ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[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?

[HoreTore]

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?

And these dictators you're talking about, are they friendly...?

We actually do not have the power to do what we want in the world. We can affect certain things, sure, but we are far from being powerful enough to stop popular unrest in a foreign country.

The (current batch of) dictators are doomed anyway, whether or not we help them.