| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What should we do about ISIS? |
| Withdraw all Western forces and hope for the best |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Deploy a large number of ground forces into Iraq and Syria to defeat them, then rebuild both countries |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
| Negotiate with ISIS to stop further attacks and expansion of the group |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Allow Middle Eastern countries and militia groups to deal with the problem |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| It's too late! ISIS can't be stopped. |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| Containment from the air but no ground force invasion in Iraq and Syria (current policy) |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| Other (please explain) |
|
33% |
[ 4 ] |
| No Idea |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ I think Godwin's Law needs a new subcategory: the law that any discussion about a diplomatic resolution of conflict will inevitably lead to a Neville Chamberlain reference. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Oops. Too much data. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ I think Godwin's Law needs a new subcategory: the law that any discussion about a diplomatic resolution of conflict will inevitably lead to a Neville Chamberlain reference. |
Funnily enough I thought the same thing when I posted it. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What's Azaria's Dad got to do with this? 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Signing peace treaties with dingos, apparently. 
(By the way, you need new material. You made that joke like three months ago. )
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Excellent article by Maajid Nawaz. It certainly holds both sides of the argument accountable for past actions and how they can move forward to defeat the ideology of 'Islamism'.
The full article is in the link below.
| Quote: | How to Beat Islamic State
To win against the jihadists, isolate them, undercut their appeal to Muslims and avoid a ‘clash of civilizations’
Islam is a religion, and like any other faith, it is internally diverse. Islamism, by contrast, is the desire to impose a single version of Islam on an entire society. Islamism is not Islam, but it is an offshoot of Islam. It is Muslim theocracy.
In much the same way, jihad is a traditional Muslim idea connoting struggle— sometimes a personal spiritual struggle, sometimes a struggle against an external enemy. Jihadism, however, is something else entirely: It is the doctrine of using force to spread Islamism.
President Barack Obama and many liberal-minded commentators have been hesitant to call this Islamist ideology by its proper name. They seem to fear that both Muslim communities and the religiously intolerant will hear the word “Islam” and simply assume that all Muslims are being held responsible for the excesses of the jihadist few. |
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-beat-islamic-state-1449850833?tesla=y
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Aren't all offshoot of Islam Islamism ? |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL wrote: | | Aren't all offshoot of Islam Islamism ? |
Nailed it HAL |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Oops. Too much data. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | Excellent article by Maajid Nawaz. It certainly holds both sides of the argument accountable for past actions and how they can move forward to defeat the ideology of 'Islamism'.
The full article is in the link below.
| Quote: | How to Beat Islamic State
To win against the jihadists, isolate them, undercut their appeal to Muslims and avoid a ‘clash of civilizations’
Islam is a religion, and like any other faith, it is internally diverse. Islamism, by contrast, is the desire to impose a single version of Islam on an entire society. Islamism is not Islam, but it is an offshoot of Islam. It is Muslim theocracy.
In much the same way, jihad is a traditional Muslim idea connoting struggle— sometimes a personal spiritual struggle, sometimes a struggle against an external enemy. Jihadism, however, is something else entirely: It is the doctrine of using force to spread Islamism.
President Barack Obama and many liberal-minded commentators have been hesitant to call this Islamist ideology by its proper name. They seem to fear that both Muslim communities and the religiously intolerant will hear the word “Islam” and simply assume that all Muslims are being held responsible for the excesses of the jihadist few. |
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-beat-islamic-state-1449850833?tesla=y |
That's probably the most lucid and honest thing I've read on this crisis. Thanks for posting, Jezza.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I wonder how it would work if somehow an arrangement could be negotiated and put an area aside to create a new nation state, similar to the creation of Israel.
Agree on an area and allow initial free access in and out. Those people who want to live under 16th century Islamic rule are free to go in and stay, those who don't can leave and be assisted in resettling elsewhere. After the initial settling period the borders are sealed and any border movement is strictly controlled.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | I wonder how it would work if somehow an arrangement could be negotiated and put an area aside to create a new nation state, similar to the creation of Israel.
Agree on an area and allow initial free access in and out. Those people who want to live under 16th century Islamic rule are free to go in and stay, those who don't can leave and be assisted in resettling elsewhere. After the initial settling period the borders are sealed and any border movement is strictly controlled. |
^You're assuming they are not imperialistic. Anyone who wants to live in the 16th century will almost certainly need to cleanse (exterminate) the 21st Century.
And in a year or so, it'd be just another failed Islamic state run by an oil-rich dictator trying to work out how to kill the states next door.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Good article, Jezza. I hope Skids and the other crusaders on here read it.
| stui magpie wrote: | I wonder how it would work if somehow an arrangement could be negotiated and put an area aside to create a new nation state, similar to the creation of Israel.
Agree on an area and allow initial free access in and out. Those people who want to live under 16th century Islamic rule are free to go in and stay, those who don't can leave and be assisted in resettling elsewhere. After the initial settling period the borders are sealed and any border movement is strictly controlled. |
I guess the main problem with that is this isn't a conventional territorial conflict, like, say, Chechnya and Russia where if the Chechnyans are given statehood and control over their territories they might quite conceivably leave Russia alone. In this case, IS have explicitly expansionist ambitions, and have no intention of simply retaining their currently held chunks of Iraq and Syria.
On the other hand, as many have already pointed out, it's looking increasingly unlikely that IS will be defeated any time in the near future, which may mean that we need a long-term containment option. If that's the case, your suggestion isn't actually all that radical; after all, there are plenty of unpleasant states in the world (North Korea is the most obvious example) that, in the end, simply had to be left to their own devices when it became clear that they couldn't be defeated. So, in that sense, a stalemate and drawing up of borders may indeed be on the table in the long run, if there happens to be no other alternative. But I'm not sure how feasible a long-term control of those borders (like, say, a huge demilitarised zone) would be.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
