Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

  1. #1
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    12,616

    Default ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    We all know that ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, yet I think despite their overwhelming similarities, they have become quite different in their approach and ultimate goals. First, I'd like to provide some backstory about al-Qaeda before diving into why I think it is that the apocalyptic death cult of ISIS has no intention of seeing Western forces leave the Middle East. Even though it would seem irrational or counterintuitive to one's normal enemies, ISIS actually welcomes such ideas with open arms. In our inescapable ethnocentric viewpoint, we think their attacks on us are all about us, that if we just left the region alone then groups like this wouldn't exist (although there's an argument to be made that the insurgency in Iraq allowed them to gain strength in the first place, even though it was the neighboring Syrian Civil War sparked by the Arab Spring movement that was the real boon for ISIS). Some have argued the Paris attacks were caused purely because France had joined the US-led NATO coalition in bombing ISIS. Yet look at ISIS's official statement supporting the Paris attacks, steeped in religious language and denouncing France as a den of debauchery and sin, the main upholders of the Christian Crusader Cross in Europe, as they have said. With this and other things in mind, I have become more and more convinced that we Western "Crusaders" are merely just the vessel and vehicle for ISIS to achieve its ultimate goal: the Apocalypse.

    Sounds kooky, doesn't it? Surely Roma_Victrix has lost his mind and is about to tell you all about how you should join the Heaven's Gate's cult and drink the special Kool-Aid to become part of the "away team" that will join outerspace aliens as Earth explodes. No. What you're about to read has to deal with a particular Sunni brand of millenarianism that is largely divorced from the Christian doomsday claims and traditions spurred by the Bible's Book of Revelations (bust out your Old Testament for that one). However, just as George W. Bush cited them to a very confused French President Jacques Chirac preceding the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Islamic eschatology also includes the mythological and destructive beings of Gog and Magog. Yet, before we dive into those fun specifics...

    FIRSTLY, SOME STUFF ABOUT AL-QAEDA AND ISIS (SKIP THIS PART IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS STUFF)

    Al-Qaeda, we also know from their own communiques roughly a decade ago, wanted the United States and Western powers to invade the Middle East after 9/11 in order to get bogged down, drain their resources, incite Arab hatred against the West, etc. flocking of Sunni militants from around the world would provide al-Qaeda a greater opportunity to build their non-existent caliphate from the ground up, like we have seen ISIS achieve in eastern Syria and northern Iraq. Back in 2013, when ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced the formation of the terrorist group and that Syria's al-Nusra Front headed by Abu Mohammad al-Julani would then be merged with his, al-Julani appealed to al-Qaeda's leading emir Ayman al-Zawahiri (taking up that mantle after Osama bin Laden) to intermediate. Al-Zawahiri instructed al-Baghdadi to contain his operations within Iraq and stay out of al-Nusra's territory in Syria, yet al-Baghdadi defied this order and conquered al-Nusra's territories, finally snatching ar-Raqqah (the so-called capital of ISIS now) in eastern Syria by January 2014. By February 2014 al-Qaeda broke all ties of allegiance with ISIS, with al-Zawahiri putting out a bounty for the capture or the head of al-Baghdadi (at $25 million, it still stands larger than that put forth by the US government at $10 million). Several months after taking ar-Raqqah, ISIS managed to conquer most of northern Iraq in a collosal failure for the Shia-dominated secular Iraqi state.

    Yet as some may have noticed, it's not just this tribal, political infighting that marks al-Qaeda as being different from ISIS now. As some might recall, al-Qaeda's failure to win over the Sunnis in northern Iraq during the US-led occupation led to the Sunni Awakening (Sons of Iraq), which forced al-Qaeda to tone down its deliberate killing of civilians and Iraqi natives as the tide of public opinion turned against them. Al-Qaeda, in organizing the Charlie Hebdo attacks, has shown that even when it assaults the West it now cares more about targeting specific perceived offenders rather than targeting civilian populations as a whole. That's a rather marked shift from their 9/11 strategy of causing as much damage and death as possible. On the other hand, ISIS's attack on Paris chose radically different targets of random civilians enjoying a music concern, a football match, dinner at cafes, etc. and attempted to kill as many people as possible, just like their bombing of the Russian Metrojet over the Sinai (which killed even more people than in Paris). The cell that was taken down by French authorities just the other day was also plotting to attack a Parisian financial district and Charles de Gaulle Airport.

    NOW, ONTO MY CENTRAL ARGUMENT

    In addition to attacking Westerners on Western soil, ISIS also executes any Western civilian they can get their hands on (after demanding a ransom that they know won't be paid by governments that do not negotiate with listed terrorist organizations). Just recently, they also beheaded a Chinese national, which was strongly condemned by the PRC. They have thus managed to kill and indiscriminately slaughter citizens belonging to each of the five permanent UN Security Council members: the USA, the UK, France, the Russian Federation, and the People's Republic of China. Surely no one in their right mind would try to provoke so many great powers at once and goad them into action. Not even Hitler was this imprudent, and he decided to fight the Allies on two opposite fronts in Europe.

    Well, as you might have guessed, ISIS is in fact not in their right mind. In fact, they're just as insane and fundamentally religious as you may have imagined.

    Some of you here might know of ISIS's sleek magazine publication entitled Dabiq. Aside from their regular theatrics and grabbing hold of media attention in the West, this is one of their chief recruiting tools and it presents their core ideology, brutality, and aims in unabashed form (and in many languages too, including impeccable English and full in-depth geopolitical and economic articles written by their hostage/journalist/pitiful British slave John Cantlie). ISIS doesn't just use this magazine to desperately call for militants and those with technical expertise like doctors and engineers to flock to their caliphate as a "Hijrah" duty (even while showing gruesome aftermaths of martyrs killed for their cause), and appeal to their radical leanings by denouncing apostate Muslims (especially those "safiwa" and "rafida" Shia heretics in Iran and Lebanon, who they put into the same infidel camp as Russia and the US). It also occasionally reminds the readers about the reason why the magazine is entitled Dabiq in the first place. It has everything to do with traditional Islamic eschatology, as mined from the Hadith (the collection of alleged sayings of Muhammad outside of the Quran), and how Armageddon and Judgment Day will play out in the future.

    In Arabic this is Yawm ad-Dīn (the Day of Judgment), and it is taken very seriously by ISIS, judging not only by their words but also by their (logic-defying) deeds. To make a long story short, ISIS (perhaps excluding the more secular-minded ex-Baathist party and military top-brass of Iraq who joined their cause in the summer of 2014) wants the West and NATO to invade Syria, because it will fulfill a prophecy outlined by Abu Hurayrah, companion to Muhammad, who alleged that Muhammad revealed that the Eastern Romans (update that to NATO for modern times) will march on Dabiq, Syria with all the greatest soldiers of the age and engage in battle with the true, non-Apostate Musims of the caliphate from Medina, right before the Final Hour of mankind. Many Muslims will die, yet in the end they will reign victorious, or so the prophecy goes. This is actually part of a set of signs of the impending Apocalypse, according to the prophecy, including the return of Jesus Christ (or "Isa" in Arabic) to Earth as a Muslim who will lead the Islamic world for a time against the unbelievers. Eventually the mythological villains of Gog and Magog (sometimes embodied by full nations, other times as creatures and devils) will appear and devastate the Earth, which will be countered by Allah's use of nature. Gog and Magog feature quite prominantly in Christian prophecies regarding the end times, which state that they will gather all the four corners of the Earth to do battle against Jesus Christ, his Saints, and faithful followers just before the Final Hour. In the Sunni Islamic version, of course, all the Muslims will be eventually carried to heaven and enter paradise while all the apostates and infidels will suffer and burn for eternity.

    So, with all of this in mind, ISIS, controlling a territory merely the size of an average European country or state in the US, is poking Russian bears, threatening to attack the White House in Washington D.C., and doing what appears to be entirely suicidal moves by anyone's standards. Yet, if viewed through the lens of faith alone and its most devout and pious members who give full credence to Islamic eschatology and doomsday prophecies, such irrational behavior suddenly becomes understandable. Was it not the Reformation Protestant leader Martin Luther who said that faith must trample under foot all reason, sense and understanding? Well, that appears to be what ISIS is doing in their own Sunni Salafi fashion. Their greatest claim to legitimacy and most frequently stated selling point to radical Wahhabist Sunnis in the Levant and indeed around the world who might be sitting on the fence in regards to supporting them or joining them is perhaps their death struggle with Shiite Iran and Hezbollah of Lebanon (plus, of course, Shiite-dominated Baghdad). Yet ranking just second to that is their deliberately chosen rivalry with the West. I hate to prophesize here, but allow me to make my own prophecy: if the Western powers evacuated every soldier and civilian from Arab lands, especially Saudi Arabia, ISIS would still attack the West. Attacking the West is not only their greatest recruitment tool aside from attacking Iran, it's also a strategy to pull Western powers back into the Middle East following America's withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, plus its tepid response to Syria. Just like al-Qaeda, ISIS wants us to drain our treasure and resources, but they want more than that; they desire as faithful Muslims of the caliphate to bring about the doomsday prophecy in the alleged sayings of Muhammad. These are people willing not only to blow themselves up as suicide bombers to acheive that cosmological goal, but also to convince every major power on Earth to attack them out of vengeance.

    I say we give them what they want. Well, not entirely. My suggestion would be for NATO to occupy the otherwise strategically invaluable and inconsequential town of Dabiq, Syria and stay there a good long while before returning it to the jurisdiction of the secular Syrian government. And while we're occupied there, hoist high the flags of all the members of NATO plus the UN just for the giggles. And sit there for ages as the ISIS fanboys view the Islamic State's inability to meet the "Crusaders" in the battle they so desperately want. Then watch as the militants stop pouring in to ISIS-held territories, as their men begin to abandon their posts, as their ranks start to thin and everyone begins to wonder if ISIS is the true Caliphate, and if the end times are perhaps much further off than they had guessed.

    What do you guys think we should do?

  2. #2
    Davius's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ground Zero, NYC
    Posts
    1,377

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Great post.

    I agree they are an apocalyptic cult set on the destruction of the planet. These people are sociopaths and actually LOVE grisly killings and torture.

    I also agree with NATO occupying a large area for operations and ALSO to make protected refugee camps. When things have stabilized, the refugees can find their way back home and rebuild. Sure that's a simplistic plan but I'm just throwing it out there. The rest of the world can't take them all. Most citizens don't want them either.

    Now, Roma, the only problem being that NATO isn't getting off their hands to do anything. The only way they do so is if the American president led such a plan and adamantly pushed it every single hour of every day. Obama has no such will for this fight. He's content to drop a few bombs and cross his fingers until his term ends and he can be "The guy who gave America health care".

    So we have an apathetic president and an apathetic NATO. This situation will linger, I fear. If there are no more attacks in France their bombing campaign will taper off. I don't see ISIS going anywhere unfortunately.
    Are cops killing blacks in disproportionate numbers? Nah:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphi...ice-shootings/

  3. #3

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by Davius View Post
    So we have an apathetic president and an apathetic NATO. This situation will linger, I fear. If there are no more attacks in France their bombing campaign will taper off. I don't see ISIS going anywhere unfortunately.
    This is whats scaring me. We have very weak Democratic candidates, who won't handle it with the needed troops, and very unelectable Republican ones.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  4. #4

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Great post!

    I think one thing we must consider here is how these Quran-obsessed guys think. For a 'true' Muslim (in this case, usually Sunni), living outside a Caliphate is anathema. For the more orthodox ones, living in a Caliphate not ruled by an Arab male (never a woman ) is anathema. Some even go ahead and say that the Caliph must be from Mo's own tribe.

    It's for this reason, ISIS doesn't consider the previous Caliphate- the Ottomans- to be a 'real' Caliphate. And also why it considers ALL Islamic states- even those friendly to it like Turkey & Saudi Arabia- to be illegal entities. You've mentioned they're at war with Hezbollah. Thing is- they are also at war with HAMAS- simply because Hamas, while an Islamist organization- primarily fights for Palestinian Nationalism- incompatible with Islamic Universalism.

    On the other hand, since Baghdadi has declared himself Caliph, there's an obligation on him to keep fighting against the Kaffir at every point of his rule. It's not that he might not want to declare peace; he CAN'T declare peace- otherwise the Salafi preachers & tribals he depends upon to give his rule legitimacy will ditch him & elect a new Caliph. Muslims are allowed to depose their leaders if the latter start to 'leave' Islam- so there's legal authority for this as well as well as precedent; Zawahiri was denounced for this very reason.

    We can never have peace with ISIS- because ISIS itself can never have peace with us.

  5. #5

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    everyone that wants actual line regiments and cavalry on the ground sitting around, didn't learn that much from the Iraqi occupation. people seem to be treating daesh as if they were some conventional force that you can bring to the diplomacy table after inflicting enough losses on them, no.

    Obama allowed us to go on the offensive, we can't be doing offense if we have patrols sitting around being soft targets as in an occupation or "sweep". we can go on the offensive if we are sending special ops on assaults, if we are sending aircraft and drones and cruise missiles, and supporting local forces on their assaults. for the last decade, daesh and other groups, including Iranians and shiites, have been attacking our soft targets from the shadows and safety of the general population, now it's time for us to return the favor, and hopefully the next president will also continue that style.

    but yes i agree with the thread's premise that they won't leave us alone if we left them alone, we'd just be allowing them to grow stronger. unfortunately people like Canada's new young prime minister do not understand this truth and withdraws, a few french-canadians told me "its not our problem"
    Last edited by snuggans; November 20, 2015 at 10:37 AM.

  6. #6
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    12,616

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by Davius View Post
    Great post.

    I agree they are an apocalyptic cult set on the destruction of the planet. These people are sociopaths and actually LOVE grisly killings and torture.
    The strange thing is they don't just show off the severed heads of their executed enemies; they also show the corpses of their own "martyred" soldiers and portray them as legenadary Islamic heroes.

    I also agree with NATO occupying a large area for operations and ALSO to make protected refugee camps. When things have stabilized, the refugees can find their way back home and rebuild. Sure that's a simplistic plan but I'm just throwing it out there. The rest of the world can't take them all. Most citizens don't want them either.
    I won't say much about the refugees, since I don't want to distract from the main argument of this thread, but I will say that I do like the idea of protected refugee camps. However, that's not to say that I wish the current refugees in Europe to leave or pack up and go to such zones immediately. I think those that are in Europe should stay for now at the least. You have to remember that ISIS not only desperately wanted to connect the Paris attacks to the refugee crisis by using fake Syrian passports for the EU born-and-raised citizens that actually carried out the attacks, but also wants the Syrians to stay in Syria. ISIS is gaining lots of foreign militants to beef up its ranks, but at the same time it is losing tens of thousands of potential Sunni recruits who are fleeing Syria to escape the wrath of Assad's secular regime dominated by Alawites. ISIS has posted pictures of dead and drowned refugees trying to flee to Europe as a means to discourage them from leaving Syria. If anything, the refugee crisis is a double-edged sword: a security threat for Europe, for sure, but also a debilitating manpower drain for ISIS. Therefore, it's a negative for both sides.

    Now, Roma, the only problem being that NATO isn't getting off their hands to do anything. The only way they do so is if the American president led such a plan and adamantly pushed it every single hour of every day. Obama has no such will for this fight. He's content to drop a few bombs and cross his fingers until his term ends and he can be "The guy who gave America health care".
    My take on Obama's actions are that he's just as stubborn as Putin on the issue of Syria, yet he's working for the complete opposite goal of removing Assad, not propping him up. By withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, providing the FSA and Kurds with weaponry and training, and bombing Syria with only the occasional special forces raid, using Delta Force (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe US Navy Seals have not been used against ISIS, only Delta Force), Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises to the Democratic electorate that he would send our troops back home and not put any more boots on the ground, so to speak. He's playing to his voter base and the polls, which show that even Republicans have gotten tired of US involvement in the Middle East. That mood might be changing as of late, but it's been the majority opinion of Americans on both sides of the aisle for a while now, especially after the 2008 worldwide economic catastrophe.

    So we have an apathetic president and an apathetic NATO. This situation will linger, I fear. If there are no more attacks in France their bombing campaign will taper off. I don't see ISIS going anywhere unfortunately.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    This is whats scaring me. We have very weak Democratic candidates, who won't handle it with the needed troops, and very unelectable Republican ones.
    To be frank, I'm a liberal and I'm not afraid to admit it. I like Bernie Sanders, I like his domestic policies and I like his genuine concern for America's middle class. However, even I have to begrudingly admit that, given his seemingly reasonable statements that local countries shoulder a greater role in the responsibilities of fighting ISIS (which I partially agree with, nonetheless), Bernie would not commit to placing more American troops in the region. The Democratic Party would crucify him come the 2020 election should he win the 2016 one and launch a renewed invasion of Iraq (this time in compliance with Baghdad, but still). Barring some 9/11-level event on US soil, I don't think the American public on the whole would have the stomach for another Middle Eastern invasion of the same magnitude of Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush years. That being said, Snuggans makes a good point about insurgency. That's a lesson that should be learned from the occupation of Iraq following the 2003 invasion. We need to rely on native Arab and Kurdish ground forces primarily, even if we sent a significant amount of troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chromium View Post
    We can never have peace with ISIS- because ISIS itself can never have peace with us.
    I hope our current political class now understands this, yet I get the feeling many of their members are clueless, given some of their statements that betray a total lack of understanding regarding foreign policy or the objectives of our allies and rivals around the globe. It is rather complex, I admit, but that's the sort of thing you have to be schooled in thoroughly if you want to be POTUS. Unfortunately, even for candidates who are totally up to speed with present-day geopolitics and current events, not knowing the basic history of Islam will be a major inhibiting factor to any effective presidency.

    Quote Originally Posted by snuggans View Post
    everyone that wants actual line regiments and cavalry on the ground sitting around, didn't learn that much from the Iraqi occupation. people seem to be treating daesh as if they were some conventional force that you can bring to the diplomacy table after inflicting enough losses on them, no.

    Obama allowed us to go on the offensive, we can't be doing offense if we have patrols sitting around being soft targets as in an occupation or "sweep". we can go on the offensive if we are sending special ops on assaults, if we are sending aircraft and drones and cruise missiles, and supporting local forces on their assaults. for the last decade, daesh and other groups, including Iranians and shiites, have been attacking our soft targets from the shadows and safety of the general population, now it's time for us to return the favor, and hopefully the next president will also continue that style.

    but yes i agree with the thread's premise that they won't leave us alone if we left them alone, we'd just be allowing them to grow stronger. unfortunately people like Canada's new young prime minister do not understand this truth and withdraws, a few french-canadians told me "its not our problem"
    I would argue that special forces raids at the very least need to be amplified and multiplied exponentially compared to the current rate. If we're not going to commit to any "boots on the ground" in the form of standard infantry and the Marines, then we should be sending in Delta Force and US Navy Seal Team Six deep into ISIS territory on a very regular basis. We should be disrupting and ambushing them in multiple places at once, to keep them in disarray and focused on defense rather than offense (better to have them dealing with the problem of immiment collapse at all times than sitting comfortably as they plan another assault on the West).

  7. #7
    dogukan's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,429

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    This is whats scaring me. We have very weak Democratic candidates, who won't handle it with the needed troops, and very unelectable Republican ones.
    Military action alone will only feed ISIS. Miltiary action should only be mobilized as support for actual social change. Such as in the case of American-PYD cooperation.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  8. #8
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    12,616

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Military action alone will only feed ISIS. Miltiary action should only be mobilized as support for actual social change. Such as in the case of American-PYD cooperation.
    Social change can come about and be fostered by secular authorities once there is some level of stability in Syria and Iraq (whenever that'll happen). Until then, you're not going to have any effective programs coming from the top down at the very least, since the Syrian and Iraqi governments are completely distracted and bogged down in a perpetual firefight against militants. Much of their resources are going towards the war effort, not to improvements for programs that strictly benefit civilians.

  9. #9
    dogukan's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,429

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    I am not talking about Syrian or Iraqi governments.

    I mean direct democracy measures and collectively functioning societies that cooperate at confederal level.

    There is no way a centralized nation-state will come out of that mess. Somebody new needs to build a new language and form of politics in that region.
    You have no idea how attractive it is for Islamists when "crusaders" are in action over there. It is perfect propoganda for them.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  10. #10

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Of course ISIS will keep attacking the west. Its a central part of their religious dogma (which a lot of them actually do buy, even though the ones at the very top may or may not be cynics just taking advantage), and their entire legitimacy as the Caliphate come again stems from their ability to kill heathens, especially those branded as "crusaders", as publicly and as theatrically as possible. Heretics are also popular targets, but don't get as much publicity.
    Worth pointing out, this is something the original Caliphate actually wasn't big on. Its rise was a product of rather secular conquest undertaken by the newly united Arab tribes which needed something to raid that wasn't each other, and were spurred on by the really light resistance, prompting the raids to turn to invasions. But the general public is historically illiterate, and as such historical fact has no place in good PR.

    Back to topic though, that they actually want the West and the Russians to tear them a new one just goes to show how detached from reality they are. They barely have the manpower to hold the territory they already have, and with so much of their income stemming from robbed Iraqi banks, and military equipment from captured fleeing Iraqi military (a handful of one time boosts they can't replicate with any reliability now that the Iraqis have pulled back to Shia dominated territory that'll actually fight back, through local militias if not through the army), there's a very good chance they'll find themselves on the verge of financial and military collapse within a few short years. Of further detriment is that a lot of their resources are direct result of many of the local tribal leaders throwing in their lot with them, and once ISIS starts loosing, the tribes might decide to back out.
    My guess is, ISIS will fall even without Western and Russian boots on the ground. It'll take a fair while longer, and that way the West and Russia will have a lot less influence on the course Syrian civil war, but ISIS at least will be out. Seeing as boots on the ground in any real number seem like a political impossbility in today's bleeding heart Europe, war weary post Iraq America, and financially troubled Russia, this looks like the most likely scenario.
    That being said, ISIS is actually quite likely to survive the process and go underground as another stateless global jihad organization, much like Al-Queda, but at least they won't have a country funding their activities anymore.

    To be perfectly honest, I'm not all that worried about them. I'm already pretty used to the idea of terrorist groups that want to kill me, and ISIS isn't all that spectacular at it compared to the other ones anyway, just better at the PR angle. So long as they don't get a nuclear or biological weapon (which is a threat with any terrorist group rather then anything particular to Daesh), its just hard to get worked up about them. They're a very real threat to nations that are already pretty destabilized and vulnerable, like Libya or Iraq, but they don't have the capacity to deal any sort of mortal or even crippling blow to a more stable nation.
    We've had terrorist threats before ISIS showed up, and will still have them after its gone; just another item on the list.
    A humble equine consul in service to the people of Rome.

  11. #11
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,251

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    A lot of the times you hear it's the grunts who don't believe, and the leaders who do. Then you hear it's the grunts who believe and the leaders who don't. I say they all believe devoutly.
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  12. #12

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    The West isnt actually daesh's target. Their main target is other Muslims who they consider to be heretics. They antagonize world powers in order to provoke reprisal and build tension between Muslims and non-Muslims in Western nations in the hopes that it will push more people into joining their sect against a 'common enemy'

  13. #13
    AqD's Avatar (~‾▿‾)~
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    9,527

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Military action alone will only feed ISIS. Miltiary action should only be mobilized as support for actual social change. Such as in the case of American-PYD cooperation.
    What social change do you expect? Democracy won't solve their economical problem or religious craziness.

    Pull out all troops, cut all supports, abandon Israel and SA, and ISIS will be dead in a few months and no more terrorism. They're too busy killing each other to care about some strangers at the other side of earth.

  14. #14
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,251

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Da'esh needs to be opposed unequivocally on all fronts, military and ideological. Simple as that. They literally represent everything that we don't want in a civilized, moral culture.
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  15. #15
    Papay's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Planet Nirn
    Posts
    3,905

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    There is a difference between ISIS and the rest of Sunni Arabs. ISIS are jihadists who have the ideology of going from conflict to conflict and helping their brethren. They are a potential danger(although with 1 billion sunnis i doubt you can defeat jihadism completely). Sunni arabs on the other hand want a political sollution. The US had cooperated with them when they created the "sons of Iraq". The policies of Baghdad pushed them to revolt again.

  16. #16
    Gäiten's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    4,548

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by Papay View Post
    There is a difference between ISIS and the rest of Sunni Arabs. ISIS are jihadists who have the ideology of going from conflict to conflict and helping their brethren. They are a potential danger(although with 1 billion sunnis i doubt you can defeat jihadism completely). Sunni arabs on the other hand want a political sollution. The US had cooperated with them when they created the "sons of Iraq". The policies of Baghdad pushed them to revolt again.
    Simply they hate the West when they either help them or do not help them.

    So whatever the West does, they are the Evil.

    Keeping them at safe a distance away from us is the best idea. It is their culture and they are adults, they shall be capable to solve their problems alone.

    Invasio Barbarorum: Ruina Roma Development Leader - Art made by Joar -Visit my Deviantart: http://gaiiten.deviantart.com/

  17. #17
    Papay's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Planet Nirn
    Posts
    3,905

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by Gäiten View Post
    Simply they hate the West when they either help them or do not help them.

    So whatever the West does, they are the Evil.

    Keeping them at safe a distance away from us is the best idea. It is their culture and they are adults, they shall be capable to solve their problems alone.
    I would hate too someone who bombs and invades my country saying "you deserve it because...you are inferior"

  18. #18

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by Papay View Post
    I would hate too someone who bombs and invades my country saying "you deserve it because...you are inferior"
    When was that said?
    When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

    - John Ball (1381)

  19. #19

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Now here's something relevant to consider:



    Source: In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS

    Great, except that's sort of a glass is half full assessment. I expected that the majority of Muslims would have a negative view of ISIS, but given the population of those countries, those results aren't exactly something to celebrate. That's something like 24 million with a positive view of ISIS in Nigeria, another 16 million in Pakistan and so forth.

    More of this sort of thing couldn't hurt: From Indonesia, a Muslim Challenge to the Ideology of the Islamic State
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  20. #20
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,898

    Default Re: ISIS would attack the West even if Western troops and all its civilians left the Middle East entirely

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    We all know that ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, yet I think despite their overwhelming similarities, they have become quite different in their approach and ultimate goals.

    What do you guys think we should do?
    I think we should send ground troops and kick them out, no matter what the cost in lives. Soldiers know they might die; that's what happens in war. I say we send in ground forces, retake Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul, and round up the leadership of ISIS, put them on trial for war crimes and then execute those found guilty. We then occupy their former territories for the next 50 years, implement a policy of deradicalisation, outlaw all symbols associated with the former regime, and keep soldiers stationed there as we re-educate the populace. Basically, their lands need to be occupied and their culture totally reformed, as Germany was after WW2.

    Sadly, the political will to do this is lacking, so it will never happen.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •