ISIS takes Palmyra

[Simon_Jester]

That's a fair point.

See, I was thinking of Da'esh as being as united as, oh, the Communist Party- organized with a central governing body that issues directives which it is not safe to violate. In which case, the mass iconoclasm and destruction of ancient ruins and relics on their part is widespread enough that it would HAVE to be happening because a central authority says so... in which case that central body would probably not change its policy just for Palmyra's sake.

If Da'esh is more like a loosely affiliated collection of warlords (and I'm not qualified to say whether it is), it's entirely possible for one warlord to respect antiquities another would casually destroy.

[Imperial Overlord]

Unfortunately they have a sideline in selling artifacts on the black market and some of them are under the impression that destroying what they don't sell increases the value of their merchandise. I fear for Palmyra.

[Irbis]

See, I was thinking of Da'esh as being as united as, oh, the Communist Party- organized with a central governing body that issues directives which it is not safe to violate. In which case, the mass iconoclasm and destruction of ancient ruins and relics on their part is widespread enough that it would HAVE to be happening because a central authority says so... in which case that central body would probably not change its policy just for Palmyra's sake.

If Da'esh is more like a loosely affiliated collection of warlords (and I'm not qualified to say whether it is), it's entirely possible for one warlord to respect antiquities another would casually destroy.

As far as my experience with underground resistance/quasi-state groups goes, say Home Army in Poland, various socialists in central Europe in 30s, or hell, even Bolsheviks in Russia, until such a group has a chance to actually rule a territory for a few years, requiring peace and building of effective government, there might be some commonality of interests but never united party line. For that, you need centralization simple impossible to achieve in resistance group because it makes them too easy to topple. What you have instead are people who agree iconoclasm might be good idea but disagree what exactly it is. Religious texts from stone age are notoriously difficult to interpretate in clear way, after all.

True, ISIS differs from resistance groups like Libyan or earlier Iraqi fighters that they actually are trying to build a centralised state, one complying to religious laws, but their governing structures are very loose, horizontal and interchangeable to a large degree so no one can drone a crucial link in a single strike. Having someone who could actually enforce some united line would beg for express package sent via Rammstein so I wouldn't be surprised they have no one like that. At least not dumb enough to expose himself over such trivial matter.

Unfortunately they have a sideline in selling artifacts on the black market and some of them are under the impression that destroying what they don't sell increases the value of their merchandise. I fear for Palmyra.

Yes, but looting artefacts is something you can blame on pretty much every Syrian warlord, with maybe 3 or 4 exceptions.

[Thanas]

There are now confirmed reports that ISIS did indeed destroy some statues, including the world-famous Lion statue.

[The Romulan Republic]

The ISIS shits have been laying mines in Palmyra:

ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0P10FW20150621

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State has planted mines and bombs in the ancient part of the central Syrian city of Palmyra, home to Roman-era ruins, a group monitoring the war said on Sunday.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it was not immediately clear whether the group was preparing to destroy the ancient ruins or planted the mines to deter government forces from advancing toward the city, also known as Tadmur.

(Reporting by Mariam Karouny; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

[Thanas]

ISIS has killed the former director of archeology of Palmyra. They took him about a month ago as they were searching for Gold (and finding little). Now they have beheaded him.

[Thanas]

More information, everyone should read this.

[Simon_Jester]

Historian Tom Holland said the news was distressing. “For anyone interested in the study of the ancient world, it comes as – to put it mildly – a shock to realise that ideologues exist who regard the curating of antiquities and the attendance of international conferences on archaeology as capital offences.”

I know; it shocked me, too.

There is a fundamental question in my mind, raised by the events of the past twenty years, about how the post-WWII international order is equipped and prepared to handle such realities. Or about massacres such as that in Rwanda.

[Thanas]

Isis has now started destroying temples in Palmyra. So much for their pledge not to destroy the ancient sites, though I did not expect them to keep it after killing archeologists.

In particularly they destroyed the Baalshamin Temple, which was one of the greatest symbols of Palmyra, world famous for its columns and profile.

Now entirely gone.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34036644

[Thanas]

Some more images of the temple:







Fucking barbarians.

[Simon_Jester]

I, for one, intend to remember this- and to shout angrily at the next bunch of people who recommend that the West interfere in a civil war in a half-assed way that results in it becoming protracted until apocalyptic lunatic warlords become this powerful.

[The Romulan Republic]

Would lack of western intervention in the Syrian civil war have made much difference? I mean, its not as if western intervention in Syria was really substantial until after ISIS was well-established, is it (the bombing began specifically in response to ISIS)?

So should we have gone in all out to depose Assad? Or to back the murdering fucker? Either could have been costly and politically disastrous.

