ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

It's the rule of these secular dictators that have been enabling the islamists to be seen as decent alternatives. If Syria's secular dictatorship survives, with or without Assad, we risk seeing the islamist threat repeat every x years.

A secular dictator is not likely to be a part of a lasting stable solution anywhere in the islamic world, whether they are nutty colonels or grey-eyed suit wearers.

[Kadagar_AV]

For the record, I still think its very cool that we even have a Kurd in the backroom.

I remember when I thought it was cool to have a Kurd point of view... But then I moved back to Sweden, and I just have to get into a cab or go buy pizza.

As a sidenote: The Kurds in Sweden have totally got monopoly on the suburb pizza market... Maybe I wouldn't be so racist if it was actually Italians. I blame crappy pizza with a compelled political rant as side order.

[Pannonian]

It's the rule of these secular dictators that have been enabling the islamists to be seen as decent alternatives. If Syria's secular dictatorship survives, with or without Assad, we risk seeing the islamist threat repeat every x years.

A secular dictator is not likely to be a part of a lasting stable solution anywhere in the islamic world, whether they are nutty colonels or grey-eyed suit wearers.

So you reckon we should be paying for them to undergo the transitioning process. I'd rather we keep out of it until they sort out a liberal-ish democracy for themselves. The end results are more stable, we get less of the fall-out, and we save money. Better all-round for us, except we don't get to feel good about how pro-freedom we are. Having seen what that entails, I can do without that sense of satisfaction.

Thinking about it, have we yet seen a dictatorship that we've overthrown, that has gone through the religiosi stage, and successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy friendly to us?

[Brenus]

“Thinking about it, have we yet seen a dictatorship that we've overthrown, that has gone through the religiosi stage, and successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy friendly to us?” It might happen. But first, we have to stop to help dictators to kill/torture or train their security troops to kill/torture opponents under the pretext they are/were communists each time they ask for better wages and human rights.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It looks like the same has happened in Libya, with us removing a secular sob, followed by religiosi moving into the vacuum.

Throughout the Islamic world, their fundamentalists are often the first organized component to emerge from a chaotic situation. They have a clear ideology, a ready-made framework for governance, and credibility with those who take their religion seriously. It is little wonder they are often first off the mark.

Our failure to accurately account for this, despite repeated lessons, does annoy me.

[Shaka_Khan]

Throughout the Islamic world, their fundamentalists are often the first organized component to emerge from a chaotic situation. They have a clear ideology, a ready-made framework for governance, and credibility with those who take their religion seriously. It is little wonder they are often first off the mark.

Our failure to accurately account for this, despite repeated lessons, does annoy me.

Most of us in the Western world tend to confuse who the real bad guys are when not knowing the situation and the language enough. On the outside, the rebellions look like people with more similar views as us rebelling against a dictatorship. People who haven't traveled outside the Western world tend to generalize about the world outside the Western world. Maybe some of the rebels were seeking a more tolerant and democratic future, but it's apparent that they're unable to stop the extremist ones. Sadly, the people who seek a more peaceful and tolerant life in certain places of the Middle East are not powerful enough to defend themselves. We need to stand back and look carefully before we decide to intervene because we clearly didn't see the whole picture. Otherwise, we could end up helping the people who would harm us, and lose the people who were actually preventing those harmful people from becoming more powerful.

[Pannonian]

Most of us in the Western world tend to confuse who the real bad guys are when not knowing the situation and the language enough. On the outside, the rebellions look like people with more similar views as us rebelling against a dictatorship. People who haven't traveled outside the Western world tend to generalize about the world outside the Western world. Maybe some of the rebels were seeking a more tolerant and democratic future, but it's apparent that they're unable to stop the extremist ones. Sadly, the people who seek a more peaceful and tolerant life in certain places of the Middle East are not powerful enough to defend themselves. We need to stand back and look carefully before we decide to intervene because we clearly didn't see the whole picture. Otherwise, we could end up helping the people who would harm us, and lose the people who were actually preventing those harmful people from becoming more powerful.

I prefer Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad to the Islamist nutters that have replaced them or are threatening to replace them. They were/are at least reasonably predictable and limited in their scope, and certainly so from a western perspective.

[Shaka_Khan]

I prefer Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad to the Islamist nutters that have replaced them or are threatening to replace them. They were/are at least reasonably predictable and limited in their scope, and certainly so from a western perspective.

Those extremists make the dictators look sane in comparison.

[HoreTore]

Most of us in the Western world tend to confuse who the real bad guys are when not knowing the situation and the language enough. On the outside, the rebellions look like people with more similar views as us rebelling against a dictatorship. People who haven't traveled outside the Western world tend to generalize about the world outside the Western world. Maybe some of the rebels were seeking a more tolerant and democratic future, but it's apparent that they're unable to stop the extremist ones. Sadly, the people who seek a more peaceful and tolerant life in certain places of the Middle East are not powerful enough to defend themselves. We need to stand back and look carefully before we decide to intervene because we clearly didn't see the whole picture. Otherwise, we could end up helping the people who would harm us, and lose the people who were actually preventing those harmful people from becoming more powerful.

The revolution devours its own, nothing new here.

Revolutions tend to fail spectacularly, but that's no reason not to have them. I'd say that the most influential and important revolution in Europe was 1848, but none of those revolutions ended in anythign other than bloodshed and renewed oppression.

The arabian revolution may end in little other than bloodshed and renewed oppression, but that doesn't mean it's a negative.

[Fragony]

The revolution devours its own, nothing new here.

Revolutions tend to fail spectacularly, but that's no reason not to have them. I'd say that the most influential and important revolution in Europe was 1848, but none of those revolutions ended in anythign other than bloodshed and renewed oppression.

The arabian revolution may end in little other than bloodshed and renewed oppression, but that doesn't mean it's a negative.

Cooldown time. IS is already done for, they aren't there to stay. They are just incredibly cruel.

Their cruelty is their weakness.

[HoreTore]

Cooldown time. IS is already done for, they aren't there to stay. They are just incredibly cruel.

Don't know what you mean by 'cooldown time', but the rest is spot on. IS only gained ground because the Iraqi army is about as organized as a waste dump. Where they have encountered proper resistance(Assad, Kurds), they have crumbled. Further, the very nature of ISIS means its life expectancy is thankfully brief. They are rife with internal divisions, and their nature have isolated them from basically everyone else. Such a 'state' cannot exist for long before imploding or get rolled over by someone.

The only question is how to get rid of them with as few casaulties as possible. I am not sure what will cause the fewest deaths; crushing them militarily or waiting for them to implode.

[Fragony]

Don't know what you mean by 'cooldown time', but the rest is spot on. IS only gained ground because the Iraqi army is about as organized as a waste dump. Where they have encountered proper resistance(Assad, Kurds), they have crumbled. Further, the very nature of ISIS means its life expectancy is thankfully brief. They are rife with internal divisions, and their nature have isolated them from basically everyone else. Such a 'state' cannot exist for long before imploding or get rolled over by someone.

The only question is how to get rid of them with as few casaulties as possible. I am not sure what will cause the fewest deaths; crushing them militarily or waiting for them to implode.

Cooldown is people not getting all that upset by beheadings and othther pretty mind-numbling acts of pure sadism, rather odd thing to get used to. We are still getting married if you don't mind I ordered the flowers.

[Pannonian]

The revolution devours its own, nothing new here.

Revolutions tend to fail spectacularly, but that's no reason not to have them. I'd say that the most influential and important revolution in Europe was 1848, but none of those revolutions ended in anythign other than bloodshed and renewed oppression.

The arabian revolution may end in little other than bloodshed and renewed oppression, but that doesn't mean it's a negative.

