Org Mobile Site
Thread: ISIS on the offensive in Iraq
Originally Posted by Viking:
Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.
You failed at proving your point and decided to start your own argument as a tool of misdirection. Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.
I'll say this again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a healthy democracy where there are explicit, institutional violations of human rights.
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
You failed at proving your point and decided to start your own argument as a tool of misdirection.
I'll say this again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a healthy democracy where there are explicit, institutional violations of human rights.
Yet another example of a straw man argument. I have said nothing about a 'healthy' democracy, I said this:You failed at proving your point and decided to start your own argument as a tool of misdirection.
I'll say this again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a healthy democracy where there are explicit, institutional violations of human rights.
Originally Posted by Viking:
If they are sincere in their talk about democracy, then that democracy provides an opening towards a better state.
In other words, what matters is if they can vote for representatives that can alter the constitution, the legal frame work etc. - it doesn't matter whether or not adulterers are stoned to death at the time of voting any more than the amount of Syrian pounds they have to pay for speeding. There is an opening for change.If they are sincere in their talk about democracy, then that democracy provides an opening towards a better state.
Now if you could argue against what I said rather than what you imagine I said, that would be a massive improvement.
The argument about what constitutes an islamist was a minor sub-thread that had nothing to do with the democracy line of debate.
Show me an Islamist group with no charter.
Originally Posted by wiki:
Part of
Islamic Front[10]
Syrian Revolutionary Command Council[1]
Army of Conquest[11]
Levant Front
Fatah Halab[12]
Unified Military Command of Eastern Ghouta[13][14]
Ansar al-Sharia[15]
Jund al-Malahm[16]
Jaish al-Haramoun[17]
Northern Homs Countryside Operations Room[18]
Itisam bi Allah[19]
it doesnt matter that the other source doesnt mention this. Levant front is a subordinate movement, which isn't moderate.Part of
Islamic Front[10]
Syrian Revolutionary Command Council[1]
Army of Conquest[11]
Levant Front
Fatah Halab[12]
Unified Military Command of Eastern Ghouta[13][14]
Ansar al-Sharia[15]
Jund al-Malahm[16]
Jaish al-Haramoun[17]
Northern Homs Countryside Operations Room[18]
Itisam bi Allah[19]
Originally Posted by Viking:
I have said nothing about a 'healthy' democracy
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society and now you are trying to peddle that, because its a democracy, it is more likely to go away and is therefore acceptable. It's hilarious.I have said nothing about a 'healthy' democracy
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society and now you are trying to peddle that, because its a democracy, it is more likely to go away and is therefore acceptable. It's hilarious.
What's really hilarious is how people are trying to judge ancient societies by modern standards. Athenian Democracy, Roman Republic, were some of the most advanced social constructs of their time, slavery or not. But oh, it's sooooo easy to piss on them from a high horse of the 21st century.You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society and now you are trying to peddle that, because its a democracy, it is more likely to go away and is therefore acceptable. It's hilarious.
Originally Posted by rvg:
What's really hilarious is how people are trying to judge ancient societies by modern standards. Athenian Democracy, Roman Republic, were some of the most advanced social constructs of their time, slavery or not. But oh, it's sooooo easy to piss on them from a high horse of the 21st century.
No one did this itt.What's really hilarious is how people are trying to judge ancient societies by modern standards. Athenian Democracy, Roman Republic, were some of the most advanced social constructs of their time, slavery or not. But oh, it's sooooo easy to piss on them from a high horse of the 21st century.
This "moderate" thing is getting stupid too. There is little to NO opposition in the countries that are **cked that isn't completely INSANE that's why we're in this mess. All of their goals are completely unrealistic.
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5:
it doesnt matter that the other source doesnt mention this. Levant front is a subordinate movement, which isn't moderate.
We'll see.it doesnt matter that the other source doesnt mention this. Levant front is a subordinate movement, which isn't moderate.
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society
Nope. I said that a democratic state allowing slavery is better than a non-democratic state allowing slavery (everything else equal).You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society
Originally Posted by :
It's hilarious.
No, it's been rather silly for a while.It's hilarious.
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society
You tried to argue that slavery is more acceptable under a democratic society
Originally Posted by Viking:
I said that a democratic state allowing slavery is better than a non-democratic state allowing slavery
OK, well if that is the case, why don't we let Islamic State take over, but first let them draft a democratic institution. I mean let them have all of it. The Balkans, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and anything else that they want. All of it. But they will be a *democratic state*, so it will be OK.I said that a democratic state allowing slavery is better than a non-democratic state allowing slavery
ALL OF IT. BUT IT WILL BE DEMOCRATIC SO IT WILL BE OK.
Originally Posted by Viking:
We'll see.
There's nothing to see bud, their time is almost up.We'll see.
Headshot.
An ally of the ghostly entity named FSA was killed in action.
I am sure that some of his soldiers might have 18th century democratic ideas. A terrible loss to the world's activism against secularism movement.
