CDZ How can ISIS be beaten ?

[Lipush]

I put this topic on this forum for a reason so play nice.

ISIS is a threat to modern civilisation. How can it be beaten ?

Not sure that it can.

ISIS is an ideolody, and ideology, like religion, cannot be destroyed complitely.

 

[Lipush]

I put this topic on this forum for a reason so play nice.

ISIS is a threat to modern civilisation. How can it be beaten ?

It is instructive to remember what ISIS is not. ISIS is not the Red Army. ISIS is not the James Gang, although there is a certain parallel because ISIS too has sprung from the chaos of a civil war. ISIS is an orgnization held together by a synthesis of religious belief and nationalism. Similar unifying motivation can be found in our own back yard from Ireland to Poland and places in between.

ISIS is an enemy of the West because ISIS sees the west as an intrusive, exploitative power which threatens Arab religion, society and culture. As Rand Paul pointed out, they fight us because we are over there. In more tactical terms, camels are poor swimmers.

ISIS is hardly a treat to modern civilization, although it is the current brand name of Sunni nationalism which will fight any infidel force that attempts to control the Arab homeland. ISIS can't be beaten in the sense that Napoleon beat Austria. ISIS is a brand, al Qaeda is a brand, the Muslim Brotherhood is a brand. Each of these brands has a pocketful of associated labels and affiliates. Their internal differences don't effect their fundamental opposition to infidel invaders.

We experienced a somewhat similar opposition from the Plains Indians of the American West in the 19th century. The big difference: there are 400 million Arabs supported by a billion Muslims around the world, living in a huge area rich in oil resourses and modern technology, and united by a sophisticated religious culture that is a thousand years old. The Arabs are never going to give up. They are never going to go away.

The days of Western imperialism are drawing to a close. America is not the boss of Arabia. Gunboat diplomacy produces nothing but 9/11 responses. We have much to offer Arabs who wish cooperation for mutual profit, but first we have to get the hell out of their front yard.

ISIS is not fighting the west because the west is "over there". It's fighting the west because the west is not what they see as Muslim.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes of course it is all circumstantial, but you knew that had to be the case when you first asked the question. I have more to offer but again, it's only circumstantial and I realize that for some jurists no amount of circumstantial evidence could ever prove a case, especially so in this setting I believe. Nor do I have any desire to convince you any further of my beliefs more than I have done, you may discard my "left field" comment at your pleasure. Thank you anyway for entertaining my posts and giving them careful consideration.

No, actually I didn't know that. I gave you the benefit of my doubt about the veracity of your claim and gave you the opportunity to present "something," that rises above the level of inflammatory rhetoric. I hoped you might have a well developed inductive argument to offer. (I did know that you weren't going to present a deductive one.) I had hoped that you'd present something showing preponderantly that what may, at first blush, seem circumstantial is indeed causally correlated to the assertion one aims to support.

I'm not among the crowd that demands deductively incontrovertible proof of things. For example, I happen to be a theist, yet I am well aware of the failings of the inductive arguments supporting the assertion "there is a God." My recognition of those failings is why I reject as a basis for political/social action and legislation any argument based largely on religious dogma and/or decree.

So, no, I am willing to accept credible inductive arguments, provide they move what seems to be circumstantial to a position of seeming to be both plausible and probable. Broadly speaking, I see all claims' truth as falling somewhere on a continuum:

1. Impossible (this is the realm of concurrently existing, in space and time, irresistible forces and immovable objects; of things/ideas like 1+1=3>5)
2. Extremely unlikely, but nonetheless possible
3. Unlikely, but nonetheless possible
4. As likely as not, but nonetheless possible
5. More likely than not, and obviously possible
6. Vastly more likely than not, and obviously possible
7. Guaranteed to be so (this is the realm solely of valid deductive arguments)

The claims you made sit, for me, about at #3. I was hoping you'd come up with something that moved my confidence in it's veracity to about #5, not a big move, but a meaningful one. I'm willing to give a fair hearing of most claims, including those I consider as "out of left field." But "fair" does not mean a lower standard of cogency and rigor that I require to move the claim from one point on my continuum to another. If it be you are not able or not willing to present a rigorous case in support of your claims, fine. I can understand how that might be so; any number of perfectly legit reasons can make that be so. Based on the red text above, I infer that you are now either unwilling or unable to do so. Fair enough.

I did not believe that I could build my case in a single post so my attempt was to build it in successive posts. That was probably not clear to you. Each post was to be contingent on the acceptance of the merits of the previous post. There is just too much information out there, all of it circumstantial unfortunately, for me to be able to find it and put it coherently into a single post.

My first post contained original source documents of the declassified nature and intended to show the perceived threat felt at the highest level of Saudi governance and also to show where the Saudis placed the blame. From there we would have proceeded assuming you were comfortable with the source documents and the verity of the claim. It was not intended as anything more than that.

The clean break post was just exuberance at having just discovered that document and probably should have been presented with more forethought or not at all as it predates the Iraq war.

