ISIS destroyed Jonah's tomb and other historical sites

[Simon_Jester]

Still, it would be the single largest Islamic state ever by far, larger than the Fatimid, Abbasid, or Ottoman states.

For the five or so minutes before it shattered and broke out into massive civil wars and insurgencies, anyway.

Well, yes. The idea of uniting all Muslims under a single political banner is about as crazy as the idea of uniting all "Westerners" under a single banner- take the Victor Davis Hansen crypto-racist definition of "Western" for that one.

But if you just take a map, and paint all the parts of it that are now or once were Islamic territories governed by Muslim governments and with at least significant Muslim religious minorities... it looks a lot like the thing Channel72 linked to. So nobody should be surprised when a revanchist Islamic-unionist faction starts posting maps like that.

[xerex]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ira ... ingtonpost

Stranded on a barren mountaintop, thousands of minority Iraqis are faced with a bleak choice: descend and risk slaughter at the hands of the encircled Sunni extremists or sit tight and risk dying of thirst.

Humanitarian agencies said Tuesday that between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians remain trapped on Mount Sinjar since being driven out of surrounding villages and the town of Sinjar two days earlier. But the mountain that had looked like a refuge is becoming a graveyard for their children.

Unable to dig deep into the rocky mountainside, displaced families said they have buried young and elderly victims of the harsh conditions in shallow graves, their bodies covered with stones. Iraqi government planes attempted to airdrop bottled water to the mountain on Monday night but reached few of those marooned.

“There are children dying on the mountain, on the roads,” said Marzio Babille, the Iraq representative for the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). “There is no water, there is no vegetation, they are completely cut off and surrounded by Islamic State. It’s a disaster, a total disaster.”

Most of those who fled Sinjar are from the minority Yazidi sect, which melds parts of ancient Zoroastrianism with Christianity and Islam. They are considered by the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State to be devil worshippers and apostates.

[wautd]

Sigh... yet another genocide in the making because of religious insanity

[The Romulan Republic]

Its things like this that make me feel intervention is not only justified but obligatory.

Granted, intervention can cause problems. But I do not see doing nothing or just making speeches as moral in a situation like this.

If nothing else, the US airforce could airlift in supplies or airlift people out.

[Gandalf]

If nothing else, the US airforce could airlift in supplies or airlift people out.

Which people, also, where would they go?

[The Romulan Republic]

What about the people trapped on a mountain that xerex posted about? And I'm all for accepting more refugees from Iraq as immigrants.

[xerex]

What about the people trapped on a mountain that xerex posted about? And I'm all for accepting more refugees from Iraq as immigrants.

Those would be the Yazidi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi


In other news its seems the herding of the Yazidi was a massive diversion . The IS has launched attacks towards Erbil the capital of Kurdistan . Fighting is taking place some 30 miles from the city.


Also IS claims they overran the Syrian 93rd Armoured Brigade tonight.

[cosmicalstorm]

I spent my teenage years wondering why Red Alert never happened IRL. This is as close as it's going to get I guess



Now lets see how much attention this genocide against the remaining non muslims in the area will get compared to the recent IvP.

[Borgholio]

Well looks like we have begun airdrops of food and supplies to the civilians trapped on the mountain, and airstrikes are being openly discussed. Here we go... :-/

[Simon_Jester]

Its things like this that make me feel intervention is not only justified but obligatory.

Granted, intervention can cause problems. But I do not see doing nothing or just making speeches as moral in a situation like this.

The catch is, this entire situation exists in large part because the US intervened, then left. It's a perfect illustration of the true importance of the phrase "exit strategy." So intervention can cause problems... like this one.

In this case, the challenge with any intervention will be breaking down ISIS/ISIL's power such that whatever appears in its place is capable of stopping it from coming back.

Which is exactly the test that the al-Maliki government now ruling Iraq (and, by implication, the policies of the US in the waning years of the occupation that saw him into power) has failed.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm well aware of Bush's failure in Iraq, but I don't think that's a good reason to be against any intervention. It is a good reason to be against repeating what we did then.

