News Iraqi unrest, Syrian unrest, and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chronos
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The Iraqi government is facing imminent collapse under insurgent pressure, with ISIS reportedly taking control of Mosul. The U.S. has refused military aid to Iraq, primarily to avoid appearing to support Prime Minister al-Maliki, whose Shiite leadership could be seen as backing Iran. Concerns are rising that if insurgents gain control of Baghdad, it could lead to increased conflict with Iran. The Iraqi army, despite being well-trained and outnumbering ISIS, has shown reluctance to engage, leaving military equipment behind in their retreat. The situation is evolving into a civil war, raising fears of broader regional instability and the potential resurgence of terrorism globally.
  • #241
mheslep said:
You've not heard of the war there, the near 200K killed? The use of nerve gas?

Did you not watch his interview with Charlie Rose? I'm not convinced the gassing was his doing. But i wasn't over there so don't really know.
He said to effect "I am head of the elected government and foreigners are in my country starting a revolution. You're darn right I'm being hard on them. You would be too."
He just might have a point.
As OM points out we put Grant on our money. Jackson too, who was rough on our Indians..

The torture though i can't excuse. Atlantic says he inherited a rough bunch from his father. If they ran roughshod over him, well then he's not the right man for the job.

old jim
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #242
jim hardy said:
Did you not watch his interview with Charlie Rose? I'm not convinced the gassing was his doing.
The gas was the sarin nerve agent.

...He said to effect "I am head of the elected government and foreigners are in my country starting a revolution. You're darn right I'm being hard on them. You would be too."
He just might have a point.
As OM points out we put Grant on our money. Jackson too, who was rough on our Indians..

The torture though i can't excuse. Atlantic says he inherited a rough bunch from his father. If they ran roughshod over him, well then he's not the right man for the job.

old jim
Sorry, "elected"? To what? I wonder if Rose would have done an interview with Mao, or Pol pot. Charles Manson? Vogue did a nice piece on his wife's flair for fashion, which I think is as appropriate as fashion article on Eva Braun at the time.

Assad's father probably was more ruthless. Browse the story of the Hama Massacre sometime, a resurrection of ancient world style destruction that inserted the phrase "Hama rules" into the language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_Massacre
 
  • #243
HossamCFD said:
I can't really tell if you were being sarcastic. At the risk of appearing daft I'm going to assume you were not.

I wouldn't call Iraq a true liberal democracy at all. It's a majority rule dictated by ethnic and religious guidelines; the president has to be a Kurd, the PM a shiite Arab, and the speaker of the house a sunni Arab. A major reason behind the rapid advance of ISIS in the Iraqi north is that the Sunnis were too frustrated with the government, whether that frustration is warranted or not is a different matter.

Maliki's departure has a lot to do with Sistani, and by extension Iran, seeing him as a liability and pretty much telling him to go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...3426cf-60ee-4856-ad26-d01a9c6cc9c3_story.html

There is a lot to be said about a 'democracy' where a religious leader's 'opinion' is the final say.

The Iraqi system has its flaws, but Malaki was nonetheless selected by popular vote, as was his replacement. Their political parties are not the stuff of the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither man arrived at power at the point of a gun or by massacre, as did their Iraqi predecessor and many of their middle eastern peers. Yes Sistani has *influence*, a great deal, but I'd not say he had the last word. One could argue the US President held more sway (e.g. refusal to allow US to be a Shia Air Force). Other world leaders have been influenced, almost commanded, by those out of government power; the coal union leadership in the the UK in the 1970s comes to mind. This hardly disqualifies these countries as democracies.
 
Last edited:
  • #244
HossamCFD said:
(snip) In my opinion that does make Assad evil in every sense of the word the same way Saddam and Qaddafi were evil. He might not be a direct enemy to the west but that doesn't make him less of an evil. 'Our way or die' does indeed apply to Assad as well for any Syrian who dares to defy him.

I have to admit that, although I understand the reasoning behind it, it does upset me when people suggest that Assad is the lesser of two evils and may become a partner in this conflict. As far as atrocities and number of killings are concerned he is as much of a monster as Al-Baghdadi.

If we can apply math to evil, the evil of Assad is probably equal to the evil of ISIS. Yet ISIS is the bigger threat because Assad is an evil who will stay in place. ISIS is guaranteed to spread.

