Middle Eastern Conflict [General]

[Doc Rikowski]

Palikari, it makes sense and it could be as you say when it comes to the hardware and the technical skills.

Still, the sophistication of the whole thing shows not only technical skills but also talent and good taste in design.

Even a knowledge of the latest design trends.

That is not something everyone can achieve.

And why on earth an experienced designer with a high level of education and a great salary in some well known "western" design studio or ad agency should leave it all to join the ISIS in the desert with the risk of being bombed to oblivion?

Something's too odd imo.

 

Btw in "western" I include Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Turkey and Doha.

 

To me it's much easier to gather a professional freelance crew in a flat, use it as an office, maybe cover it up as some call centre and then produce and distribute all from there, far from the battlefield.

In that case it wouldn't be hard to convince some good professionals that sympathise with ISIS to make some money on the side while helping the cause.

 

Any way you put it there is well educated people in or helping ISIS and this should make us re-think the approach we have with the issue.

Cause clearly they're no bunch of obscurantists ignorants.

Cruelty and violence don't necessarily come only from savages.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[sivispacem]

It's not that odd. I assume you've never seen Inspire, AQ's magazine? Or many of the AQ videos? Organisations of this nature often have propaganda wings that harness glossy design and mass media to spread the group's message. Just because their world view is rooted in 9th century Islamic theology doesn't mean they're luddites.

[Doc Rikowski]

All AQ material has a much more amateurish look. The word you used, "glossy", perfectly describes it. That's exactly the look you'd expect from an amateur with a rudimental knowledge of design. And anyway AQ was an organisation that allegedly had much stronger ties with Saudi Arabia so I wouldn't be surprised if they had sophisticated communication means. That's basically what I'm trying to say about ISIS. They wouldn't be able to produce such sophisticated material unless they had some kind of back up from countries where such sophistication is possible. I just don't buy the idea of the highly educated and very experienced professional designer jihadist working with a laptop in a cave.

Also, if their view of the world is rooted in the 9th century Islamic theology why are they using western Satan's modern means to communicate?

Maybe cause they are much rooted in this century instead and the 9th century talk is made to feed our sensationalist media and to recruit the ignorant cannon fodder they need on the battlefield.

Their "savage" and obscurantist image is convenient for all involved sides and it is spread with top notch marketing techniques.

[sivispacem]

IS aren't working with laptops in caves. They're an urban guerrilla movement primarily with fairly substantial territorial holdings. They've been attracting individuals from all over the developed world in a way AQ often failed to do. You have to remember they control large swathes of both Iraq and Syria, two countries which, whilst not developed in a conventional sense, have pretty substantial tertiary economies. They're much more sophisticated than, say, Pakistan when it comes to developed design economies and the like. I find it somewhat puzzling that you seem to suggest it is impossible for individuals in the design industry to work in Syria and Iraq and be affiliated with IS.

 

Wahhabism and Salafism, which are the underlying fundamentalist Sunni ideologies behind IS, are specifically rooted in the belief that the only "true" and "pure" branch of Islam was that practiced during the golden era of Islamic dominance circa 630-1250 AD. I don't want to lecture you on the finer points of Sunni fundamentalism and there's a wealth of information discussing Salafism and Wahhabism plus more recent off-shoots such as Qutbism which is the "modern", expansionist interpretation of Salafism combined with Takfiri ideologies and the aim of reviving Islam's golden age through the re-establishment of the caliphate, either regional or global depending on which fundamentalist expansionist organisation you happen to be addressing, but the language they use whilst discussing their territorial gains and their ideological statements and attempts to subjugate Christians and Shi'a Muslims in regions under their control all have direct parallels to Salafist Jihadi ideology and deliberately harks back to the golden age of Islam. It's also worth remembering that IS was formed from the remnants of AQI, which as a local AQ cell was by definition Salafist.

[Smith John]

Doc Rikowski, what exactly are you suggesting the actual goal of these savages (yes, savages) is?

[Doc Rikowski]

I don't say it is impossible that a Syrian or an Iraqi designer could join ISIS, I'm just saying that the level of design showcased doesn't fit with the level of design you would expect from such countries even before the US occupation of Iraq and the Syrian rebellion.
It looks much more like the product of someone that worked in the West or in top level agencies in the Arabic peninsula. I don't think that the idea that they can have some back up in allegedly not involved countries is too far-fetched. I think it's a possibility given what we know about AQ and ISIS.

Anyway, we don't know enough to reach a conclusion unless this "media centre" is found and destroyed.

Lucchese, if I knew it I would work in some top level intelligence service.
To be honest, from my limited personal perspective, it seems to me that their goal is to create instability in the region and at the same time form a new Islamic State in the regions they are occupying.
Conveniently though they also serve other purposes.
If they are doing it consciously or not that I don't know.
But it is clear that a strong ISIS in Syria is good for Turkey cause it keeps the Kurds in their spot and fights an enemy of Turkey, Assad, which is also an enemy of the West, of the Wahhabi and of Israel.
A strong ISIS in Iraq is good for a lot of people cause it balances the power of the Shias supported by Iran.
De facto it is an obstacle for any Iranian desire of larger influence in the region, which is indeed another thing that benefits once again the West, the Wahhabi and Israel who are all historical enemies of Iran.
ISIS' atrocious and cruel propaganda also helps our governments to scare the public opinion with the threat of global terrorism which is always a good excuse to implement whatever safety measures the government needs to control its citizens.
Ultimately ISIS is a good tool to spread Wahhabism and Salafism all over the middle East and Maghreb increasing the influence of the Arabic peninsula regimes all over the lands of the ancient Islamic Caliphate.

[sivispacem]

I don't disagree that the publicity materials could have been produced elsewhere, but I feel that your characterisation of both Iraq and Syria doesn't really reflect the realities of either society. Some areas of each have extremely high levels of economic development and the region actually has a large number of internationally successful graphic artists, designers and media specialists.

[Doc Rikowski]

I guess I might be partially wrong on that. I'll research a bit more about design in Syria. But I still think that some other countries might be involved.

 

---

 

In other news I just read that Turkey bombed PKK targets.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29611582

 

Not looking good for the Kurds, as usual.

[K^2]

I don't know much about Iraq or know any people from there, but various small companies in Russia have been doing a lot of business with Syria over the past couple of decades. I would definitely agree with sivis' assessment on Syria.

 

And what happened to Turkey? They were practically a civilized country for a while. Now they're regressing, and I see a lot of aggressive nationalism from Turks that wasn't there before. I mean, they've always had pride in their country, but they weren't aggressive about it. Maybe it's just world-going-to-hell-o'clock on this planet.

[sivispacem]

You can blame the AK party for much of that. Increasing Islamisation, decreasing freedoms, attempts by the government to neuter the military and courts which they see as too domineering, the gradual erosion of secularism. It's depressing.

[Moth]

A little bit about Kurdish female fighters. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/isis-fears-these-female-kurdish-fighters-for-some-very-1645872756/+damon

[Creed Bratton]

A little bit about Kurdish female fighters. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/isis-fears-these-female-kurdish-fighters-for-some-very-1645872756/+damon

Damn. That Kurdish fighter chick is hot. I hope those women make it out of there in one piece.

[Melech]

These Kurdish women are HEROINES. I deeply admire them.

 

 

Her name is Arin Mirkan. She ran out of ammno, and was about to be captured by IS, and then raped, tortured and beheaded. She knew she was gonna die anyway, so she blew herself up killing several terrorists.

 

She's a heroine! May she rest in peace.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Palikari

[acmilano]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/us-contractor-killed-saudi-arabia-111865.html

 

Two US citizens killed in Riyadh, Capital of Saudi Arabia.

[Melech]

Minister Uzi Landau sent a letter to Bibi saying the government should revoke the citizenship of Arab "Israelis" who have joined the Islamic State (more than 30 according to the Shin Bet).

 

"These are people who live in Israel as citizens, and as such they enjoy a long list of rights, as well as access to large and sensitive information. It is just a question of time until these people, living among us, become a lethal weapon directed against us."

 

Source: http://www.mako.co.il/news-military/politics-q4_2014/Article-7074a2e1e6d0941004.htm

 

I totally agree with him. Europe and North America should do the same. These savages don't deserve to hold any priceless Western citizenship.

 

I think the government should spread rumors that these Arab "Israelis" who joined IS are undercover Mossad agents. That would provoke their beheading by their fellow terrorists, and they would not be a threat anymore. Simple as that.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Palikari

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

Some of those female soldiers are f*cking teens. Damn. Heroic is a very good definition of them. And since they are Muslim too, it gives me pleasure to say that is what true Jihad is, not what the evil ISIS are doing. But it seems a LOT of people around the world, especially the UK and America cannot see that since they've been blinded by the media through the use of the term islamic radicalization and extremists.

 

Anyway, what is the latest news about ISIS? It seems that America's air strikes aren't doing much help at all since they are still growing stronger as usual. They need to be wiped out ASAP.

Edited October 14, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Creed Bratton]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/us-contractor-killed-saudi-arabia-111865.html

 

Two US citizens killed in Riyadh, Capital of Saudi Arabia.

Defense contractors. They tend to be psychopaths, or at the very least sh*tty people, so no loss there.

[make total destroy]

 

Defense contractors. They tend to be psychopaths, or at the very least sh*tty people, so no loss there.

They are human beings and they had a family.

 

 

 

So do IS militants?

 

EDIT: Not that I'm trying to defend IS or anything, but c'mon, emotional appeals ain't sh*t.

Edited October 14, 2014 by ShootPeopleNotDope

[Smith John]

I can't help but get the impression some people in this thread are nothing but apologists for this IS vermin.

[make total destroy]

 

So do IS militants?

 

Please, tell me you're not comparing defense contractors with IS terrorists. Please, tell me you're not doing that...

 

 

I wouldn't say I'm drawing a comparison between the two, just that you can apply that argument to IS, and it's technically correct. That doesn't make it a convincing argument, though.

 

I can't help but get the impression some people in this thread are nothing but apologists for this IS vermin.

"If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!"

Edited October 14, 2014 by ShootPeopleNotDope

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

He's not comparing them. IS are just a bunch of non-human, unislamic terrorists who are literally out of their minds doing whatever they want. But defence contractors are people who provide services or products for the military or intelligence department of a government whether its weapons or vehicles or electronic systems. Now the thing is the guys that make weapons obviously make it for the government but somehow get into the hands of bad people, especially ISIS who already have tanks and heavy weaponry using them to kill people. Heck, its not even that, the US government is bad as it is. And on top of that, have you seen how many police officers that abuse their power and kill people from petty reasons to absolutely NO reasons in the US? These US defence contractors do NOT deserve to die since that is their career and hopefully have no idea about the negative things that occur. If they ARE aware of whats happening and sh*t, then tough luck. You knew what's going on and you risked your life to have a sh*tty career like that, its your fault. I definitely feel sorry for their families though, of course. It's an impossible situation tbh.

 

I don't want this to become a big debate because it can easily go both ways. On the one hand, weapons just have the word danger all over it and there's too many risks that come with it, on the other hand, weapons are obviously helpful tackling criminals and terrorists and such. But there's nothing in between as far as I know. The only thing I can really say without doubt is being a contractor is a damn mission.

Edited October 14, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Smith John]

I wouldn't say I'm drawing a comparison between the two, just that you can apply that argument to IS, and it's technically correct.

This is the exact line of rhetoric applied by those who claim Western allied forces claimed the lives of Iraqi/Afghan civilians on the same intentional purposes as the actual targets of said targets.

 

In other words: an absolute bollocks argument that has now sodomised the horse.

[make total destroy]

 

I wouldn't say I'm drawing a comparison between the two, just that you can apply that argument to IS, and it's technically correct.

This is the exact line of rhetoric applied by those who claim Western allied forces claimed the lives of Iraqi/Afghan civilians on the same intentional purposes as the actual targets of said targets.

 

 

 

In some cases, they did.

 

It's also worth pointing out there is no official civilian death toll from the Iraq war. Estimates range from 100,000 to 150,000. The existence of IS is just a f*cking mystery, though. How could this possibly have happened?

Edited October 14, 2014 by ShootPeopleNotDope

[Max]

It's no use branding IS as 'non-human' and dismissing them as animals. An understanding of the ideologies, motivations, tactics and practices of such an organisation is necessary if they're to be defeated.

 

Dehumanising them and all those who are drawn to the organisation is counterproductive and will never help to solve the underlying issues which gave rise to IS.

[Smith John]

So are you suggesting we appease them until we fully comprehend their grievances? Because that has worked well thus far..

