Something to argue about: ISIL

Would anyone be willing to argue that NATO forces should not intervene in Iraq in this thread?

Blackflag: Yes. I mean, given that I believe forces just shouldn't exist at all anymore and NATO should be disbanded, I suppose I might as well.

admin: Well quick bug report: The enter reply text isn't dissapearing when I type. I am using google chrome.

Anyways, Daesh has launched several large massacres that have killed close a boatload of people, and that is just following their migration into Iraq. Figures report that in engagements between Iraqi/Syrian troops against Daesh the death rate is 1:10. Or in other words, for every dead soldier after the first defensive, 10 insurgents have died. This is with limited assistance from the international community, and little military involvement from the countries of Iraq and Syria themselves (Iraq is only dedicating 1 division if I remember correctly)

Right now Daesh controls one village in Libya, several small villages in Iraq, the city of Mosul, and several towns in Syria. Right now Daesh has plenty of people who they are recruiting, and their faction has become a vanguard for Islamic radicals and Arab Unilists who want to return to an oppresive caliphate, which is why they are able to garner sympathy and support from so many Muslims. With all of the support and financing they are getting though, they are still losing territory and men faster then they can attribute for their losses.

At this rate, Mosul should fall within a year, and that is with a dedication of only one division. Daesh is trying to stay relevant to maintain support, and that exchanges desperation. They are killing more and more people because that is how they stay in the media and are able to recieve financial backing and manpower.

My point is this. A battalion of elite NATO rapid deployment forces combined with just one special forces battalion could take Mosul and all the villages in Iraq and Libya with 0-5 actual deaths, if past NATO successes have any say on what we can expect from a military intervention. In the two day campaign it would take to free the city of mosul, Daesh will kill somewhere around 24 people in the territory they control. If we allow them to hold Mosul until 2016, who knows how many people they will kill, or how many more massacres they will perpetrate.

So what will it be? Allow massacres to continue or make a small sacrifice of our valuable time to reunite families, prevent the ridicolous taxation of citizens and Mosul, and allow exiled Shiites and Yazidi Christians to return to their businesses, land, and family?

Blackflag: All bug reports to the bug tracker please. Also, I have no idea why you expect text to disappear?

admin: You know how it says enter reply when you try to reply to something? Well it doesn't go away when I start typing, so it overlaps

Blackflag: That's the placeholder attribute. Every version of Google Chrome since version 2 has supported that correctly (current version is version 43). Your browser is screwed up.

admin: I have a regular browser. Never seen that before until now. Anyways, were you planning on discussing the topic?

Blackflag: Oh yeah, dealing with bugs immediately and topics when I actually get time lol.

Blackflag: You can't stop a movement like ISIL if you just think of them like an army. You have to consider why ISIL exists in the first place: lots of poor youth, and nothing to keep them occupied. Every single time this has ever happened in history, there have been two outcomes: raping and pillaging. It's no surprise at all by this point.

If strikes are launched, lots of people will die, the problem will remain unsolved. New youth will rise up, they will rape and pillage, the cycle will repeat at the cost of human life.

The people of the middle east aren't crying out to be oppressed. They're crying out for something to do. Somebody to guide them. Moderate religion does not answer that need. Extremist religion does. It also provides a convenient cover/justification for what young males are really interested in, namely sex and wealth (ie raping and pillaging). The reason why they're not doing amazingly well is because they're not a trained fighting force - just your average horde of rapists and pillagers.

My point is this: rather than kill every confused youth who, through whatever lies or selfishness, decided to join this band of rapists and pillagers... what both sides in this conflict actually need is another option for these people. Because quite frankly, they have none. War doesn't benefit anybody here. If the NATO aim is to minimize casualties, then getting the other side to surrender is a far superior option to targeted operations. Like everyone else, the people in ISIL deserve life.

You have to consider why ISIL exists in the first place
I thought it was because of radical preaching and over sensationalized idealism

raping and pillaging
Pillaging, yes, raping, no. They are still an Islamic movement, don't forget.

lots of poor youth, and nothing to keep them occupied.
People in poverty usually emigrate to different places, become criminals, join the army, beg on the streets. People in poverty usually do not become terrorists. I'm not saying poverty isn't a factor in recruitment, but I don't accept that it is an isolated factor. Those in positions of leadership are not teenagers with to much freetime. They are powerful religious leaders with a lot of financial backing.

The reason why they're not doing amazingly well is because they're not a trained fighting force - just your average horde of rapists and pillagers
That is where you are wrong. They actually have leadership and generals. They were established as a branch of Al-Qaeda veterans who were to fight Assad and the Syrian army. Mass recruitment didn't start until Abu Bakr Baghdadi and his warband crossed the Iraqi border.

If the NATO aim is to minimize casualties, then getting the other side to surrender is a far superior option to targeted operations. Like everyone else, the people in ISIL deserve life.
It depends, are we trying to minimize the deaths of combatants or non-combatants?

If the NATO aim is to minimize casualties, then getting the other side to surrender is a far superior option to targeted operations. Like everyone else, the people in ISIL deserve life.
It depends, are we trying to minimize the deaths of combatants or non-combatants?

My point is this: rather than kill every confused youth who, through whatever lies or selfishness, decided to join this band of rapists and pillagers... what both sides in this conflict actually need is another option for these people.
Do you have an actual counter-plan or are you committing to the "there must be a better way" fallacy?

Blackflag: "I thought it was because of radical preaching and over sensationalized idealism"
Just because somebody preaches something radical doesn't mean you'll automatically accept it. This is modern day orientalism at work. People who live in Iraq are not stupid or beneath anyone else in intelligence. They don't blindly follow radical ideologies just because they're there. In fact the middle east, more so than anywhere else, has challenged radical ideologies. They persist there quite strongly only because the first world allows them to exist. We create the conditions where these people have nothing else to do, no wealth, and lots of youth. What the heck do you expect to come out of this scenario? These people will latch on to anything that gives them justification to rape and pillage. A little spiritual satisfaction on their side can't hurt.

"Pillaging, yes, raping, no. They are still an Islamic movement, don't forget."
Islamic in name only. ISIL has huge camps full of sex slaves.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/isils-sex-slaves-recount-horrific-stories-of-rape-abuse.aspx?PageID=238&NID=81689&NewsCatID=352

"Those in positions of leadership are not teenagers with to much freetime. They are powerful religious leaders with a lot of financial backing."
Sure, but they're not the problem. The problem is their followers who carry out their orders. The conditions that drive them, are what motivates the leaders to preach this stuff in the first place. They wouldn't be saying the things they do if nobody thought they weren't insane. They're not - they're cold, calculating people who know exactly how to win popular support. When you're a young nobody in Iraq, seeing lots of other young people be somebody will make you think "wow, that's the sort of movement I want to join". So even if you take out ISIL, you don't solve the problem. New rapers and pillagers will take their place until the cause of the conflict is solved.

Emigration is not an option for young people in Iraq. The middle east generally is not very emigrant-friendly. Begging on the streets or becoming a thug doesn't work well either: hardly anyone has anything worth taking, and even if they did it's really hard to bring yourself to do that with no justification. Far better to join a movement of rapists and pillagers like ISIL. Every band of rapists and pillagers in world history has followed this exact same model.

"They actually have leadership and generals."
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying their troops aren't amazing. A lot of them are simply ordinary teenagers. These generals are not the problem, the incentives to rape and pillage are.

"It depends, are we trying to minimize the deaths of combatants or non-combatants?"
Both, ideally. I don't want anyone killed.

"Do you have an actual counter-plan or are you committing to the "there must be a better way" fallacy?"
Economic, social and political development. That needs to happen first. Give youth better options.
Second, provide a means for people to desert ISIL without repercussions.
Third, watch as almost the entire army of ISIL voluntarily surrenders.

This is always the way raping and pillaging movements end. Once they get a better society with more wealth (or more sex), young males will happily join that society. But right now, ISIL seems like a much better place for young people in Iraq to be than under the Iraqi government.

Just because somebody preaches something radical doesn't mean you'll automatically accept it
Sure, but this isn't a western society. Direct and subliminal messages are convincing people to radicalize every day, It is a completely different world over there. I get a taste of it from living directly outside the city of Dearborn.

They persist there quite strongly only because the first world allows them to exist. We create the conditions where these people have nothing else to do, no wealth, and lots of youth
Ah, non sequitor, non seuitor. I'll indulge it anyways.

The Middle East was not colonized like Africa. They actually existed under powerful states through the course of history. The Ottoman Empire lasted until 1908, and after 1908 for example.Any attempt to control Muslims usually backfired.

I am sorry, but the common liberal methodology of blaming western societies isn't going to work here. The Middle East are responcible for their past and future, just as Europe is responcible for its past and future.

What the heck do you expect to come out of this scenario? These people will latch on to anything that gives them justification to rape and pillage. A little spiritual satisfaction on their side can't hurt.
It seems weird that you continue to paint Daesh as both a spiritual movement and a terrorist group.

Sure, but they're not the problem. The problem is their followers who carry out their orders. The conditions that drive them, are what motivates the leaders to preach this stuff in the first place. They wouldn't be saying the things they do if nobody thought they weren't insane.
Not the conditions that drive them. More like the ideals and messages that drive them. When half of the Imams in the Middle East are telling young people to fight for Islam, many will go and fight for Islam. The poverty=terrorist equation doesn't add up for me. There are a lot of terrorists who are not in poverty. The highest individual funding for terrorist organizations comes out of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Terrorism is fueled by the rich as much as it is the poor, and that just shows that terrorism is a greater movement that goes beyond poverty.


Emigration is not an option for young people in Iraq. The middle east generally is not very emigrant-friendly. Begging on the streets or becoming a thug doesn't work well either: hardly anyone has anything worth taking, and even if they did it's really hard to bring yourself to do that with no justification.
But it is really easy to pillage and rape without justification? Crime pays as much as terrorism. Not much. I do consider it viable in most impovershied places in the world besides the Middle East that they would be more drawn to crime than terrorism. If it holds true in Eastern Europe and India, why doesn't it hold true in the Middle East. I'll tell you why, poverty isn't the problem.

I'm not denying that. I'm just saying their troops aren't amazing. A lot of them are simply ordinary teenagers. These generals are not the problem, the incentives to rape and pillage are.
Do you actually have any statistical backing for that? Most of the terrorists in the Middle East are war veterans and insurgents funded decades a go by various government agencies, within the Middle East and outside the Middle East.

Both, ideally. I don't want anyone killed.
If it came down to it, who would you rather take a bullet in the head?


Economic, social and political development. That needs to happen first. Give youth better options.
Second, provide a means for people to desert ISIL without repercussions.
Third, watch as almost the entire army of ISIL voluntarily surrenders.
Increasing economic opportunities isn't mutally exclusive to destroying Daesh. At the end of the day, they are going to kill far more non-combatants than us if we decided to attack them. The lives of those who didn't choose to take up arms need to be prioritized before the lives of those who have not only taken up arms, but used them against their fellow countrymen.

Even if this fantasy worked with ISIS, do you think it would work with the Taliban, Al-Nusra, and other Islamic Groups? Sectarian movements are not derived from poverty and boredom. Sectarian fighters are idealistic men who believe they can win Allah points by fighting in his name.

There are a lot of radicals in Dearborn. A lot of radical Muslims and a lot of radical Imams. For the average Yemeni who emigrates to Dearborn, their average income will increase from +1.3 to +3.2. Dearborn is the perfect replication of real life. Many of the young people with middle class income can still be seen at rallies and listening to radical preachers. They aren't the majority, just like they aren't the majority in the Middle East, but it would be naive to think that poverty is the reason why the choose to spend their time listening to radical Imams.

Do you think a terrorist would agree? "Yeah, I am beheading this Christian because I came from a really rough background and my parents didn't love me." Lol

ISIL seems like a much better place for young people in Iraq to be than under the Iraqi government.
If you were in Iraq and in poverty, I assume your leave to Daesh would be totally predictable and justified?

Sorry, messed up this question. When it comes down to it, which of these two gentlemen would you rather see get shot?

Blackflag: "Sure, but this isn't a western society. Direct and subliminal messages are convincing people to radicalize every day"
This is exactly the kind of orientalism I talked about in my previous post. Their ability to process messages is virtually precisely the same as ours... our brains aren't really that different. Direct and subliminal messages tell me to drink Coca-Cola every day, but I can resist those messages because I have critical thinking abilities. The same abilities that the average 18-year-old in Iraq has.

"The Middle East was not colonized like Africa."
Most of it anyway. *cough*Israel*cough*.

"I am sorry, but the common liberal methodology of blaming western societies isn't going to work here."
I'm not blaming western societies entirely. What I said was we allow it to happen. It might backfire if we change things, but we have some influence to change things. If we can invest so much money in destroying Saddam Hussein's regime, the least we can do is bring the country back to the relative level of wealth it had beforehand. Better yet, make everyone wealthy enough that there's no incentive for terrorism.

"Not the conditions that drive them. More like the ideals and messages that drive them."
Those ideals cannot survive in a society where the conditions are better. They depend entirely on inequality. People want what they can't have. If one person is preaching a peaceful religion and another a violent one, all else being equal, people will choose the peaceful religion every time. If the violent religion can promise girls and money and fast cars and nice guns on top of that, you can bet a lot of young males would be like "hell yeah".

"When half of the Imams in the Middle East are telling young people to fight for Islam, many will go and fight for Islam."
I very much doubt it's half (as you say later, "not the majority"). Maybe 20% at best. I suspect this is one of those things where you construct this fantasy about the meaning of "jihad" based on how it is used on Fox news or something.

"Terrorism is fueled by the rich as much as it is the poor, and that just shows that terrorism is a greater movement that goes beyond poverty."
Sure, but these are financial backers, not soldiers. They're investing in a movement just like any other. The more successful this movement is at improving people's fortunes, the greater the return on investment. So long as kids under ISIL have more money and sex than kids in Iraq not under ISIL, it's something that will continue to spread... and with this money coming in, ISIL can better ensure a return. You've got to remember, ISIL gets most of their money from reselling oil to Turkey/Syria.

This being said, I'd much rather arrest the financiers of ISIL than attack ISIL directly.

"Crime pays as much as terrorism. Not much."
You think petty crime can get you as much as ISIL gets through reselling oil, coordinated attacks to seize cities and plunder at will? Seriously?

"If it holds true in Eastern Europe and India, why doesn't it hold true in the Middle East. I'll tell you why, poverty isn't the problem."
First, both of those places are riddled with conflict. India itself has made big strides, but places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Laos etc are full of violence. Similarly, within eastern Europe, one must only look to the bandits around the Ukraine.
Second, it would be a mistake to only look at economic development. Wealthy, stable, strong governments survive best in the middle east, because they best provide their people (particularly youth) with purpose and opportunity. You have to be a particularly weak nation, like Yemen or Iraq, for something like ISIL to be attractive. ISIL itself would probably never even have been able to start in Iraq - it's not quite bad enough - but for the added influence of the conflict in Syria.

"Do you actually have any statistical backing for that?"
We know for a fact that boys under ISIL are conscripted from the age of 16, but ISIL have been known to use soldiers as young as 10 ( ). Western recruits are practically all aged 15-20 ([link=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760644/ISIS-signs-6-000-new-recruits-American-airstrikes-began-France-says-start-calling-group-derogatory-Daesh-cutthroats.html]source ). Figures straight out of the middle east are harder to come by, but anecdotal evidence (ie interviews with past members, evidence from towns where ISIL has recruited) seems to suggest a very young average age for new recruits, probably somewhere around 16. ISIL themselves have made clear they prefer to recruit younger members for longer-term loyalty.

"When it comes down to it, which of these two gentlemen would you rather see get shot?"
Neither. I'd rather shoot myself than choose. The notion that humanity has to kill each other, is killing humanity.

"Increasing economic opportunities isn't mutally exclusive to destroying Daesh."
A new movement will take their place so long as the conditions don't change. Invasions are futile and only cause more death.

"Even if this fantasy worked with ISIS, do you think it would work with the Taliban, Al-Nusra, and other Islamic Groups?"
For the most part, yes. Boko Haram started because of poverty of people in Africa. The Taliban started because of poverty in central Asia. There's a lot of similarity. Some operate more like a government, and others more like rapists and pillagers, but it's much the same story, and only slight adjustments would be needed to the process.

"Sectarian fighters are idealistic men who believe they can win Allah points by fighting in his name."
If this were the case, they wouldn't be so obsessed with capturing cities, holding trophies, or raping girls. ISIL is simply a young male fantasy brought to life. I mean, it's just like when the Huns moved against the Romans - the Huns were just a bunch of displaced young males looking to rape and pillage somewhere. Attila gave them that.

"it would be naive to think that poverty is the reason why the choose to spend their time listening to radical Imams"
Or maybe they already were listening to those messages beforehand? Or any number of other reasons that fit perfectly with my model?

"If you were in Iraq and in poverty, I assume your leave to Daesh would be totally predictable and justified?"
Safe bet.

"Do you think a terrorist would agree?"
It's like the schoolyard bully sketch from Key and Peele. People don't admit it even if it's true lol.

admin: Messed up my two links.

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1607806
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760644/ISIS-signs-6-000-new-recruits-American-airstrikes-began-France-says-start-calling-group-derogatory-Daesh-cutthroats.html

Could maybe be a bug. Will check later.

What is the purpose of NATO? I thought it was created to combat the USSR during WWII. The USSR has been gone for 25 years but NATO has only expanded and invaded.

admin: So you think we should just abandon most of our US allies like that?

genesis01: I think some countries are unique cases. The US is one of them.

Ultimately the third world would be the most affected, because many of those nations contain rebel groups that would be unwilling to lay down their arms easily. I don't care for US allies, but I think the US would have a major role to play in negotiation. And if that requires military infrastructure to ensure the success of that negotiation, then so be it. But that's an unfortunate cost, and one I think could largely be removed within 5 years. I think it would be entirely achievable for the US, should there be the willpower, to entirely and safely shut down their military within 15 years without significantly compromising their national security.