An ally of the ghostly entity named FSA was killed in action.
I am sure that some of his soldiers might have 18th century democratic ideas. A terrible loss to the world's activism against secularism movement.
http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-...457/story.html
Almost three years were these heroes of Secular Syria besieged by the opposition. Moderate wahhabists, at first, followed by not so moderate wahhabists. A great strategic and prestige victory for the Syrian state. It must be quite a terrible experience living for several months under the threat of being beheaded by your captors in case of a successful offensive.
Almost three years were these heroes of Secular Syria besieged by the opposition. Moderate wahhabists, at first, followed by not so moderate wahhabists. A great strategic and prestige victory for the Syrian state. It must be quite a terrible experience living for several months under the threat of being beheaded by your captors in case of a successful offensive.
I really do wonder why we are in such a rush to get rid of the dictators when we are then put in a position to kill many more to resolve the power vacuum we create.
Or overthrow democratically elected governments and wonder why the terrorist groups we invested in don't play nicely when they are in power.
Or overthrow democratically elected governments and wonder why the terrorist groups we invested in don't play nicely when they are in power.
If the goal is to destabilize a country, taking out the incumbent is the way to go.
I'm sure this was the goal, or else it would've been resolved years ago.
I'm sure this was the goal, or else it would've been resolved years ago.
This article about researching the background of ISIS fighters is interesting. Not really bought into the caliphate.
http://www.thenation.com/article/wha...sis-prisoners/
http://www.thenation.com/article/wha...sis-prisoners/
I think that we now have the opportunity to coax forces on the ground. We can enact and enforce a ceasefire/dmz line (black line on map) coupled with a no-fly zone. Jordanian and Saudi ground forces could enforce this in the southern DMZ (yellow arrows), Turkish ground forces could enforce this in the Northern DMZ (blue arrows). This would force both the Alawite/Russian coalition as well as the Rebel coalition to focus in the center and East simultaneously (generally less populated and more prone to ISIS influence)
This will assist the Rebels as it diminishes both Assad and ISIS. Once the rebels secure Homs, the DMZ can be extended to isolate Alawite Syria into a Lebanon like mini-state (removing both them and the Russians from the conflict) and further concentrate rebel forces eastward as Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi ground forces police the Western areas.
Western Air and intelligence services enforce the DMZ/No Fly and continue to hammer ISIS.
Good idea? Terrible Idea?
Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.
At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.
As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.
At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.
As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.
At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.
As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.
Assad isnt focused on ISIS, he spends his ordinance attacking western rebels. Blocking that would focus him along his borders in the East - which would bring him into more regular and exclusive contact with ISIS controlled towns.Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.
At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.
As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.
Additionally, the cover which this woulf buy the Rebels would allow them to re-focus East as well; rather than in every direction. They would have more regular and less clandestine access to supplies and more constant influence from establishment/moderate forces. This would allow them to focus on clearing their limited areas of regime/isis forces and also move eastward into renewed conflict with ISIS held towns.
We have no interest in re-establishing the Iraqi governments sectarian control over the West of Iraq - we did that already and their policies failed in in record time. It would be better to keep Western Iraq and Central/Eastern Syria apart, as semi-autonomous regions within distinct nations (Iraq and, what would probably be a former segment of Syria) - this would help to avoid a Sunni "Jihadistan" under the influence of Saudi Arabia - ensuring that the Turks, The Kurds, the Shiaa & Moderate Sunni Iraqi's, the Gulf States, Saudis and Jordanians have a balanced stake in a divided region.
I envision a single nation of Syria controlled like Berlin or Bosnia; Sunni Arabs & Kurds in the North and East (with the Arab areas under the security of Turkish and Emirati Forces), Sunni Arabs in the South, (under the joint security of Saudi and Jordanians, bordering with the Israeli occupied Golan Heights) and an overwhelmingly Alawite Shia Coastal Region under the control of the Baathist party and their Russian Benefactors, just a bit larger than Lebanon.
So given the obvious barriers against international partition and occupation (not least when you want Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the legwork, and cooperate while doing so), why not aspire to that specifically?
What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?
Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations.
What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?
Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Good idea? Terrible Idea?
Pretty terrible, even if it was applicable.Good idea? Terrible Idea?
To begin with, I would prefer it if states that actively supported Al-Nusra, the representative of AQ in Syria, whose leader is a former lieutenant of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have no military presence in Syria. Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.
Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by rebels securing Homs. Thankfully, there are no rebels in the city itself, since they were wiped out in May 2014, during what is the most decisive victory of the Syrian Army:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Homs
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
So given the obvious barriers against international partition and occupation (not least when you want Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the legwork, and cooperate while doing so), why not aspire to that specifically?
What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?
Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations.
