What to do about ISIS

[blah the Prussian]

Simple. Their tactics and strategies are obviously good. They are no pushover. They are not some simple mindless zealots. However, their declaration and their rule over the lands during the first years were very short term and not productive at all. Why? The only answer is that they had no intend to actually creating the Caliphate but something else. What is the point of making a big mess and then declared ridiculous things other than to attract the world's attention? They are certainly looking for a fight. And guess who is the one they want to fight most? Certainly not France or Japan.

Now, America government certainly arent keen on fighting them on ground so ISIS had to change their tactics. Boko Haram becoming their branch is one of the new steps.

Firstly, having a good strategy and being mindless zealots are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, ISIS is going up against two ridiculously war torn nations, Iraq and Syria. The Syrian army is fighting for Assad, a pretty nasty piece of work himself. The Iraqi army is fighting for a US puppet government. Neither army is likely to be all that loyal. When you take these demoralized soldiers and put them up against the fanaticism of ISIS, they don't exactly need to be led by Rommel to win every fight. You also haven't shown any evidence that ISIS is tactically sound. As far as I know, their strategy seems to be an endless full frontal assault human wave tactic. This is a good strategy if you have vast manpower reserves, but not if you have the manpower of ISIS. Clearly, they are not actually employing good strategies.

To address your second point, ISIS actually has begun to set up government institutions like hospitals and police stations. They have their own laws. They actually have all the trappings of a modern nation state, with the exception that said laws are completely barbaric and inhumane. Now, if they had no intention of actually setting up this Caliphate, and instead want to provoke America, why would they waste resources on institutions they would have no need for if they were a simple terrorist organization?

Oh, and before you ask, source for the hospital thing: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32456789

[Yojinbo]

Saudi Arabia does not wage wars of aggression against their neighbors. They also don't execute foreign non believers. I'm not saying they aren't the best argument against monarchy ever, but they're no ISIS.

They don't wage war of aggression against their neighbors? What do you think they are doing in Jemen then? What were they doing in Bahrain in 2011?

Anyway, that's beside the point. Whether you want to compare SA to IS or not is one thing. But it's clear that they have the same goals, that they follow the same ideology and that SA has - and still does - massively support IS with cash and arms. Similar things will probably apply to Qatar and IS as well, no doubt. So if you ask what can be done about IS ... well here's your answer: do something about countries like SA or Qatar [and to a lesser extent Turkey] blatantly supporting IS.

To address your second point, ISIS actually has begun to set up government institutions like hospitals and police stations. They have their own laws. They actually have all the trappings of a modern nation state, with the exception that said laws are completely barbaric and inhumane.

In other words: an ultra-conservative terrorist regime that functions exactly the same way that the ultra-conservative terrorist regime in SA functions has replaced a mostly shiite government that had strong ties to Iran which also happens to be the archenemy of SA in the region. Do you think this is coincidence or do you not think this is coincidence?

Edited April 29, 2015 by Yojinbo

[blah the Prussian]

They don't wage war of aggression against their neighbors? What do you think they are doing in Jemen then? What were they doing in Bahrain in 2011?

They are fighting a proxy war with Iran in Yemen, not a war of aggression against Yemen. Were Germany and Italy waging a war of aggression against Spain in 1936?

Anyway, that's beside the point. Whether you want to compare SA to IS or not is one thing. But it's clear that they have the same goals, that they follow the same ideology and that SA has - and still does - massively support IS with cash and arms. Similar things will probably apply to Qatar and IS as well, no doubt. So if you ask what can be done about IS ... well here's your answer: do something about countries like SA or Qatar [and to a lesser extent Turkey] blatantly supporting IS.

Okay, fine. I see your point. So we say to SA "Stop supporting ISIS." And then, suppose their response is "no," as it almost certainly will be. What the hell are we going to do then? The US isn't going to impose economic sanctions, especially not without proof, which, you know, we don't exactly have. An invasion is absolutely out of the question; the last thing that we need is ANOTHER long, bloody war in the Middle East. So even if SA is supporting ISIS, what do you intend to do about it?

In other words: an ultra-conservative terrorist regime that functions exactly the same way that the ultra-conservative terrorist regime in SA functions has replaced a mostly shiite government that had strong ties to Iran which also happens to be the archenemy of SA in the region. Do you think this is coincidence or do you not think this is coincidence?

Saudi Arabia is not a terrorist regime. They also do not practice slavery. And Iran isn't exactly some amazing, awesome paradise of a country either. Most of the offenses you say SA does Iran is guilty of as well. Don't try to assign black and white morality to the Middle East. It won't work out. It does not matter if it is a coincidence. We need proof, which we currently lack, to accuse SA of anything. As a final note, ISIS does plan to conquer Saudi Arabia as well. Make of that what you will.

[eclipse]

No offense, but I'm dead tired and my dishes aren't going to wash themselves. I'll have to rush through this, since I want to be in bed by a decent time.

We don't just make these laws up. We just have our own language of describing the laws of logic, which are true.

True, by our definition. Man's definition. And we're not perfect.

Actually, in the problem of evil argument, we're using God's own definition of evil from the Bible. We know what is evil and what is not from what God told us.

But if you don't believe that God exists, then that means the Bible was made by humans, so it's other humans telling us what's evil. If you're assuming that He does exist, for the sake of argument, then I can accept this.

Now that I think about it, your argument is beautifully circular. I had missed this when I first made this post. The reason you're saying that defining God in terms of things human use is pointless is simply because he is omnipotent (you said he can make plants out of nothing, so yeah). And you said that we don't know what omnipotence is. But your reason for saying it's pointless is because you know he's omnipotent. But if you don't understand omnipotence at all, then how can you use it as a reason for saying it's pointless?! You presupposed that you knew what omnipotence was when you said that.

If a human were to demonstrate something that is not within human capacity (like generate matter from nothingness, or turn water into excellent booze in an instant), then that's one step towards something that's all-powerful. I know what I'm capable of, and I know that I'm not the pinnacle of human achievement. However, I'm confident enough in myself such that I'd be able to recognize when someone does something that humans aren't supposed to be able to do.

The rest of this is. . .somewhere below.

So can God make square circles? Can something be round and not round at the same time?

Dunno. Ask God.

There's no theist philosopher out there today who thinks that God's logic is different from.. human logic. The consensus is that there's only one set of rules of logic which everyone, including God, obeys. Even Descartes, maybe the most famous philosopher in the past millenium, doesn't agree with you and he was a hardcore theist. He thought that God had to obey the laws of logic.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim (that God doesn't obey '"human logic").

I'm not a philosopher, nor do I aspire to be one.

As for my claim, it will be just that. Logic is man-made; whether God is or not is another question. If God is man-made, then of course He'll obey human logic. If God is not man-made, and exists, it tells me that trying to fit Him in a man-made box will fail, because we're dealing with something else entirely. The final option is that God doesn't exist, in which case we've both spent far too long on this topic, and I could've done some housework instead.

Come on, don't give me wishy-washy replies like this. I don't merely think I understand Snowy's happiness when he gets a girlfriend. I understand what it means for someone to be happy completely.

Think back to when you were 16. How much have your opinions changed? Back when I was 16, I thought I knew what I was doing. I looked back on that when I hit 22 and though that my teenage self was an utter moron. When I hit 28, I had the exact same thought about both of my past selves.

Minds change, and I think you're capable of changing, learning, and retrospection. This is what I meant, and why I said that the more I learn, the more I realize that I don't know what I'm doing.

Saudi Arabia is not a terrorist regime. They also do not practice slavery. And Iran isn't exactly some amazing, awesome paradise of a country either. Most of the offenses you say SA does Iran is guilty of as well. Don't try to assign black and white morality to the Middle East. It won't work out. It does not matter if it is a coincidence. We need proof, which we currently lack, to accuse SA of anything. As a final note, ISIS does plan to conquer Saudi Arabia as well. Make of that what you will.

ON ONE HAND, ISIS wanting to take over Saudi Arabia is a wee bit ironic, given the parallels.

ON THE OTHER HAND, any country that executes its own citizens for their religious beliefs needs reform. Religion should be a personal matter, not one that's mandated by the government.

[blah the Prussian]

ON ONE HAND, ISIS wanting to take over Saudi Arabia is a wee bit ironic, given the parallels.

ON THE OTHER HAND, any country that executes its own citizens for their religious beliefs needs reform. Religion should be a personal matter, not one that's mandated by the government.

I don't think its ironic. As the new Caliphate, ISIS needs Mecca for legitimacy, which the Saudis obviously won't give up. I am inclined to agree with your second point. Hopefully the new king and/or crown prince will reform it. (The Crown Prince is like 35, so theres hope.)

[Rapier]

I don't think its ironic. As the new Caliphate, ISIS needs Mecca for legitimacy, which the Saudis obviously won't give up. I am inclined to agree with your second point. Hopefully the new king and/or crown prince will reform it. (The Crown Prince is like 35, so theres hope.)

What do we need for there to be such a reform?

Trust me, no matter how much you read or study up on it, you'll never find a good reply. There isn't one.

Keep in mind that if there is no reply, that just means you're wrong.

You're one of the last people who I'd think would use this fallacy. No reply =/= refuted. If I demonstrate something and it goes uncontested, it just means it went uncontested. It does not prove my theory is absolutely right. And there's nothing to prove that there won't be a reply in the future, either!

My advice to him would be, as he is a faithful, that he should justify his beliefs with reason. Beliefs that can not be justified with reason should be discarded, that which is not reasonable is not real. And contrary to popular opinion, faith can be backed up by reason, turning irrational beliefs into positive rational beliefs.

[Chiki]

You're one of the last people who I'd think would use this fallacy. No reply =/= refuted. If I demonstrate something and it goes uncontested, it just means it went uncontested. It does not prove my theory is absolutely right. And there's nothing to prove that there won't be a reply in the future, either!

My advice to him would be, as he is a faithful, that he should justify his beliefs with reason. Beliefs that can not be justified with reason should be discarded, that which is not reasonable is not real. And contrary to popular opinion, faith can be backed up by reason, turning irrational beliefs into positive rational beliefs.

...It's not a fallacy. It's logically impossible to come up with a good reply.

I've looked into the literature in the philosophy of religion for this. The best answers theists have come up with is stuff like: natural disasters are actually a good thing, God has a good reason for doing it!! or: We can't understand God's morality, it's like looking at a needle and concluding there are no germs on it simply because we can't see them. We aren't smart enough to comprehend God.

Both arguments are horrific.

[blah the Prussian]

What do we need for there to be such a reform?

Well, for either the current Saudi king or the next one to have the will to reform. I'm betting that the crown prince will pass at least some reforms. Pretty much, they need a monarch like the kings of Jordan and Morocco.

[dondon151]

And contrary to popular opinion, faith can be backed up by reason, turning irrational beliefs into positive rational beliefs.

faith can't be backed up by reason. if faith were backed by reason, then it'd no longer be faith.

[Rekt no Ken]

It seems this thread got derailed

I highly recommend watching PBS's Frontline documentary about "The Rise of ISIS." It incorporates a historical timeline showcasing the early roots of ISIS and how they evolved as well as a variety of divergent opinions by Iraqi and American political leaders who were directly involved.

