Maybe the most prescient quote of our lives: Apply it to ISIS

[VeganHunter]

Hunter S. Thompson, the DAY AFTER 9/11.

Here's Thompson, writing for ESPN's Page 2 on Sept. 12, 2001:

The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now — with somebody — and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.

It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy.

[Poopymonster]

Man speaks wisdom.

[Velaniz]

The war against ISIS likely won't ever get "global" in that sense, and the rest about religious and jihads and "invisible enemies" was easy enough to guess considering that it was quite obvious that the attacks were motivated by religious extremism.

[Venant]

Well apparently part of the problem is that in the last 13 years we seem to have learned nothing. We can't even elect politicians who don't infantilize the public by portraying the world as a Manichean struggle of good vs evil (and of course we are always the white knight, because if you dared to inflict cognitive dissonance on your average American his head would explode).

- - - Updated - - -

The war against ISIS likely won't ever get "global" in that sense, and the rest about religious and jihads and "invisible enemies" was easy enough to guess considering that it was quite obvious that the attacks were motivated by religious extremism.

Do you even know why we are going to 'war' with ISIS? And do not say for humanitarian reasons, because if that was the case there would be an exponentially stronger case for us forming a coalition to invade the Congo.

[Tzalix]

Global = everywhere but Sweden

[aoussar123]

We are not "at war with Islam". The conflict in the middle-east did not start on 9/11, but long before. Also, like Christianity, Islam is not monolith. Also, ISIS kills muslims too. Can we stop fueling all these phobic thought? Not healthy.

OT: For once, I support a western intervention when it comes to ISIS. Those guys are beyond redemption.

[GarGar]

Do you even know why we are going to 'war' with ISIS? And do not say for humanitarian reasons, because if that was the case there would be an exponentially stronger case for us forming a coalition to invade the Congo.

Humanitarian is part of it, but not the main reason. Their intent is destabilization of the region in order to establish their extremist caliphate, and while that in itself should be enough reason to stop them, we also have other global interests (oil being a big one) and security to worry about as well.

[Deleted]

Quote doesn't work if you apply it to ISIS.

It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy.

IS have used conventional warfare to take and hold land. The whole goal of forming an 'Islamic State' puts guerilla warfare out of the window since they need to erode Iraq and Syrias borders whilst forming thier own.

Think they have about 3 front lines. Most of the work in Syria is Al-Nusra at the moment who are affiliated with ISIS but not the same. ISIS are more active in Southern Iraq.

And ofcourse, the enemy is seemingly identifiable since they are using conventional warfare tactics.

This thread is essentially, 'a man said a thing'.

[GarGar]

Think they have about 3 front lines. Most of the work in Syria is Al-Nusra at the moment who are affiliated with ISIS but not the same. ISIS are more active in Southern Iraq.

Well northern Iraq, along the border shared between them, but yes good point here:

And ofcourse, the enemy is seemingly identifiable since they are using conventional warfare tactics.

This is a pretty big weakness in their plan. They have to know we'd never let them have their own state, and by trying to establish one, they're painting a big target on their chest saying "Here! This is where we are!" I'm not sure what they're doing trying to provoke the US into more action in Iraq by killing our citizens. They have to know what we did to the Iraqi army both times we applied ourselves there.

[Venant]

Humanitarian is part of it, but not the main reason. Their intent is destabilization of the region in order to establish their extremist caliphate, and while that in itself should be enough reason to stop them, we also have other global interests (oil being a big one) and security to worry about as well.

Yeah they always make sure to tack 'humanitarian' on to every military campaign nowadays. If you study the cold war then you should realize 'security' is a complete bs argument, those in power have a long history of sacrificing the security of the people for more power and profit. 'Global interests' is just another way of saying 'money talks and nobody walks', namely somebody is going to make a buck off of the conflict, and it is likely at the top of the list of actual reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a pretty big weakness in their plan. They have to know we'd never let them have their own state, and by trying to establish one, they're painting a big target on their chest saying "Here! This is where we are!" I'm not sure what they're doing trying to provoke the US into more action in Iraq by killing our citizens. They have to know what we did to the Iraqi army both times we applied ourselves there.

It's almost as if somebody thinks that sucking the US into wars like this will result in a decline in US influence globally and an increase in the influence of radical fundamentalists in already existing countries.

[Deletedaccount1]

That guy was a fucking dickhead

[Herecius]

Quote doesn't work if you apply it to ISIS.



IS have used conventional warfare to take and hold land. The whole goal of forming an 'Islamic State' puts guerilla warfare out of the window since they need to erode Iraq and Syrias borders whilst forming thier own.

Think they have about 3 front lines. Most of the work in Syria is Al-Nusra at the moment who are affiliated with ISIS but not the same. ISIS are more active in Southern Iraq.

And ofcourse, the enemy is seemingly identifiable since they are using conventional warfare tactics.

This thread is essentially, 'a man said a thing'.

Right. ISIS is not a cell of individuals operating in another country, they're forming their own state and killing/exiling everybody that doesn't prescribe to their beliefs. This is the opposite of guerrilla warfare. There is no 'mysterious enemy' in that, really.

The main problem comes with the fact that the rest of the world is still paying attention to international boundaries that have been eroded by ISIS, namely the ones in Iraq and Syria, and that vastly complicates dealing with ISIS in the first place. In the most recent press conference, Obama went on about how this is an issue that not only must be dealt with by Iraq (as in it's a problem he's not willing to put troops on the ground for really, but is willing to lend support in terms of hardware), but he doesn't at all think Iraq's government is up to the task of dealing with it. Spoiler alert: they're not. Iraq's government is a fucking mess, which of course is at least partly our fault, but it's also the fault of its currently ULTRA-SECTARIAN leadership. The Iraq government's extremely sectarian leadership is also what allowed ISIS to gain a foothold in the country in the first place, funny that.

The other problem is Syria. For some absolutely insane reason, Syria's borders must still be respected somehow. The country is in complete and total disarray, the government has as much or less legitimacy to govern than each individual area of the country, and even if it was somehow a legitimate government that didn't blow its own citizens to fucking hell (which isn't to say the opposition in Syria has not also been blowing those citizens to hell either; FYI Syria is a terrible mess), then it still wouldn't be at all even remotely equipped to deal with ISIS... and yet nobody wants to even put stopping ISIS there on the table. Not until ISIS is stopped in Iraq at any rate, but doing that will be almost impossible if everybody just sits around and waits for Iraq's government to get its shit together.

[Deleted]

Global = everywhere but Sweden

You start having christian hate groups vs muslims which want free city-states where they can apply their own laws: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bru...ntrolled-zone/

[Deleted]

Religions don't fight each other, bad for bussiness, its religious sects that do most of the murdering.

You start having christian hate groups vs muslims which want free city-states where they can apply their own laws: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bru...ntrolled-zone/

I don't think anyone takes those seriously, except maybe a very small, vocal minority of the mentioned religious groups.

[GarGar]

Yeah they always make sure to tack 'humanitarian' on to every military campaign nowadays.

Do you deny that ISIS is committing war crimes?

If you study the cold war then you should realize 'security' is a complete bs argument, those in power have a long history of sacrificing the security of the people for more power and profit.

I have studied the cold war, but I'm unsure what part in particular you're referring to? Security was mostly achieved through the threat of mutually assured destruction.

'Global interests' is just another way of saying 'money talks and nobody walks', namely somebody is going to make a buck off of the conflict, and it is likely at the top of the list of actual reasons

So an argument against going to war is, "someone will make money off it"? Think about what happens if ISIS gets their way. Their intent is to establish their caliphate across the Muslim world. That includes countries like Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates. That's more than a quarter of the world's oil production in the hands of terrorists. Like it or not, our world runs on oil right now, regardless of who makes money off it, and having such a huge portion in unstable hands would likely be a major blow to the energy market worldwide.

[Venant]

Do you deny that ISIS is committing war crimes?

Unfortunately how the west prosecutes war crimes is completely laughable. The US flagrantly disregards international law by waging illegal wars and terrorist campaigns in other countries, yet we should be the arbiters determining who has committed war crimes? There should be an international law against engaging in such over the top hypocrisy with a straight face, in which case we should have to send just about every US politician to the Hague.

I have studied the cold war, but I'm unsure what part in particular you're referring to? Security was mostly achieved through the threat of mutually assured destruction.

How about the US undermining efforts to unify Korea and Vietnam through national elections? How about the Cuban missile crisis, most people forget that the Americans were incredibly aggressive with positioning nuclear weapons near the borders of the USSR which incited this incident. The US also rejected Soviet proposals to ban the development of ICBMs. Many cite the use of nuclear weapons against Japan as the first move against the Soviets, who planners in the US had determined were the next 'enemy'. The majority of the brinkmanship in the cold war was carried out by the US.

So an argument against going to war is, "someone will make money off it"? Think about what happens if ISIS gets their way. Their intent is to establish their caliphate across the Muslim world. That includes countries like Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates. That's more than a quarter of the world's oil production in the hands of terrorists. Like it or not, our world runs on oil right now, regardless of who makes money off it, and having such a huge portion in unstable hands would likely be a major blow to the energy market worldwide.

So if the US 'gets it way' that means we establish pro-west puppet governments all over the middle east? Why exactly is it that corrupt governments that oppress their populations are ok as long as they are pro-US? Or perhaps your argument is that we simply want to control the global energy markets, you know because we have so much faith in capitalism that we feel the need to constantly rig markets to produce desired outcomes.

[Chelly]

You start having christian hate groups vs muslims which want free city-states where they can apply their own laws: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bru...ntrolled-zone/

That's in Norway though.

[Herecius]

Unfortunately how the west prosecutes war crimes is completely laughable. The US flagrantly disregards international law by waging illegal wars and terrorist campaigns in other countries, yet we should be the arbiters determining who has committed war crimes? There should be an international law against engaging in such over the top hypocrisy with a straight face, in which case we should have to send just about every US politician to the Hague.

I wasn't aware it was possible to defend mass murder with misdirection, but there it is. ISIS is killing/exiling everybody that does not prescribe to their beliefs. I'm sorry, did you feel that beheading kidnapped journalists was also defensible? Also, it isn't the US that decides what a war crime is, so you should probably check that bit.

If every single one of your arguments is 'but these OTHER guys did this, look at them!' then you aren't making a good argument.

Finally, going on and on about 'US this and US that!' makes no sense because this is a hell of a lot fucking bigger than just involving the US. Or are we already forgetting that the ISIS member that beheaded that journalist was British? ISIS is drawing recruits from all around the world, everywhere that there are Muslims, they are trying to recruit. That makes all of those places that have Muslims (whether or not they are Muslims who prescribe to extremist beliefs, and I know that only the most tiny fraction of them do!) eventual targets for ISIS' campaign.

[Tzalix]

If you think you aren't affected by it in Sweden, you are sadly mistaken

Nono, nothing effects us. We're "neutral", as in, always slightly leaning towards whichever side is winning.

I am being sarcasting, by the way.

You start having christian hate groups vs muslims which want free city-states where they can apply their own laws: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bru...ntrolled-zone/

The thing is, nobody really cares about those guys here. Seriously, people just ignore them here and go on with their daily lives.

[Venant]

I wasn't aware it was possible to defend mass murder with misdirection, but there it is. ISIS is killing/exiling everybody that does not prescribe to their beliefs. I'm sorry, did you feel that beheading kidnapped journalists was also defensible? Also, it isn't the US that decides what a war crime is, so you should probably check that bit.

If every single one of your arguments is 'but these OTHER guys did this, look at them!' then you aren't making a good argument.

Finally, going on and on about 'US this and US that!' makes no sense because this is a hell of a lot fucking bigger than just involving the US. Or are we already forgetting that the ISIS member that beheaded that journalist was British? ISIS is drawing recruits from all around the world, everywhere that there are Muslims, they are trying to recruit. That makes all of those places that have Muslims (whether or not they are Muslims who prescribe to extremist beliefs, and I know that only the most tiny fraction of them do!) eventual targets for ISIS' campaign.

So your argument for starting wars that will result in potentially hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths is because some terrorists cut some peoples heads off?

I'm going to pose a blatantly obvious question, what do you think is going to happen in Syria as a result of intervention? We are going to train and arm supposedly 'moderate' groups that will most assuredly massacre all of the factions of Assad loyalists should they win the civil war. Congratulations, you just had a hand in mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

I suppose you don't believe in pointing out hypocrisy, however I feel that if you want to draw conclusions that are not completely based on emotional reactions then you should start with this type of criticism. Too many Americans have a completely warped worldview, and a large reason for that is the media which manipulates people emotionally into supporting idiotic policies.