Malazan Empire: The Islamic State - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

  • 13 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Islamic State WTF!

#1 User is offline   Cause 

  • Elder God
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 5,739
  • Joined: 25-December 03
  • Location:NYC

Posted 10 August 2014 - 12:12 PM

So I read this morning that America has begun bombing Islamic state forces in Iraq. What particularly troubles me though is this quote by Obama

'But when there’s a situation like the one on this mountain — when countless innocent people are facing a massacre, and when we have the ability to help prevent it — the United States can’t just look away,” he said.

“That’s not who we are. We’re Americans. We act. We lead. And that’s what we’re going to do on that mountain.” But Obama vowed that as commander in chief of the US armed forces, he would not allow the United States to be dragged into another war in Iraq, from which it pulled its troops in 2011.

“American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis there,” he said.

America Invaded Iraq, they destabilized the country and possibly the enitre region. They occupied Iraq for over ten years and tried to build a new Iraq and then the home-front got tired of the war and they pulled out. Americas involvement in the Iraq war I think must be seen to play a part in all that has followed. Then Obama speaks about America will always act and lead to confront the darkness but they will only intervene so long as Americans wont be at risk?

So I guess what are your thoughts about what is going on over there.

Am I alone in thinking Barrack Obama is being a bit two faced here.
0

#2 User is offline   Illuyankas 

  • Retro Classic
  • Group: The Hateocracy of Truth
  • Posts: 7,254
  • Joined: 28-September 04
  • Will cluck you up

Posted 10 August 2014 - 12:22 PM

Obama's no saint - case in point, drone strikes - but Iraq was the Bush Administration's horrible conflict baby. The less interventions America makes in the Middle East or the world the better, frankly. A lot of the Islamic fundamentalist regimes rising up after the deliberate sabotage of secular and socialist governments and movements can be directly traced back to the US, after all.
Hello, soldiers, look at your mage, now back to me, now back at your mage, now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped being an unascended mortal and switched to Sole Spice, he could smell like he’s me. Look down, back up, where are you? You’re in a warren with the High Mage your cadre mage could smell like. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s an acorn with two gates to that realm you love. Look again, the acorn is now otataral. Anything is possible when your mage smells like Sole Spice and not a Bole brother. I’m on a quorl.
0

#3 User is offline   Cause 

  • Elder God
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 5,739
  • Joined: 25-December 03
  • Location:NYC

Posted 10 August 2014 - 12:31 PM

View PostHoosierDaddy, on 10 August 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. In this instance I think we are all happily interfering to stop genocide.

Tired of being everyone's boogeyman. Genocides are fun?

AKA: I'd enjoy watching the world without America. Have fun.


I'm not so much criticising america. If we must live in a world of nuclear weapons Id rather America control the button than most countries I could think of. What struck me here though, is his phrasing. It seems particularly repugnant to me. He makes no acknowledgement of how his country may be partly to blame for the situation and then sets up his country as the moral crusaders who will always act, then clarifies only up to a point.

I have no idea whether american troops on the ground would help or worsen the situation. Yet I am troubled by him phrasing this whole thing as America doing Iraq a favour when I would argue what ever help america provides is to some degree there obligation.

Edit- I would also add than any countries of the coalition would have a similar obligation

This post has been edited by Cause: 10 August 2014 - 12:35 PM

0

#4 User is offline   Shinrei 

  • charin charin
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,601
  • Joined: 20-February 03

Posted 10 August 2014 - 12:33 PM

I think the fact that Obama is doing something in this instance is due, in part, to the obligation you mention. It's part of the reason that America did not act in a similar manner in Syria (among other things).
You’ve never heard of the Silanda? … It’s the ship that made the Warren of Telas run in less than 12 parsecs.
0

#5 User is offline   Maximiljen 

  • Recruit
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 20-July 14

Posted 10 August 2014 - 12:34 PM

I say, US air strikes in Iraq are nothing. Nothing for the US. It's just some guys flying in an airplane and bombing a certain region of Iraq. This is not the US involved in Iraq again. This is just airplanes across the skies.