But even from a completely pragmatic point of view, he is a main and direct cause of the apparent success and scale of ISIS. Nothing is more efficient in recruiting Jihadists than having to drag the corpse of a family member from under the rubble of their house that collapsed after a barrel bomb fell on it. The hundreds of westerners who joined ISIS, many of them wouldn't have been able to cite more than two Syrian cities before they set off, were initially moved by the sight of those atrocities (most of them were later brainwashed and became complete nutters). The Arab spring uprisings were most significant in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The only two that turned into full scale civil wars were the ones where the ruler didn't hesitate in using the full scale of his army machinery against his population. That is not to say that Tunisia and Egypt don't have their fair share of militant jihadists, and indeed they provided thousands of those to the fighting in Syria, but the relative peacefulness and quick stepping down of Ben Ali and Mubarak took away from them their most successful recruiting weapon.

I'm so glad you're posting here, Hossam!
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD
  • #245
jim hardy said:
Did you not watch his interview with Charlie Rose?

Wow. As painful* as it was to watch, I watched the whole thing.

Very interesting, in hindsight.

*I've always had the greatest of admiration for Charlie Rose. It may be what has transpired in the last 12 months, which he could not foresee, which now makes him sound like, IMHO, an idiot. Sorry Charlie!
 
  • #246
mheslep said:
The Iraqi system has its flaws, but Malaki was nonetheless selected by popular vote, as was his replacement. Their political parties are not the stuff of the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither man arrived at power at the point of a gun or by massacre, as did their Iraqi predecessor and many of their middle eastern peers. Yes Sistani has *influence*, a great deal, but I'd not say he had the last word. One could argue the US President held more sway (e.g. refusal to allow US to be a Shia Air Force). Other world leaders have been influenced, almost commanded, by those out of government power; the coal union leadership in the the UK in the 1970s comes to mind. This hardly disqualifies these countries as democracies.

Well, in my original comment to which you were replying I was suggesting pluralistic, western style, liberal democracy as the third option, not merely majority rule and public vote. Maliki's departure could've been much more violent, and yes Obama's reluctance to come to his aid did play an important role, but his legacy also includes ISIS capitalising on his failing to represent his constituents.

Mubarak won the public vote several times, and he did leave relatively peacefully. He certainly wasn't as bad as Assad or Qaddafi, but he's not what I had in mind when I was speaking about a cure for the middle east, neither is Maliki.
 
  • #247
lisab said:
If we can apply math to evil, the evil of Assad is probably equal to the evil of ISIS. Yet ISIS is the bigger threat because Assad is an evil who will stay in place. ISIS is guaranteed to spread.

I completely agree with that. I think their unprecedented brutality and preposterous ambition is going to accelerate their downfall. Unfortunately their ideology may survive for much longer.

I'm so glad you're posting here, Hossam!
That's very kind of you. Thank you very much indeed :)
 
  • #249
mheslep said:
You contend Mubarak won a fair election with opposition? Ever? Mubarak was re-elected in 1999 with 93% of the vote, where the vote could only be yes or no to Mubarak.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/mubaraks-election-landslide-rigged/2005/09/10/1125772720211.html

The 2005 election, which was my first ever voting experience, was a contested not a yes or no vote. Whether it was rigged or not is very hard to determine, but in my opinion there was no need to rig it at all (though they might have rigged it just in case). Mubarak won with 88% and Ayman Nour, who had my vote, came second and was sent to jail shortly afterwards under allegations of forgery. Mubarak's party (the NDP then) and the government were one and the same. I didn't do any public opinion polls but my feeling was that most people voted for Mubarak for various reasons. And so eventhough it was a public vote the atmosphere in which the elections took place was as further away from a true democracy as you can get.

We're getting a bit off topic here but my point is that there's more to liberal pluralistic democracy than public vote. Both islamists and secular Arab dictators, despite being arch-enemies, are willing to play that game and have shown a big success in doing so. The muslim brotherhood did win both the parliamentary and presidential elections, so did Al-Sisi after orchestrating a coup/revolution/whatever-you-want-to-call-it against the MB.
 
  • #250
lisab said:
... ISIS is guaranteed to spread.

It's happening with a terrifying speed:
ISIS-linked group in Algeria behead a French citizen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29352537

Jund al-Khilafa (Soldiers of the Caliphate) pledged allegiance to IS on 14 September.
 
  • #251
mheslep said:
Assad's father probably was more ruthless. Browse the story of the Hama Massacre sometime, a resurrection of ancient world style destruction that inserted the phrase "Hama rules" into the language.

Thanks for the link.
The Hama massacre (Arabic: مجزرة حماة‎) occurred in February 1982, when the Syrian Arab Army and the Defense Companies, under the orders of the country's then-president, Hafez al-Assad, besieged the town of Hama for 27 days in order to quell an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood against al-Assad's government.[1][2] The massacre, carried out by the Syrian Army under commanding General Rifaat al-Assad, effectively ended the campaign begun in 1976 by Sunni Muslim groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, against the government.
..............................
.....
After the Hama uprising, the Islamist insurrection was broken, and the Brotherhood has since operated in exile while other factions surrendered or slipped into hiding. Government attitudes in Syria hardened considerably during the uprising, and Assad would rely more on repressive than on political tactics for the remainder of his rule, although an economic liberalization began in the 1990s

Looks to me like Bashar tried to transcend his father's modus operandi and it failed.
Not too surprising, human nature being such that perception of weakness invites attack.
His government went back to the old ways that'd worked for his Dad. He was its head so it's on him, no argument there.

When he assumed power, the lifestyle the West still occupied Assad's mind -- In his inaugural speech he emphasized that it was time to begin modernizing Syria. But to modernize Syria and remake it in the "image" he desired, he needed to adopt neo-liberal and capitalist policies, both of which stirred up a strong resistance from his father's old guard, who founded the socialist and secular Ba'ath Party. Not knowing the long-term consequences of marrying neoliberalism with the authoritarian structure, Bashar gained short-term benefits with his vast changes, but he also planted the seed of revolution.

In the beginning of his rule, he introduced the Damascus Spring, which included some political reforms that would suit the economic changes he planned. But when he saw that the reaction to his political shake-up was endangering his own throne, he retreated to old policies of mass repression, relying on Mukhabarat, the secret security police, to enforce his commands.

Internal clashes and tensions between Bashar and his father's old guard were inevitable. Men such as Ali Duba (former head of the Syrian military intelligence and a close adviser to the Syrian president Hafez al-Assad) as well as hardliners such as his brother Maher al-Assad (commander of the Republican Guard and the army's elite Fourth Armored Division), held such opposing views to that of their new leader that chaos was certain to occur.

During his early rule, Bashar became aware of the discontent and used his power to retire some of the old guard, sweeping them from power to reduce the conflict he faced.

The gradual increase of neo-liberal policies and privatization exaggerated the inequality between the poor and the rich, which was especially felt in middle-class areas, and mid-sized and large cities. While a small portion of the crony capitalists and loyalists to Assad were able to benefit from these policies, the vast majority of the population was disenfranchised. The uprising in the Arab world (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya) in 2011 also sparked the revolution against Bashar, who was still perceived as an inept leader.

Unable to control the uprising, the old guard members who had been forced to retire, surged back to power to address the situation. During the uprising, some Alawite people started chanting "Bashar lal iyada wa Maher lal ghiyada," meaning, Bashar should go back to the clinic and Maher should become the leader. Did Bashar's mama's boy image contribute to emboldening the people to come to streets? Did Bashar's idealistic vision of creating a "Switzerland" Syria -- but still consolidating power at the top -- play a role in the uprising? Did his vast and sudden economic and neo-liberal reforms, which in the end only benefited his gilded circle, have an impact on the current civil war? Perhaps the combination of all of these factors led to the rampant rebellion and mistrust of the people that Bashar had been chosen to lead.

I doubt he's the only head of state who's in over his head.

I hope the west doesn't "toss out the baby with the bathwater" on this one .
There's forces at play besides humanitarianism.I'm too far away to really know much about things over there. I really appreciate the posts from people closer by, like Hossam.
As the old cowboy said: "Always drink upstream of the herd".
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD
  • #252
toles09252014.jpg

Why is Assad smiling like that?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/world/meast/us-airstrikes/index.html
 
  • #253
  • #254
ISIS Is Not Just Un-Islamic, It Is Anti-Islamic
http://time.com/3273873/stop-isis-islam/

British Muslim scholars tell Isis that holding hostage goes against Qur'an
Video appeal from the orthodox Salafi school of Islamic thought calls for Isis to release British aid worker Alan Henning
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/isis-muslim-scholars-call-release-alan-henning-hostage

Muslim Scholars Release Open Letter To Islamic State Meticulously Blasting Its Ideology
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/24/muslim-scholars-islamic-state_n_5878038.html
WASHINGTON (RNS) More than 120 Muslim scholars from around the world joined an open letter to the “fighters and followers” of the Islamic State, denouncing them as un-Islamic by using the most Islamic of terms.

