Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Novus America]

I think this answers your question, at the beginning of the war many islamists threw their lot with the FSA thus got their hands on CIA funded training, equipment and other kinds of aid. Eventually they split off and created what we know today as ISIS but even the islaminists fought amonst themselves as Al-Nusra became an autonomous but part of FSA and carries it's banner alongside with it's own. Which creates lot's of sceptisism of how the post-war political spectrum would look like if the FSA wins with Al-Nusra becoming a political party & having a paramilitary wing. There are reports that Al-nusra is definitely connected with Al-Qaeda but that remains to be seen.

What I do know is that people join FSA only later to desert with their weapons and training to join ISIS. Like it or not Assad and his secular regime is the only way to solve the whole conflict otherwise we would see the massacre and exodus of millions of christians and non-sunni muslims to other nations. These exiles will hate both us and their own country....

At this point trying to install democracy in the Middle East is like trying to get cats to swim.

Cats actually swim very well. Most just do not like to. But if they fall in water they will swim.

Democracy requires a strong civil society. And a national indentity more powerful than tribal identities. Most places in the Middle East lack these prerequisites.

On your cat analogy, the problem here is teaching cats to swim where there is no water.

First we need water, i.e. civil society.

It takes a long time to turn a feudal society into a modern democratic one. It does not happen over night.

[The Republic of American Freedom]

At this point trying to install democracy in the Middle East is like trying to get cats to swim.

Cats actually swim very well. Most just do not like to. But if they fall in water they will swim.

Democracy requires a strong civil society. And a national indentity more powerful than tribal identities. Most places in the Middle East lack these prerequisites.

On your cat analogy, the problem here is teaching cats to swim where there is no water.

First we need water, i.e. civil society.

It takes a long time to turn a feudal society into a modern democratic one. It does not happen over night.

And why should we give them water if they are just going to scratch us and shit all over our home.

[Novus America]

Cats actually swim very well. Most just do not like to. But if they fall in water they will swim.

Democracy requires a strong civil society. And a national indentity more powerful than tribal identities. Most places in the Middle East lack these prerequisites.

On your cat analogy, the problem here is teaching cats to swim where there is no water.

First we need water, i.e. civil society.

It takes a long time to turn a feudal society into a modern democratic one. It does not happen over night.

And why should we give them water if they are just going to scratch us and shit all over our home.

It is not our job to give them water. I never said it was.
I would rather not not have to deal with it. Problem is things like the refugee crisis and international terrorism bring the problems to us. Meaning we cannot just ignore it either.

I have always said there are no good options.
Partition is and rule by regimes like Jordan's probably is best as they have a better chance of developing civil society without the relgious and ethinic tensions tearing the state apart.

Civil society cannot develop over night, but also cannot develop in a regime that kills all opposition. So a semi-democratic regime like Jordan is best for those areas.

But again we cannot create such conditions, yet we cannot just ignore things either.
So realistically I am not sure what to do.

[Human Pleasure Cults]

America should roll up the troops and bomb that shit hole of a 'state' already. They shouldn't allow the Russians to gain the initiative and assert dominance over Syria and Iraq.

[Novus America]

America should roll up the troops and bomb that shit hole of a 'state' already. They shouldn't allow the Russians to gain the initiative and assert dominance over Syria and Iraq.

And then what? We tried that in Iraq. The violence is the symptom, not the disease. And we do not want to pay for it. Or get dragged deeper in.

Besides Russia's strategy is backfiring against them with Turkey. Russia has few friends in the game. Russia keeps Syria but turns Turkey into an enemy. Hardly a gain for them.

Overwhelming Majorities of the UN general assembly, the Arab League, the Oraginistation of Islamic cooperation all oppose Assad. Only a handful of countries back him. Russia is making more enemies than friends in backing him.

Only 12 countries supported Assad in the general assembly. 137 (even Iraq) condemned him.

[Alvisiror]

ISIS started in Iraq, not Syria.

Most people claiming to be refugees are fleeing Assad. So Assad wining only creates more angry exiles...

Assad's regime is secular in laws but sectarian in that it gives priority to Allawites over their Sunni majority.

That just isn't true. The safest parts of Syria are under government control, they are fleeing because of ISIS, Al Nusra and the Kurds.
Saddam Hussein's and Gaddafi's regimes were also secular and until US intervention had pretty good standard of living. Even Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion was well developed.

The problem is telling secular dictators to change their system to meet the desires of a superpower. If the Allawities need to be in charge for there to be stability, let them be in charge.
You can't look at everything through a Western lens. The only way to ensure peace in the region is to have a dominant power in charge or break up Syria into pieces. We've seen this in Yugoslavia. Under Tito, any nationalist movement was put down in order to ensure unity within the nation. Once Slobodan Milošević started putting Serbians first he caused the civil war that broke up Yugoslavia.

[Novus America]

ISIS started in Iraq, not Syria.

Most people claiming to be refugees are fleeing Assad. So Assad wining only creates more angry exiles...

Assad's regime is secular in laws but sectarian in that it gives priority to Allawites over their Sunni majority.

That just isn't true. The safest parts of Syria are under government control, they are fleeing because of ISIS, Al Nusra and the Kurds.
Saddam Hussein's and Gaddafi's regimes were also secular and until US intervention had pretty good standard of living. Even Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion was well developed.

The problem is telling secular dictators to change their system to meet the desires of a superpower. If the Allawities need to be in charge for there to be stability, let them be in charge.
You can't look at everything through a Western lens. The only way to ensure peace in the region is to have a dominant power in charge or break up Syria into pieces. We've seen this in Yugoslavia. Under Tito, any nationalist movement was put down in order to ensure unity within the nation. Once Slobodan Milošević started putting Serbians first he caused the civil war that broke up Yugoslavia.

It is true. And Assad's regime is cleary not stable. If it was no one would care about him.
Nobody was bothering with Assad until after the civil war started. Assad caused a civil war just like Milosevic. Yes partition of Syria is needed.

Sources on refugees.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/assad-regim ... 1442014327
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 89021.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ing-aleppo

[Alvisiror]

That just isn't true. The safest parts of Syria are under government control, they are fleeing because of ISIS, Al Nusra and the Kurds.
Saddam Hussein's and Gaddafi's regimes were also secular and until US intervention had pretty good standard of living. Even Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion was well developed.

The problem is telling secular dictators to change their system to meet the desires of a superpower. If the Allawities need to be in charge for there to be stability, let them be in charge.
You can't look at everything through a Western lens. The only way to ensure peace in the region is to have a dominant power in charge or break up Syria into pieces. We've seen this in Yugoslavia. Under Tito, any nationalist movement was put down in order to ensure unity within the nation. Once Slobodan Milošević started putting Serbians first he caused the civil war that broke up Yugoslavia.

It is true. And Assad's regime is cleary not stable. If it was no one would care about him.
Nobody was bothering with Assad until after the civil war started. Assad caused a civil war just like Milosevic. Yes partition of Syria is needed.

Sources on refugees.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/assad-regim ... 1442014327
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 89021.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ing-aleppo

2 can play the source game

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-tryi ... 00910.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world ... index.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 20170.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM1M-ai-8wE

[Novus America]

It is true. And Assad's regime is cleary not stable. If it was no one would care about him.
Nobody was bothering with Assad until after the civil war started. Assad caused a civil war just like Milosevic. Yes partition of Syria is needed.

Sources on refugees.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/assad-regim ... 1442014327
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 89021.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ing-aleppo

2 can play the source game

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-tryi ... 00910.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world ... index.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 20170.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM1M-ai-8wE

Your point would be? Nobody is denying people flee ISIS as well. MORE flee Assad. Your sources do not disprove mine in the least. The areas controlled by ISIS have less population.

[UED]

That just isn't true. The safest parts of Syria are under government control, they are fleeing because of ISIS, Al Nusra and the Kurds.
Saddam Hussein's and Gaddafi's regimes were also secular and until US intervention had pretty good standard of living. Even Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion was well developed.

The problem is telling secular dictators to change their system to meet the desires of a superpower. If the Allawities need to be in charge for there to be stability, let them be in charge.
You can't look at everything through a Western lens. The only way to ensure peace in the region is to have a dominant power in charge or break up Syria into pieces. We've seen this in Yugoslavia. Under Tito, any nationalist movement was put down in order to ensure unity within the nation. Once Slobodan Milošević started putting Serbians first he caused the civil war that broke up Yugoslavia.

It is true. And Assad's regime is cleary not stable. If it was no one would care about him.
Nobody was bothering with Assad until after the civil war started. Assad caused a civil war just like Milosevic. Yes partition of Syria is needed.

Sources on refugees.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/assad-regim ... 1442014327
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 89021.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ing-aleppo

Highly disagree, while I am not a supporter of the Assad regime, government controlled areas tend to be more secure than ISIS or FSA areas (though not Kurdish ones). Assad simply causes more refugees because he barrel bombs the hell out of FSA and ISIS areas alongside the Russians and Iranians, thus the whole refugee crisis. Government controlled areas are repressed but they aren't as heavily damaged as the rebel or ISIS ones. Hell people in the FSA controlled areas are starving (such as Madaya) or are besieged and running out of supplies quickly (Aleppo). Technically Assad controlled areas are more stable, it's just that rebel areas are shit BECAUSE of him.

That said Assad's regime itself is more stable than the rebels and potentially ISIS. Although it is propped up by the Iranians and Russians, it is very capable of holding its own territories. The FSA is so splintered between the Secular, pro-democracy wing and the Islamist, semi-democratic wing that it would probably turn Syria into Libya (ongoing civil war between Islamists and Seculars). ISIS and Al-Nusra could potentially turn Syria into the next Taliban Afghanistan (Except worse) but then again the Kurds would never let this happen.

Overall Syria will probably cease to exist as a state. The Kurds will definitely break off and form their own state. The Alawites and their supporters are at odds with the opposition...

[Novus America]

It is true. And Assad's regime is cleary not stable. If it was no one would care about him.
Nobody was bothering with Assad until after the civil war started. Assad caused a civil war just like Milosevic. Yes partition of Syria is needed.

Sources on refugees.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/assad-regim ... 1442014327
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 89021.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ing-aleppo

Highly disagree, while I am not a supporter of the Assad regime, government controlled areas tend to be more secure than ISIS or FSA areas (though not Kurdish ones). Assad simply causes more refugees because he barrel bombs the hell out of FSA and ISIS areas alongside the Russians and Iranians, thus the whole refugee crisis. Government controlled areas are repressed but they aren't as heavily damaged as the rebel or ISIS ones. Hell people in the FSA controlled areas are starving (such as Madaya) or are besieged and running out of supplies quickly (Aleppo). Technically Assad controlled areas are more stable, it's just that rebel areas are shit BECAUSE of him.

That said Assad's regime itself is more stable than the rebels and potentially ISIS. Although it is propped up by the Iranians and Russians, it is very capable of holding its own territories. The FSA is so splintered between the Secular, pro-democracy wing and the Islamist, semi-democratic wing that it would probably turn Syria into Libya (ongoing civil war between Islamists and Seculars). ISIS and Al-Nusra could potentially turn Syria into the next Taliban Afghanistan (Except worse) but then again the Kurds would never let this happen.

Overall Syria will probably cease to exist as a state. The Kurds will definitely break off and form their own state. The Alawites and their supporters are at odds with the opposition...

Government controlled areas are more stable. But obviously the country overall is not. Stable regimes do not have civil wars in the first place.

[Seraven]

America should roll up the troops and bomb that shit hole of a 'state' already. They shouldn't allow the Russians to gain the initiative and assert dominance over Syria and Iraq.

Apparently someone forgot the effects of ground invasions to Iraq.

[Slakonian]

Highly disagree, while I am not a supporter of the Assad regime, government controlled areas tend to be more secure than ISIS or FSA areas (though not Kurdish ones). Assad simply causes more refugees because he barrel bombs the hell out of FSA and ISIS areas alongside the Russians and Iranians, thus the whole refugee crisis. Government controlled areas are repressed but they aren't as heavily damaged as the rebel or ISIS ones. Hell people in the FSA controlled areas are starving (such as Madaya) or are besieged and running out of supplies quickly (Aleppo). Technically Assad controlled areas are more stable, it's just that rebel areas are shit BECAUSE of him.

That said Assad's regime itself is more stable than the rebels and potentially ISIS. Although it is propped up by the Iranians and Russians, it is very capable of holding its own territories. The FSA is so splintered between the Secular, pro-democracy wing and the Islamist, semi-democratic wing that it would probably turn Syria into Libya (ongoing civil war between Islamists and Seculars). ISIS and Al-Nusra could potentially turn Syria into the next Taliban Afghanistan (Except worse) but then again the Kurds would never let this happen.

Overall Syria will probably cease to exist as a state. The Kurds will definitely break off and form their own state. The Alawites and their supporters are at odds with the opposition...

Government controlled areas are more stable. But obviously the country overall is not. Stable regimes do not have civil wars in the first place.

Well if the most glorious USA hadn't trained and funded all rebels in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess all over just like in Afghanistan

[Novus America]

Government controlled areas are more stable. But obviously the country overall is not. Stable regimes do not have civil wars in the first place.

Well if the most glorious USA hadn't trained and funded all rebels in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess all over just like in Afghanistan

No. We only trained and funding a handful of rebels after the fighting was already raging. Had we not it would have made little difference.

The Arab Spring did not happen because of the US. The Arab Spring happened because people grew tired of corrupt incompetent regimes like Assad's.

[Slakonian]

Well if the most glorious USA hadn't trained and funded all rebels in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess all over just like in Afghanistan

No. We only trained and funding a handful of rebels after the fighting was already raging. Had we not it would have made little difference.

The Arab Spring did not happen because of the US. The Arab Spring happened because people grew tired of corrupt incompetent regimes like Assad's.

CIA triained them and funded them long before ISIS came to be

[Gauthier]

Assad has become Too Big To Fail. Anyone can see he fucked up craptacularly but people are screaming to bail him out because everyone is scared of what might happen if he collapses.

[Novus America]

No. We only trained and funding a handful of rebels after the fighting was already raging. Had we not it would have made little difference.

The Arab Spring did not happen because of the US. The Arab Spring happened because people grew tired of corrupt incompetent regimes like Assad's.

CIA triained them and funded them long before ISIS came to be

No. ISIS came from AQI. Who we fought in Iraq.
ISIS did not cause the rebellion against Assad. They simply used the vacuum to seize some desert in the east. ISIS came after the rebellion was already underway. ISIS is not the main issue in Syria, just a horror filled side show.

Do you have any source for your conspiracies? We were actually on decent terms with Assad before the rebellion.

Arab people are not just mindless CIA drones. They are real people with real feelings who make real decisions on their own. And many do not enjoy poverty and opression. When they are been starved and killed the will fight back.

[UED]

No. We only trained and funding a handful of rebels after the fighting was already raging. Had we not it would have made little difference.

The Arab Spring did not happen because of the US. The Arab Spring happened because people grew tired of corrupt incompetent regimes like Assad's.

CIA triained them and funded them long before ISIS came to be

The U.S. never foresaw the Arab Spring. U.S. foreign policy makers weren't expecting mass uprisings and demonstrations against the ruling regimes in the Middle East (at least not all at once). Plus it isn't in the interests of the U.S. to fund terrorist groups such as ISIS. Hell the FSA branches we fund are mostly the secular wing, and we stopped funding them once they got their butts handed to them at Daraa.