You should understand that the mess in Iraq and Syria is half-made by the US. Those guys there are so split into sects and tribes and whatnot, that you couldn't find a way to talk with them and not disturb another bees-nest.

And you guys should understand that those fighting in Iraq and Syria are worse than Al Qaeda, worse than Saddam Hussein, worse that any rebel in that area. But they consider they fight the good fight. And they are right, for their point of view. They're the afghans of the war against the russians in Afghanistan, they're the vietnamese of the war in Vietnam. And they have too much damn faith.

You can't fight faith.
0

#6 User is offline   Shinrei 

  • charin charin
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,601
  • Joined: 20-February 03

Posted 10 August 2014 - 12:40 PM

Another 2 points:

1) There are Americans in the area (advisors/trainers) which is another reason for action in this case.

2) This is limited to air strikes not just because of public opinion against it, but because the US wants the Iraqi government to get it's shit together and not reduce it's relationship with the US to "we're in trouble, light up the eagle searchlight."
You’ve never heard of the Silanda? … It’s the ship that made the Warren of Telas run in less than 12 parsecs.
0

#7 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 10 August 2014 - 12:51 PM

I have no business in this conversation. Comments deleted and I bow out.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#8 User is offline   EmperorMagus 

  • Scarecrow of Low House PEN
  • Group: Tehol's Blissful Chickens
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Joined: 04-June 12
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 10 August 2014 - 09:23 PM

View PostLord Gator, on 10 August 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

I'd love for them to handle their own problems. I have doubts that will happen without us and ofcourse in ten yrs we ll have to do something else in the same region. One thing is for sure ISIS must go down now.

Actually, one thing that I'm pretty sure of is that ISIS could not have remained active in Syria without US arms.So, there probably wouldn't have been a problem for Iraq to handle without you.

Now, I'm not saying that Iraq would have been a developed country without United States meddling, but Saddam Hussein did keep it stable for years without your help. It could have remained stable under someone else too, except for the fact that a lot of weapons get into the hands of some terrorists out of somewhere.

Regarding the current situation, I seriously doubt US air strikes will help Iraq reconquer territories gained by ISIS, because the worst case scenario is that ISIS will change their operations to mirror Hamas and Hezbollah.(focus on underground tunnels and facilities) which would render US air strikes next to useless.
Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
#sarcasm
0

#9 User is offline   Gothos 

  • Map painting expert
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 5,428
  • Joined: 01-January 03
  • Location:.pl

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:50 AM

I wonder if Iran could be persuaded to intervene. A sunni caliphate next door to the shia? Might be trouble.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
0

#10 User is offline   Cause 

  • Elder God
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 5,739
  • Joined: 25-December 03
  • Location:NYC

Posted 11 August 2014 - 08:24 AM

Iran I already intervening through its proxy Hezbollah
0

#11 User is offline   D'iversify 

  • First Sword
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 647
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 11 August 2014 - 12:54 PM

View PostEmperorMagus, on 10 August 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

View PostLord Gator, on 10 August 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

I'd love for them to handle their own problems. I have doubts that will happen without us and ofcourse in ten yrs we ll have to do something else in the same region. One thing is for sure ISIS must go down now.
Now, I'm not saying that Iraq would have been a developed country without United States meddling, but Saddam Hussein did keep it stable for years without your help. It could have remained stable under someone else too, except for the fact that a lot of weapons get into the hands of some terrorists out of somewhere.
Brutal dictatorial rule, especially when, as in Iraq, it is in effect the rule of one ethnic or religious group over the rest, only tends to create short-term stability and actually sows a lot of problems for the future. Part of the reaosn this has all blown up is that Maliki was essentially trying to enforce his own dictatorial rule over the region and ensure that the reins of power were in Shi'a hands, as opposed to Sunni hands as it had been under Saddam. The region where the Islamic State is strong is not coincidentally the region of Iraq and Syria which is Sunni majority, and since 2006 when Maliki came to power this large desert region has been ruled from afar from Baghdad and Damascus by Iraqi Shi'as and Shi'a-allied Alawites. But not only has this come out of the struggle within artificial nation state boundaries between different ethnic and religious groups for control of the reins of the state, it is also linked in with the wider geopolitical struggle in the Middle East between Iran and its Shi'a allies and Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. Iraq under Saddam was firmly in the anti-Iranian camp and therefore an ally of convenience for the Saudis. The fall of Saddam essentially created a pro-Iranian belt running from Tehran, through Baghdad and Damascus all the way to Beirut and the Mediterranean. So for the Saudis the Islamic State is a useful piece in their attempt to force a wedge between the pro-Iranian states of the Middle East. So I'd say it's less that Hussein was keeping the terrorists out, more that Shi'a control in Iraq is unacceptable to the country's Sunnis and to their Saudi backers, and that in such a situation the Sunni factions are pretty blassé about taking on fanaticists as allies in their attempt to depose or undermine Shi'a governance in Baghdad.
I am the Onyx Wizards
0

#12 User is offline   Mezla PigDog 

  • Malazan Yo Yo Champion 2009
  • Group: Mezla's Thought Police
  • Posts: 2,666
  • Joined: 03-September 04

Posted 11 August 2014 - 03:11 PM

View PostCause, on 10 August 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

I'm not so much criticising america. If we must live in a world of nuclear weapons Id rather America control the button than most countries I could think of. What struck me here though, is his phrasing. It seems particularly repugnant to me. He makes no acknowledgement of how his country may be partly to blame for the situation and then sets up his country as the moral crusaders who will always act, then clarifies only up to a point.

I have no idea whether american troops on the ground would help or worsen the situation. Yet I am troubled by him phrasing this whole thing as America doing Iraq a favour when I would argue what ever help america provides is to some degree there obligation.

Edit- I would also add than any countries of the coalition would have a similar obligation



View PostShinrei, on 10 August 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

I think the fact that Obama is doing something in this instance is due, in part, to the obligation you mention. It's part of the reason that America did not act in a similar manner in Syria (among other things).


The UK government is dancing around the subject of what obligation we have after our part in the last invasion http://www.theguardi...call-parliament. There is still big debate in the UK as to how much we are responsible for Iraq. Tony Blair claims the current situation is nothing to do with the invasion in 2003.

As to the OP, you have to think of the context of Obama's speech and that he was delivering it mainly for the ear of the American people - that's how the average American sees their role in the world. It is how a lot of Brits see our role in the world too - peacekeeping heroes. The problem is that when you have the fire power (relatively speaking considering the debt we are in and morality of unleashing expensive weapons when there are starving people at home and abroad) to try to stop what is evidently a potential genocide and you have a chequered military past then you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. In the absence of a group of countries that are able to make the right decision on these issues then better to help occasionally than not at all perhaps? I am undecided on that particular question.

Someone needs to address the fact that the UN is broken - even if the US and UK broke it, we need it fixed up rather urgently but it seems the default for the world to wait for the US to do something and then criticise regardless.

This post has been edited by Mezla PigDog: 11 August 2014 - 03:13 PM

Burn rubber =/= warp speed
0

#13 User is offline   Gredfallan Ale 

  • "But it's turtles all the way down"
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 11-August 14
  • Interests:Archery, cycling, science, & philosophy.

Posted 11 August 2014 - 03:38 PM

View PostMaximiljen, on 10 August 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

You can't fight faith.


I'm not saying that you should, but you can. The geographical distribution of religions is shaped by war, prosecution and suppression. For one, the proportion of conservative Muslims within the "borders" of the Islamic State is going to go up in the coming years if the state holds, by suppressing and waging war on other religious ideologies.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
0

#14 User is offline   Tapper 

  • Lover of High House Mafia
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 6,646
  • Joined: 29-June 04
  • Location:Delft, Holland.

