ISIS destroyed Jonah's tomb and other historical sites

[Channel72]

You're looking way too much into my words there - I'm not trying to provide a formal definition of "country". The point is we can call ISIS a country all we want, but at this point they're more in a transitional stage between insurgent militia and actual functioning state. And since (1) they have no defense against air strikes, (2) nobody recognizes them as a legitimate state, and (3) the US, UK, Iran (and everyone else on the fucking planet) don't want them around, they're not likely to go further down the road of "actual functioning state".

[cosmicalstorm]

Todays newsdigest regarding the Islamic State was very bad. Childbeheadings, selling of infidel women as slaves, a lot more potency for IS that previously thought. They might well roll into Saudi Arabia too.

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

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

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

Dropping more bombs on people who already hate America will not have zero consequences. It seems like it will be a great tool for ISIS, just like Israeli bombs are great for Hamas PR.

[Simon_Jester]

Todays newsdigest regarding the Islamic State was very bad. Childbeheadings, selling of infidel women as slaves, a lot more potency for IS that previously thought. They might well roll into Saudi Arabia too.

Knowing the code by which they intend to rule I can grasp why they sell non-Muslim women into slavery, in the sense that I can grasp why Pol Pot liked to kill off eyeglasses-wearing Cambodians. But if they're beheading children they're doing it because in their minds the children have somehow offended... I'm honestly wondering in a horrified sense what that offense was.

You're looking way too much into my words there - I'm not trying to provide a formal definition of "country". The point is we can call ISIS a country all we want, but at this point they're more in a transitional stage between insurgent militia and actual functioning state.

The flip side of that is that calling them "just a terrorist organization" grossly underestimates the amount of danger and work involved in getting rid of them. It's stupid to think of them in those terms.

What they are, essentially, is an entity that has the physical capability to run its own country, but not the international recognition to do so for long. Or the means to procure the full range of modern advanced weapons. So they're going to be easier to defeat in open battle than a "real country..." but not much easier to break up on the ground and remove from power over the local population.

[Channel72]

Well... looks like we're going to be bombing them for a long time to come...

...or basically, Iraq War 2.0 (this time with more drones) has pretty much started.

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Saturday that the airstrikes and humanitarian assistance drops he ordered last week in Iraq could go on for months, preparing Americans for an extended military presence in the skies there as Iraq’s leaders try to build a new government.

“I don’t think we’re going to solve this problem in weeks,” Mr. Obama told reporters before leaving for a two-week golf-and-beach vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. “This is going to be a long-term project.”

The president repeated his insistence that his administration would not send ground troops back to Iraq after ending an unpopular, decade-long war and withdrawing the last troops in 2011. But two days after emphasizing the limited scope of the mission in a White House address, he pledged that the United States would stand with Iraq if it could form a unified and inclusive government to counter the Sunni militants who threaten its future.

“Changing that environment so that the millions of Sunnis who live in these areas feel connected to and well served by a national government, that’s a long-term process,” he said during a lengthy departure statement on the White House lawn during which he took several questions from reporters.

The president’s assessment of the campaign’s duration came as Sunni militants with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria began advancing along a main road up Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq, where thousands of Yazidis, an ethnic and religious minority, remained trapped. In Mosul, residents reported that nearly two dozen bodies of ISIS fighters, said to have been killed in American airstrikes, had arrived at the city’s morgue, while at least 30 wounded fighters were being treated at a hospital.

Saturday was the first time Mr. Obama had addressed the question of a timeline for the military intervention in Iraq, and his remarks are likely to raise new questions, especially among those who fear that the mission could slowly pull America back into a more robust involvement in the country. The president said he would not give a “particular timetable” on the new operations.

Aides said that Mr. Obama had not committed to years of continuous airstrikes while Iraqis develop a new government, but that his comments reflected the uncertainty of a military effort that will be re-evaluated in the months ahead.

The open-ended nature of Mr. Obama’s actions presents a tricky political problem for a president who campaigned against what he once called a “dumb war” and repeatedly pressed Republicans to set a date for the departure of American troops from the battlefield. The last American troops left Iraq in December 2011, yet Mr. Obama now finds himself in charge of a new, if very different, military operation there with no certain end in sight.

When he announced the airstrikes on Thursday night, Mr. Obama emphasized the immediate goals of protecting Americans in Baghdad and in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq, and helping to rescue the Iraqis trapped by ISIS fighters on the mountain. In his remarks Saturday morning, he focused more on the need to help Iraqis over the long term, giving them what he called space to develop a government that can fight back against militants.

But his acknowledgment that the effort in Iraq will take time may not be enough to satisfy Republican critics, many of whom accuse Mr. Obama of failing to embrace a sufficiently aggressive air mission aimed at driving the militants out of Iraq and Syria.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential opponent, said Saturday that Mr. Obama’s vision for military operations against militants in Iraq was too narrow. He said the actions ordered by the president were not nearly enough to counter a growing threat from “the richest, most powerful terrorist organization in history.”

“Obviously, the president of the United States does not appreciate this is not just a threat to American troops on the ground, or even Iraq or Kurdistan,” Mr. McCain said in a telephone interview from Vietnam, where he was traveling with a congressional delegation. “This is a threat to America.”

In describing a potentially long time frame for military action in Iraq, Mr. Obama cited in part the danger and complexity of the rescue mission on Mount Sinjar. The military has airdropped 36,224 meals to the refugees in the last two days, officials said. But Mr. Obama said the much harder task of creating a safe corridor for them down the mountain would take more time.

Defense Department officials expressed confidence that they could achieve within a few days one of Mr. Obama’s announced goals: stopping the advance of the militants on Erbil, where hundreds of American diplomatic officials and military advisers are stationed. On Friday, the military struck a number of ISIS targets near Erbil, including a stationary convoy of seven vehicles and a mobile artillery unit that was being towed by a truck.

“We can stop them from moving into Erbil,” a senior Defense Department official said Saturday, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe military planning. “The cost will become too high. There will be a tremendous amount of deterrence in these strikes.”

In Baghdad, leaders’ efforts to name a replacement for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, stalled on Saturday, with Mr. Maliki clinging to power and rivals unable to decide on an alternative. A session of Parliament scheduled for Sunday, when leaders had been expected to nominate a new prime minister, was postponed until Monday.

Earlier, Mr. Obama said the length of American involvement would depend on how quickly Iraqi leaders could form a national unity government with meaningful roles for the country’s two main minority groups, Sunnis and Kurds. Without saying so explicitly, American officials have been quietly working to replace Mr. Maliki because they believe that he is incapable of uniting the country to face the militant threat.

Mr. Obama said an inclusive government would give all Iraqis a reason to believe that they were represented, and Iraqi military forces a motive to fight back against the militants. Once that happens, he said, the American military, working with Iraqi and Kurdish fighters, can “engage in some offense.”

“The most important timetable that I’m focused on right now is the Iraqi government getting formed and finalized,” he said before boarding Marine One.

Hours before Mr. Obama spoke in Washington, Sunni militants in northern Iraq ordered engineers to return to work on the Mosul Dam, the country’s largest, suggesting that the extremists who captured the dam last week after fierce battles with Kurdish forces would use it, at least for now, to provide water and electricity to the areas they control.

As ISIS consolidates its control of territory, it has shown an intent to act strategically when it comes to natural resources. But its control over the fragile dam also gives the group the ability to create a civilian catastrophe: A break could unleash a tidal wave over Mosul and cause flooding and deaths along the Tigris River south to Baghdad and beyond, experts said.

ISIS fighters also appeared to make progress in a separate battle for control of the Haditha Dam, Iraq’s second largest, which sits on the Euphrates River farther south in Anbar Province. Security forces said militants had destroyed a strategic bridge near the town of Barwana, which government forces had been using to resupply fighting units.

In London, the British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, said in a statement on television that Royal Air Force planes would “imminently” begin humanitarian airdrops in northern Iraq. President François Hollande of France also pledged humanitarian support in a telephone call with Mr. Obama, officials said.

[Broomstick]

Todays newsdigest regarding the Islamic State was very bad. Childbeheadings, selling of infidel women as slaves, a lot more potency for IS that previously thought. They might well roll into Saudi Arabia too.

Knowing the code by which they intend to rule I can grasp why they sell non-Muslim women into slavery, in the sense that I can grasp why Pol Pot liked to kill off eyeglasses-wearing Cambodians. But if they're beheading children they're doing it because in their minds the children have somehow offended... I'm honestly wondering in a horrified sense what that offense was.

Likely, practicing a religion other than whatever sub-division of Islam ISIS/ISIL/IS approves of. By their standards, Yezidi children literally worship Satan, so yeah, Evil Kids. Or breaking any of the taboos ISIL holds important. Or they belong to a group slated for extermination.

There is ample historical precedent for killing children, we in the west just haven't been exposed to such things for awhile.

[Borgholio]

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential opponent, said Saturday that Mr. Obama’s vision for military operations against militants in Iraq was too narrow. He said the actions ordered by the president were not nearly enough to counter a growing threat from “the richest, most powerful terrorist organization in history.”

It's doubtful the GOP will remember this if US boots hit the ground and they start bitching about how Obama is flip-flopping about pulling us out of Iraq.

[Channel72]

So, basically US official policy is more or less to admit that the 2006 Maliki government has been a total and abject failure, and we need to try again to form a working Iraqi government that doesn't exclude non-Shias.

Just to be obnoxious, I'd like to post this 2006 quote from George W. Bush regarding the Al-Maliki government:

[Bush] predicted that years later, people will look back and see this establishment of Iraq’s government as a “decisive moment in the history of liberty,” where freedom gained “firm foothold” in the Middle East.

A true prophet and sage, that guy was...

The funny thing is, what's actually going on with ISIS is literally one of the "worst-case scenario" alarmist predictions that many people assumed would happen after the US pulled out...

[Broomstick]

So, basically US official policy is more or less to admit that the 2006 Maliki government has been a total and abject failure, and we need to try again to form a working Iraqi government that doesn't exclude non-Shias.

Or maybe we admit that a "united Iraq" may not be the best solution and let it separate into Kurd, Shi'a, and Sunni states which might be more stable (or not - I don't pretend to predict these things). Or we actually, you know, support the Kurds and stop the advance of ISIL.

I'm not a big fan of repeating failed efforts. I'm just not sure what would actually work in that region of the world to create a stable nation that doesn't involve genocide or wide-scale repression.

[Channel72]

So, basically US official policy is more or less to admit that the 2006 Maliki government has been a total and abject failure, and we need to try again to form a working Iraqi government that doesn't exclude non-Shias.

Or maybe we admit that a "united Iraq" may not be the best solution and let it separate into Kurd, Shi'a, and Sunni states which might be more stable (or not - I don't pretend to predict these things).

You may very well be correct. Saddam was able to pull it off by being an oppressively brutal asshole and giving people a generally high standard of living and a decent education (before US sanctions, anyway...) Before that Faisal II was able to pull it off as well, but the political climate was very different. He was Sunni, but he adopted a pan-Arab approach, which is really the key I think. Of course, that was back before certain elements of Islam had become so radicalized after years of Western support for Israel and Cold War regime meddling.

Then again... I'm not sure if splitting Iraq up will necessarily solve anything. It would probably just lead to (inter)-national conflict. Something like ISIS may still try to conquer the separate nations (like they're doing now in Kurdistan.)

Or we actually, you know, support the Kurds and stop the advance of ISIL.

That is what we're trying to do. We're supporting Erbil via air strikes, and I'm sure we'll be giving the Peshmerga direct assistance via weapons/supplies shortly.

[cosmicalstorm]

It's unbelievable that it's so hard for the US leadership to simply... Support the Kurds!
At this point Turkey is becoming more and more of a failed Islamic state and less of an ally. Isis is rising. The Shiites in Iraq seems like a worthless bunch propped up by Iran.

This could actually be an excellent time for the US to remedy some of it's past mistakes in the region. If not reestablishing diplomatic links with Iran, at least begin sending serious support to the Kurds.
The American military is so massively capable of such logistics; it could have planes loaded with food, ammo and armored vehicles landing in Kurdistan around the clock. Am I missing something? Do they not have airfields? If not then could they not be built?

If Obama simply reinvades Iraq for the third time without acknowledging the country no longer exists I'm going to lose a lot of respect for him.

[Simon_Jester]

Believe it or not, providing effective armed assistance to a foreign group can take more than a week or so to set up. Both Gulf Wars involved a protracted 'wind-up' period in which arms and materiel were gradually shipped into the region, bases and supply lines established, and efficient liaison offices with local militaries were set up.

Unfortunately, none of that happens overnight.

[madd0ct0r]

At this point Turkey is becoming more and more of a failed Islamic state and less of an ally.

I'd like to see some evidence for that statement.

[Steve]

It probably has to do with Erdogan's behavior in the past couple of years. Calling it Turkey becoming a failed state is perhaps going too far. But just the other night I saw this article: http://news.msn.com/world/new-outcry-as ... your-place. It does give the feeling that Turkey's secular nature has been eroded to the point of failure.

[cosmicalstorm]

I'm not going to enter a long debate about the subject but my impression is that Turkey is failing. It is abandoning democracy and meritocracy in favor of kleptocracy and plain stupid religion. Not that it was perfect from the start but it seemed to have a positive momentum going for a while. They also seem to have a tendency to make really poor strategic choices. Now I get the feeling it's falling backwards into time. Being proven wrong on this point would be delightful!

[madd0ct0r]

If you're making the assertion comicalstorm, it kind behoves on you to back it up with evidence, you can't just state A, say 'i don't want a long debate and then repeat A.

Erdogan's a power happy wannabee autocrat, but he lost to protestors over Gezi, and the constitutional court overturned his ban of twitter.
I don't rank him highly, but I wouldn't consider Turkey a failed state any more then Italy under Berlusconi. An embarrassment? yes. Abandoning democracy and meritocracy in favor of kleptocracy and plain stupid religion? We'll see. The first ever presidential election started this morning.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 59445.html

[cosmicalstorm]

I'm happy to provide some later today. On phone now.
Rumors about Yazidis being buried alive today. Maybe fake?

http://www.trust.org/item/20140810102246-b9lmg

[Broomstick]

Plausible, but it needs confirmation. I'd heard about the approximately 500 killed in/around Sinjar, this appears to be more details on the deaths.

[cosmicalstorm]

Here is a picture off the Twitter feed today, supposedly of a child about to be executed by IS.



Well he was re-elected today. I expect him to continue reinforcing his power.
Here are a few regarding Turkey. Maybe this is all propaganda from hateful zionists and white-power types, maybe Turkey is taking the road to the middle ages like it's neighbors.

Erdogan’s Turkey: Less nationalism, more Islam
http://www.timesofisrael.com/erdogans-t ... ore-islam/

Erdogan taking Turkey back 1,000 years with ‘reforms’
http://nypost.com/2013/10/04/turkeys-er ... w-reforms/

Not calling IS terrorists.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origina ... onsul.html#

The Islamization of Turkey’s Foreign Ministry
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origina ... istry.html#

[madd0ct0r]

even al-jazeera are holding their noses. conceeded. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 86150.html

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

As I said on another forum, this is the Bad End that the U.S. earned way back in 2003, Iraq has become the millstone around our collective neck that drowns us all, forever. Any "stability" we bring will last precisely as long as it takes for us to leave, then the region will devolve back into a tribal/sectarian conflict with roots that go back a thousand years or more.

There are kids today, who were toddlers when 9/11 happened, who are getting ready to join the military and maybe end up back in Iraq, who's fathers fought in Iraq, and who's grandfathers fought in the first Gulf War. This is our future.

[Gandalf]

It's also nice to see the old arguments from 2002 appearing again. My favourite being that regardless of political affiliation, refusing to do "something*" about this renders one a horrible human being, and that it's now time to reinvade Iraq to "finish the job/play for keeps/other tough guy phrasing."

*Any style of intervention as long as it's militaristic.

[Grumman]

*Any style of intervention as long as it's militaristic.

How else does one effectively deal with an expansionist, genocidal enemy?

[Metahive]

Attacking ISIS troops is just scratching at the symptoms. The root causes responsible for their existence and current strength and popularity have to be dealt with, otherwise they just return some time later. Those root causes are, among other things, the West fucking with the Middle East and...bombing people there with lucky abandon, so you do the math what more bombings will do. Hint, look at Viet Nam and Kambodia.

[cosmicalstorm]

Wow. My workmate had ALL cousins raped in the area of Sinjar. 30 people. Wow

[The Romulan Republic]

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

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

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

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

I think that the problems with what Bush did include using false information to justify the war, sending insufficient troops (or so I recall reading), tolerating abuse of Iraqis by coalition personnel, and supporting the worthless asshole Maliki (or did he take power after Bush left?).

The solution to the first one is to have accurate information and not lie. The second one is less applicable now because we're not trying to reoccupy Iraq. The solution to the third one is respect for human rights, transparency, accountability, probably better mental health care, and care in choosing our targets. Sadly, I don't have much hope for Obama in this area. The last one is the trickiest one. I don't know who would be better than Maliki.