This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/us-launches-air-strikes-agains...
So it was only the other year that we were supporting the rebels in Syria because the regime was evil, now the US have started airstrikes against the disenfranchised rebels, maybe agent Blair has a peace plan to sort it all out before the weekend?
So it was only the other year that we were supporting the rebels in Syria because the regime was evil, now the US have started airstrikes against the disenfranchised rebels, maybe agent Blair has a peace plan to sort it all out before the weekend?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
If it's so simple, have you got all the answers?
At least their not hiding behind anonymity, and are making decisions, wrongly or rightly, but they still have to be made, meanwhile you criticize from afar with no better plan.
> So it was only the other year that we were supporting the rebels in Syria because the regime was evil, now the US have started airstrikes against the disenfranchised rebels
If it's so simple, have you got all the answers?
At least their not hiding behind anonymity, and are making decisions, wrongly or rightly, but they still have to be made, meanwhile you criticize from afar with no better plan.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
It's not a perfect world. IIRC the moderate secularists opposition to Sadat - who were the ones being given limited support by the West - weren't able to get their act together sufficiently to give Bashar al-Assad a final push, and the more militant Jihadists seized the initiative. A few charismatic leaders, an extra push from the west, a single successful meeting of the Free Syrian army might have made the difference.
So that didn't work, but we are where we are and a new set of circumstances which need a response. It's called life.
It's not a perfect world. IIRC the moderate secularists opposition to Sadat - who were the ones being given limited support by the West - weren't able to get their act together sufficiently to give Bashar al-Assad a final push, and the more militant Jihadists seized the initiative. A few charismatic leaders, an extra push from the west, a single successful meeting of the Free Syrian army might have made the difference.
So that didn't work, but we are where we are and a new set of circumstances which need a response. It's called life.
In reply to The Mystery Toad: Somebody on another thread suggested that the solution to all the world's ills was to treat everyone like family, so have you invited ISIS round for tea on Sunday yet?
In reply to The Toad:
You should become a politician, your good at ducking questions, offering ideas without real solutions, and all the while obfuscating, and refusing to see it from any point of view but your own, just sayin...
You should become a politician, your good at ducking questions, offering ideas without real solutions, and all the while obfuscating, and refusing to see it from any point of view but your own, just sayin...
In reply to dale1968:
Plus 1
> You should become a politician, your good at ducking questions, offering ideas without real solutions, and all the while obfuscating, and refusing to see it from any point of view but your own, just sayin...
Plus 1
In reply to dale1968:
Plus 2. He reminds me of the Facebook 'campaigns' - "like this if you are against cancer/child abuse/drowning kittens."
It achieves precisely zero (or perhaps less than zero in that it convinces some that they have done some good when in fact they haven't, whilst in a parallel universe they may have actually done something in reality beyond clicking a button).
To the Toad:
Much like you continually preaching about how the world is unfair/conspiratorial/out to get you and only you can see the truth.
The result? A nice fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness and very little else.
If all this bothers so much what do you do beyond bolstering your ego with nothing more than thoughts about how right you are?
Plus 2. He reminds me of the Facebook 'campaigns' - "like this if you are against cancer/child abuse/drowning kittens."
It achieves precisely zero (or perhaps less than zero in that it convinces some that they have done some good when in fact they haven't, whilst in a parallel universe they may have actually done something in reality beyond clicking a button).
To the Toad:
Much like you continually preaching about how the world is unfair/conspiratorial/out to get you and only you can see the truth.
The result? A nice fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness and very little else.
If all this bothers so much what do you do beyond bolstering your ego with nothing more than thoughts about how right you are?
Post edited at 11:27
In reply to dale1968:
Sorry I was working, I can see other points of view, and you're free to have them, it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
> You should become a politician, your good at ducking questions, offering ideas without real solutions, and all the while obfuscating, and refusing to see it from any point of view but your own, just sayin...
Sorry I was working, I can see other points of view, and you're free to have them, it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
Thanks for the that gem of wisdom, anyway feel free to say anything constructive
> Sorry I was working, I can see other points of view, and you're free to have them, it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
Thanks for the that gem of wisdom, anyway feel free to say anything constructive
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
There's more than one set of rebels. TobyA put up a schematic illustration of who is fighting who.. its not good guys V bad guys.. or even bad guys V even badder guys..
There's more than one set of rebels. TobyA put up a schematic illustration of who is fighting who.. its not good guys V bad guys.. or even bad guys V even badder guys..
In reply to IainRUK:
I missed that - what thread was it on ?
> TobyA put up a schematic illustration of who is fighting who..
I missed that - what thread was it on ?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
I was just watching the news and saw the US air-strikes hitting Syria. There was some video showing beaming Syrians (we suppose) saying how great this is and how they really needed more strikes, then "Long Live America! Long live Europe!" - then cut back to a heap of rubble where an ISIS "command centre" centre had been, we were told.
It all looks too good to be true, given the extent of the destruction I wonder how long before collateral damage starts coming in and we see the same faces and the same people shouting "Death to America!" Life is a continual re-beginning.
At least it's encouraging to see the USA allied with Assad against the islamic extremists, it took time but they saw sense in the end. If I was Assad I'd watch my back pretty carefully and wouldn't let my new pals know where I slept each night!
I was just watching the news and saw the US air-strikes hitting Syria. There was some video showing beaming Syrians (we suppose) saying how great this is and how they really needed more strikes, then "Long Live America! Long live Europe!" - then cut back to a heap of rubble where an ISIS "command centre" centre had been, we were told.
It all looks too good to be true, given the extent of the destruction I wonder how long before collateral damage starts coming in and we see the same faces and the same people shouting "Death to America!" Life is a continual re-beginning.
At least it's encouraging to see the USA allied with Assad against the islamic extremists, it took time but they saw sense in the end. If I was Assad I'd watch my back pretty carefully and wouldn't let my new pals know where I slept each night!
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Yes Bruce, that is the crux of the whole problem in the middle East, any set of Arabs is your friend while it suits their purposes, then a week or two later they want your infidel blood. We should really be staying well out of all conflicts involving the middle East and let them get on with killing each other. We have no way of even beginning to understand their tribalism, so we never have any way of knowing who we can and cannot trust.
In reply to GrahamD:
Bruce may have a link, I think it was him and Toby.. or email Toby, it was probably around a month ago..
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-involved-in-the-war-in-syria-2013-10
It was something like that but not that one..
> I missed that - what thread was it on ?
Bruce may have a link, I think it was him and Toby.. or email Toby, it was probably around a month ago..
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-involved-in-the-war-in-syria-2013-10
It was something like that but not that one..
In reply to cragtaff:
What you say is sadly (and deeply) true. Once one has seen that, it's important to see just what that entails: that this slime of tribalism makes no exceptions. Everything is smothered by it. With some (western, militarily supported) slime being more suffocating than others.
> Yes Bruce, that is the crux of the whole problem in the middle East, any set of Arabs is your friend while it suits their purposes, then a week or two later they want your infidel blood. We should really be staying well out of all conflicts involving the middle East and let them get on with killing each other. We have no way of even beginning to understand their tribalism, so we never have any way of knowing who we can and cannot trust.
What you say is sadly (and deeply) true. Once one has seen that, it's important to see just what that entails: that this slime of tribalism makes no exceptions. Everything is smothered by it. With some (western, militarily supported) slime being more suffocating than others.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Are you sure "slime" is the right word? It isn't very polite.
After all it was the West that pushed the "Arab Spring" and all the bloodshed it has led to. For months the young muslims throughout the world saw on their Tvs what a monster Assad was, or before him Gaddafi and then when the bravest of them, or those with nothing better to do, took it seriously and went off to fight him, putting their acts with our words suddenly they become the baddies, when they thought they were the goodies - giving their lives to fight against the regime they had been told by all the Media from the BBC to the Daily Mail (and many posters on these forums!) was atrocious.
The "slime" is not only on tribalism.
Are you sure "slime" is the right word? It isn't very polite.
After all it was the West that pushed the "Arab Spring" and all the bloodshed it has led to. For months the young muslims throughout the world saw on their Tvs what a monster Assad was, or before him Gaddafi and then when the bravest of them, or those with nothing better to do, took it seriously and went off to fight him, putting their acts with our words suddenly they become the baddies, when they thought they were the goodies - giving their lives to fight against the regime they had been told by all the Media from the BBC to the Daily Mail (and many posters on these forums!) was atrocious.
The "slime" is not only on tribalism.
In reply to GrahamD:
If it was in Off Belay it'd be listed amongst his posts.
> I missed that - what thread was it on ?
If it was in Off Belay it'd be listed amongst his posts.
Post edited at 22:11
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It'd change how we treat one another. It'll probably just remain a concept.
> Somebody on another thread suggested that the solution to all the world's ills was to treat everyone like family.
It'd change how we treat one another. It'll probably just remain a concept.
In reply to dale1968:
Well after watching this evenings popular entertainment show also know as the news from the safety of the sofa, it seems what has effectively been created is a real time live firing ex, the phoney enemy has been put in place and the US taking the lead with the junior ranks of the Arab States acting in a support role, I guess after you've bought the fighter jets you want to run em at full gas. Now we'll get the media psyop about how we the UK should take part, which right now isn't required from a strategic viewpoint.
> anyway feel free to say anything constructive
Well after watching this evenings popular entertainment show also know as the news from the safety of the sofa, it seems what has effectively been created is a real time live firing ex, the phoney enemy has been put in place and the US taking the lead with the junior ranks of the Arab States acting in a support role, I guess after you've bought the fighter jets you want to run em at full gas. Now we'll get the media psyop about how we the UK should take part, which right now isn't required from a strategic viewpoint.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It was a metaphor, Bruce, that I'm inclined to stick by. Amazingly, I don't think you grasped the deliberate inclusiveness of my metaphor.
It was a metaphor, Bruce, that I'm inclined to stick by. Amazingly, I don't think you grasped the deliberate inclusiveness of my metaphor.
In reply to Timmd:
... a metaphor used like that, is no good, after all, if it's not universally applicable.
... a metaphor used like that, is no good, after all, if it's not universally applicable.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Indeed.
> ... a metaphor used like that, is no good, after all, if it's not universally applicable.
Indeed.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
To me it was inclusive enough for you just to echo cragtaff's normal racism, which is most unlike you Gordon.
To me it was inclusive enough for you just to echo cragtaff's normal racism, which is most unlike you Gordon.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Surely you're not suggesting that Uncle Sam might accidently drop a large bomb on Assad and then say whoops sorry, like they did with the Chinese embassy a few years ago!
Y
> At least it's encouraging to see the USA allied with Assad against the islamic extremists, it took time but they saw sense in the end. If I was Assad I'd watch my back pretty carefully and wouldn't let my new pals know where I slept each night!
Surely you're not suggesting that Uncle Sam might accidently drop a large bomb on Assad and then say whoops sorry, like they did with the Chinese embassy a few years ago!
Y
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
A very very simple generalisation for the OP:
It's a three way war.
The Free Syrian Army are the good guys.
ISIL and Assad are the bad guys.
Hope that helped...
A very very simple generalisation for the OP:
It's a three way war.
The Free Syrian Army are the good guys.
ISIL and Assad are the bad guys.
Hope that helped...
In reply to Trevers:
Ok thanks, so taking your simplification to it's logical conclusion once you've taken out one set of bad guys you target the main objective, as there's no point doing half a job is there?
Ok thanks, so taking your simplification to it's logical conclusion once you've taken out one set of bad guys you target the main objective, as there's no point doing half a job is there?
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
I be surprised/stupid if they don't go for Damascus. Managed to get their Syria war on without much in the way of democratic consent i.e none. Saw Peter Haine on local news in the NW talking about stopping genocide - really where, the hyperbole is amazing. Do you imagine they managed to get all those Sunni majority states involved without Damascus being the prize? Syrian defence forces are heavily degraded and demoralised at this point. No fan of Assad BTW.
D
I be surprised/stupid if they don't go for Damascus. Managed to get their Syria war on without much in the way of democratic consent i.e none. Saw Peter Haine on local news in the NW talking about stopping genocide - really where, the hyperbole is amazing. Do you imagine they managed to get all those Sunni majority states involved without Damascus being the prize? Syrian defence forces are heavily degraded and demoralised at this point. No fan of Assad BTW.
D
Post edited at 08:51
In reply to The Mystery Toad: Do you have any suggestions for how to apply your "treat ISIS like family" idea? Any practical suggestions?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Yes ground them for the weekend and let them know no more guns if they don't release the captives, that might not work though as we don't negotiate with terrorists. Maybe we could send Jihad John a mix tape with some uplifting dance music and a bag of ekkys to get him through his troublesome teenage years.
Yes ground them for the weekend and let them know no more guns if they don't release the captives, that might not work though as we don't negotiate with terrorists. Maybe we could send Jihad John a mix tape with some uplifting dance music and a bag of ekkys to get him through his troublesome teenage years.
In reply to The Mystery Toad:
You could have just said you haven't a clue. The real mystery toad was much more fun, better than this cheap renamed poster copy.
> Yes ground them for the weekend and let them know no more guns if they don't release the captives, that might not work though as we don't negotiate with terrorists. Maybe we could send Jihad John a mix tape with some uplifting dance music and a bag of ekkys to get him through his troublesome teenage years.
You could have just said you haven't a clue. The real mystery toad was much more fun, better than this cheap renamed poster copy.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
No, I didn't. I don't approve of ISIS aka IS in the slightest but I do think we should be careful with our vocabulary, especially when we, collectively, share a responsibility for creating them. Unless we aim to simply "wipe out" all 30 000 of them one day some will return to live amongst us.
> .... I don't think you grasped the deliberate inclusiveness of my metaphor.
No, I didn't. I don't approve of ISIS aka IS in the slightest but I do think we should be careful with our vocabulary, especially when we, collectively, share a responsibility for creating them. Unless we aim to simply "wipe out" all 30 000 of them one day some will return to live amongst us.
In reply to kipper12:
No, couldn't possibly happen, could it?
> Surely you're not suggesting that Uncle Sam might accidently drop a large bomb on Assad and then say whoops sorry, like they did with the Chinese embassy a few years ago!
> Y
No, couldn't possibly happen, could it?
In reply to TobyA:
How can a universal distaste for tribalism, in the broadest sense, be seen as 'racist'? It's more or less the exact opposite.
> To me it was inclusive enough for you just to echo cragtaff's normal racism, which is most unlike you Gordon.
How can a universal distaste for tribalism, in the broadest sense, be seen as 'racist'? It's more or less the exact opposite.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
'After all it was the West that pushed the "Arab Spring"'
Well the West may not have discouraged it, but don't you think there is the tiniest possibility that some of it was a genuine grassroots desire for change, a genuine (and substantially secular) desire for more Western-style freedom, democracy, economic growth and opportunity?
Or wouldn't your average raghead aspire to that without Western 'encouragement'?
(NB please note deliberate ironic use of term of abuse, for those not keeping up.)
'After all it was the West that pushed the "Arab Spring"'
Well the West may not have discouraged it, but don't you think there is the tiniest possibility that some of it was a genuine grassroots desire for change, a genuine (and substantially secular) desire for more Western-style freedom, democracy, economic growth and opportunity?
Or wouldn't your average raghead aspire to that without Western 'encouragement'?
(NB please note deliberate ironic use of term of abuse, for those not keeping up.)
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Because you neglect the parochial and anachronistic mote in your own eye. No disrespect entended but your comments on this thread and the one on Scottish independence are very telling.
D
Because you neglect the parochial and anachronistic mote in your own eye. No disrespect entended but your comments on this thread and the one on Scottish independence are very telling.
D
Post edited at 10:52
In reply to Dauphin:
If I have no preference for my own parish over any others, or in any parishes per se (but rather, in universal rights etc), how can I be said to be parochial? If I am interested in scientific, social and global progress, how can I be said to be anachronistic? Those are rhetorical questions, because I'm at work at the moment.
If I have no preference for my own parish over any others, or in any parishes per se (but rather, in universal rights etc), how can I be said to be parochial? If I am interested in scientific, social and global progress, how can I be said to be anachronistic? Those are rhetorical questions, because I'm at work at the moment.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
"any set of Arabs is your friend while it suits their purposes, then a week or two later they want your infidel blood. We should really be staying well out of all conflicts involving the middle East and let them get on with killing each other. We have no way of even beginning to understand their tribalism, so we never have any way of knowing who we can and cannot trust."
That's not racist? It's patently ridiculous at least (what about Christian Arabs or atheist Arabs? Are they out for my "infidel blood"?), but it's racist as well in ascribing simplistic (and negative) characteristics to some incredibly loosely described group of people, roughly half a billion in this case.
Anyway cragtaff enjoys winding people up by posting racist silliness on here; that's kind of his thing.
"any set of Arabs is your friend while it suits their purposes, then a week or two later they want your infidel blood. We should really be staying well out of all conflicts involving the middle East and let them get on with killing each other. We have no way of even beginning to understand their tribalism, so we never have any way of knowing who we can and cannot trust."
That's not racist? It's patently ridiculous at least (what about Christian Arabs or atheist Arabs? Are they out for my "infidel blood"?), but it's racist as well in ascribing simplistic (and negative) characteristics to some incredibly loosely described group of people, roughly half a billion in this case.
Anyway cragtaff enjoys winding people up by posting racist silliness on here; that's kind of his thing.
In reply to TobyA:
Yes, I apologise for apparently endorsing his first two disgraceful sentences. My reply was aimed purely at the last sentence. I very carelessly 'forgot' about his first two sentences.
Yes, I apologise for apparently endorsing his first two disgraceful sentences. My reply was aimed purely at the last sentence. I very carelessly 'forgot' about his first two sentences.
In reply to TobyA:
I.e. I was simply (and badly/misleadingly) expressing my views about tribalism in general. If they were aimed at anyone, they were actually aimed at 'the other side', i.e not the arabs.
I.e. I was simply (and badly/misleadingly) expressing my views about tribalism in general. If they were aimed at anyone, they were actually aimed at 'the other side', i.e not the arabs.
In reply to cragtaff:
For a slightly different take, I just watched this documentary:
youtube.com/watch?v=5OI8Y0jjM0k&
The reporter is a western, at the time non-Muslin, Norwegian who spent time with the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets. It certainly portrays a rather more nuanced picture of the Taliban and, interestingly, Pol Refsdal has also spent time with foreign jihadis in Syria. According to his wikipedia entry he describes the rebels as "sympathetic and having a strong religious vocation, while their military training was relatively amateurish".
Like all things, the situation with all sides in Syria is likely to span a huge spectrum of idealism and extremism. I'm a little uncomfortable that, based on nothing more than the actions of a what could be a small minority, we feel entirely justified in unleashing any sort of destruction on anyone in a far away country our governments deems to be the enemy.
For a slightly different take, I just watched this documentary:
youtube.com/watch?v=5OI8Y0jjM0k&
The reporter is a western, at the time non-Muslin, Norwegian who spent time with the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets. It certainly portrays a rather more nuanced picture of the Taliban and, interestingly, Pol Refsdal has also spent time with foreign jihadis in Syria. According to his wikipedia entry he describes the rebels as "sympathetic and having a strong religious vocation, while their military training was relatively amateurish".
Like all things, the situation with all sides in Syria is likely to span a huge spectrum of idealism and extremism. I'm a little uncomfortable that, based on nothing more than the actions of a what could be a small minority, we feel entirely justified in unleashing any sort of destruction on anyone in a far away country our governments deems to be the enemy.
Post edited at 00:06
In reply to David Martin:
Particularly, as we seem somewhat incapable of deciding who exactly our enemy is, and are thoroughly inconsistent with our (often shortlived) alliances.
> Like all things, the situation with all sides in Syria is likely to span a huge spectrum of idealism and extremism. I'm a little uncomfortable that, based on nothing more than the actions of a what could be a small minority, we feel entirely justified in unleashing any sort of destruction on anyone in a far away country our governments deems to be the enemy.
Particularly, as we seem somewhat incapable of deciding who exactly our enemy is, and are thoroughly inconsistent with our (often shortlived) alliances.
In reply to David Martin:
'sympathetic and having a strong religious vocation' You say that as though it's a good thing. Anyone with a strong religious vocation is bad news in my book, with they are ultra orthodox Jews, Christian fundamentalists, Jihadi or Tony Blair - they're all cut from the same cloth.
Though I do have some sympathy with your view, there seems clear evidence that ISIS is attempting to establish a caliphate in the most brutal manner.
'sympathetic and having a strong religious vocation' You say that as though it's a good thing. Anyone with a strong religious vocation is bad news in my book, with they are ultra orthodox Jews, Christian fundamentalists, Jihadi or Tony Blair - they're all cut from the same cloth.
Though I do have some sympathy with your view, there seems clear evidence that ISIS is attempting to establish a caliphate in the most brutal manner.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
In Libya and Syria I think that is doubtful, other more long term reasons were behind most of it, the so called "Arab Spring" was a pretext for most of the people concerned. Maybe, like in all real life conflicts, there were a mixture of motives... don't you think that could be possible?
> Well the West may not have discouraged it, but don't you think there is the tiniest possibility that some of it was a genuine grassroots desire for change, a genuine (and substantially secular) desire for more Western-style freedom, democracy, economic growth and opportunity?
In Libya and Syria I think that is doubtful, other more long term reasons were behind most of it, the so called "Arab Spring" was a pretext for most of the people concerned. Maybe, like in all real life conflicts, there were a mixture of motives... don't you think that could be possible?
Post edited at 09:06
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I'll wager that after we've finished the death toll will be not in our favour.
D
I'll wager that after we've finished the death toll will be not in our favour.
D
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
ISIS does indeed seem to be in a league of their own. I watched their slick 55min propaganda film (The Flames of War) over the weekend - well worth viewing. It does bang on a bit and is reminiscent of propaganda films from the 50s but gives an interesting insight in to the thinking.
What really struck was the apparent belief in what the caliphate would bring - though an imagined and utopian past, where things work, everyone was happy, the infidels crushed, the world cured of all ills, all united under Allah.
It seemed reminiscent of the picture Pol Pot had of the agrarian society the Khmer Rouge would install. It might be entirely well meaning and with the interests of the people at heart. But as its a myth and therefore doomed to failure, and as the regime has no ability to question its founding principles (enshrined as they are in religious text and dogma, that cannot be questioned), the result will almost certainly be an assumption of conspiracies, imposters, spies and with that purges and even greater atrocities.
This is scary given ISIS already looks to have way too much self belief in their actions, justifications and belief, all the while supporting civilian populations may quite justifiably imagine that the caliphate they impose will be a good thing. The room for catastrophe and greater despotism is immense.
This does however mean that the West should tread carefully and we do have to be careful in assuming everyone under the black flag is of the same mindset. The Khmer Rouge are a good comparison. Equally, the Taliban documentary showed that those we label as terrorists can quite easily just be normal people, in many ways very similar to us. The form of Islam they follow is just an overlay on a tribal way of life and society that has served them satisfactorally for millennia, while we might be the invaders.
ISIS does indeed seem to be in a league of their own. I watched their slick 55min propaganda film (The Flames of War) over the weekend - well worth viewing. It does bang on a bit and is reminiscent of propaganda films from the 50s but gives an interesting insight in to the thinking.
What really struck was the apparent belief in what the caliphate would bring - though an imagined and utopian past, where things work, everyone was happy, the infidels crushed, the world cured of all ills, all united under Allah.
It seemed reminiscent of the picture Pol Pot had of the agrarian society the Khmer Rouge would install. It might be entirely well meaning and with the interests of the people at heart. But as its a myth and therefore doomed to failure, and as the regime has no ability to question its founding principles (enshrined as they are in religious text and dogma, that cannot be questioned), the result will almost certainly be an assumption of conspiracies, imposters, spies and with that purges and even greater atrocities.
This is scary given ISIS already looks to have way too much self belief in their actions, justifications and belief, all the while supporting civilian populations may quite justifiably imagine that the caliphate they impose will be a good thing. The room for catastrophe and greater despotism is immense.
This does however mean that the West should tread carefully and we do have to be careful in assuming everyone under the black flag is of the same mindset. The Khmer Rouge are a good comparison. Equally, the Taliban documentary showed that those we label as terrorists can quite easily just be normal people, in many ways very similar to us. The form of Islam they follow is just an overlay on a tribal way of life and society that has served them satisfactorally for millennia, while we might be the invaders.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...