[Shamhnan Insir]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35626237
Two men killed a Hindu priest in Bangladesh, reputedly throwing grenades then attacking him.

IS claimed responsibility, although the government insists that IS is not active in the country and have disputed IS claims of grenade attacks at Shia shrines. This is the latest in a series of attacks on minorities as well as bloggers and secular writers. So is the government turning a blind eye to increasing sectarian troubles as IS seek to destabilize the nation?

[The Nuclear Fist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35626237
Two men killed a Hindu priest in Bangladesh, reputedly throwing grenades then attacking him.

IS claimed responsibility, although the government insists that IS is not active in the country and have disputed IS claims of grenade attacks at Shia shrines. This is the latest in a series of attacks on minorities as well as bloggers and secular writers. So is the government turning a blind eye to increasing sectarian troubles as IS seek to destabilize the nation?

Bangladesh is a rancid shithole, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if IS wasn't involved, this seems like par for the course for that country.

[Ganos Lao]

Plus it isn't in the interests of the U.S. to fund terrorist groups such as ISIS.

But it was in their interests to back up a known embezzler and war criminal who gave ISIS all the recruits and support they needed to make their initial gains in Iraq. Just because the US didn't deliberately give them money doesn't mean they can't be blamed for ISIS becoming a thing.

[Ganos Lao]

Assad has become Too Big To Fail. Anyone can see he fucked up craptacularly but people are screaming to bail him out because everyone is scared of what might happen if he collapses.

Exactly. I've said it time and time again (yet I get painted as an "Assad supporter" because of it) that Assad falling will do fuck all for Syria or the region as a whole.

But that doesn't stop Washington and its cronies from insisting that he needs to go. They are putting their self-absorbed lust for looking good to their electorates ("See? Look how great we are by toppling these dictators guiz!!!") over logic and reason, all the while the commoners in both the Middle East and in their lands suffer the blowback.

Assad is literally the plug that's keeping the migrant crisis from reaching critical levels, and yet all of them are desperately pulling at it, trying to get Putin out of the way.

If Assad or al-Baghdadi are ever captured and alive long enough to do it, I hope they manage to make a speech talking about this stuff, just tearing right into these morons. Then they can go join Saddam in laughing their asses off in their graves or Hell or wherever you fashion them going.

[Ganos Lao]

America should roll up the troops and bomb that shit hole of a 'state' already. They shouldn't allow the Russians to gain the initiative and assert dominance over Syria and Iraq.

Apparently someone forgot the effects of ground invasions to Iraq.

At least it's just some random forum user who forgot that.

Just think of all the politicians who forgot the effects of Iraq in general, and then remember they're the ones in power right now, in charge of "dealing with ISIS" and "dealing with Assad" to boot.

Tragic stuff.

[Sanctissima]

CIA triained them and funded them long before ISIS came to be

No. ISIS came from AQI. Who we fought in Iraq.
ISIS did not cause the rebellion against Assad. They simply used the vacuum to seize some desert in the east. ISIS came after the rebellion was already underway. ISIS is not the main issue in Syria, just a horror filled side show.

Do you have any source for your conspiracies? We were actually on decent terms with Assad before the rebellion.

Arab people are not just mindless CIA drones. They are real people with real feelings who make real decisions on their own. And many do not enjoy poverty and opression. When they are been starved and killed the will fight back.

It's worth noting that the funding and training the FSA received played a pretty significant role in the rise of ISIS when a massive chunk of their forces jumped ship and joined the Salafists. The US, albeit indirectly, played a significant role in the rise of ISIS.

[Ganos Lao]

It is true. And Assad's regime is cleary not stable. If it was no one would care about him.

Wasn't Iraq stable under Saddam? So why didn't people not care about him?