OTOH, Britain went through these revolutionary times without a revolution of its own, and hasn't done badly.

[Shaka_Khan]

Don't know what you mean by 'cooldown time', but the rest is spot on. IS only gained ground because the Iraqi army is about as organized as a waste dump. Where they have encountered proper resistance(Assad, Kurds), they have crumbled. Further, the very nature of ISIS means its life expectancy is thankfully brief. They are rife with internal divisions, and their nature have isolated them from basically everyone else. Such a 'state' cannot exist for long before imploding or get rolled over by someone.

The only question is how to get rid of them with as few casaulties as possible. I am not sure what will cause the fewest deaths; crushing them militarily or waiting for them to implode.

I agree with you on that.
What I'm mainly concerned about is that people from countries like the US, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, etc. joined ISIS. There could be more ISIS sympathizers in these countries. ISIS has already threatened to attack the American homeland. Remember what just two people were capable of doing at the Boston Marathon.

[Fragony]

I agree with you on that.
What I'm mainly concerned about is that people from countries like the US, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, etc. joined ISIS. There could be more ISIS sympathizers in these countries. ISIS has already threatened to attack the American homeland. Remember what just two people were capable of doing at the Boston Marathon.

Positive note, Dutch muslims are really fed up with Isis support. These Isis supporters aren't even allowed to enter any mosque. Not that there is no danger but I get what I always wanted, support from normal muslim's who aren't violent but just want to live here in peace. That is hard for them and probably dangerous, I respect that greatly.

[Kadagar_AV]

We have several Swedish ISIS...

But it's no problem, one of their fathers has clearly stated that his son is a nice person who went down only to help women and children...

[Fragony]

We have several Swedish ISIS...

But it's no problem, one of their fathers has clearly stated that his son is a nice person who went down only to help women and children...

Plenty of Swedish border at the shore no, just kick them out of the country there. Sweden is insane.

[Sarmatian]

The arabian revolution may end in little other than bloodshed and renewed oppression, but that doesn't mean it's a negative.

That's a really weird way of looking at it - if I dedicate time and effort to find a new solution to a problem, and that solution turns out to be worse than the previous one, didn't I fail?

[HoreTore]

That's a really weird way of looking at it - if I dedicate time and effort to find a new solution to a problem, and that solution turns out to be worse than the previous one, didn't I fail?

1848 failed.

1848 created the foundation for both organized labour and universal suffrage, two of the most important components in a fair and civilized world.

1848 was a complete failure and a huge success.

[Pannonian]

1848 failed.

1848 created the foundation for both organized labour and universal suffrage, two of the most important components in a fair and civilized world.

1848 was a complete failure and a huge success.

Here in the UK, the suffrage was advanced by two parties looking to expand the franchise and endear themselves to the newly franchised. I can't remember what the roots of the Labour movement were, but I'd have thought they rested on the foundation of the proto-Liberal Christian campaigners. From the perspective sitting here, I'm not convinced revolution was necessary to bring about these changes.

[Fragony]

In 1848 naivity failed

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1848 failed.

1848 created the foundation for both organized labour and universal suffrage, two of the most important components in a fair and civilized world.

1848 was a complete failure and a huge success.

Not sure I would go with huge success, though it is clear that a number of improvements resulted from that series of ad hoc revolutions including some growth in trade unionism. I would point to the aftermath of the Commune in 1871 -- it strikes me that more efforts at reform legislation (to undercut another such worker's revolution) were enacted in many places following this episode.

[HoreTore]

Not sure I would go with huge success, though it is clear that a number of improvements resulted from that series of ad hoc revolutions including some growth in trade unionism. I would point to the aftermath of the Commune in 1871 -- it strikes me that more efforts at reform legislation (to undercut another such worker's revolution) were enacted in many places following this episode.

The most important contribution of 1848 was that the revolution of 1789 could not be contained. European rulers would forever have to bear in mind the possibility that their populations would not play along - and if one revolution occurred, the ruler might not be able to count on outside help, as they were likely to have a revolution on their hands as well.

The end of 1848 saw brutal repressions, but the long term effects by the above laid the foundation for our democratic system.

Further, it caused a huge uproar among the intellectuals of the working classes, creating a huge debate on how to bring about change. The commune was a direct result of these debates.

[Pannonian]

The most important contribution of 1848 was that the revolution of 1789 could not be contained. European rulers would forever have to bear in mind the possibility that their populations would not play along - and if one revolution occurred, the ruler might not be able to count on outside help, as they were likely to have a revolution on their hands as well.

The end of 1848 saw brutal repressions, but the long term effects by the above laid the foundation for our democratic system.

Further, it caused a huge uproar among the intellectuals of the working classes, creating a huge debate on how to bring about change. The commune was a direct result of these debates.

Would you say that the British history of gradual change was unrealistic for mainland Europeans? If so, what was the difference?

[HoreTore]

Would you say that the British history of gradual change was unrealistic for mainland Europeans? If so, what was the difference?

British leaders also had to keep in mind that their population might overthrow them.

As you yourself noted, british policy was made out of fear of what might happen as well as genuine good will. 1848 created that fear.

Further, gradual change is exactly what happened in Europe. Apart from the russkies, all mainland revolutions failed. Spectacularly.

[Viking]

So you reckon we should be paying for them to undergo the transitioning process. I'd rather we keep out of it until they sort out a liberal-ish democracy for themselves. The end results are more stable, we get less of the fall-out, and we save money. Better all-round for us, except we don't get to feel good about how pro-freedom we are. Having seen what that entails, I can do without that sense of satisfaction.

Thinking about it, have we yet seen a dictatorship that we've overthrown, that has gone through the religiosi stage, and successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy friendly to us?

I reckon that, as a minimum, we should not intentionally help Assad's regime survive the Syrian war just because of the IS bogeyman.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't get why the US can't have opposition without painting them out to be Cobra from G.I. Joe...

It's basically ill educated people with fundamentalist brainwashing, equipped with tech that was barely cool in the cold war days (unintentional pun ).

Stop trying to make a big scare off of it.

[HoreTore]

I reckon that, as a minimum, we should not intentionally help Assad's regime survive the Syrian war just because of the IS bogeyman.

True enough, as Assad's proper opponents(Free Syrian Army) are also fighting against IS. If we're going to have one of them fight our war for us, it should be the FSA and not Assad.

Anyway, there was a huge anti-IS(and muslim extremism in general) rally in Oslo today. Tens of thousands participated(for comparison, it was about the size of the gaza demo). It was held by local muslim organizations.

I'm sure the counterjihad cranks are going to paint it as an example of taqiyya, though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

British leaders also had to keep in mind that their population might overthrow them.

As you yourself noted, british policy was made out of fear of what might happen as well as genuine good will. 1848 created that fear.

It is an interesting quirk of history that what you said actually holds true way further back than 1848. The British establishment has always had to fear its population in a way that rulers on the continent have not. One consequence of the widespread adoptation of the longbow was that the 'middling sorts' (yeomen farmers and the like) had the firepower to seriously challenge the elite heavy cavalry of the nobility. IIRC the French banned the longbow for this reason - it would have been dangerous in their own strict feudal order to give peasants the capacity to defeat their rulers in battle. Again, IIRC, such considerations played a part in the Papal ban on the use of the crossbow.

[Vincent Butler]

such considerations played a part in the Papal ban on the use of the crossbow.

Basically, part of the fact of that was that a knight, the most important part of a medieval European army, and who required wealth to be trained and equipped, could be dropped by a peasant with just a few hours of crossbow training. After all, not everybody could use a longbow, it was a skill acquired from a lifetime of use of the weapon. It was a crossbow that took down King Richard the Lion-Hearted, after all.