[Simon_Jester]

So should we have gone in all out to depose Assad? Or to back the murdering fucker? Either could have been costly and politically disastrous.

So is what actually happened. There is no way to become involved in a war without it being costly and politically disastrous.

Either get involved in a decisive manner so that the war ends, or don't get involved at all.

Ending a war on even slightly favorable terms, by almost any imaginable means, is better than letting the war drag on. Because the longer the war gets, the greater the death toll, the greater the number of displaced persons, and the greater the odds that outright maniacs will take over various factions fighting the war. This is a recurring pattern we've seen over a century and more of world history.

Conversely, this idea of just not being involved, of neutrality in a conflict, can play a role too. It's a classic way of doing well by doing the right thing- by staying out of wars that do not concern you, as a way of preventing them from escalating and spreading. This notion a surprisingly flexible and powerful one... and yet it is one the modern West seems incapable of comprehending or honoring.

We never declare neutrality, and we always end up half-assing our intervention and making things worse.

[This may be a slight oversimplification of the truth, but I think you can see why I state it that way]

[The Romulan Republic]

Point is I'm not convinced this is a case where staying out would have made things better. Such cases do exist (Iraq 2003 being the obvious example). But here... once the Syrian civil war had started, I suspect something like this was probably going to happen one way or another, barring a commitment we have thus far not been prepared to make (understandably).

[Broomstick]

Sadly, this seems consistent with a policy of "if you can't sell it for profit then destroy it". This seems to apply both to antiquities (you can't sell ruins of a building, unlike a pot or whatever) and people (kill adult Yazidi men and enslave the women).

[Edi]

Point is I'm not convinced this is a case where staying out would have made things better. Such cases do exist (Iraq 2003 being the obvious example). But here... once the Syrian civil war had started, I suspect something like this was probably going to happen one way or another, barring a commitment we have thus far not been prepared to make (understandably).

Seriously, please just shut the fuck up. You are an idiot who doesn't have the faintest fucking idea of what you are talking about and you only talk about the fantasies that the voices in your head keep whispering to your ear. You have not added ANYTHING of substance to any discussion of these issues for the past several weeks, but you have quite conveniently managed to turn several related threads into spammy walls of text because you refuse to accept existing reality.

Do everyone a favor and be quiet until you've actually educated yourself about a great many things and acquired a working knowledge of existing reality.

[The Romulan Republic]

Allow me to ask two questions:

1. What exactly do you consider spammy about my posts other than the fact that you disagree with my conclusions? I presented my opinion, attempted to defend it (which I thought was what you were supposed to do here) and so far as I am aware, have violated no board rules in doing so.

2. Since you are accusing me of spamming and implied that I am taking threads off-topic, am I to take this as your personal opinion, or an edict as a moderator that I am not permitted to express my opinion on these topics any longer? I do not wish their to be any ambiguity on this point.

Also, disagreeing that the Syria civil war would magically poof away into thin air if their was no western involvement in it does not qualify one as delusional.

[Thanas]

Point is I'm not convinced this is a case where staying out would have made things better. Such cases do exist (Iraq 2003 being the obvious example). But here... once the Syrian civil war had started, I suspect something like this was probably going to happen one way or another, barring a commitment we have thus far not been prepared to make (understandably).

With the west staying out of Iraq ISIS never would have happened.
With the west not enacting an arms embargo ISIS would not have been as strong as Assad could have afforded to replenish his losses
With the west not supporting rebel factions against Assad ISIS would not have been as strong as Assad would have more free troops to deploy against them

Nearly every single post of yours reveals a deep lack of knowledge about the actions and forces involved here.

[Broomstick]

One of the major problems with the region is that as long as it is a major supplier of petroleum to the world the rest of the world is not going to stay out. One way or another, the rest of the world will be involved. If there was no oil no one would have given a fuck about the Middle East for the past century. It might or might not still be a shithole, but it would be dirt poor and have fewer resources to export mayhem or import modern weaponry.

Well, that's not how things worked out. I'd like there to be a better way of the Middle East and the Rest of the World to interact, but at this point I certainly don't have any good answers.

[K. A. Pital]

To add to what Thanas said, the Syrian civil war was also influenced by the Libyan one. Had the West not intervened there, a lot of subsequent events could have unfolded differently.

[Channel72]

The Syrian civil war has too many causes, indirect and direct, to really accurately say there was a single "cause" - rather, there were many causes, many of which resulted in feedback loops. To be completely reductionist, we can say the Syrian civil war happened because a fruit vendor in Tunisia got really fucking pissed, flipped out, and lit himself on fire.