A prolonged American presence in Iraq would have prevented ISIS from securing the strong foothold today but it was not in the best political interests of President Obama, who promised to be out of the country to a public who was tired of the war abroad. I find this amusing in a tragic way because losing Iraq to ISIS after investing so much American time, money, effort, and (most of all) lives feels like a total catastrophe. Looking back, America should have stayed there much longer if not indefinitely. But of course, hindsight is always 20/20

[blah the Prussian]

It seems this thread got derailed

I highly recommend watching PBS's Frontline documentary about "The Rise of ISIS." It incorporates a historical timeline showcasing the early roots of ISIS and how they evolved as well as a variety of divergent opinions by Iraqi and American political leaders who were directly involved.

A prolonged American presence in Iraq would have prevented ISIS from securing the strong foothold today but it was not in the best political interests of President Obama, who promised to be out of the country to a public who was tired of the war abroad. I find this amusing in a tragic way because losing Iraq to ISIS after investing so much American time, money, effort, and (most of all) lives feels like a total catastrophe. Looking back, America should have stayed there much longer if not indefinitely. But of course, hindsight is always 20/20

Iraq isn't necessarily going to fall to ISIS though. At this point, it can't win. No matter what it does, there will always be a stronger army. It's cause was lost the instant it lay claim to the entire Islamic world.

[Rekt no Ken]

Iraq isn't necessarily going to fall to ISIS though. At this point, it can't win. No matter what it does, there will always be a stronger army. It's cause was lost the instant it lay claim to the entire Islamic world.

Much of Iraq has already fallen to ISIS. Iraq's army has been crippled and many of its weapons & resources seized by ISIS. Even if ISIS doesn't expand any further, they've already "won" a lot of territory as well as thousands of lives.

[Chiki]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/26/french-journalist-poses-muslim-convert-isis-anna-erelle

This article is amazing.

[blah the Prussian]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/26/french-journalist-poses-muslim-convert-isis-anna-erelle

This article is amazing.

Wow. You weren't kidding. That's certainly food for thought. In any other war, we would censor any and all enemy propaganda; I think it is only fair that we institute blocks of all internet feed advocating ISIS or any other Jihadi group. You may make a slippery slope fallacy, but jumping off the slippery slope is worth it to beat these bastards.

[Chiki]

Wow. You weren't kidding. That's certainly food for thought. In any other war, we would censor any and all enemy propaganda; I think it is only fair that we institute blocks of all internet feed advocating ISIS or any other Jihadi group. You may make a slippery slope fallacy, but jumping off the slippery slope is worth it to beat these bastards.

I don't think that can be done.

[Rapier]

There are studies showing the motivation these extremists have actually come from psychological issues, and not just from merely getting virgins in Heaven as a reward or religious fanatism, as it is spread by propaganda. This article speaks about the book which contains these studies. Granted, I've only read the article, but still. These studies show most simply lack social ability, and look for great acts as compensation.

I don't think that can be done.

Maybe not all can be blocked, but we could block as much as possible. My doubts are about just how efficient this kind of policy would be. Knowing the internet, I don't think it would be so efficient.

Actually, making propaganda -against- IS in order to disencourage people from joining seems more efficient than blocking their own propagandas.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Rapier

[Life]

What to do about ISIS:

Short of picking up a rifle and moving to the Middle East, you can all shut up since a lot of you are being pretentious about it. These people only understand violence.

[blah the Prussian]

What to do about ISIS:

Short of picking up a rifle and moving to the Middle East, you can all shut up since a lot of you are being pretentious about it. These people only understand violence.

So what's Israel been doing to combat this, huh?

[3Comrades]

I am worried for my friends, one of my best friends, Salma Hussein, was terribly bullied after 9/11, and according to my co-worker and several others that the ISIS stuff has come up (when they bring it up) extreme doubt has come on all muslim green card members and citizens. Her brother, Yousef, was like a brother to me when i was growing up and now he is a teenager in all this and I worry what people will do. ISIS is a real threat but I don't think we should be indiscriminate when we deal with a threat as a lot of innocent people can get hurt.

[blah the Prussian]

I am worried for my friends, one of my best friends, Salma Hussein, was terribly bullied after 9/11, and according to my co-worker and several others that the ISIS stuff has come up (when they bring it up) extreme doubt has come on all muslim green card members and citizens. Her brother, Yousef, was like a brother to me when i was growing up and now he is a teenager in all this and I worry what people will do. ISIS is a real threat but I don't think we should be indiscriminate when we deal with a threat as a lot of innocent people can get hurt.

If we're talking about Muslims living in the West, I agree with you. Although, legally there never has been a serious attempt to punish all Muslims for the actions of ISIS, there is an issue with bullying, though what to do about bullying is a whole nother can of worms. If, however, we are talking about civilians living in the parts of the Middle East where fighting is going on, I must disagree. We need to accept that we are fighting what is essentially a nation, in ability to make war if not legitimately. They are currently winning in Iraq even after the Battle of Tabriz, and the more land they take the harder they become to defeat. I know this May sound cold, but we need to accept that civilians die in war. As long as we keep the bombing to areas where we are certain ISIS troops are, if a few civilians die we will not be responsible, ISIS will for putting what they call their people in danger.

[Blaze The Great]

If we're talking about Muslims living in the West, I agree with you. Although, legally there never has been a serious attempt to punish all Muslims for the actions of ISIS, there is an issue with bullying, though what to do about bullying is a whole nother can of worms. If, however, we are talking about civilians living in the parts of the Middle East where fighting is going on, I must disagree. We need to accept that we are fighting what is essentially a nation, in ability to make war if not legitimately. They are currently winning in Iraq even after the Battle of Tabriz, and the more land they take the harder they become to defeat. I know this May sound cold, but we need to accept that civilians die in war. As long as we keep the bombing to areas where we are certain ISIS troops are, if a few civilians die we will not be responsible, ISIS will for putting what they call their people in danger.

This is true, but keep in mind not even the US is exempt from taking actions similar to this. During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps based on suspected sentiment with their ancestral country. With how dangerous ISIS is and how much they are calling Muslims in the West to terrorism, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this led to a chain reaction which ends up resulting in a 'serious attempt to punish all Muslims'.

[blah the Prussian]

This is true, but keep in mind not even the US is exempt from taking actions similar to this. During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps based on suspected sentiment with their ancestral country. With how dangerous ISIS is and how much they are calling Muslims in the West to terrorism, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this led to a chain reaction which ends up resulting in a 'serious attempt to punish all Muslims'.

During the Second World War the US also had Jim Crow laws, and had every Latin American country as it's bitch for exploitation. We were much more generally racist back then. I do see your point, though.

[3Comrades]

i mean it isn't as bad as it used to be, but not too long ago Politicians (not too popular ones but that is not how it looks to the rest of the world) were talking about forced conversion to Christianity for Muslims, Forced deportation, getting rid of Habeas Corpus for suspects of terrorism. And while it isn't too common, a lot of innocent Americans have gotten hurt. Gulet Mohamed was a teenager in the state I lived, and he wasn't even allowed to return to the country, as a US citizen after being tortured in Kuwait and interrogated by American FBI. People being detained and put into secret prisons is a thing now, and I worry what will happen.

I have a half sister and her father is from Pakistan, but her sister and brother (older than me) were born here, and are all US citizens, but I fear that the loose cannon whatever it takes method will destroy and hurt good people. I realize an oversea war has different rules, but I feel the US needs to be held accountable for not only the US Citizens and residents it has hurt, but also visitors who have been proven by our own records to be wrongfully detained. The US is not a safe place for Muslims at the moment, not foreign muslims like Khalid El-Masri, and Murat Kurnaz. And even during his role as Vice President, Dick Cheney defended the US for torture of innocents, when questioned about the 26 people out of a specific prison of 119, he expressed that he felt much more concern for the possible bad guys who could get away than innocents wrongfully detained and tortured.

Or check some statements by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who served directly under Colin Powell and his numerous assertions of who is tortured and where are mostly innocents and were tortured for years at a time on the flimsiest pieces of evidence often corroborated after the fact. Isis is a horrendous issue for the US right now, and one to be taken seriously, but while legally the US has no general attack on Muslims, illegally they have for years, and it always gets worse when this happens. And I think that even though we have to work hard and many civilians can't help but be killed overseas, the US should be held accountable for our war crimes domestic and abroad.

[blah the Prussian]

i mean it isn't as bad as it used to be, but not too long ago Politicians (not too popular ones but that is not how it looks to the rest of the world) were talking about forced conversion to Christianity for Muslims, Forced deportation, getting rid of Habeas Corpus for suspects of terrorism. And while it isn't too common, a lot of innocent Americans have gotten hurt. Gulet Mohamed was a teenager in the state I lived, and he wasn't even allowed to return to the country, as a US citizen after being tortured in Kuwait and interrogated by American FBI. People being detained and put into secret prisons is a thing now, and I worry what will happen.

I have a half sister and her father is from Pakistan, but her sister and brother (older than me) were born here, and are all US citizens, but I fear that the loose cannon whatever it takes method will destroy and hurt good people. I realize an oversea war has different rules, but I feel the US needs to be held accountable for not only the US Citizens and residents it has hurt, but also visitors who have been proven by our own records to be wrongfully detained. The US is not a safe place for Muslims at the moment, not foreign muslims like Khalid El-Masri, and Murat Kurnaz. And even during his role as Vice President, Dick Cheney defended the US for torture of innocents, when questioned about the 26 people out of a specific prison of 119, he expressed that he felt much more concern for the possible bad guys who could get away than innocents wrongfully detained and tortured.

Or check some statements by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who served directly under Colin Powell and his numerous assertions of who is tortured and where are mostly innocents and were tortured for years at a time on the flimsiest pieces of evidence often corroborated after the fact. Isis is a horrendous issue for the US right now, and one to be taken seriously, but while legally the US has no general attack on Muslims, illegally they have for years, and it always gets worse when this happens. And I think that even though we have to work hard and many civilians can't help but be killed overseas, the US should be held accountable for our war crimes domestic and abroad.

Again, in regards to the US's policy on torture, I am in complete agreement. However, the US legally cannot be prosecuted for these war crimes, as it has not signed on to the international Hague court, largely to avoid the fact that a fair amount of the men and women in the FBI and CIA are sadistic shitheads. Essentially, there is no way to get at the US; it is too powerful to be made to sign anything. I do believe, however, (even though I have not fought a war myself) believe that civilian deaths are a FACT of war, and that it is never the defender's fault when civilians die; the blame for ALL civilian deaths go squarely on the shoulders of the aggressor; ISIS in this case.

[Blaze The Great]

Again, in regards to the US's policy on torture, I am in complete agreement. However, the US legally cannot be prosecuted for these war crimes, as it has not signed on to the international Hague court, largely to avoid the fact that a fair amount of the men and women in the FBI and CIA are sadistic shitheads. Essentially, there is no way to get at the US; it is too powerful to be made to sign anything. I do believe, however, (even though I have not fought a war myself) believe that civilian deaths are a FACT of war, and that it is never the defender's fault when civilians die; the blame for ALL civilian deaths go squarely on the shoulders of the aggressor; ISIS in this case.

I agree with you blah. However, I do think that overall, the US may be on the decline. China has all but surpassed us economically, firepower worldwide is on the rise, especially in the hands of our rivals/enemies (China, Russia, North Korea, etc.) and we are certainly not making any new friends. I expect within fifty years that the US won't be the dominant superpower, and we will be sitting under the thumb practically of Asia.

Your last point raises an interesting question though: If the US leads a coalition into Iraq to fight off ISIS, would WE be blamed for civilian deaths? This war has no clearly drawn lines.