Posted 14 August 2014 - 10:03 AM

Not sure if ISIS is worse than Al-Qaeda or whomever. They are a greater threat to the people in the region than Al-Qaeda but way less of a threat to the west because they are territorial orientated religious bullies instead of terrorists who want to bring their fight abroad.
And the West is always going to be more afraid of the threat to themselves than regional dangers.

Maybe it is time that all involved recognize that much of the middle east and Africa consists of countries made up by arbitrary lines on a map from the Scramble for Africa period or the end of the Second World War, with borders splitting tribes in two and merging them with former arch-enemies of tribes they have traditionally little in common with?

Europe took centuries to get sorted out into "nation states" which experienced little internal turmoil, and us wanting to keep Iraq Iraq with the borders set for Iraq is maybe just plain naive.

Where it is admitted that local autonomy is a reality, up to a point, it works. The USA and the Iraqi government already deal directly with the Qurdish peshmergas as if they aren't a part of Iraq but their own state - while they're within the borders, they are basically an almost entirely free entity, when it comes to them and the rest of Iraq, it is almost like they're part of a federation instead of a bunch of provinces.

They possess a territory roughly the size of what they can control, and they don't have any business getting out of there, so they probably won't (and won't expand northwards into Turkey, hopefully).

I have no clue if the rest of the country is as 'easy' to identify into more or less ethnically/religiously homogenous areas, or if the economy of each would be able to take off, but it is clear right now that the whole of Iraq is too diverse and too big to be controlled by a single group of tribes, which is why the central government is weak and radical groups like this can profit.
Everyone is entitled to his own wrong opinion. - Lizrad
2

#15 User is offline   Cause 

  • Elder God
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 5,739
  • Joined: 25-December 03
  • Location:NYC

Posted 14 August 2014 - 01:33 PM

I like what your saying but I would argue that ISIS does have very large territorial ambitions. Whether they can achieve them is a different matter. Also for all that ISIS is not Al-Qaeda and that they and similar groups are often killing each other as much as they kill anyone else, it would appear the kind of instability they cause results in an ever increasing amount of like-minded groups to appear.
0

#16 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 14 August 2014 - 01:51 PM

View PostCause, on 10 August 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

So I read this morning that America has begun bombing Islamic state forces in Iraq. What particularly troubles me though is this quote by Obama

'But when there's a situation like the one on this mountain — when countless innocent people are facing a massacre, and when we have the ability to help prevent it — the United States can't just look away," he said.

"That's not who we are. We're Americans. We act. We lead. And that's what we're going to do on that mountain." But Obama vowed that as commander in chief of the US armed forces, he would not allow the United States to be dragged into another war in Iraq, from which it pulled its troops in 2011.

"American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there's no American military solution to the larger crisis there," he said.

America Invaded Iraq, they destabilized the country and possibly the enitre region. They occupied Iraq for over ten years and tried to build a new Iraq and then the home-front got tired of the war and they pulled out. Americas involvement in the Iraq war I think must be seen to play a part in all that has followed. Then Obama speaks about America will always act and lead to confront the darkness but they will only intervene so long as Americans wont be at risk?

So I guess what are your thoughts about what is going on over there.

Am I alone in thinking Barrack Obama is being a bit two faced here.


How about we put the blame where it really belongs? On fanatical, crazy, radicalist Islamist assholes. The people who would blame a teacup for killing someone if it fit the bill.

Yeah, we went in when we shouldn't have. Yeah, we left BECAUSE THEY ASKED US TO. But, once again, America is to blame for not settling the problems of fucking psychos killing each other because their god is only MINUTELY difference until we actually decide to and then: IT'S TOO LATE!