But no matter the underlying causes, Western involvement has served to seriously fucking exacerbate the situation and increase the bodycount by an order of magnitude. Without Western half-assed support for the FSA, it's likely ISIS would have already been crushed by Assad. Although, even that is potentially a simplification, because the reality is that the Syrian civil war is ultimately a proxy war between Saudia Arabia and Iran (like everything else that ever happens in the Mideast these days...) with Iranian/Shiite resources backing Assad, and Sunni/KSA forces backing various opposition militias, most of them extremists.

[Channel72]

To follow up on that, I think the best way to understand Mideast politics is to look at the whole situation we have as a "mini-Coldwar" along sectarian lines, between Saudi Arabia (Sunnis, backing various Sunni militias in Iraq and Syria, nominally and officially against ISIS but partially supporting it through various channels), and Iran (supporting Alawites like Assad, Hezbollah, etc, and various Shia militias in Iraq, most notably Asa'ib ahl al Haq, some of whom are just as brutal as ISIS). Saddam Hussein used to serve as a giant secular bulwark that kept both KSA and Iran somewhat in check, even though he ultimately alienated both of them, first with his war with Iran, then with his invasion of Kuwait. With Saddam gone, there was something of a free-for-all, with a ridiculous number of smaller militias forming and coalescing along sectarian lines, mostly being used as pawns by KSA or Iran.

The major exception is ISIS, whom neither KSA or Iran officially supports, because they are the proverbial "Joker card", the element that just got out of hand. Iran is fanatically against them, and the KSA monarchy is also against them (on paper, and with F-15s in the sky), except various independently acting elements within the royal family support them through personal means. Ultimately, ISIS serves the interests of KSA as long as they continue to slaughter Shias and Ba'athists in Syria, but they are not a reliable tool in the long run.

The "mini-Cold War" between KSA and Iran pretty much defines politics and political movements throughout the region at this point. Also, this "mini-Cold War", to a certain extent, has globe spanning ramifications since both KSA and Iran serve the energy interests of larger superpowers, namely the US, Russia and China, (which is why I'm actually pretty shocked the Bush administration bit the bullet and allowed the Iranian backed Dawa party to just win the election... Jesus, Rumsfeld and Bush were really "freedom" fanatics who bought into their own bullshit...), which is why it's absurdly simple to predict which factions Western powers will back, and which factions Russia will back, or at least complain about the West backing.

Then of course, there's Israel... which nobody likes except the USA.

[Thanas]

Pictures of the destruction have appeared online, it looks like the worst fears are true and the entire temple is gone..

[Channel72]

That is really catastrophic.

Thanas, around how many significant Roman archaeological sites are in Syria versus the rest of the Levant? I used to work in Jordan, and the Amman area had many significant Roman ruins, such as an amphitheatre in the downtown district. There was also a second or third century church, I think, around Mount Nebo, and obviously, further south, there are the amazing Nabataean ruins around Petra. Thankfully, the Jordanian government is (slightly) more stable than Syria. But I'm sure there must be many significant Roman ruins, especially around ancient Antioch (which would seem to be in Syrian government territory, not controlled by ISIS), in Syria - although, I've never been to Syria. I would think that most of the significant Roman ruins would actually not be in East Syria where ISIS holds control, because it is mostly desert, and there weren't as many ancient settlements there as towards the coast. Although, certainly Palmyra is a devastating loss. (Fortunately, all of the Aramaic inscriptions from that site have been photographed, at least ...)

[Thanas]

Syria is quite probably the most important region we have for the Roman east precisely because of the desert, because it preserved so much. That is why the loss of Dura Europos (bulldozed), Palmyra (ISIS) Hattra (detonated by ISIS) etc. is so catastrophic. As is the loss of most of the ancient cities like Niniveh. (A similar reason why Tunisia and Libya are so important as well for Roman archeology). The damage to archeology will be stronger than if somebody had dropped a nuke on Troy. I can't even perceive all the value that is lost and all the culture we will never know about. For example, Dura Europos was never excavated precisely to keep it intact for future scholarship. Now it is bulldozed (most likely by the Assad regime or gangs). We are probably losing something akin to a full museum each month - and that is a very optimistic estimate. Most likely we are losing a full museum each week, or even every other day. Palmyra for example is one of three large Roman cities that are still pretty much original. Heck, the population was moved out of it precisely to preserve it.

If we completely lose Syria, we may just as well forget all hope for a new significant discovery about the Roman East, or even about the pre-roman East. Edessa, Antioch, Palmyra, Hattra, Babylon, Niniveh....the list is too large to count.

As for me personally, ISIS completely wiped out my research proposal for the next two years and I am just one of many scholars who had that happen to them.