ISIS

[Wokko]

Everything you need to know...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

[David]

I see. Thanks for the link, Wokko. So, essentially, if they call it a caliphate, it's a caliphate (and if I call the sandcastle I build at the beach a McMansion I can be a home owner).

Seriously, tenuous control of a territory covering less than half of two sovereign countries ain't the Umayyad. Now that was a caliphate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate#mediaviewer/File:Umayyad750ADloc.png

But if they want to prematurely ejaculate all over the Euphrates River, that's their call. I guess it's probably about as good as they're going to get.

[Wokko]

It will come down to the reaching some kind of critical mass in Iraq and Syria. Remember, Iraq was Sunni controlled so they all remember being in power and resent like crazy being made second class citizens.

Kind of ironic that the main pillar standing against Isis isn't the USA, or any coalition of willing meatbags, it's Assad.

Not hearing too much about baddies vs baddies right now, although the USA seems to like arming 'moderate' rebels who turn coat to ISIS and hand over all the goodies.

[Jezza]

[Tannin]

[stui magpie]

I'll jump straight to the bonus round, when others acknowledge your self declared caliphate as an actual caliphate, then you have one.

That would have been the case a fair while back, when western rulers acknowledged a ruler as the Caliph. (I CBF looking up the details)

[Tannin]

Spot on, Stui. That's how states have always formed, ever since the idea of a state caught on, back before the dawn of recorded history. A group of people get together in some form of compact (which may be voluntary, may be violent and coercive, and is usually some combination of the two, generally less of the former and rather more of the latter) and decide that they (or more usually the small number of them who call themselves kings, caliphs, generals, dukes, pharaohs, high priests, prime ministers, warlords, glorious democratic leaders, servants of the nation, servants of god, ceasers, sultans, or god-kings) are going to run the joint and everyone else had better agree or else.

Sometimes they manage to hold things together for a while, sometimes they don't. Rivals surrounding them may or may not wipe them out, may or may not agree that the people now running things are indeed the people now running things. As a rule, if the new kings/caliph/prime minister/warlord/glorious democratic leader can hold things together for long enough to exert some power over other states nearby (friendly power such as useful trade, military power, religious power, any sort of power will do) without bringing down upon himself an invasion, he and his new state will be recognised and may wind up lasting for a long time.

New states have come and gone on a regular basis since before the earliest written history began. We can safely assume that the process will continue for as long as we continue to have and care about these things we call states or nations.

ISIS is just the most recent one to come to our attention. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it's any different in essence from the thousands which have come before, or the thousands which will probably come after. (Oh, they are a spectacularly nasty, evil lot, no doubt about it, but that's so common as to be routine. Read some history. Pretty much any history. If in doubt, start with Europe in (say) the 13th and 14th Centuries, or the western Mediterranean world anytime between (say) 500BC and the early centuiries AD, or the eastern Mediterranean world in the First Millennium, or ... er ... the Second Millennium too, and right now the third one is looking just as likely. And don't think for one moment that half of those new proto-states, some of which survive and prosper to this day, were not founded by what we now call "terrorists" - some of them make the ISIS mob look pretty kind, meek and gentle.)

(PS: the modern notion of the "nation state" is more formal and different in various respects, but none of them invalidate the basics as outlined above.)

[Jezza]

[think positive]

This clip is really good, and explains not just about religion when it comes to Muslims/Islam but Christians/Christianity.

It's man who is evil, not religion, people do things in the name of religion.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2014/10/01/reza-aslan-responds-to-bill-maher-genital-mutilation-is-not-an-islamic-problem/

[laird]

[Culprit]

Religion is based on fantasy and the interpretation of that fantasy has killed Millions of Innocent people. The Gullible are Believers and in turn become Killers.

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

Guess the Guardian must of missed this.

[1061]

The Media is an ass.

[Wokko]

Yet again I shake my head in wonder that the feminist left are so ready to defend Islam or ignore its many crimes against women, especially Muslim women. Who's riding with them?