Okay. I understand that. I'm as sure as you are that the case can only be made effectively via "essay mode" rather than via "short commentary mode."

I'm fine with your taking multiple posts to make the case if that be the approach you want to use. I will wait until you have completed the series of posts you feel you need to make the case; just let me know when that moment arrives and which are the posts that comprise your completed argument.

FWIW, as someone who's more than once felt compelled to use "essay mode" (something resulting in what amounts to a short -- 5 to 20 pages -- paper) to credibly make a point, I might suggest a tactic I use to do so...I sometimes compose the essay in MS Word and paste it into a post when it's complete. I find that approach makes it easier for me to keep track of my thoughts, ideas and organization of the essay.

As a "go forward" thing, I'll share that often, but not always, upon electing to participate in a given thread, I anticipate the nature of responses/comments folks are likely to offer and research and write the "essay" before making my first post. I do that mainly because I don't care to get into many discussions wherein I just haven't a damn clue of what I'm talking about or what are the central factors in play with regard to a given issue/topic. I do it also so I can tell what/whose remarks are pure "knee jerk" emotionalism and who's put some effort into fully understanding both sides of the issue.

Once in a while, someone will offer a novel idea that strikes me as coming "out of left field," such as yours. I ask folks who do that to present a case, just as I have in our discussion, so that I can evaluate it in terms of and as an alternative to what I currently understand to be so regarding the matter.

 

[Tehon]

Yes of course it is all circumstantial, but you knew that had to be the case when you first asked the question. I have more to offer but again, it's only circumstantial and I realize that for some jurists no amount of circumstantial evidence could ever prove a case, especially so in this setting I believe. Nor do I have any desire to convince you any further of my beliefs more than I have done, you may discard my "left field" comment at your pleasure. Thank you anyway for entertaining my posts and giving them careful consideration.

No, actually I didn't know that. I gave you the benefit of my doubt about the veracity of your claim and gave you the opportunity to present "something," that rises above the level of inflammatory rhetoric. I hoped you might have a well developed inductive argument to offer. (I did know that you weren't going to present a deductive one.) I had hoped that you'd present something showing preponderantly that what may, at first blush, seem circumstantial is indeed causally correlated to the assertion one aims to support.

I'm not among the crowd that demands deductively incontrovertible proof of things. For example, I happen to be a theist, yet I am well aware of the failings of the inductive arguments supporting the assertion "there is a God." My recognition of those failings is why I reject as a basis for political/social action and legislation any argument based largely on religious dogma and/or decree.

So, no, I am willing to accept credible inductive arguments, provide they move what seems to be circumstantial to a position of seeming to be both plausible and probable. Broadly speaking, I see all claims' truth as falling somewhere on a continuum:

1. Impossible (this is the realm of concurrently existing, in space and time, irresistible forces and immovable objects; of things/ideas like 1+1=3>5)
2. Extremely unlikely, but nonetheless possible
3. Unlikely, but nonetheless possible
4. As likely as not, but nonetheless possible
5. More likely than not, and obviously possible
6. Vastly more likely than not, and obviously possible
7. Guaranteed to be so (this is the realm solely of valid deductive arguments)

The claims you made sit, for me, about at #3. I was hoping you'd come up with something that moved my confidence in it's veracity to about #5, not a big move, but a meaningful one. I'm willing to give a fair hearing of most claims, including those I consider as "out of left field." But "fair" does not mean a lower standard of cogency and rigor that I require to move the claim from one point on my continuum to another. If it be you are not able or not willing to present a rigorous case in support of your claims, fine. I can understand how that might be so; any number of perfectly legit reasons can make that be so. Based on the red text above, I infer that you are now either unwilling or unable to do so. Fair enough.

I did not believe that I could build my case in a single post so my attempt was to build it in successive posts. That was probably not clear to you. Each post was to be contingent on the acceptance of the merits of the previous post. There is just too much information out there, all of it circumstantial unfortunately, for me to be able to find it and put it coherently into a single post.

My first post contained original source documents of the declassified nature and intended to show the perceived threat felt at the highest level of Saudi governance and also to show where the Saudis placed the blame. From there we would have proceeded assuming you were comfortable with the source documents and the verity of the claim. It was not intended as anything more than that.

The clean break post was just exuberance at having just discovered that document and probably should have been presented with more forethought or not at all as it predates the Iraq war.

Okay. I understand that. I'm as sure as you are that the case can only be made effectively via "essay mode" rather than via "short commentary mode."

I'm fine with your taking multiple posts to make the case if that be the approach you want to use. I will wait until you have completed the series of posts you feel you need to make the case; just let me know when that moment arrives and which are the posts that comprise your completed argument.

FWIW, as someone who's more than once felt compelled to use "essay mode" (something resulting in what amounts to a short -- 5 to 20 pages -- paper) to credibly make a point, I might suggest a tactic I use to do so...I sometimes compose the essay in MS Word and paste it into a post when it's complete. I find that approach makes it easier for me to keep track of my thoughts, ideas and organization of the essay.