Christ almighty I wish we just had a Magic 8 Ball for Congress and the President, then we could get stuff right for once!
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
1

#17 User is offline   EmperorMagus 

  • Scarecrow of Low House PEN
  • Group: Tehol's Blissful Chickens
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Joined: 04-June 12
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:12 PM

View PostHoosierDaddy, on 14 August 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

How about we put the blame where it really belongs? On fanatical, crazy, radicalist Islamist assholes. The people who would blame a teacup for killing someone if it fit the bill.

Yeah, we went in when we shouldn't have. Yeah, we left BECAUSE THEY ASKED US TO. But, once again, America is to blame for not settling the problems of fucking psychos killing each other because their god is only MINUTELY difference until we actually decide to and then: IT'S TOO LATE!

Christ almighty I wish we just had a Magic 8 Ball for Congress and the President, then we could get stuff right for once!

How about we out the blame where it really belongs? On imperialistic retarded asshats who arm these assholes?
On imperialistic retarded asshats that created the geopolitical conditions that make these assholes possible?
United States of America and his imperialistic asshat allies have been interfering with the internal politics of middle eastern nations since WW II and United Kingdom has been doing it even longer. Imperialistic ass hats created Wahabism which right now funds most if not all of these radical movements.
Imperialistic asshats stealing the national wealth of said countries made them what they are today. If Imperialist asshats hadn't deposed anyone with the smallest chance of making any difference in said countries, maybe there would have been a middle east with a properly educated population where these same said terrorist groups couldn't function.

Even If I was to discount the fact that the existence of these religious assholes is because of imperialist asshats, I couldn't ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia,an ally of US is supplying arms and money to Jihadists. I couldn't ignore the fact that US invasion of Iraq destabilized it and made the current conflict possible, nor could I ignore the fact that western nations supplied Syrian "freedom fighters" with the arms required to make this situation possible.
Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
#sarcasm
0

#18 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:17 PM

Blame the guns, not the people.

Christ, I'd never thought I'd buy into any argument the NRA had to sell.

Hey, guess what: There is no cause for murder besides wanting to murder. You can blame any external cause you want, but if people aren't willing to murder one another it doesn't matter how many weapons they have.

They invaded our country: LET'S KILL EVERYBODY WE DISAGREE WITH. THAT MAKES FUCKING SENSE.

Fuck you.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#19 User is offline   EmperorMagus 

  • Scarecrow of Low House PEN
  • Group: Tehol's Blissful Chickens
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Joined: 04-June 12
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:29 PM

View PostHoosierDaddy, on 14 August 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

Blame the guns, not the people.

Christ, I'd never thought I'd buy into any argument the NRA had to sell.

Hey, guess what: There is no cause for murder besides wanting to murder. You can blame any external cause you want, but if people aren't willing to murder one another it doesn't matter how many weapons they have.

They invaded our country: LET'S KILL EVERYBODY WE DISAGREE WITH. THAT MAKES FUCKING SENSE.

Fuck you.

No, it's actually more like:
Every fucking democratic government we've ever had has sold everything in this country to fucking imperialist asshats. The only way that will not happen is if we rule our land.

This argument is not about ISIS atm, which is a group of degenerates from around the world, but middle east in the whole, and why it is such a breeding ground.

The sort of thought you point out exists, I'm not denying that. I'm talking about the conditions that allow that sort of thought to exist is such a great number of
people.

It's still a fact that if Imperialistic asshats hadn't given guns to "freedom fighter" there could not have been such a situation possible. When you arm a militant group that is rebelling against a government(any government wherever) it is YOUR fucking responsibility too when they start murdering people.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 14 August 2014 - 02:29 PM

Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
#sarcasm
0

#20 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:35 PM

This is a thread about ISIS. Not about other wrongs America has done, which I assure I know we've done and I'll readily admit.

If you want to blame America for ISIS then just state it. You won't because you know that ISIS wouldn't exist without a fundamental craziness that doesn't exist outside the realms of normal Islam.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
1

Share this topic:


  • 13 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users