[Max]

So are you suggesting we appease them until we fully comprehend their grievances? Because that has worked well thus far..

Where did I say anything about appeasement? All I'm saying is that to dehumanise them is to make no effort to understand the way they think and what members and sympathisers are motivated by. Knowing your enemy is always beneficial.

 

They're not simply psychopaths and they didn't arise out of no where. We have to understand the context in which this group developed if we want to prevent a group like this developing in the future. To call them animals is lazy and teaches us nothing.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Max

[Smith John]

Max, sitting back, doing zilch, and listening to their intentions and demands IS a form of appeasement. And slicing the head of an innocent aid worker off as a form of a propaganda tool DOES render this organisation as a psychopathic, if not sociopathic, group of individuals. Their goal is clear; you may sling off the idea of a young British female jihadi proclaiming she won't return to the UK unless the flag of Islam is raised above Buckingham Palace as some fringe extremist notion, but what was the grass routes of such a proposal instilled in this young woman? Simple propaganda to bring in foreign nationals to fight their cause? Sorry, I'm not convinced.

[Max]

Again, where did I say do nothing? I'm an advocate of military intervention when it comes to IS. However, I'm making the point that to dismiss them all as 'inhuman' in the media and in public discussion about them is to turn a blind eye to the causes of disaffection amongst young Muslims which allow such a group to thrive. This is a wake up call, and should be treated as such.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Max

[Brad]

Max, sitting back, doing zilch, and listening to their intentions and demands IS a form of appeasement. And slicing the head of an innocent aid worker off as a form of a propaganda tool DOES render this organisation as a psychopathic, if not sociopathic, group of individuals. Their goal is clear; you may sling off the idea of a young British female jihadi proclaiming she won't return to the UK unless the flag of Islam is raised above Buckingham Palace as some fringe extremist notion, but what was the grass routes of such a proposal instilled in this young woman? Simple propaganda to bring in foreign nationals to fight their cause? Sorry, I'm not convinced.

 

This is a text-book strawman argument. Max made the point of understanding thy enemy, an important component of strategy as it allows to formulate a necessary assumption to the flow the means and ways to fulfill political ends. I believe the jist of Max's point is not underestimating the enemy. Understanding their motivations, their ideology may serve as a point of reference to dilute Western jihadist recruitment but once more serve as a roadmap to a political solution, particularly in Western Iraq. ISIS's rise comes out mainly from general apathy to relative sympathy from an array of Sunni populations who are disgruntled with the government of Baghdad and ISIS have exploited that disenfranchisement. Understanding this is key and as Max rightly said, regarding them as "barbarians" and "sub-human" without understanding them does not help, as containment will only be solved with a military solution, destroying ISIS comes from a political one.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Brad

[sivispacem]

"Those who know the least, shout the loudest"

 

Max and Brad are entirely correct. Rhetoric and dehumanisation aren't going to help us defeat IS. If anything they're going to increase support for it by alienating moderate Muslims through the doubtless mission creep of tarring everyone with a particular ideology with the same brush. Not all radicals are fundamentalists and not all fundamentalists are terrorists.

 

The total lack of any common understanding on the finer technicalities of movements like IS, not just from members of the general public who seem to think they're entitled to an opinion on a subject they know f*ck all about thanks to a few tabloid headlines and a couple of dead hostages, but also from military strategists and politicians, is the biggest actual threat we face when tackling IS. If we can't predict how a society such as Ba'athist Iraq would behave after the fall of the leadership and can't grasp even the most basic understanding of tribal Afghan society despite a wealth of academic knowledge on the subject, how are we supposed to address such a complex threat?

 

The understanding of the religious ideology behind organisations like IS, the day-to-day functioning of the caliphate they are trying to create and the level and method of indoctrination fighters are subject are absolutely paramount in tackling them. You can't "destroy" an Islamic insurgency movement through force alone; force is the primary tool of further radicalisation. You can cripple it by destroying the command structure but disruption and denial are the most effective tools in preventing its spread. You have to target those who show an affinity towards the underling belief or an intense dislike of the "enemies" painted by the movement, and use a combination if covert force, counter-radicalisation policy, Islamic scripture and theological teaching and economic and social coercion to deny them the civilian support infrastructure they require to operate effectively. The mistake many seem to make is believing that is are holding vast swathes of territory by force alone. They are not.