Dark Places and Expression

[glunn]

I feel sorry for everyone involved.  I don't believe in pure good or pure evil, and I hate the fact that tens of thousands of innocent women and children will continue to suffer.  

[TheLeviathan]

It's refreshing to see more countries in the region taking the fight to this group.  Granted, it took some pretty outrageous action against their own citizens to motivate them, but at least it's finally happening.

 

The scary part is that their numbers are actually swelling with each new act of barbarism.

[Shane Wahl]

I wonder what would happen if the U.S. and the West abandoned the Middle East region? Would ISIL/ISIS/Daesch gain a foothold of a region and create a country? Would this mean that this "proposed country" would make a run at arming themselves with Nuclear weapons and because of this Iran would definitely up there game in that capacity because they are a predominantly Shiite nation and are a target of the Sunni ISIL.

 

I want nothing to do with the Middle East, but these kind of scenarios cause me headaches for sure.

 

First: oh my god, people! A real non-baseball discussion?

 

I actually made this claim several months ago: The United States must just walk away from the Middle East. That's overly simplistic, but it is necessary. There has got to be a way to quickly move away from fossil fuels, at least to the point where we don't have to support one of the top five most savagely barbaric regimes in the world (Saudi Arabia, obviously) just for their sweet, sweet oil. 

 

ISIS is a group that has really state enemies. This is the true nature of terrorism and they are an extreme version of Al Qaeda. No nation state wants these people in their country. This is where the United States went terribly wrong following Sept. 11. The Taliban, even, just asked for proof. We didn't give it, waged war, and now are going to basically just turn that country over to the Taliban again. Saddam Hussein was a monster, but he was a monster who maintained order. There is value in that . . . because order can be subverted. Power vacuums and civil war can't be subverted. Hence, the rise of these barbarians. This is a U.S. created nightmare. A fully operating Hussein or Assad military would have annihilated these vermin already. It wouldn't even come to be in the first place. 

 

Anybody seriously looking at Iraq in 2002 could see that this was going to be a problem. So these "masters of war" like Cheney and Rumsfeld straight up had to know that chaos would ensue. Chaos means unending war, and war means money for all sorts of interests, including Halliburton. It also creates a militarization of American society (hence the use of military hardware by police forces in the United States). These things make sense for those powers that ultimately make the United States government move.

 

This country was found on the ideas of John Locke (and some others, even more radical than Locke). When the government fully moves against the will of the people, the people are obligated to revolt. Still waiting for that . . . 

[Shane Wahl]

I wonder what would happen if the U.S. and the West abandoned the Middle East region? Would ISIL/ISIS/Daesch gain a foothold of a region and create a country? Would this mean that this "proposed country" would make a run at arming themselves with Nuclear weapons and because of this Iran would definitely up there game in that capacity because they are a predominantly Shiite nation and are a target of the Sunni ISIL.

 

I want nothing to do with the Middle East, but these kind of scenarios cause me headaches for sure.

 

First: oh my god, people! A real non-baseball discussion?

 

I actually made this claim several months ago: The United States must just walk away from the Middle East. That's overly simplistic, but it is necessary. There has got to be a way to quickly move away from fossil fuels, at least to the point where we don't have to support one of the top five most savagely barbaric regimes in the world (Saudi Arabia, obviously) just for their sweet, sweet oil. 

 

ISIS is a group that has really state enemies. This is the true nature of terrorism and they are an extreme version of Al Qaeda. No nation state wants these people in their country. This is where the United States went terribly wrong following Sept. 11. The Taliban, even, just asked for proof. We didn't give it, waged war, and now are going to basically just turn that country over to the Taliban again. Saddam Hussein was a monster, but he was a monster who maintained order. There is value in that . . . because order can be subverted. Power vacuums and civil war can't be subverted. Hence, the rise of these barbarians. This is a U.S. created nightmare. A fully operating Hussein or Assad military would have annihilated these vermin already. It wouldn't even come to be in the first place. 

 

Anybody seriously looking at Iraq in 2002 could see that this was going to be a problem. So these "masters of war" like Cheney and Rumsfeld straight up had to know that chaos would ensue. Chaos means unending war, and war means money for all sorts of interests, including Halliburton. It also creates a militarization of American society (hence the use of military hardware by police forces in the United States). These things make sense for those powers that ultimately make the United States government move.

 

This country was found on the ideas of John Locke (and some others, even more radical than Locke). When the government fully moves against the will of the people, the people are obligated to revolt. Still waiting for that . . . 

[Willihammer]

I guess I'm not that concerned with ISIS or ISIL. In my mind they're the terroristic equivalent of Miley Cyrus or whoever the current pop idol is. There always has been a terrorist of the day and tomorrow it will be a different one and I don't really care to track them as they come and go or see my country go too crazy about chasing any one in particular.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I'm not that concerned with ISIS or ISIL. In my mind they're the terroristic equivalent of Miley Cyrus or whoever the current pop idol is. There always has been a terrorist of the day and tomorrow it will be a different one and I don't really care to track them as they come and go or see my country go too crazy about chasing any one in particular.

 

The caution with that is that you are turning your back on some really outrageous atrocities to do that.  I understand the appeal of that, but at some point doesn't a group/nation reach a point of violence that they have to be dealt with?

[Bark's Lounge]

The caution with that is that you are turning your back on some really outrageous atrocities to do that.  I understand the appeal of that, but at some point doesn't a group/nation reach a point of violence that they have to be dealt with?

Man, I so wish the US could wash their hands of the Middle East and walk away, find a new energy initiative, make some sacrifices, etc., etc...

 

But, I have made the mistake of watching the Short Film of these pieces of crap burning the Jordanian pilot alive and I have seen other not so nice things that I had no business digging up. I have my regrets.

 

I agree with Leviathan, I don't think any nation can turn their back on that kind of shiznit. These human beings have ceased to be that, they are rabid and diseased animals that need to be disposed of... expediantly.

 

They have taken a deuce on the Muslim population of the world and have most uneducated people of the Western world freaked out towards Islam to an extent that is quite frightening.

 

I certainly do not want the US to be the ones who execute it, but a coalition of many nations, especially muslim majority nations.

 

Burn these MFer's down.

[USAFChief]

"...a coalition of ... Muslim nations."

 

Bingo.

[TheLeviathan]

"...a coalition of ... Muslim nations."

 

Bingo.

 

If only that was as easy as it should be.

[ashbury]

"...a coalition of ... Muslim nations."

 

Bingo.

"The primary cause of problems is solutions."

 

I don't disagree with your viewpoint, but each of these individual nations has its own axe to grind.   For instance we've seen Shiite militias come in and do similar heinous things when they get the upper hand on Sunni populations.   And the Kurds are a wild card in all this, that none of the other players welcomes except tactically in an "enemy of my enemy" type of way.   Having a joint force of other Muslims come in to liberate ISIS territory plays into ISIS's narrative to the locals that they are saving the Sunnis from outside forces.   US forces are a different kind of outside force (one that ISIS openly desires to battle against, in the name of bringing about the End Days sooner), but not unique in that regard.

[Bark's Lounge]

I think I may have figured out a way to rid the Earth of ISIS...

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2013/05/super.png

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah but then who saves us from that smug, self-righteous jerk?

 

(Please say Batman or someone equally less lame than Superman)

[USAFChief]

"The primary cause of problems is solutions."

 

I don't disagree with your viewpoint, but each of these individual nations has its own axe to grind.   For instance we've seen Shiite militias come in and do similar heinous things when they get the upper hand on Sunni populations.   And the Kurds are a wild card in all this, that none of the other players welcomes except tactically in an "enemy of my enemy" type of way.   Having a joint force of other Muslims come in to liberate ISIS territory plays into ISIS's narrative to the locals that they are saving the Sunnis from outside forces.   US forces are a different kind of outside force (one that ISIS openly desires to battle against, in the name of bringing about the End Days sooner), but not unique in that regard.

