Isis

[harsh.ag]

I am guessing when Saddam was in power, there were Shia extremist groups operating in Iraq. Anyone know who those were? Anyone famous?

 

[Bahnz]

Maybe there wouldn't be ISIS, but I reckon we would've seen a similar slaughter of civilians by Government forces (and all the resulting chaos) to that which occured in Syria following the Arab Spring.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Since RTB mentioned The Daily Beast...



This Middle Eastern conflict is your classic piece of religious sectarian violence, and it has just spilt over into Paris.

One of the core ideologies of ISIS has been to target Shia/Yazidis and they gained grounds based on the movement. Al Zawahiri who fronted Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and later which was overtaken by current ISIS head Al Baghdadi implemented the extreme violence against Shia/Yazidis. It worked for them because :

a) they gained support from anti Shia authorities from abroad
b) they were able to draw Sunni muslims/fighters who were oppressed by Shia authorities

Now ISIS is more focused on establishing the caliphate and stretch it or hold the territories at any cost. When Al Baghdadi declared Islamic State and the caliphate, there was influx of thousands of foreigners. They are still maintaining the ideology of attacking Shias but it's certainly not their priority.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I am guessing when Saddam was in power, there were Shia extremist groups operating in Iraq. Anyone know who those were? Anyone famous?

There might have been Shia militants under Saddam's regime but the news did not reach international media. If there were any, they had to take extreme precaution and execute the plans mostly under cover

 

[Spark]

Henry Rollins: If Saddam Hussein Were Still In Power, There'd Be No ISIS | Truth Revolt

No, there'd be the Feyadeen instead, who in terms of personnel are in many ways the same thing.

 

[sledger]

No, there'd be the Feyadeen instead, who in terms of personnel are in many ways the same thing.

Yeah, even with hindsight here's also no way of empirically demonstrating that maintaining the status quo in the Saddam situation should have been given of priority over a drive for conscious change. It's a nonsense article, the underlying logic of which is massively flawed, and that's true regardless of whether or not you agree with its overall message.

 

[Dan]

Always easy to back someone as the "lesser of two evils" in hindsight, when the greater of the evils has arisen...

 

[sledger]

Always easy to back someone as the "lesser of two evils" in hindsight, when the greater of the evils has arisen...

Yeah, but there's no way of proving whether or not this has actually happened (and that's assuming it's possible to develop a logically coherent metric by which "evil" can be measured), which is why this article is balls.

 

[harsh.ag]

Although it is quite a bit more foreseeable that leaving behind a weak government in an extremely religious volatile area would lead to powerful non-state extremist actors.

 

[Spark]

There is also the obvious point that the invasion was a ludicrously, appallingly awful idea at the time. But not because it would obviously lead to something like ISIS.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

There was also the issue of managing 3 different groups of people....the Sunni, the Shia and the Kurds. The whole thing was mismanaged.

 

[Spark]

Biden's idea of partitioning Iraq into three states strictly by ethnicity honestly doesn't seem so bad in hindsight.

 

[Top_Cat]

First order of business for government in each state would be how to obliterate the other two arseholes, tbh....

 

[Dan]

Yeah, but there's no way of proving whether or not this has actually happened (and that's assuming it's possible to develop a logically coherent metric by which "evil" can be measured), which is why this article is balls.

*perceived greater of two evils.

 

[hendrix]

Although it is quite a bit more foreseeable that leaving behind a weak government in an extremely religious volatile area would lead to powerful non-state extremist actors.

Yup.

 

[watson]

Iraq 'worked' prior to 2003 because the Sadam Hussein regime held the warring parties in check. However, in order to do this the regime had to be just as brutal as the warring parties themselves. This is because it is not possible to be benevolent towards an entity that hates everyone else bar themselves and just wants to purge society of the opposing 'infidels'.

The interesting question is how and why this insane cycle of extreme xenophobia exists within the Middle East in the first place? Once you come to terms with that question then you start to offer long term solutions. Until then the Middle East will remain a continuing patch-up job for all concerned.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah watson's racist, xenophobic agenda getting more and more annoying.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

@ Watson

Yeah we all know what you are hinting at.

Is it Islam by any chance?

And what is the best way forward?

I think from what you have been saying, it's to reform Islam so that it is compatible with the modern world?

How should this be achieved, especially in the middle east?

 

[Bahnz]

Btw, as difficult and horrible as it is to do, if we take a strategic view of the Paris terror attacks does anyone think this was a blunder by ISIS? By targeting a major western power, and threatening similar attacks on others this will likely lead to a much more active response from western militaries and greater support for intervention from the populations of western democracies. We've already seen the French massively step-up their airstrike campaign and the Russians and Americans have begun sharing military information in the wake of the attacks.

 

[Gnske]

Yeah watson's racist, xenophobic agenda getting more and more annoying.

I love this whole meme where people think religion = race.