That's the Idea. Demilitarize the zones of fighting that dont benefit our interest and focus the fighting in areas with low civilian populations that WOULD be in our interests. A "no fly zone" absolutely benefits the more moderate rebels at the expense of Assad, but we would still benefit from Assad and Russian airstrikes in the center and East of the country, so dont cut them off completely. Show them a reason to push East. Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.So given the obvious barriers against international partition and occupation (not least when you want Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the legwork, and cooperate while doing so), why not aspire to that specifically?
What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?
Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations.
When I say OUR, I mean Western and Sunni interests.
Originally Posted by Crandar:
Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.
Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
That's the Idea. Demilitarize the zones of fighting that dont benefit our interest and focus the fighting in areas with low civilian populations that WOULD be in our interests. A "no fly zone" absolutely benefits the more moderate rebels at the expense of Assad, but we would still benefit from Assad and Russian airstrikes in the center and East of the country, so dont cut them off completely. Show them a reason to push East. Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.
When I say OUR, I mean Western and Sunni interests.
And you seriously think there could be no bad side effects to pushing and shoving Putin and Assad around and telling them who and where they can bomb and not? Who is going to enforce that and how do you justify it? Do you just tell them that you do it because you do not want them to bomb "your" rebel kittens or do you spin an RT-level story that everybody knows is completely made up?That's the Idea. Demilitarize the zones of fighting that dont benefit our interest and focus the fighting in areas with low civilian populations that WOULD be in our interests. A "no fly zone" absolutely benefits the more moderate rebels at the expense of Assad, but we would still benefit from Assad and Russian airstrikes in the center and East of the country, so dont cut them off completely. Show them a reason to push East. Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.
When I say OUR, I mean Western and Sunni interests.
And at what point of this are you actually proud of yourself or improving your image with anyone?
The beauty of the Caliphate is that once declared, all opposition is termed external/alien.
The danger is no longer the existence of the Caliphate, but the very idea.
A purely military solution will leave the idea, therefore the poles of conflict, very much in tact.
Battle of hearts and minds: Caliphate 1, opposition 0.
The danger is no longer the existence of the Caliphate, but the very idea.
A purely military solution will leave the idea, therefore the poles of conflict, very much in tact.
Battle of hearts and minds: Caliphate 1, opposition 0.
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny:
The beauty of the Caliphate is that once declared, all opposition is termed external/alien.
The danger is no longer the existence of the Caliphate, but the very idea.
A purely military solution will leave the idea, therefore the poles of conflict, very much in tact.
Battle of hearts and minds: Caliphate 1, opposition 0.
There's a silver lining for only containing it, draws the nutjobs out of here, must be a lot of preassure on wannabees in Europe to go there. Just don't allow them to get back. We have a major problem thanks to Merkel who made it possible to get in and spread out though. Every security-agency and their mother warned against the risks but a relinut with a messias-complex will never listen.The beauty of the Caliphate is that once declared, all opposition is termed external/alien.
The danger is no longer the existence of the Caliphate, but the very idea.
A purely military solution will leave the idea, therefore the poles of conflict, very much in tact.
Battle of hearts and minds: Caliphate 1, opposition 0.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.
As I said, they (including ISIL) have a small presence in the suburbs of the town. The opposition in the city of Homs has been completely eradicated, they didn't retreat, no. Thousands of them were either killed or captured, since the Syrian Army made a surprising encirclement.Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.
Currently, I would say that taking Homs is the most difficult task for the opposition, with the exception of Lattakia. They are simply inexistent and keep in mind that they disastrously failed to even capture Daraa, a city very sympathetic towards sunni extremism and sunder siege by a large group of rebels directly equipped from USA.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?
It would be, because it would signify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs or Kurds. Turkey has already assimilated Alexandretta (having incorporated it in the early 20th century), in spite of the fact that there were no Turks at all.Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?
Originally Posted by Crandar:
It would be, because it would signify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs or Kurds. Turkey has already assimilated Alexandretta (having incorporated it in the early 20th century), in spite of the fact that there were no Turks at all.
You think that Turks, when given nominal defensive control over the North - but not to occupy the Kurdish territory - would exterminate and cleanse Arabs? I dont think this is a realistic fear at the moment.It would be, because it would signify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs or Kurds. Turkey has already assimilated Alexandretta (having incorporated it in the early 20th century), in spite of the fact that there were no Turks at all.
Well, they haven't hesitated to arm the ex-ally of ISIL, Al-Nusra or Al-Qaeda of Syria.
Speaking of Al-Qaeda, a video has been uploaded, where the terrorist commander of Al-Nusra thanks the moderate commander of FSA, for giving him TOWs.
Not that they need them, considering that Saudi Arabia arms them directly, but it's alright, guys, they don't belong to the Axis of Evil.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/28444/53/
Speaking of Al-Qaeda, a video has been uploaded, where the terrorist commander of Al-Nusra thanks the moderate commander of FSA, for giving him TOWs.
Not that they need them, considering that Saudi Arabia arms them directly, but it's alright, guys, they don't belong to the Axis of Evil.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/28444/53/
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO