ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Pannonian]

Is that really a matter of differing mindsets?

The Ukrainians have everything to loose by taking credit, while groups in the mid-east can look to gain from it. If the Ukrainians could gain an advantage by taking credit - do you really think they wouldn't?

See: nationalist romanticizing of utterly brutal warcrimes during the Bosnian war.

Further, I don't see how ISIS would jump at the chance to take credit for the accidental shooting of a plane full of Sunni fundamentalist imams.

One faction or another would. That's the point about Ukraine and other places like that. All sides work roughly in ways that are generally comprehensible to the west. Kill a load of civilians, and no-one will want to take credit for it, and if it involved foreign nationals, then they'll even change operational methods to avoid repeating that in the future (as far as they're able to). However, in the middle east, there will always be factions competing to be as outrageous as possible from our western perspective, so that there is always something to gain for someone to trump the others in alienating them and us. Little we can do in the middle east in our experience results in lasting credit; no matter what we do, there will always be someone looking to be as pointlessly destructive as possible (from our perspective) that will corresponding get them power (which is alien to our understanding of the world). In Ukraine, we can be fairly certain what works and what does not; it's just a matter of whether we're capable and willing.

And as I've said before, I count Israel in the list of middle eastern countries with their alien middle eastern perspectives. They're different mainly because of the influence of what Frag would call lefties: liberals and socialists. If they're ever marginalised or even disappear, Israel would be little different from the other middle eastern countries.

[HoreTore]

Kill a load of civilians, and no-one will want to take credit for it

I suggest you read up on the Yugoslav war.

You will find plenty of nationalists celebrating the deaths of civilians. While you're at it, you could also look up groups like the RAF.

You still have not dealt with the issue of punishment, though. These middle eastern groups you talk about will face no consequences for their actions. Every western group will face harsh consequences. Until you've dealt with that problem, I can't see how you can conclude on mentality.

Further, I think you will find that Mid-Eastern regimes respond as anyone else to the use of force. Look at Fatah. What I think you're forgetting is the difference between the short and the long term, and the concept of loosing a battle to win a war(undoubtedly a mindset Hamas had in the recent trolling).

Still, you are completely correct that western leaders generally do not have a clue of how Arab leaders think(and the opposite is also true). The Bush administration had little clue as to what Saddam was thinking, and why he acted the way he did. But that could also be said of most of the Cold War. When did we ever know what the Russkies were really up to?

[Pannonian]

I suggest you read up on the Yugoslav war.

You will find plenty of nationalists celebrating the deaths of civilians. While you're at it, you could also look up groups like the RAF.

You still have not dealt with the issue of punishment, though. These middle eastern groups you talk about will face no consequences for their actions. Every western group will face harsh consequences. Until you've dealt with that problem, I can't see how you can conclude on mentality.

Further, I think you will find that Mid-Eastern regimes respond as anyone else to the use of force. Look at Fatah. What I think you're forgetting is the difference between the short and the long term, and the concept of loosing a battle to win a war(undoubtedly a mindset Hamas had in the recent trolling).

Still, you are completely correct that western leaders generally do not have a clue of how Arab leaders think(and the opposite is also true). The Bush administration had little clue as to what Saddam was thinking, and why he acted the way he did. But that could also be said of most of the Cold War. When did we ever know what the Russkies were really up to?

An important point about the Cold War, and why some old schoolers hanker for those days. The rules of engagement were mostly known to both sides, and where they were blurred, there was still a firm channel of communication between the two sides. Did we completely know what the Russians were thinking? Probably not, but we completely knew how to talk to them to reach some kind of settlement. Representatives of both sides talked, and they talked and talked. Do we have the same kind of confidence in dealing with the middle east? If we send a representative to talk with these loons, do we have any confidence that they'll return alive?

I'd like us to try recognising the IS on the conditions that they'll maintain a line of communication with us, and that they'll accept those members of our population who would rather be there than here.

[HoreTore]

An important point about the Cold War, and why some old schoolers hanker for those days. The rules of engagement were mostly known to both sides, and where they were blurred, there was still a firm channel of communication between the two sides. Did we completely know what the Russians were thinking? Probably not, but we completely knew how to talk to them to reach some kind of settlement.

Did we now?

I'll say the Cuban missile crisis showed very clearly that we had absolutely no clue of what they were up to, and neither did they.

[Pannonian]

Did we now?

I'll say the Cuban missile crisis showed very clearly that we had absolutely no clue of what they were up to, and neither did they.

And you keep missing my point. Whether we knew what they were up to, and they us, we both were in agreement on how we talked with each other. We maintained diplomatic relations with each other at all times, and there was no fear that our diplomats would end up dead just because they were our people. That's the bare minimum of understanding the other side. If you have that, there is scope for expanding from there. If you don't have that, nothing at all is possible. We don't have that with the middle eastern loons.

[HoreTore]

And you keep missing my point. Whether we knew what they were up to, and they us, we both were in agreement on how we talked with each other. We maintained diplomatic relations with each other at all times, and there was no fear that our diplomats would end up dead just because they were our people. That's the bare minimum of understanding the other side. If you have that, there is scope for expanding from there. If you don't have that, nothing at all is possible. We don't have that with the middle eastern loons.

What you're describing here is the difference between a state and a non-state organization. We were not able to hold the relations you're talking about with FARC either.

[Pannonian]

What you're describing here is the difference between a state and a non-state organization. We were not able to hold the relations you're talking about with FARC either.

Then we'll have to accept that countries in the middle east will have a tendency to fragment once the coalescing power is gone, followed by re-emerging in patterns that aren't likely to be friendly to us. Someone asked if this means we should be propping up dictators. I'd turn that question round, and ask why, if these dictators already exist without us having to lift a finger, why should we put an awful lot of effort into removing them so that these situations will come up? For liberalist ideals of freedom and democracy?