the force of the central authorities. They make the contrasts between them and the majority/other groups more actively felt in everyday life and can inspire a greater awareness of own group identity, herein a desire to protect it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

These Christians (from my understanding) being exiled are not Catholic and they are certainly not Baptist. People won't care over here.

Chaldeans, and therefore "Catholic" but not "Roman Catholic". Having said that, while the Church today is not unified as it was before Chalcedon, the major branches now recognise each other as legitimate churches, for the most part/ Bear in mind, Protestants are the minority over the course of the world and Roman Catholicism is perfectly capable of growing crazies.

Also PVC, the Knights Templar were involved here.

Present yes, but my impression was that the massacre was carried out by Anglo-Normans commanded by Richard personally. It's also worth noting that, contrary to wiki, Richard did it publically for Saladin's benefit, as he felt personally betrayed (Saladin having agreed terms for the exchange in bad faith).

I don't agree with PVC's concept of 'Holy War', however within the Protestant schools of thought at least, armed retaliation is fit and proper under certain circumstances, if it is carried out by the civil magistrate and not by the church.

I said nothing about Holy War, and it's not something I personally agree with - I merely make the point that Christianity has the intellectual machinery to spawn a religious "Just War" and if ISIS is allowed to run rampant without Western intervention then it becomes a question of "!when" and not "if".

I'm sure, 800 years ago, the Muslim princes would have laughed if we told them their society would descend into a dusty, barely functioning, hopelessly fractured, morass of corruption and religious extremism.

We should take the lesson.

Or they should just pay the Jizza.

As I recall, a lot of philosophers outside Germany told the Jews that the best thing for them was to submit to Nazi rule - with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, or at least significant parts thereof.

And the current French republic sees a lot of resentment and hostility between the Occitans and Bretons?

You bet they do - the French are just good at shouting them down and doing what I think of as "soft" ethnic cleansing, so a man like Brenus (who is Occitan apparently) is glad he can now speak only French and not the "patois".

It doesn't erupt into violence, for the most part, because French living is generally good and it's not worth dying for, but in Spain (which also tried to "create a people") the Basques do still fight back, although less than they did.

[HoreTore]

I'm not saying that creating a people ends peacefully, PVC, I am simply challenging the perception that creating a state for a people results in peace.

As I see it, both ways of creating a nationstate create tension and conflict. The difference in my opinion is that one creates internal conflict, while the other creates external conflict.

And I don't see external conflict as any better than internal conflict. Quite the opposite, actually.

In conclusion, I don't think that splitting up Iraq is the ultimate and/or only answer to the Iraqi question.

[Husar]

ISIS aren't the legitimate authorities, they are a band of brigands.

The Romans had also conquered the land previously. How long does a faction have to hold the land before it can be considered the legitimate authority and who decides that? Who decided that the Romans were the legitimate authority of Judea/Palestine at the time that was written?

As I recall, a lot of philosophers outside Germany told the Jews that the best thing for them was to submit to Nazi rule - with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, or at least significant parts thereof.

We are talking about the teachings of the bible, the ones which were quoted, neither the catholic church nor philosophers put too much stock into those so I'm not sure why you bring these groups up now. Jesus never taught the Jews nor his followers to resist the illegitimate Roman conquerors who were occupying their land, instead, when asked, he told them to pay their taxes due to the Romans.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Chaldeans, and therefore "Catholic" but not "Roman Catholic". Having said that, while the Church today is not unified as it was before Chalcedon, the major branches now recognise each other as legitimate churches, for the most part/ Bear in mind, Protestants are the minority over the course of the world and Roman Catholicism is perfectly capable of growing crazies.

I just think you believe that Europe and the US have a higher religiosity than in reality. [I hope that doesn't come across as dismissive or insulting.] Perhaps in South America you might stir up some people. Africa has its fair share of extremist Christians in West and Central Africa, but they wouldn't be doing anything outside their usual purview in response to this forced exile.

All in all, I don't see any "christian" retaliation happening. ISIS will be dismantled (eventually) by other Muslims and secular governments.

[Husar]

If you think about it for a second. How can the Iraqi government form any sort of strategy for fighting the IS until the leadership issue is put to rest, at least temporarily. Plus the added bonus of the Kurdish government having to hold the IS off is it weakens both of them.

Good news everyone! (Insert farnsworth meme)

Iraq's Maliki quits to end deadlock http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28798033

Seems like Mr. Maliki thought about it for a few seconds and decided that I was right...

[rvg]

So, our journo got Allahu-akbared. This pretty much guarantees that we'll keep bombing ISIS until the bitter end and not just in Iraq but also in Syria. Guess they never got the memo that America doesn't get intimidated, it only gets upset; and once America gets upset, things begin to explode in a spectacular and entertaining fashion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So, our journo got Allahu-akbared.

Why do you have to put it like that.

[Kadagar_AV]

From what I have read, the Templars were actually quite nice and fair towards muslims... They were the Rangers of the medieval era, if you so like. Working with the natives with a carrot and a hell of a stick.

From what I have read, also, Hamas and Israel is competing in who can be most rogue on an international scale.



I think I wrote this before, some years ago... But I really believe we should build a wall around the middle east, put a motherload of cameras in, and occasionally toss some weapons, ammunition and food over the wall.

BEST. TV. SHOW. EVER.

"Hunger Games", eat your heart out.

[Fragony]

Rumour https://mobile.twitter.com/thisisand...30186250158080

Two pilots?

[Shaka_Khan]

Eventually, the wars will give away and the borders will be cemented between the new nations to emerge. This will ultimately give a better longer lasting peace than continuing resentment and hostility between different ethnic groups forced to share a parliament.

Multi state solution in Iraq, multi state solution in Palestine. Let communities rule over themselves.

I don't think ISIS will stop as long as they continue to get recruits and volunteers, and unless they reach their ultimate goal. They have an ambitious goal, which isn't limited to Iraq.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think ISIS will stop as long as they continue to get recruits and volunteers, and unless they reach their ultimate goal. They have an ambitious goal, which isn't limited to Iraq.

War won't stop because both sides want peace. As long as the kurds maintain a rigid border that isis can't push any further, then throwing more solders only hurts them. Eventually they will regroup and attack again but even religious fanatics will eventually ask themselves if resources are better spent somewhere else.

[rvg]

War won't stop because both sides want peace. As long as the kurds maintain a rigid border that isis can't push any further, then throwing more solders only hurts them. Eventually they will regroup and attack again but even religious fanatics will eventually ask themselves if resources are better spent somewhere else.

This rests on the assumption that isis will be allowed to exist as some sort of a quasi state. I don't think that will be the case as neither Iraq nor Syria would be content to maintain the status quo, and our air power will considerably worsen the situation for isis.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think ISIS will stop as long as they continue to get recruits and volunteers, and unless they reach their ultimate goal. They have an ambitious goal, which isn't limited to Iraq.

Infrastructure, logistics, money. Without these ISIS is a noisy annoyance. Attacking these is what pruned back al queada, it will be the tool that works here too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, our journo got Allahu-akbared. This pretty much guarantees that we'll keep bombing ISIS until the bitter end and not just in Iraq but also in Syria. Guess they never got the memo that America doesn't get intimidated, it only gets upset; and once America gets upset, things begin to explode in a spectacular and entertaining fashion.

I think it's due to a failure of the locals to understand the scale of America.

Lin Laden made the same mistake with 9/11.

Short of massive nuclear bombardment you can't cripple the US - and if you can't cripple the US, it will hit back.

It's ironic, given how hard the Islamic fighters go at it, that they think we can do so much less with so much more.

[Shaka_Khan]

War won't stop because both sides want peace. As long as the kurds maintain a rigid border that isis can't push any further, then throwing more solders only hurts them. Eventually they will regroup and attack again but even religious fanatics will eventually ask themselves if resources are better spent somewhere else.

Have you seen the map that ISIS used to show how far they plan on expanding? I'm not lying. They plan on expanding to western China. My Chinese friend told me that it was on the news in China. I'm not saying that ISIS is able to. I'm just explaining how peace is not in their minds for now. And being in a war with China means war for a long long time.

And I wonder what will happen if ISIS does terrorist acts on American land? Would the US send soldiers to Iraq and Syria?

[Fragony]

Why do you have to put it like that.

Why not, the guy who did it is someone with culture from London by the way. You just got to respect that.

oh oh ohhhhh, what did you haul in. Why don't people understand that what IS is doing is what their holy book tells them they should be doing.

Just more obviously so. Islam is a vile ideoligy, get over it lefties and other multiculti-curious, it's what it is and nothing else.

[Pannonian]

This rests on the assumption that isis will be allowed to exist as some sort of a quasi state. I don't think that will be the case as neither Iraq nor Syria would be content to maintain the status quo, and our air power will considerably worsen the situation for isis.

Syria isn't even sure what Syria will be yet, thanks to our politicking. Assad wouldn't be too happy with a strong ISIS, and were he in a stronger position he'd probably want to intervene in Iraq. But we haven't yet decided if we're going to let him live, let alone let him meddle abroad.

[rvg]

Syria isn't even sure what Syria will be yet, thanks to our politicking. Assad wouldn't be too happy with a strong ISIS, and were he in a stronger position he'd probably want to intervene in Iraq. But we haven't yet decided if we're going to let him live, let alone let him meddle abroad.

Back when we were about to smite Assad, ISIS was not a threat it is now. Situation on the ground has changed considerably, so we have to adjust our strategy. I'll take one hundred Assads over ISIS any day.

[HoreTore]

Back when we were about to smite Assad, ISIS was not a threat it is now. Situation on the ground has changed considerably, so we have to adjust our strategy. I'll take one hundred Assads over ISIS any day.

I can agree with this.