And I think that replacing Malaki is an important step. As for who should replace him, I'm not well-versed enough in Iraqi politics to say.

[Gandalf]

I'm well aware of Bush's failure in Iraq, but I don't think that's a good reason to be against any intervention. It is a good reason to be against repeating what we did then.

In your opinion, what were the problems with the Bush II's Iraqi adventure, and how might they be overcome?

And I think that replacing Malaki is an important step. As for who should replace him, I'm not well-versed enough in Iraqi politics to say.

Is Malaki the problem, or his he merely the most obvious face of a systemic problem?

[Broomstick]

The errors made by the US in Iraq will not be remedied by standing by while tens of thousands are slaughtered. While dropping food, water, and medicine onto a mountaintop will help short term it's not a long term solution. I somehow doubt ISIS will be amused by that, as they seem determined to exterminate the "devil worshipers".

[Borgholio]

Airstrikes have begun against ISIS artillery batteries.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... -iraq-isis

[Simon_Jester]

Blowing up ISIL's heavy military firepower (same group, different name a friend persuaded me was more correct) with airstrikes is a fairly unambiguous way to intervene against ISIL. The problem is, what's going to replace it this time?

In the long run, the poor showing made by the Iraqi army and the al-Maliki government make it likely that both will be discredited in the long run, even if ISIL's armed forces are effectively destroyed.

Moreover, the people who grudgingly (or not-so-grudgingly) supported ISIL because 'at least it wasn't corrupt' haven't gone away and are still frustrated with the kind of kleptocratic government al-Maliki would be likely to want to reimpose over the area. The Kurds have even more incentive to play separatist, the Iranians have even more incentive to intervene in Iraq to prevent a Sunni theocratic fundamentalist state from emerging on their western border.

[Channel72]

It's hard to say. It may actually strengthen the Maliki government, because no militant group will try to overthrow it again for fear of US retaliation.

[Simon_Jester]

Quite a few of the militant groups were fighting it during the US occupation.

[Channel72]

That's true, but that was nothing on the scale of ISIS. It might be more difficult for ISIS to recruit massive amounts of people to their cause - a cause which, due to it's allegedly divine backing, is hurt very deeply by failure. If ISIS' attempts to establish a Holy Caliphate are so easily thwarted by Obama, they lose significant propaganda value. Granted, that's never stopped an endless stream of insurgent bombers and angry militants before, but ISIS was a much larger movement requiring much larger support.

Anyway, it's only a matter of time before ISIS collapses as a serious movement. Again, they literally have no significant allies.

What will replace them is impossible to say. The Maliki government obviously sucks, and people in general are discontented with it.

[madd0ct0r]

It's hard to say. It may actually strengthen the Maliki government, because no militant group will try to overthrow it again for fear of US retaliation.

Yeah, that totally worked in Vietnam

[gigabytelord]

It's hard to say. It may actually strengthen the Maliki government, because no militant group will try to overthrow it again for fear of US retaliation.

Yeah, that totally worked in Vietnam

I think that was a bit different. IIRC wasn't North Vietnam supported militarily and economically by the Russians? And also North Vietnam was an actual country not just a terrorist group. I could be wrong though.

[Channel72]

Vietnam floundered because of lack of political will. With today's precision air strike technology, it's relatively easy for Obama to consistently put down large-scale challenges to the Maliki government, and he has zero political problems doing so because it doesn't involve deploying ground troops.

It's certainly a shitty situation however; if we had been better nation builders, the Maliki government wouldn't need any US intervention. But the US sucks at Middle Eastern nation building.

[sarevok2]

What should US or other countries with power to intervene do ? Damned if they intervene, damned if they dont.

[Simon_Jester]

It's hard to say. It may actually strengthen the Maliki government, because no militant group will try to overthrow it again for fear of US retaliation.

Yeah, that totally worked in Vietnam

I think that was a bit different. IIRC wasn't North Vietnam supported militarily and economically by the Russians? And also North Vietnam was an actual country not just a terrorist group. I could be wrong though.