As a "go forward" thing, I'll share that often, but not always, upon electing to participate in a given thread, I anticipate the nature of responses/comments folks are likely to offer and research and write the "essay" before making my first post. I do that mainly because I don't care to get into many discussions wherein I just haven't a damn clue of what I'm talking about or what are the central factors in play with regard to a given issue/topic. I do it also so I can tell what/whose remarks are pure "knee jerk" emotionalism and who's put some effort into fully understanding both sides of the issue.

Once in a while, someone will offer a novel idea that strikes me as coming "out of left field," such as yours. I ask folks who do that to present a case, just as I have in our discussion, so that I can evaluate it in terms of and as an alternative to what I currently understand to be so regarding the matter.

Thanks for the advice and the challenge but I think I am going to pass. I am up for discussing things but I am not here to lecture and don't feel obligated to write an essay to prove my beliefs.

You are free to characterize my opinion as out of left field, it surely isn't mainstream, but it also isn't unique to me even on these boards. History is full of examples of conflicts fought by proxy. Indeed the United States ran a school, maybe they still do, to train Latin Americans the art of combat. It was called the School of the Americas and it even graduated Manuel Noriega, a puppet of the US for a time, before he lost favor. The US infamously armed and trained the Contras in the Nicaraguan civil war. And of course we know about Operation Cyclone in which the US worked closely with it's partners in the ME to fund the mujahideen. It was during this Afghan war that the Saudis expanded their madrassas dedicated to teaching their Wahhabi ideology. Given those obvious examples, I haven't even touched on Israeli tactics, I don't understand why my comment would be seen as out of left field.

If you are still curious about how I formed the basis of my opinion, I would suggest you read this piece by Seymour Hersh. It was written in 2007 and chronicles the changing US policies in relation to Iraq and the ME. The results of which can be seen today.
The Redirection - The New Yorker

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How can people hope to combat ISIS when they are so busy repeating all the platitudes about "Imperialism" created by the Islamists, themselves? This is just childish and myopic, for it attempts to shift responsibility away from who they are and place it upon us, instead. These silly rationalizations are part of the problem instead of part of the solution.


ISIS is Islam at its most naked. They are doing as Mohammad did, and until people desist with all this apologetic bull shit that they are somehow not Islamic instead of being VERY Islamic, then they stand no chance of understanding what they are all about.

 

[Fishlore]

I put this topic on this forum for a reason so play nice.

ISIS is a threat to modern civilisation. How can it be beaten ?

It is instructive to remember what ISIS is not. ISIS is not the Red Army. ISIS is not the James Gang, although there is a certain parallel because ISIS too has sprung from the chaos of a civil war. ISIS is an orgnization held together by a synthesis of religious belief and nationalism. Similar unifying motivation can be found in our own back yard from Ireland to Poland and places in between.

ISIS is an enemy of the West because ISIS sees the west as an intrusive, exploitative power which threatens Arab religion, society and culture. As Rand Paul pointed out, they fight us because we are over there. In more tactical terms, camels are poor swimmers.

ISIS is hardly a treat to modern civilization, although it is the current brand name of Sunni nationalism which will fight any infidel force that attempts to control the Arab homeland. ISIS can't be beaten in the sense that Napoleon beat Austria. ISIS is a brand, al Qaeda is a brand, the Muslim Brotherhood is a brand. Each of these brands has a pocketful of associated labels and affiliates. Their internal differences don't effect their fundamental opposition to infidel invaders.

We experienced a somewhat similar opposition from the Plains Indians of the American West in the 19th century. The big difference: there are 400 million Arabs supported by a billion Muslims around the world, living in a huge area rich in oil resourses and modern technology, and united by a sophisticated religious culture that is a thousand years old. The Arabs are never going to give up. They are never going to go away.

The days of Western imperialism are drawing to a close. America is not the boss of Arabia. Gunboat diplomacy produces nothing but 9/11 responses. We have much to offer Arabs who wish cooperation for mutual profit, but first we have to get the hell out of their front yard.

ISIS is not fighting the west because the west is "over there". It's fighting the west because the west is not what they see as Muslim.

Well, actually, it is a bit of both. The idea that Islamists have religiously-inspired goals of world conquest is a bit of right wing propaganda. There is no more militant, fundamentalist sect of Islam than the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia who are now our "allies" and have no plans to invade the USA.

On the other hand, the centuries-long imperialsm of the West in Arabia has been a source of resentment since the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, which was at least Muslim. The explosion of oil wealth in the second half of the XX century further distorted the political and economic tensions in the Arab world, producing the "Muslim rage" which has been a topic of discussion in orientalist circle for a couple of generations.

 

[President F]

kill them all

 

[Militants]

Northern Iraq, Syria and Iraq again they beaten by russian collision and U.S. France UK and NATO then Iraqi Freedom Army and Assads and kurd Army . . Next war will been in Libyan by the ISIS . .