Mosul falls to Islamist

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

But, as White Haven was absolutely correct in saying, the name also states their goal. And they have begun establishing a presence in Jordan.

Look, this can easily be seen as a semantic argument and a distraction to the greater discussion. So, whichever designation the board goes with I will use.

On that note, the US Embassy looks like it is getting ready to bug out, but it's main exit route, Baghdad International, has reportedly been under attack, shelling and rockets, since the early morning. And to add an extra layer of worry to any evacuation, what are the odds that among the arms ISIS captured were advanced US-made ant-aircraft weapons?

http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=490064

I wonder if Baghdad falls, does that mean Iran will make a move on Iraq?

[Borgholio]

does that mean Iran will make a move on Iraq?

If it does, the Saudis will probably get involved which will be really ugly for the region.

[Elheru Aran]

I wonder if Baghdad falls, does that mean Iran will make a move on Iraq?

Good question. They may decide to engage in some pre-emptive securing of borders, but I doubt they would intervene further than that; great way to get Marines in Baghdad yet again given that the more reactionary elements of American politics would suddenly start making a massive stink about it.

Saudis wouldn't care for it, either, and nor would Kuwait. Iraq was useful as a buffer between the Sunnis and Shiites.

It would bring back too many memories of the original Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, as well, and while the younger generation wouldn't really remember it, there's still plenty of old enough people who would remember how badly Iraq got its ass handed to it for that. I doubt Iran would be interested in a re-enactment.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I wonder if Baghdad falls, does that mean Iran will make a move on Iraq?

Good question. They may decide to engage in some pre-emptive securing of borders, but I doubt they would intervene further than that; great way to get Marines in Baghdad yet again given that the more reactionary elements of American politics would suddenly start making a massive stink about it.

Saudis wouldn't care for it, either, and nor would Kuwait. Iraq was useful as a buffer between the Sunnis and Shiites.

It would bring back too many memories of the original Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, as well, and while the younger generation wouldn't really remember it, there's still plenty of old enough people who would remember how badly Iraq got its ass handed to it for that. I doubt Iran would be interested in a re-enactment.

There's more than that. Iran would want to secure the holy sites of Shia. That would most certainly figure in their calculations.

[Dartzap]

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London and always good for a laugh, weighs in on Tony Blair's insistence that the '03 invasion was not at the root of the current problems:

You have to admire the chutzpah of the fellow, as he was a fellow sheep in the Commons at the time

[Thanas]

You know all the talk of splintering has me thinking...
Nations splinter ALL THE TIME.
Big nations will split and split again , often into regional and ethnic conclaves...

When was the last time, if any, that nations "merged"?
Not, one nation conquering another, but two or more countries merging together?

If we are talking major nations, then you have West and East Germany merging in 1990.

*************************

Now with regards to Iraq, apparently the USA is sending another carrier group and the US wants to coordinate with Iran... crappy situation all around.

[Broomstick]

"US coordinating with Iran" is not something I would have predicted occurring as little as a year ago.

Does anyone have a good source on that 11 point proclamation ISIS supposedly issued? I keep seeing various points highlighted (everyone prays 5 times ago, except in emergencies all women must stay indoors, etc.) but nothing like, say, 11 bullet points.

[Murazor]

Saw this on Spacebattles, thought people might be interested in an horrified kind of way.



There have also been reports of mass killings of captured Shia soldiers, by the thousands, and Sunni clerics who refused to give their allegiance to ISIS.

[Thanas]

Yeah, sadly the destruction of artifacts seems to be a common trend in every war in recent history right now. The days were commanders would agree not to involve certain things in fighting seem to be over. Really makes one long for cabinet wars of the 18th century.

[Broomstick]

It all comes down to ideology - the past must be destroyed so eventually no one will know that things were ever different from the reality they intend to build.

[mr friendly guy]

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London and always good for a laugh, weighs in on Tony Blair's insistence that the '03 invasion was not at the root of the current problems:

You have to admire the chutzpah of the fellow, as he was a fellow sheep in the Commons at the time

So Johnson has seen the light. How many people in the UK are blaming their politician's actions for part of the best going on in Iraq now? Or will they wash their hands and go "why do they hate us?"

[Alkaloid]

Well for their freedoms, obviously.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, sadly the destruction of artifacts seems to be a common trend in every war in recent history right now. The days were commanders would agree not to involve certain things in fighting seem to be over. Really makes one long for cabinet wars of the 18th century.

It's a major thing for Islamic fanatics, because they oppose any form of art or knowledge that doesn't align with their religious goals. A bunch of pagan (i.e. Babylonian) statues are exactly the sort of thing they'd want to destroy.

I can't think, of the top of my head, of any example of large scale willful destruction of ancient artifacts not committed by Islamic fanatics in the recent past. That's not to say there are no such examples, but the ones I can think of in the past few decades have been due to Islamic fanatics.

And fanatics never fight cabinet wars.

[Thanas]

Yeah, sadly the destruction of artifacts seems to be a common trend in every war in recent history right now. The days were commanders would agree not to involve certain things in fighting seem to be over. Really makes one long for cabinet wars of the 18th century.

It's a major thing for Islamic fanatics, because they oppose any form of art or knowledge that doesn't align with their religious goals. A bunch of pagan (i.e. Babylonian) statues are exactly the sort of thing they'd want to destroy.

I can't think, of the top of my head, of any example of large scale willful destruction of ancient artifacts not committed by Islamic fanatics in the recent past. That's not to say there are no such examples, but the ones I can think of in the past few decades have been due to Islamic fanatics.

You must have missed a lot of things. Just look at China in recent memory:
- wilful destruction of Tibetan monasteries/art
- incidental, but nevertheless planned destruction by largescale building projects like the Yangtzhee dam.
- China destroying artifacts elsewhere on a grand scale when they get in the place of their own industrial projects, for example their attempt to raze the biggest Buddhist monastery in the world for copper mining in Afghanistan.

And that is just China, other states are equally engaged in the destruction of things. Italy for example is currently having the bright idea of building a metro line straight through Ancient Rome (thankfully they are currently stuck near the colosseum due to their predictable incompetence and full-scale oppostion - but in any case, building a huge underground metro station is not showing much concern for the archeological remains of the place). And just a few weeks we had those assholes in the USA who decided that it was a good idea to ride their SUVs through a Native path, ruining it and destroying the artefacts there.

A lot of humanity simply does not value the past enough to protect it from the greedy, incompetent or ill-intentioned.

[Captain Seafort]

With the exception of trashing things in Tibet though, how much of that is actively looking for things to destroy, as appears to be the case here, and with the Afghan Buddhas in 2001, rather than not giving a fuck?

[madd0ct0r]

china in tibet still qualifies.

activley looking for things to destroy requires a clash of ideology.

[Captain Seafort]

china in tibet still qualifies.

I agree - that's why I specifically excluded it from the question, because it's pretty obvious that that's what's going on. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

[Thanas]

With the exception of trashing things in Tibet though, how much of that is actively looking for things to destroy, as appears to be the case here, and with the Afghan Buddhas in 2001, rather than not giving a fuck?

Quite frankly, there is precious little difference between "I want the things destroyed because I hate them" and "I want the monastery destroyed because I want to make money of what is underneath". In both cases, it is intentional destruction of artifacts.

[Broomstick]

There is an important distinction.

If the motives are capitalistic (I want to make money) then it is possible to offer a financial incentive in hopes of preserving the artifact (we'll give you XXX if you allow us to recover/document). For the religious whack jobs, though, nothing will ransom history and they will destroy it regardless of whether or not anyone else values it.

[Grumman]

It's also going to exacerbate the other problem. It's going to be a lot easier to steamroll archaeological sites if instead of being opposed by protesters you've got the support of people who would happily do it for free. You really can't claim Italy is "equally engaged in the destruction of things" because they're trying to build a metro line beneath ancient Rome, when the Wahhabis are engaging in similar construction projects with less regard for the sites in their own sphere of influence, and engaging in grass roots iconoclasm to boot.

[K. A. Pital]

incidental, but nevertheless planned destruction by largescale building projects like the Yangtzhee dam.

Wait, are you seriously comparing the necessary damage from clean energy generation for 1,5 billion people or one-fifth of humanity, to the Taliban's pointless destruction of the buddhas?

Italy for example is currently having the bright idea of building a metro line straight through Ancient Rome

That's a more valid criticism, but still - the Romans did not care to save the remnants of other fallen civilizations, why should the Italians? Certainly Germany, where many of the historical artefacts were destroyed in a wanton fashion in the 1960s - and that was way after all the bombing! - just because some shmuck came up with the idea of an ugly building and called it 'modern art', should not blame the Italians for that.

A lot of humanity simply does not value the past enough to protect it from the greedy, incompetent or ill-intentioned.

There is a difference between destroying the past to make way for a better future - a necessary development, because many super-old European cities are congested, decaying, falling apart, unlike the ones that choose to do away with real history, create some small fake history districts and build the rest with convenient, shiny new buildings.

[Thanas]

There is an important distinction.

If the motives are capitalistic (I want to make money) then it is possible to offer a financial incentive in hopes of preserving the artifact (we'll give you XXX if you allow us to recover/document). For the religious whack jobs, though, nothing will ransom history and they will destroy it regardless of whether or not anyone else values it.

That would be a valid argument if any actor - state or otherwise - had offered and paid billions for the destruction of artifacts.

It's also going to exacerbate the other problem. It's going to be a lot easier to steamroll archaeological sites if instead of being opposed by protesters you've got the support of people who would happily do it for free. You really can't claim Italy is "equally engaged in the destruction of things" because they're trying to build a metro line beneath ancient Rome, when the Wahhabis are engaging in similar construction projects with less regard for the sites in their own sphere of influence, and engaging in grass roots iconoclasm to boot.