The analogy here is to the South Vietnamese government, which even at the outset under Diem was fairly hopeless and corrupt. Things did not get better after a US-backed coup overthrew Diem early in the conflict, though. Discord and chaos resulted within the military oligarchy that took charge after Diem was shot dead by troops after having surrendered.

The political situation became unstable, making it difficult for South Vietnam to prosecute the war. Meanwhile, the North Vietnamese were basically able to win the war by default just by not surrendering, and keeping up the pressure on South Vietnam while watching their government decay and waiting for the US to get tired of propping it up.
_______________________

Also, ISIL IS NOT "JUST A TERRORIST GROUP". Pound that fact into your head. They have considerably more military power than quite a few nation-states by now or they couldn't have gotten as far as they have. They fully intend to be an "actual country:" an Arab equivalent of the Afghan Taliban. They have a real chain of command, heavy weapons, a considerable territorial base, a code of law by which they govern civilians in their area of control. They also have the support of many of their own people, who consider them a better government than the one they replaced.

They are in the process of becoming for that part of the lands of Islam what the Communist Party was for North Vietnam and ultimately all of Vietnam. They are no more 'just terrorists' than were the Communist artillerymen at Dien Bien Phu.

They are, for all intents and purposes, a new country that is in the process of emerging in Syria and northern Iraq. If you don't want that country to exist, you may find that people have to go to considerable lengths to stop it from happening.

[Channel72]

Also, ISIL IS NOT "JUST A TERRORIST GROUP". Pound that fact into your head. They have considerably more military power than quite a few nation-states by now or they couldn't have gotten as far as they have. They fully intend to be an "actual country:" an Arab equivalent of the Afghan Taliban. They have a real chain of command, heavy weapons, a considerable territorial base, a code of law by which they govern civilians in their area of control. They also have the support of many of their own people, who consider them a better government than the one they replaced.

Their success is definitely impressive, but they have no air support, and no defense against air strikes, which to me makes them less of a country and more of a well-organized militant group. An aircraft carrier sitting in the Gulf can launch strikes at Obama's leisure with zero political consequences. It's pretty difficult to control large swathes of contested territory with no air force.

Regardless, the "spirit" of ISIS has been around for a while; going back to Zarqawi pre-2003 and continuing throughout Al-Qaeda in Iraq, there's been a burgeoning movement revolving around extremist Sunni Islam, with the vaguely defined goal of overthrowing the Jordanian, Syrian or Iraqi governments and creating an extremist Islamic Caliphate. This "spirit" will certainly remain, even after we disable their artillery and drive them out of Mosul via air strikes.

[madd0ct0r]

Also, ISIL IS NOT "JUST A TERRORIST GROUP". Pound that fact into your head. They have considerably more military power than quite a few nation-states by now or they couldn't have gotten as far as they have. They fully intend to be an "actual country:" an Arab equivalent of the Afghan Taliban. They have a real chain of command, heavy weapons, a considerable territorial base, a code of law by which they govern civilians in their area of control. They also have the support of many of their own people, who consider them a better government than the one they replaced.

Their success is definitely impressive, but they have no air support, and no defense against air strikes, which to me makes them less of a country and more of a well-organized militant group. An aircraft carrier sitting in the Gulf can launch strikes at Obama's leisure with zero political consequences. It's pretty difficult to control large swathes of contested territory with no air force.

Regardless, the "spirit" of ISIS has been around for a while; going back to Zarqawi pre-2003 and continuing throughout Al-Qaeda in Iraq, there's been a burgeoning movement revolving around extremist Sunni Islam, with the vaguely defined goal of overthrowing the Jordanian, Syrian or Iraqi governments and creating an extremist Islamic Caliphate. This "spirit" will certainly remain, even after we disable their artillery and drive them out of Mosul via air strikes.

Air support is not the definition of a country or Brussels would be really fucking worried. There's quite a few places around the world that Obama's been sending air strikes into with zero political consequences for a while now, do they not count either?