• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Paris

For those focusing on the religious aspects of ISIS, I'd encourage you to read this article. The ISIS fighters from Iraq/Syria, at least, seem to have only a loose grasp on Islam in the first place.

 Why did he do all these things? Many assume that these fighters are motivated by a belief in the Islamic State, a caliphate ruled by a caliph with the traditional title Emir al-Muminiin, “Commander of the faithful,” a role currently held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; that fighters all over the world are flocking to the area for a chance to fight for this dream. But this just doesn’t hold for the prisoners we are interviewing. They are woefully ignorant about Islam and have difficulty answering questions about Sharia law, militant jihad, and the caliphate. But a detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of Islam isn’t necessarily relevant to the ideal of fighting for an Islamic State, as we have seen from the Amazon order of Islam for Dummies by one British fighter bound for ISIS.

 In fact, Erin Saltman, senior counter-extremism researcher at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, says that there is now less emphasis on knowledge of Islam in the recruitment phase. “We are seeing a movement away from strict religious ideological training as a requirement for recruitment,” she told me. “If we were looking at foreign fighter recruits to Afghanistan 10 or 20 years ago, there was intensive religious and theological training attached to recruitment. Nowadays, we see that recruitment strategy has branched out to a much broader audience with many different pull factors.”

There is no question that these prisoners I am interviewing are committed to Islam; it is just their own brand of Islam, only distantly related to that of the Islamic State. Similarly, Western fighters traveling to the Islamic State are also deeply committed, but it’s to their own idea of jihad rather than one based on sound theological arguments or even evidence from the Qur’an. As Saltman said, “Recruitment [of ISIS] plays upon desires of adventure, activism, romance, power, belonging, along with spiritual fulfillment.” That is, Islam plays a part, but not necessarily in the rigid, Salafi form demanded by the leadership of the Islamic State.

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/
 
2. I had indoor plumbing, electricity, a roof and I didn't know any warlords. By Afghan standards, I was royalty.

eta: Read this: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html They have a dependency ratio of 87%. Girls get on average seven years of school. A third of their roads are paved. Men have a life expectancy under 50. Oof.

By contrast, Brazilian girls get 15 years of education, has half of the dependency ratio and has a life expectancy of 73 years.

We're not going to be able to "fix" what has been wrong with this country for thousands of years. That's just not reality.

Care to post those numbers pre-1978?

Noone is questioning that Afghanistan as a country was a total shithole both when we got there and when we started attempting to rebuild.

My question to you is how Afghanistan ended up like that. Are you claiming it has always been that way?

What about the other countries we have allegedly spent "trillions" rebuilding? Why was it necessary to rebuild there in the first place?
 
In 1977, Afghanistan boasted the world's finest medical schools, three traveling orchestras, a bustling space program and an integrated light rail network with a graduated fee structure based upon the amount of one's cultural privilege. It was the utopia we can only dream about these days. Thanks a lot, Soviets.
 
I said ISIS has hit three different countries (that is, outside of Syria and Iraq) this week. The bomb on the Russian civilian airliner, the bomb in Lebannon and the attacks in France. 1, 2 and 3.

A competent world leader with credibility and respect would be building a coalition to provide an international response. What will President Obama do with this opportunity?

What are the bombing targets? How many civilians will we kill? What is the end game? What is the cost?

I just want to know man, Im ready to kill some motherfuckers
 
too bad we killed saddam rather than just kept him under house arrest...would be nice if we could reinstall him. He was an incredibly pragmatic man, and he would understand what's going on. He was one of our original allies in the region anyway...

feels weird to basically support a dictator but it beats the alternatives, as we RElearned.
 
instead of weapons lets just invest in science where we can tap into someone's brain to see if they're crazy.
 
too bad we killed saddam rather than just kept him under house arrest...would be nice if we could reinstall him. He was an incredibly pragmatic man, and he would understand what's going on. He was one of our original allies in the region anyway...

feels weird to basically support a dictator but it beats the alternatives, as we RElearned.

oh boy
 
In 1977, Afghanistan boasted the world's finest medical schools, three traveling orchestras, a bustling space program and an integrated light rail network with a graduated fee structure based upon the amount of one's cultural privilege. It was the utopia we can only dream about these days. Thanks a lot, Soviets.

You seem to really be struggling with this one. I'll try and make it simpler for you.

Was Afghanistan's infrastructure better or worse in 1978 than it was when the U.S. started to graciously rebuild it?
 
too bad we killed saddam rather than just kept him under house arrest...would be nice if we could reinstall him. He was an incredibly pragmatic man, and he would understand what's going on. He was one of our original allies in the region anyway...

feels weird to basically support a dictator but it beats the alternatives, as we RElearned.
You bring up an interesting point. Since the US killed Saddam the Middle East is certainly less stable than when he was in power. Saddam kept Iran in check and was a ruthless dictator who controlled all groups who disagreed with him. That is a simple fact. Would ISIS be running roughshod over Iraq if Saddam was still in power? I think not. In the ultimate of ironies we needed Sadam for stability in the Middle East. Seems this was a surprise to all of our Washington based politicians and experts.
 
You bring up an interesting point. Since the US killed Saddam the Middle East is certainly less stable than when he was in power. Saddam kept Iran in check and was a ruthless dictator who controlled all groups who disagreed with him. That is a simple fact. Would ISIS be running roughshod over Iraq if Saddam was still in power? I think not. In the ultimate of ironies we needed Sadam for stability in the Middle East. Seems this was a surprise to all of our Washington based politicians and experts.

It's almost as if the world isn't black and white and actions have unintended consequences.
 
Kinda like allowing "Syrian refugees" into your country/continent resulting in terrorist attacks? I guess the difference is no one is surprised by this result. Does that make this an intended or unintended consequence?
 
You seem to really be struggling with this one. I'll try and make it simpler for you.

Was Afghanistan's infrastructure better or worse in 1978 than it was when the U.S. started to graciously rebuild it?

Afghanistan was one of the poorest countries in the world before the Soviet invasion. It made some modest modernization between 1933-1973 that was largely limited to its urban areas. 85% of its population was rural and lived pretty much the way they had for centuries. A lot of the moderization it did experience was in the 1960's as it benefitted from Cold War aid and assistance from both the USA and the USSR.

Obviously, the wars that have raged there have destroyed most of what infrastructure was there before.
 
I'm with jhmd we need to kill kill kill our way out of this mess. You are either with us or against us. Kill anyone who doesn't acquiesce to our will.
 
I'm with jhmd we need to kill kill kill our way out of this mess. You are either with us or against us. Kill anyone who doesn't acquiesce to our will.

If we bomb them, and a pregnant innocent is killed in the process...
 

not sure what you mean, but i beg you not misread me (or hopefully i didn't miscommunicate.) the only fundamental cure and long term prospect for peace is for the west to engage and economically aid these areas, and the most disenfranchised within them. if only for every bomb dropped we had spent that money on building. We didn't/havent though, as charlie wilson knows (JHMD: we never spent trillions on rebuilding anywhere except in japan and germany), and rather than reaping benefits we're now coping with consequences.

Dealing with a secular dictator is preferable to the kind of task he global community is faced with now.
 
honestly the real serious truth is disbanding the iraqi army was beyond foolish. they were one of the largest, most disciplined, and (thanks to us) well armed armies in the world at the time. And they were combat veterans, which is hard to overstate. Irreplaceable, and if we could wield that original army today either directly or through a proxy, ISIS would be finished.
 
Last edited:
I'm with jhmd we need to kill kill kill our way out of this mess. You are either with us or against us. Kill anyone who doesn't acquiesce to our will.

You seem to be getting this backwards. They are the ones killing anyone who doesn't acquiesce to their will and their world view. Their terrorist activities will lead to a much greater US presence. Obama was withdrawing our troops. I would love to read your solution. Just love them a little more and all will be ok? Having spent some time in Iraq, let me assure you, the people in this region do not think this way.
 
I think we need to resist the urge to look back with any fondness for dictators like Saddam. He was hardly a stabilizing force in the region, and only looks good compared to the current chaos in Iraq and Syria. It's a false choice to say that the only two possible choices in government for the Middle East are brutal, totalitarian dictatorships and Islamist dominated anarchy. In fact much of the Arab streets' hatred and distrust of the United States and the West is driven by our support for these dictatorships over the decades. Increasingly I'm seeing people coming around to the idea that we need to back Assad against Isis, but that isn't a long term solution. Virtually every Sunni group fighting in Syria hates Assad far more than Isis and overt support for Assad by the West will only inspire more attacks.

Ultimately I don't see a long term solution that keeps Syria and Iraq intact. I think, given the highly sectarian atmosphere in the region, that a multi-ethic, multi-religious, pluralistic state united under one government in those two countries isn't realistic. The best play may be working with the regional and global powers to divide up the two nations into smaller and more homogeneous states. Let Assad retain control of the Alawite heartlands in northwest Syria. Divide the Sunni territories and empower local leaders and tribes by giving them autonomy and money in return for rooting out extremists groups in their territory. This is similar to the approach we took to bring peace to Anbar, however briefly. Give them a stake in the fight. Shi'a areas of Iraq can become vassal states to Iran if they wish, which is still preferable to all of Iraq being lost to Iran. Iran and Russia will retain their areas of influence, the Gulf states theirs, and the West can support and empower groups that are friendly to our interests (such as the Kurds perhaps). Work locally instead of trying to preserve nation states that were the artificial constructs of Britain and France to start with. Ultimately there is no complete victory on the horizon for anyone in this conflict, so a solution needs to be reached that is tolerable to all the main parties while leveraging the distrust and hatred virtually all of them share against Isis.
 
You seem to be getting this backwards. They are the ones killing anyone who doesn't acquiesce to their will and their world view. Their terrorist activities will lead to a much greater US presence. Obama was withdrawing our troops. I would love to read your solution. Just love them a little more and all will be ok? Having spent some time in Iraq, let me assure you, the people in this region do not think this way.

I don't love them at all. It just seems to me that these pieces of dog shit want nothing more than to drag the West back into another conflict. This is how they win the hearts and minds of middle easterners back into their camp. As I understand it that most of these fuckwads are basically mercenaries who will fight for whoever pays them and arms them. The Shia and Sunni have been fighting this bullshit forever. They don't really know much about Islam or really follow it they way they proclaim to. The suicide bombers from the other night in Paris are more hardened Muslim extremists, but I'm not sure how speeding another few hundred billion dollars and unknown numbers of American soldiers lives in Syria stops a Belgian extremist from blowing up a rock concert in Paris, but hey you tell me.

Perhaps we work to isolate these little bitches so they can't get arms? How are they arming and getting Toyota trucks? How are they getting Internet service and other basic supplies to wage war? How are a bunch of degenerate smelly poor young men so organized and armed?
 
Back
Top