I was not equalizing building the metro to the destruction by the Wahhabis, I was equalizing it to China destroying things.

Wait, are you seriously comparing the necessary damage from clean energy generation for 1,5 billion people or one-fifth of humanity, to the Taliban's pointless destruction of the buddhas?

I recognize the motives are different but the end result is no different - the artifacts are still destroyed. And before you ask, yes, the argument may be made that the benefits outweigh the cost. Which is not what I was arguing against. I was saying that destruction of artifacts is ongoing in many nations.

That's a more valid criticism, but still - the Romans did not care to save the remnants of other fallen civilizations, why should the Italians?

If the Romans were the yardsticks by which we measure present values then we'd find it okay to throw prisoners to the lions.

Certainly Germany, where many of the historical artefacts were destroyed in a wanton fashion in the 1960s - and that was way after all the bombing! - just because some shmuck came up with the idea of an ugly building and called it 'modern art', should not blame the Italians for that.

This is nothing but a tu quoque fallacy - I can very well be critical of ugly German buildings and Italian metro building at the same time.

There is a difference between destroying the past to make way for a better future - a necessary development, because many super-old European cities are congested, decaying, falling apart, unlike the ones that choose to do away with real history, create some small fake history districts and build the rest with convenient, shiny new buildings.

Which super-old European cities are you talking about here, exactly, and what are your comparisons for the bulldozing you seem to prefer?

[Broomstick]

There is an important distinction.
If the motives are capitalistic (I want to make money) then it is possible to offer a financial incentive in hopes of preserving the artifact (we'll give you XXX if you allow us to recover/document). For the religious whack jobs, though, nothing will ransom history and they will destroy it regardless of whether or not anyone else values it.

That would be a valid argument if any actor - state or otherwise - had offered and paid billions for the destruction of artifacts.

I was thinking more in line with circumstances such as when Egypt was building the Aswan damn and had Abu Simbel physically moved, or other instances where building projects were delayed to allow scientists to retrieve items from a digsite and document the artifacts. In those instance all history was not destroyed, there were efforts made to preserve data even if the construction project eventually proceeded as planned.

As opposed to Islamic fanatics who not only want to obliterate physical objects but all knowledge of them.

[Borgholio]

I have to agree that there is a definite difference between arbitrarily dynamiting something because it offends your sky pixie, and destroying something in the name of progress. I think that in the latter case, since large construction projects tend to involve a great deal of planning and prep work, it shouldn't be any skin off the company's teeth to allow some extra time for historical preservation.

However, if they just bulldoze over an historical site without even trying to save anything, then they are only marginally better than the religious zealots.

[Simon_Jester]

You must have missed a lot of things. Just look at China in recent memory:
- wilful destruction of Tibetan monasteries/art
- incidental, but nevertheless planned destruction by largescale building projects like the Yangtzhee dam.
- China destroying artifacts elsewhere on a grand scale when they get in the place of their own industrial projects, for example their attempt to raze the biggest Buddhist monastery in the world for copper mining in Afghanistan.

And that is just China, other states are equally engaged in the destruction of things. Italy for example is currently having the bright idea of building a metro line straight through Ancient Rome (thankfully they are currently stuck near the colosseum due to their predictable incompetence and full-scale oppostion - but in any case, building a huge underground metro station is not showing much concern for the archeological remains of the place). And just a few weeks we had those assholes in the USA who decided that it was a good idea to ride their SUVs through a Native path, ruining it and destroying the artefacts there.

A lot of humanity simply does not value the past enough to protect it from the greedy, incompetent or ill-intentioned.

Ah. See, I was thinking of a narrow category: deliberate vandalism for vandalism's sake.

While destroying artifacts out of greed or a desire to repurpose land on a historic site is contemptible it is not new. Many ancient Roman ruins became ruins because people pried apart the stones to build new structures, or to get at the lead holding them together, things like that. Ancient ruins being destroyed by new construction has been going on literally since time immemorial.

So when the emperor republic megacorporation wants to destroy an ancient monastery to make room for a fortress monument condominium, I am upset and disappointed and opposed. But I am not surprised. That's not unusual.

...

However, it is a bit less common for someone to go out of its way to destroy ancient relics when there is no profit in doing so. Random vandals may do it for their own amusement (the morons with ATVs, though I've heard nothing about how much actual destruction they caused). But that's usually on a relatively small scale, and/or the vandals stop when they get bored. They don't drag heavy masonry statues out into the street to smash them up; that's more like work than the average random vandal wants to bother with.

It takes a special sort of commitment to dynamite a statue of the Buddha carved into a cliff face, or drag out the whole contents of a museum and methodically destroy them. It takes a person who not only is willing to carelessly and ignorantly wreck ancient relics, who not only has decided that he attaches no positive value to preserving them, but who has decided to wreck them, who specifically desires that they cease to exist.

And THAT is something that, so far as I know, is not often seen outside the Islamic world. The Chinese and Italians may be wrecking their own heritage, but they're not going out of their way to wreck it faster than it would be otherwise.