ISIS declares creation of new "Islamic Caliphate"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ISIS heading toward Saudi and Jordan and leaving while the Shia terrorist in Yemen is also moving toward Saudi in Sync with them is no mere coincidence.

ISIS killed a lot from the Free Syrian army and Syrian rebels and left some areas for the Areas for Bashars army to claim

Many young Saudi who volunteered to join ISIS were brutally dicabitated Which pushed Saudi to declare ISIS, Hezbollah and The Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist groups after.
I think you are looking for causation when in fact it's just discrete points of coincidences. One thing to keep in mind is that ISIS is takfiri, and they do not hold anyone as a friend unless they agree with their twisted vision. For them, the people worse than non-Sunni Muslims are the Sunni Muslims that do not support them, i.e, are collaborators with the enemy. This mentality allowed them to make strange bedfellows and even stranger enemies. This is why they fought the FSA, because FSA quite simply does not have time for their bullshit. They would cut off their nose to spite their face. It's a self-defeating, self-destructive overreaction to a problem, which is why they would rather their enemies win over their takfiri'd brethren the FSA. Also there is no such collusion between the Saudi government and the Saudis who actually travel to fight in these militancies. If you think Sisi's regime is iron fisted towards political islamist groups, then Saudi monarchy is 10 times worse. Saudi government clamps down very hard on suspected terrorism, and they have declared the brotherhood, Al Qaida, ISIS and every other organization that can hold sway through violence or otherwise, as banned within their borders.
 
I don't believe on Media outlets since each has its own agenda, twitter and Youtube really showed me the truth.

Twitter and Youtube? Are you even listening to your own words? How can you be serious?

Listen to what RustyNails said. I couldn't have said it better.
 
GsDZWSI.gif
Yup.
 
I really don't want the US to get involved again. Even though it's sort of our fault, it doesn't help that there's a couple hundred years of nations deliberately fostering unrest in the area. It needs stability but I don't think America is the one to provide it.
 
It's amazing to me that there are parties that still believe that we can pick a winner in that whole mess, even after spending trillions of dollars and costing tens of thousands of lives (Iraqi and US coalition).

There is only one group that has their shit together enough to support -- the Kurds -- and they don't need our support.

Yes, I certainly feel terribly for the civilians, but at this point, it is more of a civil war with religious fundamentalism mixed in. If there were any will to put together a UN backed peacekeeping mission, I think the US should throw their weight behind that.

But beyond that, anyone that thinks we should get involved should share with us:

- how much they are willing to spend,
- how much of a tax raise is appropriate to fund this next war,
- how long we should occupy the region for -- 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? -- when do you predict the region will stabilize?,
- whether they have accounted for the rising cost of VA care over the next 4 decades as well in their tax raises
- what long term benefit there is for the US to spend trillions of dollars there
- who should we support (outside of the Kurds, who really don't need our support)?
 
This group of bandits can proclaim whatever they want; doesn't lend it credence.

Unless the UN is interested in sending in a multinational force, the US should stay the fuck out. No country in that region is ready for democracy except for the possibility of Iran.

Cost estimates for the war already put it beyond $2.7t not even factoring in the increased cost of VA care for decades to come.

Are you willing to spend another $2.7t and occupy Iraq for another 10 years? Do you want to stay 20 years?

Obama is doing the right thing and staying the fuck out; there are no "good guys" in the region and the only reason we even give a fuck about anything is because of oil. I'd rather we invest that $2.7t into research for nuclear fusion or tax incentives for renewables.

Fuck Iran. Fuck Suadi Arabia. Fuck OPEC.

This. All of it.
 
It's amazing to me that there are parties that still believe that we can pick a winner in that whole mess, even after spending trillions of dollars and costing tens of thousands of lives (Iraqi and US coalition).

There is only one group that has their shit together enough to support -- the Kurds -- and they don't need our support.

Yes, I certainly feel terribly for the civilians, but at this point, it is more of a civil war with religious fundamentalism mixed in. If there were any will to put together a UN backed peacekeeping mission, I think the US should throw their weight behind that.

But beyond that, anyone that thinks we should get involved should share with us:

- how much they are willing to spend,
- how much of a tax raise is appropriate to fund this next war,
- how long we should occupy the region for -- 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? -- when do you predict the region will stabilize?,
- whether they have accounted for the rising cost of VA care over the next 4 decades as well in their tax raises
- what long term benefit there is for the US to spend trillions of dollars there
- who should we support (outside of the Kurds, who really don't need our support)?

I'll pick up on your first sentence:

I don't know what you think international relations are about. If anybody supports anyone in this conflict, it's not out of humanitarian reasons, but out of the prospect of an own advantage.
 
I don't believe on Media outlets since each has its own agenda, twitter and Youtube really showed me the truth.
Just keep in mind that there are lot of crackpots on twitter and youtube. There are people who sit for hours and talk about why JFK was assassinated by the government because he was going to expose Area 51 or other such nonsense. They attract people who like to think they are smart, want to learn about the world but have no idea where to start. Hence, people like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck are born. They prey on peoples' weaknesses. They connect disparate coincidences and create a story to feed their audience and sadly people lap it up.
 
This. All of it.

Who even proposed anything like that in this thread?! Who?! This hasn't even been touched. And even if an intervention was discussed, it would be about precise hits, for example, in order to prevent the ISIS army from slaughtering the civilian population with the good old Death From Above(TM).
 
Someone who has no idea what a major conflict in the middle east would entail, or why WWII happened and why the parallels between that conflict and a middle east conflict are dumb.

I am from central europe. I am 30 years old. The middle east has been war-torn for my entire life.

All years it's been shit, after shit, after shit happening in the countries down there.
And the US/Europe keeps on fueling the fire with their war operations and greed.

These countries in the middle east need to get their shit together.
Start respecting other minorities and religions, and give EVERYONE equal rights.
 
I'll pick up on your first sentence:

I don't know what you think international relations are about. If anybody supports anyone in this conflict, it's not out of humanitarian reasons, but out of the prospect of an own advantage.

Go ahead, name the advantage and name the cost of that advantage. Give me a cost-benefit analysis to that advantage and let's see if it's really an advantage. You're using awfully broad language here so I'd be interested to break down your specifics and see what strategic advantage there is for the US to commit even another $1t there.

Another idiot made the same exact argument. Hey, remember these guys?

Ahead of and shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a number of officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. In October 2003, Rumsfeld told a press conference about President Bush's request for $21 billion for Iraq and Afghan reconstruction that "the $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community." In March 2003, Mr. Wolfowitz told Congress that "we're really dealing with a country that could finance its own reconstruction."​
 
Iraq has suffered s lot from Saddam to The clever detectives of Weapons of mass destruction to Iran's Puppet Al Maliki to ISIS,
Things might look bad but I'm sure the dawn of happiness is coming to Iraqi people, I'm optimistic.
 
The leading authority on religious law, Crusader Kings 2, has clear rules on how to declare the caliphate and this is not a valid declaration.

However, it is possible for a Muslim ruler to recreate the caliphate. The title may be created through the regular Create Title interface, but has special requirements:
Shia, Sunni, Ibadi or Hurufi (as appropriate)
1000 Piety OR Sayyid trait (male-line relative of Mohammed) OR Mirza trait (son of a Sayyid mother)
(1000 Piety AND Sayyid trait) OR (control Mecca AND control Medina) OR (control Baghdad AND control Damascus AND control Jerusalem).

Grab some more cities and try again !
 
I am from central europe. I am 30 years old. The middle east has been war-torn for my entire life.

All years it's been shit, after shit, after shit happening in the countries down there.
And the US/Europe keeps on fueling the fire with their war operations and greed.

These countries in the middle east need to get their shit together.
Start respecting other minorities and religions, and give EVERYONE equal rights.

I'm sorry, that sounds like the political opinion of a 12 year old. "Get their shit together"? Really? Wow, sounds easy enough. Lazy arabs!

These conflicts exist, deal with it. They sometimes end in war, in other cases they can be resolved diplomatically. These people are no cavemen thirsting for war and violence, they have conflicts that will need a lot of time until they are resolved - one way or the other. What we can do is give them incentives by trade to stop fighting each other - not more, not less.
 
I am from central europe. I am 30 years old. The middle east has been war-torn for my entire life.

All years it's been shit, after shit, after shit happening in the countries down there.
And the US/Europe keeps on fueling the fire with their war operations and greed.

These countries in the middle east need to get their shit together.
Start respecting other minorities and religions, and give EVERYONE equal rights.

Right, and a major regional conflict will really help everyone "get their shit together".

Not to mention the global ramifications of having a major conflict in the middle east, skyrocketing gas prices most likely to the point where it will cause a global recession. (Which IMO would be a good thing as it would be great political fodder for moving heavily to renewable.)
 
Go ahead, name the advantage and name the cost of that advantage. Give me a cost-benefit analysis to that advantage and let's see if it's really an advantage. You're using awfully broad language here so I'd be interested to break down your specifics and see what strategic advantage there is for the US to commit even another $1t there.

Another idiot made the same exact argument. Hey, remember these guys?

Ahead of and shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a number of officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. In October 2003, Rumsfeld told a press conference about President Bush's request for $21 billion for Iraq and Afghan reconstruction that "the $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community." In March 2003, Mr. Wolfowitz told Congress that "we're really dealing with a country that could finance its own reconstruction."​

You're looking for a fight and call me an idiot (I sincerely hope you won't get banned for that), but guess what: I won't give you one.

Also, you're really not attentive. Never have I said or insinuated that the US should intervene. I challenge you to show me where I said such a thing.

The only thing I said is that apparently, in 2003, the cost-benefit was positive enough for Bush to attack.
 
These conflicts are similar to the Thirty Years' War in Europe. I feel like it's a stage the region is going through like the protestant reformation in Europe. I like to think that it will get better but first a lot of people are going to have to die unfortunately.
 
The idea of a single body of governance of Muslims does appeal to many, particularly when you consider the shambolic political and economic condition many Muslim nations find themselves under. How to actually achieve that, however, is of course the issue. Inciting sectarianism in a sensitive region of the world under this global climate perhaps isn't the smartest thing to do.
 
The Middle East is starting to look and act very similar to pre-Geneva Germany.

If anyone other than the initial parties get involved with this, say hello to World War III...
 
You're looking for a fight and call me an idiot (I sincerely hope you won't get banned for that), but guess what: I won't give you one.

Also, you're really not attentive. Never have I said or insinuated that the US should intervene. I challenge you to show me where I said such a thing.

The only thing I said is that apparently, in 2003, the cost-benefit was positive enough for Bush to attack.

You said:

I'll pick up on your first sentence:

I don't know what you think international relations are about. If anybody supports anyone in this conflict, it's not out of humanitarian reasons, but out of the prospect of an own advantage.

How can one read this other than to imply that there is "an own advantage" to supporting a side in this conflict?

If you believe there is "an own advantage" to the US to supporting a side, please provide the specifics and provide yours or anyone's cost-benefit analysis of said advantage. If you're not implying that we should support a side out of "an own advantage", go ahead and backpedal now.

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. believed that there was an advantage as well; they believed that Iraqi oil exports would be worth the cost of the war.

Instead, only 3.3% of all US oil imports in April 2014 came from Iraq, which cost us $2.7t and counting to secure. Does that seem like an "advantage" to you? If so, please justify it.

Every discussion of armed conflict is a discussion of civilians. You're weirdly eager to just write them off.

I did not write them off. I stated that if there were a UN resolution to support a multinational peacekeeping or humanitarian mission there, the US should throw its weight behind it.

I state that the US should not side with Maliki's and his clearly sectarian intentions nor should the US side with any rebel groups in the region simply because it is much too difficult to discern "good rebels" from "bad rebels". Furthermore, the US should not commit to another occupation there unless it is a UN backed peacekeeping mission. There is nothing the US can do for the civilians with a unilateral mission unless we are ready to commit several hundred billion more if not a trillion more.
 
You said:



How can one read this other than to imply that there is "an own advantage" to supporting a side in this conflict?

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. believed that there was an advantage as well; they believed that Iraqi oil exports would be worth the cost of the war.
1.) With ease. By not being emotionally loaded and not reading what you want to read.

2.) And you believed them? I can't believe what I'm reading. The advantage was quite clear: Bush's and Rummie's old friends had new sources to tap. They did not care about advantages for the american people.
 
1.) With ease. By not being emotionally loaded and not reading what you want to read.

2.) And you believed them? I can't believe what I'm reading. The advantage was quite clear: Bush's and Rummie's old friends had new sources to tap. They did not care about advantages for the american people.

I never believed them. I voted Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama and despised every move Bush and Co. made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If anybody supports anyone in this conflict, it's not out of humanitarian reasons, but out of the prospect of an own advantage.

I'll ask again, who should we support, then? And what advantage does it confer on us? And at what cost?

If you have no answer to this, your original post itself was a frivolous tautology. Of course all conflicts are inherently not about civilians.

There is no advantage significant enough to support any party in this conflict; there is no advantage to pumping several hundred billion more into the region in the short term and trillions in the long term. There simply isn't.
 
Awesome. Way to taint the concept with a pack of loons that the USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kurds, Russia, and Iraq all hate.


Is kobashi having an orgasm?
 
I never believed them. I voted Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama and despised every move Bush and Co. made in Iraq and Afghanistan.



I'll ask again, who should we support, then? And what advantage does it confer on us? And at what cost?

If you have no answer to this, your original post itself was a frivolous tautology. Of course all conflicts are inherently not about civilians.

You are constantly evading any point of this discussion you can't counter. For example: If you never believed them, how did you have trouble seeing the advantage?

Anyway, I will not discuss this with you further - I know how people like you discuss, and it will lead to nowhere because you'll always evade and pull something out of your ass, sometimes phrasing it seemingly sofisticated to confuse the audience.

This will lead to nowhere, so look for someone else to discharge your anger at.
 
You are constantly evading any point of this discussion you can't counter. For example: If you never believed them, how did you have trouble seeing the advantage?

There was never any advantage. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration surely believed that there was an advantage. They sold it to the public as such to authorize the war. Be that an advantage in US security (WMD) or profiteering ("It'll pay for itself!"). But guys like Obama long saw that there was no advantage in going into Iraq then and I maintain that there is still no advantage for us to act militarily in Iraq unless it's a multinational UN-backed peacekeeping mission.

There are those in the US and in this thread who still believe that we can spend and fight our way to stability in Iraq; that our inaction is a mistake. That is a valid position, but then if one takes that position, be prepared to offer up an analysis of the strategy, timelines, and the cost required to bring stability to that region to support that position.

I mean, if it's not clear by now, it should be that I don't support any additional unilateral US military action in the region simply because there is no side worth supporting aside from the Kurds who have their shit together.

Anyway, I will not discuss this with you further - I know how people like you discuss, and it will lead to nowhere because you'll always evade and pull something out of your ass, sometimes phrasing it seemingly sofisticated to confuse the audience.

Go for it.
 
This is so funny. I like how entire continents start falling and the differences between any of these countries is never discussed.

Turkey teaming up with Saudi teaming up with Morocco, teaming up with Egypt, teaming up with Iran? Lol...And somehow they overtake India, much of eastern Asia, and minority immigrant groups take over most of western Europe?

But Spain has 22% unemployment!. They could just as well be celebrating RAMADAN right now!
 
I still find it hilariously ironic that out of all the ME countries, Iran is probably the only one who could have genuine democracy and not implode less than a decade later.

SMFH.
 
It seems like Charlie Digital is arguing with some invisible ghost that isn't present in the thread. Why are you talking about Donald Rumsfeld, Charlie?!

As for this actual topic, I think this is a pretty awful strategic mistake from ISIS's pov, which is obviously good for everyone else in the region. As far as I can tell, it has two repercussions - one is that it limits the chance of their rapid expansion that they've been doing for the last 6 months if they have "established" (in their view) borders, and secondly it means the usual whack-a-mole style disappear-reappear tactics that these cells usually rely on won't be as effective against a mobilised standing military (whoever that is). There was an interesting cover story in the Spectator a week or two back about how groups like this usually struggle to hold the land they take, getting beaten back by organised militaries but they can never be properly dispersed, just temporarily halted until the military presence disappears. If they "bed in", as it were, there'll be a clear and identifiable area that can be retaken in time.
 
What effective land do they have claim to as of this time? There was news recently that the Iraqi Army had retaken Tikrit.
 
I don't believe on Media outlets since each has its own agenda, twitter and Youtube really showed me the truth.


Yup, twitter and YouTube are bastions of balanced reporting.

And what an amazing master stroke by Assad - trick George Bush 1&2 into invading Iraq twice, get republicans to give Obama an unsolvable shitshow, parlay that into an Arab Spring that fails and collapses, leaving Syria and Iraq in a prime position to germinate the flowering of this epic Caliphate.

Assad may look like ghetto Hitler, but he's been playing 12 dimensional chess this whole time.
 
It seems like Charlie Digital is arguing with some invisible ghost that isn't present in the thread. Why are you talking about Donald Rumsfeld, Charlie?!

As for this actual topic, I think this is a pretty awful strategic mistake from ISIS's pov, which is obviously good for everyone else in the region. As far as I can tell, it has two repercussions - one is that it limits the chance of their rapid expansion that they've been doing for the last 6 months if they have "established" (in their view) borders, and secondly it means the usual whack-a-mole style disappear-reappear tactics that these cells usually rely on won't be as effective against a mobilised standing military (whoever that is). There was an interesting cover story in the Spectator a week or two back about how groups like this usually struggle to hold the land they take, getting beaten back by organised militaries but they can never be properly dispersed, just temporarily halted until the military presence disappears. If they "bed in", as it were, there'll be a clear and identifiable area that can be retaken in time.

Well there is a clear cut problem with this theory. ISIS has shown they can hold and keep territory for years now in Syria with their stronghold city of Al-Raqqa.

Not only that but also run this city relatively efficiently with propaganda centers, aid programs, electricity etc. etc.

Here is an nice analysis that I think articulates what I'm trying to say pretty well:

http://pando.com/2014/06/16/the-war...-know-about-too-extreme-for-al-qaeda-i-s-i-s/

ISIS is a sectarian Sunni militia—that’s all. A big one, as militias go, with something like 10,000 fighters. Most of them are Iraqi, a few are Syrian, and a few hundred are those famous “European jihadis” who draw press attention out of all relation to their negligible combat value. The real strength of ISIS comes from its Chechen fighters, up to a thousand of them. A thousand Chechens is a serious force, and a terrifying one if they’re bearing down on your neighborhood. Chechens are the scariest fighters, pound-for-pound, in the world.

But we’re still talking about a conventional military force smaller than a division. That’s a real but very limited amount of combat power. What this means is that, no matter how many scare headlines you read, ISIS will never take Baghdad, let alone Shia cities to the south like Karbala. It won’t be able to dent the Kurds’ territory to the north, either. All it can do—all it has been doing, by moving into Sunni cities like Mosul and Tikrit—is to complete the partition of Iraq begun by our dear ex-president Bush in 2003. By crushing Saddam’s Sunni-led Iraq, the Americans made partition inevitable. In fact, Iraq has been partitioned ever since the invasion; it’s just been partitioned badly, into two parts instead of the natural three: the Kurdish north, and the remainder occupied by a weak sectarian Shia force going by the name of “The Iraqi Army.” The center of the country, the so-called “Sunni Triangle,” had no share in this partition and was under the inept, weak rule of the Shia army.

By occupying the Sunni cities, ISIS has simply made a more rational partition, adding a third part, putting the Sunni Triangle back under Sunni rule. The Shia troops who fled as soon as they heard that the ISIS was on the way seem to have anticipated that the Sunni would claim their own territory someday. That’s why they fled without giving even a pretense of battle.

The most important thing about this name is that it’s clear about policy—“Islamic State”—and very flexible about territory. The Islamic State is supposed to cover the whole world, so it doesn’t matter very much which chunk of turf it starts on. None of the borders of the Arab Middle East—Iraq, Syria, Jordan—mean much if you believe in a Caliphate that should encompass the whole Ummah, every believer in the world. So I.S.I.S. has always been vague about territory. It’s a fluid group, moving away from pressure and toward chaos, toward regions where authority is weak and there’s room to expand. Think of I.S.I.S. as something between a liquid and a gas, always striving to fill a void.

EDIT:

Yup, twitter and YouTube are bastions of balanced reporting.

And what an amazing master stroke by Assad - trick George Bush 1&2 into invading Iraq twice, get republicans to give Obama an unsolvable shitshow, parlay that into an Arab Spring that fails and collapses, leaving Syria and Iraq in a prime position to germinate the flowering of this epic Caliphate.

Assad may look like ghetto Hitler, but he's been playing 12 dimensional chess this whole time.

And I love this post.
 
Well there is a clear cut problem with this theory. ISIS has shown they can hold and keep territory for years now in Syria with their stronghold city of Al-Raqqa.

Not only that but also run this city relatively efficiently with propaganda centers, aid programs, electricity etc. etc.

Here is an nice analysis that I think articulates what I'm trying to say pretty well:

http://pando.com/2014/06/16/the-war...-know-about-too-extreme-for-al-qaeda-i-s-i-s/

That's not a "problem" with my theory - my point wasn't that they'd fall apart or be easy to attack, but rather that now there is something to attack. The fact Syria have failed to do that so far (Especially given their other... distractions) doesn't change that.
 
I never thought i'd join the military but these guys are threatening my family's home country. (I'm Iranian)

If things get bad I might honestly join the US military just to help fight these guys off. But I don't even know what I could do. I can't see myself getting in a firefight.....But I guess it's too early to tell.

Irans biggest threat is probably the US Military, so that may not be a good idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom