Provoking the US is smarter?
Provoking the US is smarter?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Precisely my point; no one in the Israeli or American government, or the media - all of whom knew of his religion and likely his dual nationality - went public with the knowledge until after he was murdered on the (likely correct) assumption that said information would result in his immediate death. I don't think Israel needs to be convinced that IS is bad news.Originally Posted by Hazir
The reason Israel hasn't gone after IS - and IS knows this - is that Israel is not interested in getting involved in the Syrian civil war. If and when IS or al-Nusra or whatever nasty group ends up taking control of Syria, Israel will have to handle them. In the meantime, there's no percentage in getting involved. Anything short of massive Israeli intervention isn't likely to change the direction of the war, and said intervention would be roundly condemned by the world (justified or not). It's also highly unlikely that Israel will be able to install/help a stable, moderate regime take control. Most of the players in this war are equally despicable, and even the slightly-less-awful but highly marginalized FSA and the like are unlikely to be particularly good neighbors to Israel.
IS knows - as does everyone else - precisely what conditions lead to an Israeli response. The first is a cross-border attack. Pretty much every time a mortar shell or IED or sniper fire is directed across the border, Israeli jets and artillery have hit nearby posts (mostly Syrian military, but some rebels as well). The second is the transfer of sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah - on multiple occasions, Israeli planes have destroyed weapons convoys inside Syria that contained much better weapons systems on their way to Lebanon. The third is the proliferation of chemical weapons beyond the Syrian military/government. IS has nothing to worry from Israel, not because they shy away from provocation, but because they have no capability or interest in crossing Israel's red lines at the moment - their area of operations is from from both Lebanon and Israel, and they have no known chemical weapons.
The greater challenge has always been gauging the US response. The US is both well-equipped and has the political and diplomatic heft to manage a major intervention in Syria and Iraq. IS has been banking on Obama's cautious foreign policy leading to no or minimal intervention, and by and large they are right. I think it was a major strategic mistake to stay out of Syria, and an even bigger one to use half-measures in taking on IS right now. That's really the only thing they need to be worried about right now.
Your evaluation is very funny.
First you try to sell of the 'accidental' killing of an Israeli citizen as a provocation of Israel again where it clearly wasn't. Actually we don't even know if they were going to provoke the US with this particular murder for the simple reason that they didn't publish it.
Then you spoon out a whole bunch of 'what ifs' that are irrelevant to the IS-Israel dynamic for the simple reason that IS doesn't cooperate with any of Israels usual enemies, stronger, some of them are even mortal enemies of IS. If IS transports weaponry to Lebanon it is not to arm Hezbollah, but to arm Hezbollah's opponents. What this would achieve, if anything, would be a new civil war in Lebanon. Which in itself is not a security risk for Israel untill it would be concluded with a clear winner. Which is extremely unlikely anyway.
Now back to my original statement, which you didn't want to see, because scoring an easy point with the dual nationality of the second victim was more important, is that IS doesn't take on anybody who they think will put up an effective fight. Implied in that is that Israel is one of the parties that would put up a fight. If you are prattling on about motivations for Israel is THAT what you are trying to disprove?
Congratulations America
I'm with Hazir here. ISIS has gone out of their way to steer clear of the US and Israel. Killing a few journalists really doesn't prove otherwise. These guys have an objective of establishing a state in the Middle East and they've actually done a good job of subordinating all other objectives (like killing Jews and Westerners) to that one.
Hope is the denial of reality
My point was that IS doesn't really have any ability to actually provoke Israel, and not much to provoke the US. They don't control territory near Israel and have limited networks in territory controlled by Israel or its neighbors. Saying they 'haven't provoked Israel' is about as relevant as saying that Al Qaeda haven't provoked Israel. It's meaningless - the only way they can provoke Israel is through rhetoric (which they've done) and killing the occasional citizen they capture (which they've done, though I'll agree it's unclear whether they knew he was an Israeli citizen and Jewish). Neither of these will result in a massive Israeli response unless IS went on a global terrorism spree like the airline hijackings in the 70s. IS can't, as of now, provoke Israel into a response.
WRT to America I think it's a bit more nuanced. The bar for American intervention in a situation is much lower - as America's role as a superpower and a major power broker in the Middle East (not to mention their concern for the stability of oil-producing countries), the US has a much broader definition of 'national interest' than Israel does, and acts accordingly. I think that when IS was consolidating power in Syria, they correctly divined that the US has limited enthusiasm for engaging them given the current quagmire there. Yet I disagree that their current strategy has been as effective at not provoking an American response. Even though Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East appears to be based on a fairly narrow minimalism, the IS move toward the Iraqi heartland and its attendant destabilizing effect on the (already shaky) Iraqi government was noticed by the US and acted upon.
Frankly, I doubt that the US was really acting because of a 'humanitarian crisis' as was claimed by the administration. It clearly needed a pretext to push IS back that didn't involve tacit support for Nuri al-Maliki, and focusing on helping the peshmerga push back against IS in the name of helping religious minorities was a good excuse. I strongly suspect that the US operation, while still calibrated for Obama's minimalism, is intended to destabilize their hold in the northwest of the country and send them back to safe havens in Syria. I question whether it will have this effect, of course, but I do think that's the general thrust of the US strategy.
In light of this, I think it's silly to suggest that IS is working on some clever, well-calibrated campaign that avoids combat with Western militaries while they set up their statelet. I think they don't have a very good handle on when or how the US will respond, and got lulled into a sense of impunity due to previous dithering by the administration.
As an aside, I do want to register my disappointment with US policy here. I think there has been a clear trend for 'too little, too late' in how we address these issues. I recognize that there are a lot of unsavory actors in the Middle East, and it's hard for the US to find worthwhile partners in turning back extremism, but our inaction over Syria, poor engagement with Iraq, and limited policies in AfPak, Yemen, Somalia, etc. suggest to me that the US is playing a reactive game of whack-a-mole instead of trying to establish stable institutions in these countries that will limit the spread of extremist Islam. We have dealt with complex transnational movements like this before through comprehensive strategies of confrontation and containment; while the parallels aren't perfect, I do think that we need to have a much more thoughtful and well-articulated plan for dealing with this issue.
That could be because they will wait to get established first?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
And how long do you think it will take them to accomplish their goal of conquering at least the Arab Middle East?
Hope is the denial of reality
And their goals are unchangeable? Maybe once they have secured enough oil fields and territory, they may decide to export some terrorism?
I don't think they are interested in playing by the rules, but Chamberlin thought his piece of paper was meaningful.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
They already have oil fields and territory. If they ever settle for significantly less than what they call for, they'll end up losing most of their recruits.
Hope is the denial of reality
War against the Great Satan also has a nice ring to it.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
It doesn't have much of a ring to it when it's constantly a failure. There's a reason al-Qaeda is losing its foot soldiers in droves to ISIS.
Hope is the denial of reality
I said and repeat now: IS is not attacking anybody who's putting up a serious fight.
Congratulations America
Except for US interests...?
If they had stayed in Syria they would not currently be running from US airstrikes.
100s of UStroops, CIA agents helping ISIL in Syria, Iraq: Don DeBar
Aug 30, 2014
An American political commentator says there are hundreds ofUS troops or CIA agents with the ISIL in Iraq and Syria to help the terroristgroup.
Don DeBar, an anti-war activist and radio host in New York,made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Wednesday whilecommenting on a recent report which says there are as many as 300 Americannationals fighting alongside ISIL members.
Senior US officials have told The Washington Times that theUS government is currently tracking and gathering intelligence on Americanmilitants who could return to the homeland and commit terrorist attacks withskills obtained abroad.
DeBar said the ISIL “group is a construct of the US militaryintelligence. This is a terrorist cell that was organized by the US in order todestabilize Syria and perhaps other countries – they even made a threat againstSaudi Arabia whether that’s just to make them look like they are on aparticular ideological plane, or if it’s an actual threat, it’s a proxy threatfrom the US to Saudi Arabia.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08...in-syria-iraq/
Well if one political commentator says so, it must be true.And if there are Americans fighting with ISIS, it must be controlled by the US. Just like it's also controlled by Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, and Chechnya.
Hope is the denial of reality
Why hasn't the US (including previous administrations) expected more from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, UAE, Qatar or even Kuwait) and the Arab League? We've given them billions in aid, intelligence, weaponry, and even train their military --- but for some reason they still expect the US/west to handle their neighbors failures and crises?
I'm disappointed in US policy too, but not because we've done 'too little, too late' or 'dithered'. If anything we've done too much (militarily), and been intervening for so many decades....that when the Middle East has problems they rely on us for help. That means we're caught cleaning up our own messes and possibly 'partnering' with bad actors (like Assad) to create new 'coalitions'.
I think it's high time every country re-evaluates what "National Interests" really means....and how that dovetails into "International Interests", policy matters regarding War and Peace (or stability vs chaos), and stop thinking military actions can/will solve anything.
Also, I'd like to see the US/west stop using terms like ISIS, ISIL, or Islamic State altogether. None of their actions are legitimately Islamic or Muslim in nature. Our press/media/government shouldn't fall for their propaganda effort, but call them what they are: Barbarians. Sadists. Cultists. Violent extremists. Misguided militants. Crazy caliphates. etc....
So... you think the US should just ignore global problems and leave them to someone else to sort out? Hasn't worked too well in the past...
Our aid (and I grant there's been quite a bit of it) is carefully tailored to NOT add much to their abilities to project power onto their neighbors and is often, where possible, predicated on them not trying to develop it themselves. We don't want them to have that kind of capability and you would be (and have been) just as strident about the consequences if they did have it. They might be better equipped to handle problems of their neighbors. . . but they'd also be much better equipped to engage in militaristic adventurism of their own and BE the problem neighbor. That's something else Loki can cite you pretty clear research on, he's discussed it on here before.Why hasn't the US (including previous administrations) expected more from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, UAE, Qatar or even Kuwait) and the Arab League? We've given them billions in aid, intelligence, weaponry, and even train their military --- but for some reason they still expect the US/west to handle their neighbors failures and crises?
We should also continue to refuse to call it Myanmar and insist on the term "Freedom Fries!"Also, I'd like to see the US/west stop using terms like ISIS, ISIL, or Islamic State altogether. None of their actions are legitimately Islamic or Muslim in nature. Our press/media/government shouldn't fall for their propaganda effort, but call them what they are: Barbarians. Sadists. Cultists. Violent extremists. Misguided militants. Crazy caliphates. etc....The world does not have labels for your easy comprehension GGT. You're just going to have to accept that a little bit more is expected from you.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
But I'm talking about the "aid" we gave that was meant to encourage international trade (aka "Free Market Capitalism") that was supposed to help new nations be strong democracies in the post-cold war era. ie, "western values".
It's not just the middle east putting 'western values' on trial....Putin is doing the same thing in the Ukraine.
Did you mean Burma?We should also continue to refuse to call it Myanmar and insist on the term "Freedom Fries!"
He's talking about giving them weapon systems. You think we give development assistance to these countries (well, we do, but it's not very much)?
Incidentally, ISIS is trying to establish an Islamic caliphate. You think the previous ones were established peacefully?
Hope is the denial of reality
No, you said quite specifically what you were talking about. I quoted it when I replied to you. "Billions in aid, intelligence, weaponry, and even trained their military." Aid meant to encourage international trade has next to nothing to do with what you said you wanted, which is for them to deal with their own problem neighbors rather than us doing it. But the other things you mentioned, well they all have quite a bit more to do with dealing with problem neighbors.
Language/terminology can matter sure. But the surest way to make things MORE confusing is to refuse to let people use their own name (or an appropriate translation/translitteration of it). It's what they call their organization GGT.Look, I'm only trying to say that language/terminology matters.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well, one reason these extremists have access to weapons systems is because (A) they're able to exploit the global military industrial complex, or (B) they're commanding/extracting weapons left behind in previous conflicts.He's talking about giving them weapon systems. You think we give development assistance to these countries (well, we do, but it's not very much)?
You're missing the point. A group of violent extremists are trying to re-shape the middle east, bypassing any democratic or parliamentarian process, and calling it an Islamic/Muslim jihad. That's pure propaganda.Incidentally, ISIS is trying to establish an Islamic caliphate. You think the previous ones were established peacefully?
You mean they're buying heavy weaponry from corporations? Do tell.
It's no more propaganda than calling America after a European explorer instead of after some Native American tribe.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm guessing you deleted your post just as I was replying, Fuzzy.
I don't give a damn what they want to "call" themselves, or what they want us to call them: they're acting like barbarians from the 7th century.
Kind of like the Islamic Caliphates of that time.
Hope is the denial of reality
So what's going to move them from the 7th century into the modern world....if they still have "power" as oil nations?
And why isn't OPEC acting like a leading arbiter?
If it always falls to US to "lead the way", it's not because we have all the answers. We certainly don't have all the money, either. But we should not let our "image" as a superpower drive our policy.
Last edited by GGT; 09-10-2014 at 05:56 AM.
I'm guessing you deleted your post just as I was replying, Fuzzy.
I don't give a damn what they want to "call" themselves, or what they want us to call them: they're acting like barbarians from the 7th century.
I haven't deleted or even edited anything in this thread. What you see typed above is the only material I posted. And plainly you don't care since you're one of the people insisting on the fiction of calling the land Burma. I'm just pointing out that you're insistence on things like Freedom Fries does your regularly questionable comprehension no favors and is just ridiculous besides.
And I see that rather than acknowledge your own freaking post, you've opted to completely drop the discussion line about Middle-Eastern neighbors. Shocker.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The last third of Obama's speech on ISIS pivoted to "we're approaching the anniversary of the start of the financial crisis" and then plopped-in a point about how we've had a long period of sustained job market growth.
Tomorrow is also the anniversary of September 11th. If we're talking about Islamist terrorism and how it may threaten us, wouldn't September 11 anniversary tomorrow be the better one to mention? Is this guy for real?
Well-trained in militaryprowess. Tremendously well-funded. Super sophisticated terrorists. Hm.Hagel says,
“They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology,a sophistication of … military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. Thisis beyond anything we’ve seen.”
And how do you thinkthey got that way so fast? Super magic terrorist training money tree fairydust?
Apparently themainstream establishment media would more likely attempt to have people believesuch a thing exists rather than expose the blatant reality that yes, the U.S.has trained and funded ISIS and without the U.S. government, ISIS would not bethe threat it has become.
It came out back in2012 that the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were jointly running a US CIA and SpecialForces command training base for Syrian rebels out of the Jordanian town ofSafawi, but apparently according the Jordanian officials, that training ‘wasn’tmeant to be used in Iraq’ (via WND):
Syrian rebels whowould later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, weretrained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan,according to informed Jordanian officials.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/intern...u-realize.html
It's wonderful to be able to see a big scheme behind everything that happens in the world. However, the problem is that in both Syria and Iraq people switch sides every time they think it gives them a better chance at taking over the levers of power.
Despite all its horror IS may have one positive side-effect; the final end of the Sykes-Picot and a chance for new states that don't need to rely on repression to even exist.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote