I think they want the west involved, especially the US because it gives them underdog status.
It sort of unites the unemployed young men in the various countries in the region and they get more recruits.
Well to be fair I said build things and provide security, not don’t build things and waste ton of money for nothing. That whole article if true is basically a how to guide to fuck off and getting nothing done but make a few people a lot wealthier in the process.
What make you think those countries wouldn’t have launched military operations anyway? Even with a better behaved “caliphate”, there no way IMO that western countries would have stayed idle while extremist muslims were taking over a big chunk of the middle east. So, I suspect they (rightly) think that t’s pointless to appease the west.
Besides, these guys are religious fanatics, with god on their side. Success or failure won’t come from how their actions are perceived by the USA, but from how they’re perceived by god. And not doing whatever they think is the will of god (massacring Shias or something) out of fear of reprisals is probably in their mind the surest path to defeat. Frankly, I think there’s no other reason than this one. We’re not dealing with rational actors, here.
Maybe they listen to too much Jimmy Buffet.
They didn’t start executing the journalists until we launched air strikes against them after the Sinjar massacre, so as far as they’re concerned, we’re the ones who started the frackas, not them.
I don’t think they want us involved…I don’t think this is some cunning plan to bring us in and stir up anti-American feeling. In fact, I don’t think that before this current dustup, ISIL cared that much one way or the other about the US. They didn’t much like us, but their general attitude was, “The US came into Iraq, we kicked their ass, taught them a lesson, and made them leave, and now we can set up an Islamic state and wipe out the bad guys.” The killing of captured soldiers, massacring Yazidi, and all that isn’t with the goal of pissing us off. If anything, I think they’re surprised we even care about that stuff. They see it as an internal Islamic state thing and no one else’s business.
I’m really not sure what you think they should have done differently.
Let’s say you are in charge of a radical sect whose main mission is to achieve a revolution leading to the establishment of a new country. The ground rules for your sect require extreme punishments. What is it that you would do differently from how ISIL has carried itself out?
As sven said, revolutionaries seek revolutionary acts. Of course their aim is to upset the established order, make waves, and force people to pay attention to them – that’s what radicals do, and if you don’t do that, you aren’t actually a radical at all.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I’m really not sure what you think they should have done differently.
[/QUOTE]
Not going into Iraq would be a starter. Not doing sensationally evil shit like ethnic cleansing or mass murder would be another. It doesn’t seem all that difficult to me to avoid riling up the population of the US or the UK etc such that there is no political pressure to do anything. As I said, the UK and US had both gotten OUT of Iraq and there was no political desire for us to go back in, even for military strikes. In a fairly short time that’s changed, such that, at least according to some polls I’ve seen, both populations are on board with at least limited air strikes at this point.
Well, of course I wouldn’t be part of such a sect in the first place. But with that caveat in place, I’d try and make the ‘extreme punishments’ as plausibly deniable as possible. I’d throw enough confusion in the mix that a percentage of the population of The West™ would be arguing in my favor that there isn’t enough evidence, or it’s conflicting, or it’s The Evil Government(arr), Republicans™ or whatever who are pushing their evil agendas, blah blah blah. How hard would it be, really, to make an already confusing situation completely murky to outside observers? One has but to look at how the various insurgent groups played things in Iraq to see how you COULD do this and keep it going.
The other thing I would have done is stayed out of Iraq until Syria was finished and done, with Assad’s head on a pike and my new cult firmly in control. Then I’d have used covert cells of Freedom Fighters™ infiltrated into Iraq in the guise of home grown Sunni rebels/insurgents fighting the evil Shia because they didn’t have a voice in the government. That’s going to get some (hell, a lot) of sympathy in the West…certainly, no one is going to look to send in planes, trains or automobiles to prop up a Shia government being fought by poor displaced Sunni. Hell, with everything happening and as obviously evil as ISIS/ISIL actually IS, this narrative is out there (and, for a bonus, there is some validity to it).
True enough. I guess I wouldn’t be, because to me winning is more important than being a radical and murderous asshole. And that’s probably the answer to the OP.
I think that really sums it up. I heard a similar idea put forward by an author who had researched Boko Haram, who are not identical to ISIS but similar enough for a rough parallel. There is no philosophy, there is no theology here. Maybe the leaders. But the vast majority of people involved in these groups are like schoolyard bullies. Get the 5 biggest assholes in every elementary school, and give them AK’s.
[QUOTE=Rune;17737023…]
They believe they have God on their side and are invincible.
[/QUOTE]
This is what happens when people think they have God on their side and are invincible.
Maybe the answer lies in why the Middle East has historically been a hotbed of conflicts: 67 conflicts in the 20th century alone.
They have okay video production graphic skills: - YouTube
Which sounds more like message board flame wars (which maybe why the titled it Flames of War)…which don’t necessarily translate into being able to really take on world super powers from a military standpoint. :shrug:
IMHO step back and think about what got the west’s attention - one badass mofo chopped some heads off and videotaped it. Sure, he did it under the banner of ISIS/ISIL, but is it possible he is just one really badass knucklehead? That ISIS/ISIL leadership, as an organization, is not really promoting this specific behavior?
Consider, there are many stories of US servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan committing atrocities. Some have been prosecuted. Because these US servicemen committed atrocities under the banner of the US military, does that mean that the US military promoted this specific behavior? I think we would all agree that the answer is a resounding NO!
So, to me, the likelihood is that ISIS/ISIL leadership is not promoting the beheadings, however they may well be allowing the behavior (by not preventing or punishing it). And I am not convinced that their strategy is to provoke the west.
This is not The BBQ Pit.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, seeing as how the group started in Iraq, I think that’s a tall order not to tell them to go back to Iraq. It would kind of be like telling NATO that they could avoid confrontations with Russia if they just stopped caring about Europe so much.
I think it is pretty clear who was doing what in Iraq, particularly with AQI blowing up Shiites and mosques all the time.
But I think that the chance of any Syrian opposition actually overthrowing Assad is pretty much zero in the next few years, even before the US airstrikes began a month ago. ISIL more or less has control of the eastern part of Syria, and there’s no chance they can win in the West… so what to do? Go grab the oil fields in Northern Iraq, or just sit around and get pulverized by Assad’s artillery for the next few years? I suppose they could bide their time, but I understand why going into Iraq was the decision they made.
Think of it this way: there are almost certainly left wingers on this board who certainly aren’t anarchists or revolutionaries who simply don’t like the idea of Hillary Clinton being president. “Bush III,” I’m sure they will call her. They’d rather have Bernie Sanders run and lose than have Clinton win. I agree with you, I’d rather make a few concessions and win rather than ride my principles into oblivion, but again, that’s what makes radicals radicals. And if you put yourself into their own twisted mindset, there is rationality to their evil.
Rachel Maddow claims ISIS wants to draw the West into the conflict so that they can portray us as engaging in another Crusade, with them resisting it. Why they want to do that isn’t clear.
My apologies then.
That’s quite a leap from lefties who don’t support Hillary Clinton to ISIS supporters. I don’t support Hillary Clinton, I don’t see a hell of a lot of daylight between her and a Reagan Republican on economic issues. I will almost certainly be voting for a Green candidate instead of her if she wins the nomination. How did I get to be the same as an ISIS supporter, exactly?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Well, seeing as how the group started in Iraq, I think that’s a tall order not to tell them to go back to Iraq. It would kind of be like telling NATO that they could avoid confrontations with Russia if they just stopped caring about Europe so much.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, that’s a good point, but it’s also a line that, once crossed (especially how they did it) would certainly draw us in. While, coming in more covertly and not waving ISIS/ISIL banners and avoiding all of those pesky massacres and carnage probably would…well, might anyway…have kept us out of the entire thing. They have to know that if the US and allies get involved, the best they can hope for is another long, drawn out and bloody conflict where they will take the lions share of the losses (especially their leadership, based on our continued and fairly effect use of drones against AQ leadership types in Pakistan and Afghanistan). Allah might be on their side, but eating a hellfire is going to ruin your whole day.
True. And maybe they were just as in your face as ISIS/ISIL is. It just seems to me that ISIS/ISIL is being more overt, but that might just be the current media frenzy about them talking, as well as more fuzzy memories of a bad time that I think we all would rather forget in the bad old days of our participation in the Iraq mess.
They seemed to be doing pretty well in Syria, having captured and practically governing large swaths of Syria. And they basically built their movement there. Also, staying there might mean getting hammered by Assad’s artillery, but it would mean they WOULDN’T be getting hammered a lot harder by US/coalition air strikes. And, like I said, there was a chance that staying in Syria (and perhaps keeping the rapes, beheadings of western hostages and mass murder to a lower key) might mean they would actually get covert US/western/regional funding, training, weapons and porn for all I know.
I’m really enjoying the discussion, and most of this I DO actually know but just wanted to argue/talk about. But the last part here is where my disconnect is. I can understand, at least intellectually, evil people. But I can’t see any way that it’s rational to WANT to bring the US into a conflict where you actually want to win. Oh, sure, the North Vietnamese ended up winning in the end…at the cost, literally of millions dead and a decade or so of mess and cost. And that was being bankrolled by the USSR and China. I don’t see such a, um, happy outcome possible for ISIS/ISIL, even if they do eventually manage to ‘win’ in Iraq and Syria (something a lot less likely with the US and the various other nations being lined up in the game), it’s going to cost them even more in terms of their own fighters and leadership killed, not to mention it’s doing things the extremely hard way.
Maybe there is no Easy Button for this, and from their perspective anything they did would lead to the US/coalition involved, so might as well get that out of the way as soon as possible, but it just seems like it’s a mistake…and one that all of the predecessor organizations and movements in that region have repeatedly made. I look at these clowns, at AQ/AQI, at Hamas and Hezbollah, etc and I just shake my head at the waste and seeming, from my perspective (and from the perspective of actually accomplishing something, even something evil) and just don’t get it.
If you were hanging out in Iraq, and your goal was to end the US’s role as the global hegemon, what would you do? Let’s say you are rich and well-connected, but aren’t getting a visa any time soon.
Now you may be thinking about terror attacks, but that is short term thinking. Why spend all those resources on terror attacks when you can have a machine that spits out terror attacks? And that is what failed states are- machines for creating extremist movements.
And of course there are all kinds of other benefits. Resources to appropriate, land to control, local scores to settle. Bad guys LOVE when there is no government. It’s lucrative.
Ok, so you need a failed state. What makes failed states? Weak governments, deep social divides, lots of loose weapons and an economy that can’t keep the young men employed.
How do you get that? War! But you can’t just make a war out of thin air. You need an enemy. And you aren’t going to get enough support with your local disputes. You need at least one big brand for your war to stick.
The US is easy to bait, and awfully poetic given your end goal. Wail on some sympathetic (ideally Christian. and if you possibly can, find some blonde children) minorities and stage some cheap and nasty executions, and the US will come. Along with that will come polarization, foreign weapons and money, and a chance to sell bored and hopeless foot soldiers on a chance to take potshots on real Americans rather than just fighting the boring guys on the other side of the river who never get you on the news.
These people aren’t crazy. They are part of a grand traditions of level-everything-and-rebuild-a-new-order leaders.
I understand what you are getting at, and perhaps AQ et al did think this prior to Afghanistan/Iraq II, electric boogalooo (I doubt it, but it’s possible), but I’m not seeing it this time. Iraq is already a failing state and so is Syria, and US intervention isn’t going to change that. What it IS going to do is pound the snot out of any chance for ISIS/ISIL to make any headway towards their actual, stated goals. Ok, maybe the money people behind all of this don’t really care and just want to create failed states, then <mumble mumble> and finally PROFIT! But the wankers running ISIS itself have to know they are going to take it on the chin in the short term before they get to the profit part…in fact, they are probably going to take it on the chin in both the short AND medium terms, and their long term prospects, looking at AQ and the Taliban anyway, aren’t exactly rosy, even if both of those groups are still holding on out there (after having several changes of leadership and lots of worker bee deathage due to hellfire poisoning). And it’s doubtful that these new foot soldiers are even going to get a crack at a real live American (or Brit or anyone else in the coalition) this time around. Hell, if they want that, we are all still in Afghanistan and they could go there to try and bag their limit of Americans/coalition soldiers (for a lot of pain). All they will get with this stunt here is more hellfire poisoning and smart bombs with a chance to deploy their own dumb bombs against…Iraqis, Syrians and Afghanis, which they were already doing before dragging us back in. I’m not seeing how you get from where they are now (at the <mumble mumble> part) to the profit part where they get a shinny new Caliphate, no matter how cynical I look at things. I don’t see how dragging us into already failing states where we have a clearly defined target (such as ISIS/ISIL) instead of a murky clusterfuck war that was Iraq, or Afghanistan helps them at all to be honest.