All of which is why every outside force through history has left the area with a sad tale to tell, and little if anything to show for it, for the outsiders or for the locals.

[Squirrel]

Yeah but then who saves us from that smug, self-righteous jerk?

 

(Please say Batman or someone equally less lame than Superman)

Thor!

[TheLeviathan]

Thor!

 

Sold!

[Squirrel]

Sold!

I was going to say ... Chris Hemsworth ... to be even more silly about it, but given the subject matter didn't want to go that far.  And, oops, well, guess I just did.  I'm not trying to be irreverent here, but this topic ... SIGH!!

[Bark's Lounge]

Yeah but then who saves us from that smug, self-righteous jerk?

 

(Please say Batman or someone equally less lame than Superman)

Yeah, as everyone knows - Superman sucks. But he is the unbelievable character that could extinguish the flame of ISIS. Maybe I should have said the Silver Surfer? Yuck, Yuck!

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, as everyone knows - Superman sucks. But he is the unbelievable character that could extinguish the flame of ISIS. Maybe I should have said the Silver Surfer? Yuck, Yuck!

 

What's sad is the solution of "Let Superman take care of it!" is only slightly less plausible than "Let the other Muslim nations handle it!"

[Bark's Lounge]

What's sad is the solution of "Let Superman take care of it!" is only slightly less plausible than "Let the other Muslim nations handle it!"

Agreed. The situation is pretty bleak.

[Shane Wahl]

Well the monstrous Saudi government should be funding all attempts against ISIS, but that isn't really in its interest.

 

For those who don't want the U.S. to walk away . . . I would still suggest that the U.S. stop arming and training these kinds of entities. One would have thought that the experience with doing so with Afghanistan in the 1980s would have been enough of a lesson . . .

[USAFChief]

What's sad is the solution of "Let Superman take care of it!" is only slightly less plausible than "Let the other Muslim nations handle it!"

And both have a higher chance of success than "Let the US handle it."

 

With the added bonus of fewer US lives and dollars spent needlessly.

[TheLeviathan]

And both have a higher chance of success than "Let the US handle it."

 

With the added bonus of fewer US lives and dollars spent needlessly.

 

I agree in the sense that we shouldn't try to handle it unilaterally.  But if you only let the Muslim nations do it, then you risk atrocities as bad or worse being done by them to squelch the uprising.  Then the cycle continues.

 

And then you come back to the question that makes this difficult:  How savage does a group have to get before it demands a larger, global action?  And if it does demand that, shouldn't the use be involved and leading?  I don't think that's easily answered.

[Bark's Lounge]

Certainly the U.S.A. hopefully does not get into a conflict where our troops are put on the ground in Syria or Iraq. It's not worth it anymore if it ever was worth it and I was a part of the opposition to the Irag Invasion military intervention.

 

I'm a realist, and things look pretty bleak in those areas of the world. (understated)

 

I have great concerns about the foreign fighters who have left their countries to join the atrocity we call ISIS. They should never, ever, ever be let back into their country of origin... never.

 

This whole thing is a mess and it will take a good amount of time to eradicate this group of Islamists.

 

This whole topic makes me feel sort of down troddened, but I have listened to people who can maybe have a long term impact... not immediate.

 

I am a big fan of Maajid Nawaz. This guy is a rising star. I want every effort to be out there to keep this guy alive.

 

Extreme Islam is by far the #1 threat - and let it be clear that I do not subscribe to any religion... not even close, and I am not a Nationalist... barf!

 

Islam needs to be reformed from the inside out. The Western World cannot attack this and have a favorable outcome. We need people inside this religion to question, teach and execute a favorable end outcome to stifle the Muslim Young Adults who what to become Islamists.

 

An Intelligent mind like Maajid Nawaz and his coherts at the Quilliam Foundation is a great start.

 

There is not much to feel optimistic about on this front but with people like Nawaz - anything is possible. Maybe this is what our charities and energies should be put in to.

 

Extreme Islam is politicized and fascist. If I am a janitor of the world, this is the **** I need to sweep up and throw in the trash, throw some bleach on the problem spot, and make sure everything is clean for the duration.

[TheLeviathan]

So with ISIS closing in on Baghdad.....why are we failing so miserably at containing this group?  What about our policy is causing us to lose?

[drjim]

I missed the rest of this discussion, but define "us" in this. Should people in the US actually care if Baghdad falls?

 

The main issue that I see is that no local ground force is willing to stand and fight. Air power alone can't do it, and I think we are right to not send significant ground forces to protect land in Iraq.

[TheLeviathan]

The Kurds are but we're unwilling to arm them. (For various reasons)

 

By us I mean the USA and I think we should care insofar as we are attempting, in some way, to stop this and failing.

[drjim]

 

The Kurds are but we're unwilling to arm them. (For various reasons)

 

By us I mean the USA and I think we should care insofar as we are attempting, in some way, to stop this and failing.

 

The Kurds have more or less stopped them from making advances in Kurdish territory. That was probably the main goal all along.

 

Outside of that, I think the US (at least the current administration) wants to stop them only if a local force is willing to step up and actually fight and hold the land. Absent that, the US is willing to concede large amounts of territory.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Kurds have more or less stopped them from making advances in Kurdish territory. That was probably the main goal all along.

 

Outside of that, I think the US (at least the current administration) wants to stop them only if a local force is willing to step up and actually fight and hold the land. Absent that, the US is willing to concede large amounts of territory.

 

While you might be right about that privately, publicly the administration has declared a VERY different outcome it is trying to obtain.  That matters and I struggle to accept your version of things because of it.  If they were truly out to contain them the rhetoric would have been much different to avoid looking badly.

 

Unless it was just really stupid rhetoric I guess.

[USMCTwin]

 

So with ISIS closing in on Baghdad.....why are we failing so miserably at containing this group?  What about our policy is causing us to lose?

 

I honestly don't know if The Atlantic is a left or right leaning source, but I found this particular article helpful in trying to understand exactly your question.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/america-win-loss-iraq-afghanistan/394559/

 

For the record I went through this thread, I typically stick to the baseball, mostly because I'm not from Minnesota and I know my opinion and feelings on politics would not be popular here, but I did want to participate in this thread. 

 

I served in the Marines and have apart from the Marines, traveled to Malaysia for an eco-tourism trip, so I have seen two very different forms of Islam.  I forged many friendships in my time in Malaysia and they were so loving and accepting it really gives you hope and a passion for Islamic people that I am not sure I really believed I could have had.  People would just let you stay in their house and offer you the very best of what they had, even if it wasn't much.  It was really the type of behavior that restores any hope you may have lost in humanity.  At the same time the ISIS group makes you question everything you think you knew about Islamic people.  I really believe (forgive me for not remembering who brought up this point earlier) the key is to have Islam attack this from the inside, I am not sure where/how/if it will start, but I do think it will be necessary.

 

I find it helpful to put it in this context.  I identify as a Christian (specifically Southern Baptist), but that in no way aligns me with the Westboro Baptist Church.  I feel like the best way for me to combat as being the same as Westboro, is to speak out and probably more importantly my actions.  Obviously there are differences, (as far as I know Westboro is not actively trying to kill anyone, but I think the parallels are still similar. 

 

Thank you for starting this thread and giving me a spot to place my thoughts, however misguided they may be.

[ashbury]

The Kurds are but we're unwilling to arm them. (For various reasons)

You may be alluding to the following but I'll elaborate. One thing the various rival factions in the area, including NATO ally Turkey, seem to absolutely agree upon is that none of them likes the Kurds. There is a major segment of the Kurdish population that would like to carve out portions of various countries and establish a sovereign Kurdistan. Tread carefully when thinking about even being seen as tilting in their direction; everyone will wind up angry at us, including the Kurds themselves when they realize the support they're getting from us is limited.

 

This isn't a simple bilateral Hatfields and McCoys feud in that part of the world.