Relying heavily on the Quran, the 18-page letter released Wednesday (Sept. 24) picks apart the extremist ideology of the militants who have left a wake of brutal death and destruction in their bid to establish a transnational Islamic state in Iraq and Syria.
. . . .
Hopefully, some are listening.Then again - Dash is holding another hostage from the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...o-isis-uk-hostage-propaganda-message-gunpoint
 
Last edited:
  • #255
HossamCFD said:
I completely appreciate that a lot depends on the perspective. If you're a westerner you'll probably see ISIS as the biggest enemy, as we haven't heard of any Assad loyalists plotting terrorist attacks at home. You'll also probably have a different opinion if you have family in Aleppo.
Do you have family in Aleppo? Sorry if I missed an introduction, but your posts are interesting and I'm curious about where your perspective comes from.
The decapitation of western journalists and aid workers in front of the camera is horrific beyond words, but so is the bombing of tens of thousands of Arabs. In my opinion that does make Assad evil in every sense of the word the same way Saddam and Qaddafi were evil. He might not be a direct enemy to the west but that doesn't make him less of an evil. 'Our way or die' does indeed apply to Assad as well for any Syrian who dares to defy him.
Agreed. A Youtube behedding is great for shock/propaganda value, but it isn't any more barbarric than gassing your own people. Some might argue that the behedding is hateful while the gassing motivated by pragmatism, but:
1. It doesn't matter to the dead people.
2. Gas is far more efficient/effective.
3. If anything, the indescriminant nature and lack of emotion is more sociopathic.
I have to admit that, although I understand the reasoning behind it, it does upset me when people suggest that Assad is the lesser of two evils and may become a partner in this conflict.
I don't see him as "the lesser of two evils", I see him as an evil not aimed in our direction. We may be on the same side on this one, but I think it is a stretch to call us allies.

An editorial aside: I'm torn about what our role should be here aside from going after terrorists aimed at us, but I am pleasantly surprised by Obama's cajones. He's going-it-alone more than Bush ever did, which, as President, IMO, is the right thing to do. That and I love the delicious irony of it.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #256
OmCheeto said:
A "civil" war. :rolleyes:

Seems like you could accuse Abraham Lincoln of the same thing: 260,000 confederates killed.
Absolutely not. In the US Civil War virtually all of the casualties were soldiers. The double-entendre of calling it a "civil" war really was much more true there.
And I've yet to see proof that Assad ordered the gassings.
That's about the least relevant question I can imagine regarding the issue. If you accept the international community's findings that Assad's troops used gas probably dozens of times, killing thousands of people, then he is responsible, period. Dictators are not entitled to plausible deniability.
And even if he did, didn't Truman nuke some 200,000 people, because, they were going to fight to the end?
Yes. He also killed at least 125,000 people and possible a lot more by firebombing Tokyo. I suspect you think that's relevant somehow...
 
  • #257
russ_watters said:
Do you have family in Aleppo? Sorry if I missed an introduction, but your posts are interesting and I'm curious about where your perspective comes from.

No worries, there was no introduction. I don't have family in Aleppo. I'm Egyptian and I live in the UK now. I feel home in both places.

I don't see him as "the lesser of two evils", I see him as an evil not aimed in our direction. We may be on the same side on this one, but I think it is a stretch to call us allies.
I completely agree with that. I just hope that this status quo doesn't evolve into a true partnership as the conflict progresses. In any case, it's not clear if anything can be done against Assad apart from humanitarian aid and arming of the 'moderates'.
 
  • #258
French Report: Syrian Woman Secretly Films Life in Raqqa under ISIL
 
  • #259
mheslep said:
... of Congress, at least not explicit approval, nor is any constitutional rationale offered.

Nor has any UN mandate been obtained. Nor has the permission of the state of Syria been given to bomb there.

I am led to conclude that bombing in Syria is justified by the ends we seek to achieve; the rollback and destruction of ISIS. From around the world, I have heard little complaint, and much agreement. So sometimes the ends do justify the means, it would seem. But there's something about that statement, "the ends justify the means", that seems slightly jarring, so I'd like someone to explain the philosophical implications at work here, please. If it can be accepted that sometimes the ends justify the means, can it also be accepted that sometimes "might makes right"?
 
  • #260
Dotini said:
Nor has any UN mandate been obtained. Nor has the permission of the state of Syria been given to bomb there.

I am led to conclude that bombing in Syria is justified by the ends we seek to achieve; the rollback and destruction of ISIS. From around the world, I have heard little complaint, and much agreement. So sometimes the ends do justify the means, it would seem. But there's something about that statement, "the ends justify the means", that seems slightly jarring, so I'd like someone to explain the philosophical implications at work here, please. If it can be accepted that sometimes the ends justify the means, can it also be accepted that sometimes "might makes right"?

I think our response and the worlds acceptance means that most people see IS using the totalitarian principle of "might makes right" and the "the ends justify the means" in the extreme with their methods to control the populations they occupy. If you see us stop using precision weapons to hit specific targets and start using B-52 style carpet bombing or fuel air weapons on massed troops then we might talk about is it justified but so far we haven't broken a sweat on the hurt we can rain down on these guys if we just wanted to kill as many as possible as soon as possible. I think it's more like the worlds response to pirates off the coast of Somalia as a threat to international peace and security, this is lawlessness on land instead of the high seas. Nations have very broad inherent powers to stop bandits if it endangers it's citizens and don't need the host state’s consent to stop them if they can't or won't.
 
  • #261
Dotini said:
Nor has any UN mandate been obtained. Nor has the permission of the state of Syria been given to bomb there...
Neither is required. But in 60-90 days the law requires the US Congress to say yeah/nay.
 
  • #262
Iraqi woman activist killed by Islamic State
http://news.yahoo.com/iraqi-woman-activist-killed-islamic-state-094701552.html

BAGHDAD (AP) — Militants with the Islamic State group tortured and then publicly killed a human rights lawyer in the Iraqi city of Mosul after their self-proclaimed religious court ruled that she had abandoned Islam, the U.N. mission in Iraq said Thursday.

Samira Salih al-Nuaimi.

May peace be upon her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #263
A group backing "moderate" Syrian rebels has collapsed.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/09/24/3396761/demise-of-group-backing-moderate.html

WASHINGTON — Two years after the Obama administration granted it a rare license to raise money for Syrian rebels, a Washington-based opposition nonprofit group that tried to help the United States build a moderate fighting force is defunct.

The Syrian Support Group quietly shut down last month, another casualty of the murky battleground conditions, lack of resources and infighting that have doomed every U.S.-backed attempt at creating a viable opposition partner.

A timely reminder of the fates of such projects, the group’s implosion comes as President Barack Obama tethers his new strategy against Islamic State extremists to a so-called moderate Syrian opposition force that does not yet exist in a cohesive form.
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/09/24/3396761/demise-of-group-backing-moderate.html#storylink=cpy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #264
Britain is joining in. Though only against militants in Iraq for the time being.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29385123

The government has said it would seek separate Parliamentary approval for the extension of air strikes to Syria but reserved the right to act without consulting MPs in the event of a humanitarian emergency.
 
Last edited:
  • #265
Allies. hmmm...

pf.2014.09.26.0931.allies.jpg

I saw an interesting article the other day:

Why Does The U.S. Like Iraq's Kurds But Not Syria's?It really throws a wrench into the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic, when the Kurds are enemies of both our friends and enemies.

So who are these "Kurds", and why is this map so funny?

kurdistan.gif


Oh. According to Google Earth, it doesn't really exist.

pf.2014.09.26.0950.per.google.earth.kurdistan.does.not.exist.jpg

Kind of reminds me of a post I made about a "Liver" shaped thing on a map of America one day:

secede.jpg


Who are these Lakotans, and why do they think they are significant?

 
  • #266
So who are these "Kurds", and why is this map so funny?

If there's any positive thing about the current mess, I think it's that the Kurds are getting closer to having their own country, which in my opinion is a few centuries overdue. I've always been impressed how they resisted Arabic and Turkish nationalism for all those years. They still have their language and customs.

I saw an interesting article the other day:

Why Does The U.S. Like Iraq's Kurds But Not Syria's?

A very good read.
 
Last edited:
  • #267
HossamCFD said:
If there's any positive thing about the current mess, I think it's that the Kurds are getting closer to having their own country, which in my opinion is a few centuries overdue. I've always been impressed how they resisted Arabic and Turkish nationalism for all those years. They still have their language and customs.
A very good read.

Thank you!

I concur, in more ways than one.
 
  • #269
caveman1917 said:
Has any rationale been provided for military intervention in Syria? What is the rationale for military intervention against IS in general? The media have spoken about the brutality and beheadings as a casus belli, but statistics show that the US-led coalition of the willing is beheading people at a much higher rate [mostly by Saudi Arabia and the moderate Syrian rebels].

The bottom line, they are not beheading Americans, ISIS is.
The reason for Syria and Iraq is as simple as the answer from Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks.
'That's where the money is (bandits are)'
 
Last edited:
  • #270
Time out.

I think you guys have forgotten that this is no longer Politics and World Affairs. WE DO NOT WANT it to become politics and world affairs Members DO NOT WANT it to become politics and world affairs. So STOP IT.

I will re-open this in the morning for rational discussion. Please remember to cite all claims with acceptable (by us) sources.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes nsaspook and OmCheeto

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
8K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K