The rise of ISIS

[BruceVC]

ISIS stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and is basically the Al-Qaeda linked groups that are currently perpetuating terrorism and destabilizing Iraq and they control most of the strongest groups opposed to Assad in Syria

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq

 

This concerns me as we are seeing them grow very powerful in both Iraq and Syria where they can operate with impunity. They have been responsible for some of the most violent insurgencies in both countries. The USA has already said they won't be sending anymore troops to Iraq and we all know the situation in Syria where a lack of response from UN security council, due to the Russian and Chinese veto, has lead to a protracted and destructive civil war

 

So yet again this  is the result of allowing the civil war in Syria to continue. You get a group like ISIS able to train and gather recruits to implement its own interpretation of radical Islam, I watched a documentary on ISIS on CNN and it was scary to say the least, it reminded me of Afghanistan under the Taliban and the anachronistic laws they implemented. ISIS seems to threaten the security and stabilization of the  whole region  

[HoonDing]

Send more drones, or something.

[Meshugger]

They gain ground because there are no other altruistic good guys fighting the good fight. Like the least of all evils or something. 

 

But no, i have no idea on what to do with those guys.

[BruceVC]

They gain ground because there are no other altruistic good guys fighting the good fight. Like the least of all evils or something. 

 

But no, i have no idea on what to do with those guys.

 

Yes what you are saying does make sense and the solution is complicated. The Americans had to eventually pull out of Iraq and when they left there was a security vacuum. We know that sectarian violence continued in Iraq and has been exacerbated in the last 12 months. Add to that the Syrian conflict and the increased number of Islamic fundamentalists and you have the rise if ISIS in both countries

 

An understandable response may be something like " leave then to resolve there own issues" but we know from history that doesn't end well as Al-Qaeda is then able to create an area where they can operate and  proliferate from.

 

So the question is really what can the West, under the circumstances, do about this group? I would think the civil war in Syria needs to be ended as that would weaken the ISIS powerbase but we know that this easier said than done. So we need to watch this spot  for developments

Edited January 6, 2014 by BruceVC

[Monte Carlo]

Fourth Generation warfare baby!

 

Non-state actors co-exist with failed / failing states like a sort of malignant parasite, bleeding but not completely destroying the host. ISIS wants to link up with the Muj in Syria (Jabhat al Nusra), pivot west into Lebanon and force a confrontation with Israel, a Final Countdown (da-da-da-daaaaa).

 

You've gotta hand it to the global Jihad, they really have got their **** together. And because of the preposterous Iraq War, the West can't do anything!

 

Add to this Saudi funding of the whole thing to undermine Iranian proxies in the Levant and the simmering Shia / Sunni civil war (Ummah, where art thou?) and you've got the recipe for a really interesting 2014-2020.

 

As the man said, send some more drones or something.

[BruceVC]

Fourth Generation warfare baby!

 

Non-state actors co-exist with failed / failing states like a sort of malignant parasite, bleeding but not completely destroying the host. ISIS wants to link up with the Muj in Syria (Jabhat al Nusra), pivot west into Lebanon and force a confrontation with Israel, a Final Countdown (da-da-da-daaaaa).

 

You've gotta hand it to the global Jihad, they really have got their **** together. And because of the preposterous Iraq War, the West can't do anything!

 

Add to this Saudi funding of the whole thing to undermine Iranian proxies in the Levant and the simmering Shia / Sunni civil war (Ummah, where art thou?) and you've got the recipe for a really interesting 2014-2020.

 

As the man said, send some more drones or something.

 

Interesting points and you have inadvertently raised a possible solution. If the USA continues with the peace talks in Iran then Iran will eventually reduce there funding of Shia extremist groups and there objective of hegemony in the region. This should lead to Sunni dominated countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE reducing there sponsorship of there own extremist groups. So you quite possibly could have a cessation of violence without the big backers?

 

And I know you guys are joking but Drones wouldn't help the situation

[Walsingham]

I think you're overstating the case for ISIS, and understating the case for Iraq security.

 

For the last few days there has been a - largely non front page - takeover of Fallujah in Iraq. By ISIS affiliated goons. But the cause seems more than just some pan Islamic statement. It's also about perceived problems with a Shia dominated government. Equally while the state forces have been pushed out, there's obviously some confidence that they can't fight their way back in.

 

Long term I believe the correct course now is to continue largely as we have been. The emphasis has to be on Iraqi politics and Iraqi blood. I hate to be so blunt, but it's their country, their democracy, and the only real solution is going to come from them. but yes, they will benefit from assistance in training, kit, and almost certainly intelligence and selective strikes.

 

Our policies have to be more than a toggle switch with 'bomb/don't bomb' written on it.

[Kroney]

No matter what we do, we just end up being hated even more. At this point, I have no idea if the situation can even be resolved without a proper war. Something that nobody other than the extremists actually wants.

[Raithe]

I'm never going to be able to take any group called ISIS seriously after watching Archer.

[Walsingham]

No matter what we do, we just end up being hated even more. At this point, I have no idea if the situation can even be resolved without a proper war. Something that nobody other than the extremists actually wants.

 

I take it you've accidentally read the Grauniad in the last 24 hours?

 

"Everyone hates us, and we can't do anything right"? Yeah plenty of people don't like us. Yeah, many of them are ignorant bastards and will never change their opinion. But many many people don't. And many of those who do are caught up in philosophies we can challenge. And many more can be usefully expected to use violence against us and be slotted.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Walsingham

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm never going to be able to take any group called ISIS seriously after watching Archer.

I thougt this thread was about Archer. I'm quite disappointed.

[Mor]

So yet again this  is the result of allowing the civil war in Syria to continue. You get a group like ISIS able to train and gather recruits to implement its own interpretation of radical Islam, I watched a documentary on ISIS on CNN and it was scary to say the least, it reminded me of Afghanistan under the Taliban and the anachronistic laws they implemented. ISIS seems to threaten the security and stabilization of the  whole region

Yeah, though in the absence of coalition forces in Iraq, they have been gaining ground in Iraq anyway, ISIS is just a new "sexy brand name". Like it or not, all those despots who held the region through police-state tactics and sectarian policies, provided stability. In the absence of law and order, failed hopes for reforms and more poverty, global jihad will flourish and we are going to see a lot more radicals and old sectarian feuds aired out.(btw this is exactly what happened in the last round in the 70s, failure communism promises and corrupt despots)

 

Btw, other than ISIS there is also the Kurdish people who have long sought autonomy, and might size on the opportunity for them to achieve their goal of country of their own.

 

 

Interesting points and you have inadvertently raised a possible solution. If the USA continues with the peace talks in Iran then Iran will eventually reduce there funding of Shia extremist groups and there objective of hegemony in the region. This should lead to Sunni dominated countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE reducing there sponsorship of there own extremist groups. So you quite possibly could have a cessation of violence without the big backers?

I don't think that the nuclear deal will solve anything. It will not mitigate Iran regional ambitions (they have been funding Shia extremist groups in the region for much longer than that) On the contrary they already consider themself "on the roll" with their "success" in Syria where they went "all in" and this will net them the ultimate "win" over the west that they aspire for, without real compromise and with a huge cash flow to further their ambitions.

 

As for Sunni dominated countries, they are already gearing up, iirc Saudi has become the biggest customer of USA arms. Furthermore, this nuclear deal doesn't prevent Iran from seeking nuclear weapons, they will be able to reach them before the UN wankers manage to get an objection draft(like in North Korea, where they discovered that the shortest path from backwater ****hole to world player, that require constant attention lies in nuclear), which would lead to regional nuclear arm race. Turkey, Saudi and Egpyt already stated they would seek nuclear power and at very least Turkey has stationed nato nuclear bombers.

 

So the only good thing that might come out of it is a new generation of "fallout" games

[Gorgon]

Disappointed, expected an Archer movie. 

[Gorgon]

 

I'm never going to be able to take any group called ISIS seriously after watching Archer.

I thougt this thread was about Archer. I'm quite disappointed.

 

beat me to it

[Kroney]

 

I take it you've accidentally read the Grauniad in the last 24 hours?

 

"Everyone hates us, and we can't do anything right"? Yeah plenty of people don't like us. Yeah, many of them are ignorant bastards and will never change their opinion. But many many people don't. And many of those who do are caught up in philosophies we can challenge. And many more can be usefully expected to use violence against us and be slotted.

 

 

Sorry, first day of proper work. There's a possibility my woe is me is showing.

[BruceVC]

I think you're overstating the case for ISIS, and understating the case for Iraq security.

 

For the last few days there has been a - largely non front page - takeover of Fallujah in Iraq. By ISIS affiliated goons. But the cause seems more than just some pan Islamic statement. It's also about perceived problems with a Shia dominated government. Equally while the state forces have been pushed out, there's obviously some confidence that they can't fight their way back in.

 

Long term I believe the correct course now is to continue largely as we have been. The emphasis has to be on Iraqi politics and Iraqi blood. I hate to be so blunt, but it's their country, their democracy, and the only real solution is going to come from them. but yes, they will benefit from assistance in training, kit, and almost certainly intelligence and selective strikes.

 

Our policies have to be more than a toggle switch with 'bomb/don't bomb' written on it.

 

I think you are underestimating the influence of ISIS and there impact on the security of Iraq. The two are inextricably linked. For the first time, the last few months, the Al-Qaeda associated Sunni groups in  Iraq and Syria now have formed a coalition under the name ISIS. Not all Sunni groups in Iraq are associated with ISIS but they are danger and threat to both countries. Fighters from both countries cross the borders and help in the various conflicts in Syria and Iraq. This has been building the last 6 months or so. They are more of a united threat than ever before as the various fractured extremist groups are now united. This is a problem the West really shouldn't ignore and I know this is causing concern

[kirottu]

Disappointed, expected an Archer movie. 

 

Archer movie would be so awesome.

[BruceVC]

As for Sunni dominated countries, they are already gearing up, iirc Saudi has become the biggest customer of USA arms. Furthermore, this nuclear deal doesn't prevent Iran from seeking nuclear weapons, they will be able to reach them before the UN wankers manage to get an objection draft(like in North Korea, where they discovered that the shortest path from backwater ****hole to world player, that require constant attention lies in nuclear), which would lead to regional nuclear arm race. Turkey, Saudi and Egpyt already stated they would seek nuclear power and at very least Turkey has stationed nato nuclear bombers.

 

So the only good thing that might come out of it is a new generation of "fallout" games

 

 

You make some good points, but we need to ask why Iran wanted ideological domination of the Middle East? They believed that the West was there enemy and they followed a fairly belligerent course under Ahmadinejad. But Rouhani seems much more of a moderate and appears to want to reconcile with the West and end the sanctions that have had  serious economic consequences for Iran. Iran will have to make political changes to how they operate in the region if they want to get back on the right economic track and that would mean the ending of funding of extremist groups and they need to stop making public comments like " Israel doesn't have the right to exist"

 

I'm optimistically hopeful they will make the right decisions and this will be good for the whole region

[Walsingham]

I'm not saying I'd take whatever drug makes Bruce so bloody optimistic all the time.

 

...but I would.

[BruceVC]

I'm not saying I'd take whatever drug makes Bruce so bloody optimistic all the time.

 

...but I would.

 

Walsie I just believe that human beings would rather do the right thing in life than the wrong thing, I believe in the inherent good of people. And even though this may make no sense in the political bedlam of places like the Middle East I still think people would rather live in a prosperous and stable country than a country wracked by violence. Its up to the leaders of those countries to make the correct decisions to uplift there citizens to the standards of Western countries, yes it will be hard but its not insurmountable

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

I believe in the inherent good of people.

 

BAAARRRPPPP!!!

 

And there was your first mistake.

 

These guys would burn your infidel bones to ash and laugh while they did it.

 

[Mor]

we need to ask why Iran wanted ideological domination of the Middle East? They believed that the West was there enemy and they followed a fairly belligerent course under Ahmadinejad.

You confuse two separate issues. Iran seeking to become a regional power and its drive for nuclear weapons. They believe that nuclear weapons will gain them "immunity"(like NK), which will allow them freedom to act in the region without fear of external intervention. The "West" is the enemy of Iran nuclear ambition, but its not the reason for Iran regional ambitions. Iran funding of Shia extremist groups is part of long religious struggle between Shia and Sunni Muslims in the region.

 

Btw ISIS is a Sunni group, like Egypt,Saudi and Turkey. While Iran is Shia like Hezbollah(Lebanon), al-something(Yemen), though they have been known to support Sunni groups like Hamas(Israel/Gaza) and Muslim brotherhood(Egypt).

 

But Rouhani seems much more of a moderate and appears to want to reconcile with the West and end the sanctions that have had  serious economic consequences for Iran. Iran will have to make political changes to how they operate in the region if they want to get back on the right economic track and that would mean the ending of funding of extremist groups and they need to stop making public comments like " Israel doesn't have the right to exist"

 

I'm optimistically hopeful they will make the right decisions and this will be good for the whole region

You say that Rouhani is more moderate, but all I see is him giving us the usual lip service, we herd before in the Middle east as long as the money flows. As demonstrated by their supreme leader, Khamenei, Iran ambitions hasn't changed. But unlike 2003, they now control the nuclear fuel cycle and can reach the bomb whenever they decide, at the same time they see the decline in USA regional status and deterrent power, while they despite the sanction are still stable(relitevly) and feel like they are wining(Syria), which make them consider them self as negotiating from position of power.

 

Also I have no idea why you are optimistic or think that nuclear deal will force them to "make political changes to how they operate in the region". In fact, I even can't see how the nuclear deal will achieve its own goal, the few minor concessions that are talked about will not prevent Iran from being able to fast track to the bomb through clandestine channels.

 

Edited.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Mor

[HoonDing]

 

I believe in the inherent good of people.

 

BAAARRRPPPP!!!

 

And there was your first mistake.

 

These guys would burn your infidel bones to ash and laugh while they did it.

 

 

Come now, they would never burn anyone, but stone.

[Walsingham]

I like the analysis, Mor. But I'm really not clear on your position regarding Iranian regional ambitions.

 

Let's be clear on mine: they're complete bastards.

 

Iran is a fundamentalist Shia regime, and there is every possible indication that it - more psecifically the hardline IRGC axis - oversees a range of heinous activities across the region already, from heroin smuggling to sectarian bombings and civil war. 

 

I don't think they have a 'legitimate' interest in the region in standard power terms because they want to utterly dominate it, and regard nothing as beyond the pale.

 

Your turn.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm not saying I'd take whatever drug makes Bruce so bloody optimistic all the time.

 

...but I would.

I'll hook you up with some paint thinner if you're ever in Houston or Austin.