The Islamic state

Just thought I give this topic a go, but what is everyone's opinion on Isis and how the world should deal with them? After spending a week at the United Nations representing the Holy See I was able to see how many countries including religious sovereigns like the Holy See (Vatican) felt about the growing conflict in the Middle East.

Honestly, the U.S. has been very unjust toward the Syrian situation in general. ISIS is a direct result of U.S. inaction in 2011-2012, where we were more than happy to depose one dictator forcibly, but stifle the potential growth of democracy in another. Not to mention that we sure threatened to overthrow Assad.

Overall, ISIS is so imbedded in their controlled areas that the quick and easy solution is probably a maneuver warfare fight. The Marine Corps finished the second battle of Fallujah (thanks to army failures) in three days. We wiped out Saddam in three weeks. Using a protracted air campaign costs a lot of money when you are dependent on only partially capable militias to win your fight for you. This is something we started, it should be something we finish.

Hopefully one day. Things will change here in the middle east with ISIS... or Diache as they call it here. (Not spelled right) Until then you are right to say they are imbedded badly here in some parts if not all.

Well... I think they're absolute fanatics clinging to 8th century traditions and beliefs that in many cases they've probably misinterpeted purposely to recruit the weak and vulnerable with visions of an Islamic utopia on earth. There's videos and articles about Raqqa and what life is like there.

But they're just the opposite to the fanatics in the west that cling to their corporate influence to manipulate other countries governments and peoples to go after resources and markets.

So most of the world is dominated by the latter and as crazy as ISIS is, well, look at what the US and UK does in that part of the world and it just has given all the proof and excuse for people to believe they're concretized dogma is actually real and that the west must be fought and that an Islamic state is the answer to the problems of western intervention and perversion of their local laws, traditions, economy, etc....

How to deal with ISIS... well they're going to kill as many nonbelievers as they can or have to in order to establish their Islamic state, they've infiltrated the EU under the guise of refugees and have and will continue to wreak havoc, so even though may of us here live under the protection of the Global Empire we're all vulnerable too because our taxes and ignorance fund and unconsciously give consent to the dirty activities our governments and corporations do over there so that plus if we're not muslim we are pretty much targets to them.

What to do about it? The muslim refugees in Europe aren't going to integrate and haven't, in fact EU citizens are going to have to bow to them, the right wingers will cause a lot of conflict as will the left wingers who's ignorance will and have let the wolf right into the house. The Russians went to Syria and took care of business, but the fight is still going to continue as it has for generations to come especially as the war comes home for a lot of us which it already has for some. The religion of Islam is not to be blamed, it can definitely be questioned and it is not racist to be concerned with the activies of muslims since such extremism is within it's community today and is the most active existential threat to peace next to the activities of western corporations who in a sense have played in huge role in the rise of ISIS.

I'm not sure what to do, but I'm prepared for and can respond to disaster in my local area.

I think any one who is willing to take a life for their beliefs should fall under the local laws that govern them.

I tend to view the underlying problem to be the Sunni - Shia divide. If your wondering why the Middle East nations don't band together and deal with problems like the DAESH, then that might be the main reason. It's not like they don't have enough cash.... either that or they tacitly support it, which you'd like to thin is unlikely but most of these places are not democracies - so when I say 'they' I mean the rulers.

The DAESH are a Sunni faction solely, and specifically;
So looking at the Syrian Civil War for example, the Syrian government/military is run by Shia, but its majority population is Sunni, hence the civil war - Sunni majority uprising under the auspices of democracy against Shia government. At the beginning of the Syrian Civil War the Salafist Wahabi Sunni Saudi Arabia was one of the main suppliers of arms and supplies to the rebel forces against Assad. I agree with E-3_4L_Teeter that US inaction in Syria, specifically not asserting a no fly zone to stop Syrian air power being used against a civilian uprising, was the main ingredient which allowed the DAESH to grow. I don't mean to argue for it, but generally speaking persistant control of the air gives a wide ranging impact on the ground with increased surveillance, intelligence to know what is actually happening, but also that capacity to exert gunboat diplomacy. I would not have supported an air-ground campaign like in Libya. Now though, the situation has changed due to 3 factors;
1. absence of Western intervention (ideal; no fly zone as soon as it started)
2. presence of Russian intervention (actual; supported Assad's Shia government against civilian Sunni uprising)
3. growth of DAESH
But the Syrian Civil War does not have to be confused with DAESH, as they seemed to have emerged from Iraqi Sunni's benefiting from the chaos in Syria, as a more radical Sunni sect with other goals not necessarily related to the Syrian Civil War.

It of course gets very confusing, because not only do Sunni militants fight Shia militants, but they fight among themselves as well which is highlighted by the DAESH's stance on being either with them or against them.

So now we have;
1. Assad achieving success thanks to the Russian's in crushing the civilian Sunni majority uprising,
2. a mostly unrelated Sunni extremist group who occupies the shared border areas between Iraq and Syria but wants to conquer the world through terrorism and expansion of its 'state'.

So Syria is lost AFAIK to Assad now, case closed (though its still ongoing). As soon as that stops, then the refugee's stop and maybe they can go back!? The refugee crisis really only began when Russia joined the fight in Syria, because up until that point it was a civilian uprising of the people - but as soon as Russia joined in on the side of Assad the civilians of Syria fled. The West had its chance to stand with the Syria majority for democracy in Syria and decided not to.

Which only leaves DAESH.

What is the current problem with DAESH.... it seems to be that they are holding large parts of Western and Northern Iraq, such as Fallujah. I'd say most of the world wants DAESH wiped from the face of the Earth, but how do you wipe an ideology - you make it unattractive.

I'd say give them a 'state', create a border, hold them within it, and let it rot from the inside. As fighting a fluid war will take a huge toll on property and life, and given the complexity of the Sunni-Shia conflict, and the anti-Western and anti-Russian sentiment on the ground in parts in the Middle East - it would seem a risky move to conduct a ground war. The biggest problem of the ground war is that the ideology can just continue on as a terrorist ideology instead of a caliphate ideology, because a ground victory feeds the martyr/struggle/jihad narrative.

Am I the only one finds it strange that ISIS isn't defeated yet? These guys should have been defeated eons ago and entire countries are struggling against this group? Something doesn't seem to add up here.

Yabuturtle wrote: Am I the only one finds it strange that ISIS isn't defeated yet? These guys should have been defeated eons ago and entire countries are struggling against this group? Something doesn't seem to add up here.

It's not lack of capability, its lack of trying, for various reasons probably domestic politics and concerns about the humanitarian impacts.

AFAIK no-one has really committed ground forces against them in any serious way - except the Iraqi's, who unfortunately constituted a large portion of their initial cadre to begin with, and local groups like the Kurds.

Prior to Russia backing Assad, I think everyone was too worried about the collateral damage for a combined arms, air-ground campaign, but now Assad's regime with Russian support is pushing from the West, you could imagine it would be a more suitable time for NATO to move in from the North and East, especially given so many Syrian's have fled as refugees.

Is the desire for creation of an Islamic State a "growing conflict", or is it just more of the same? The weapons have become more sophisticated and the tactics may change, but the religious tension is the same that has endured since the beginning of civilization. There has never been a time that someone wasn't staking a claim to a certain piece of dirt controlled by someone else based on religious belief, and every faith has been guilty of breeding extremists who are willing to kill in the propagation of those beliefs.

Empires will rise and fall. Governments will be established and overthrown. Religious fervor will rise and then wane. Everything new will become old and be replaced. Perhaps someday there will be a "State of Jediism". There would be responsible Jedi and there would be the extremists as well. It, too, would someday disappear and reappear under some other name. But that is the future. We do not dwell in the future.

Rather than worry about defeating some perceived or very real enemy, I choose to focus on making friends of my neighbors. I will be an instrument of peace in my tiny circle of influence. Friends do not typically bomb each other, regardless of religious differences, so I will make friends and leave the rest of the world to what it will do.