Originally Posted by Mikebert

I disagree

I agree with this. The reason for the difference is in the names of the two groups. ISIS is the Islamic State. Being a state means they have a return address. They don't want to threaten America too much because massive retaliation would make a state impossible, they would have to return to just being another terrorist group.

Maybe, but I think unlikely. Why assume this? They are terrorists, and their aim is to attack America and our allies, and to establish a caliphate over all Muslim lands. I don't assume they are smart enough to know that attacks on Americans will be counter-productive to their goal of establishing the caliphate. If they are that smart, they would not be continuing their attacks and trying to expand indefinitely. They would be satisfied with their new state as it is and turn to diplomacy. No, I think their goal is to attack and destroy the infidels. The best we can say of them is that they are a new Taliban, which did rule a state; but more expansionist, brutal and fanatical even than the Taliban.

Al Qaeda is a database, an incorporeal object. How do you bomb data? AQ is a brand that describes a certain kind of military religious order. AQ is characterized by a decentralized, cell-based structure. Although America can and did kill individuals in AQ, the meme would (and did) survive. After spending more than trillion dollars fighting two ground wars and countless drone and air attacks, the US is no further to restoring the pre-AQ world than they were after 911.

Well, true, but we hope a little or somewhat closer. And we are more on our guard.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If that is true then ISIS will b destroyed in the next few weeks. I don't think that is going to happen.

It will take a while for Sunnis inside the IS to realize what has happened to them as a result of their support for the IS. It will take a while for Sunnis inside this oppressive regime to organize and get help.

Who said it was a compliment? I am questioning the assumption, common amongst progressives, that anyone who opposes the liberal democratic Western order is crazy.

That's true, they aren't necessarily crazy, but some who do so are crazy, or pathological, or some variant of it. Hitler for example was crazy in some ways but capable and talented in other ways.

That's democratic government. Before that Western states (were) governments, just not a democratic ones. But before the late 12th century Western states did not have governments at all. The King was simply the warlord with the royal bloodline. In Germany the emperor was elected by the warlords. In France the king controlled only a small portion of the country. Government still existed in the Byzantine and Arabian empires.

That's true, but then you can't say The West consisted of "failed states," because such states did not exist yet, and so had never been "successful." History had not reached that stage. There had been empires, which were simply the boundaries of the conquests by the most successful warlords, and then there were religious authorities and religious empires as well as small warlords in the Age of Faith that followed the Age of Empires. States were in the process of formation in the 12th century, and the first strong secular monarchies were created at the end of the 13th century/early 14th, followed by others in the 15th century.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

America and Britain got the Jewish physicists for obvious reasons, and the German scientific effort faltered badly.

As for delivering an atom bomb, the Germans had a very good method of getting it anywhere on the Atlantic, Gulf, or Pacific coast: submarines which could have deposited it by laying it as if a mine or firing it as a torpedo. Of course, they never got The Bomb, so a delivery by submarine became moot.

Is this real or a hoax?

Japanese Super Submarine From World War II Finally Discovered

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4375090.html
…"The submarine, an I-400, has been missing since 1946. It was the largest (400 feet) and most innovative of its day, capable of voyaging one and a half times around the world without refueling and deploying three bombers, each with a 1,800-pound bomb, within minutes of surfacing.”...

It's real. I believe I posted about those submarines in the past.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Same rules for Israel then?

But why should we break any ties with Israel?

That would make as much sense as breaking ties with Britain would have done 70 years ago.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's true, but then you can't say The West consisted of "failed states," because such states did not exist yet, and so had never been "successful."

The Roman state was the state that had failed. It had established a tradition of government in Spain, France and England that is longer than our own. It failed utterly in England in the fifth century. It is true that Germany never had been part of the Roman empire, and so the lack of government in German (and points east and north) could not be considered as due to a failed state, but I was talking about Western Europe, which in typically means those portions of Europe that had been part of the Roman Empire. Germany and Scandinavia become part of the West after they develop government even though they were never Roman, because they had linguistic and cultural similarities to the Franks, English and because it had adopted Catholic rather than Orthodox Christianity.

Saxon England enjoy a unified state, peace and a cultural flourishing in the reign of Edgar the Peaceful, it did not long survive, they failed to provide the primary purpose for government, to maintain the peace against external invasion and insurrection. They were conquered by Danes (1016), Normans (1066) and endured "The Anarchy" (1138-1153) before government was re-established under Henry II.

There had been empires, which were simply the boundaries of the conquests by the most successful warlords,

Some empires were like this, e.g. Mongols, Viking, Zulus, but not all. The Chinese and Roman Empires had very long traditions of government. The former generated it all on their own; the latter borrowed some things from the Greeks. The Arabs, Persians, Parthians, Selucids, Medes and old Persians all ruled over overlapping areas with a very long tradition of government beginning with the Assyrians in the 8th cent BC. I believe the Incas had a government, but a very peculiar one, in which dead men held considerable power.

I should probably talk about a definition of government. I follow the notions of Berman who dates the rise of the Western legal traditions and the government this law supports in the 12th and 13th centuries. Berman makes three points:

1. The Papal Revolution gave birth to the modern Western state-the first example of which, paradoxically, was the church itself
2. Governmental and legal institutions similar to those that had been developed first by the papacy and later were later adopted by the secular kingdoms of Sicily, England, Normandy, and France: a treasury, a judiciary, a chancery, and other departments; civil and criminal and other branches of law; adjudication, legislation, and other institutional processes of legal development.
3. A combination of political and the intellectual factors helped to produce modern Western legal systems, of which the first was the new system of canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. Subsequently and often in rivalry with it, the European kingdoms and other polities began to create their own secular legal systems. At the same time there emerged in most parts of Europe free cities, each with its own governmental and legal institutions, forming a new type of urban law. In addition, feudal (lord-vassal) and manorial (lord-peasant) legal institutions underwent systematization, and a new system of mercantile law was developed to meet the needs of merchants engaged in intercity, interregional, and international trade. The emergence of these systems of feudal law, manorial law, mercantile law, and urban law clearly indicates that not only political and intellectual but also social and economic factors were at work in producing what can only be called a revolutionary development of legal institutions.

So by government I mean the development of institutional structures in which state functions are handled by professionals and not members of the warlord's family or posse, plus a body of law that is the "work product" of government. After all, what do we elect to run our modern governments? Mostly legislators, who not surprisingly, are mostly lawyers.

So government exists where there are (1) bureaucracies and (2) bodies of well-developed law. The first was invented by the Assyrians, who can be thought of as the inventors of government. The state is thousands of years older. Some time ago I posts by scheme of mega-awakenings. The development of government is associated with the first of these in around 600 BC (Assyrian empire ended in 612, Draconian law codes in Athens from ca. 621 BC, Solon's revisions early 6th cent, Roman republic founded 509 BC). The Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious tradition began around then as (traditionally) did Confucianism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.

The rise of the Modern West dates from the period between the Cluniac and Mendicant mega awakenings, as I outlined in the pre-1435 thread.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But why should we break any ties with Israel?

That would make as much sense as breaking ties with Britain would have done 70 years ago.

Israel is all take and no give. They even frustrate our actions in the region at times. By your standard, what do we owe them?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It will take a while for Sunnis inside the IS to realize what has happened to them as a result of their support for the IS. It will take a while for Sunnis inside this oppressive regime to organize and get help.

They are going to turn on those sociopaths -- and quite possibly do to IS what IS did to them. Cruelty entices harsh retribution. "Foreign fighters" could be judged against both Islam and the countries that they came from. It may be that the liberal Western societies are the ones in which a Muslim can most freely act in accordance with a conscience informed by Islam.

That's true, they aren't necessarily crazy, but some who do so are crazy, or pathological, or some variant of it. Hitler for example was crazy in some ways but capable and talented in other ways.

Hitler was cruel, vindictive, and above all bigoted. He was deeply involved in all planning. He was a quick study on economics and military equipment. He initially sized his enemies up well. He could as easily exploit guilt and war-fear in his intended victims.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The Roman state was the state that had failed. It had established a tradition of government in Spain, France and England that is longer than our own. It failed utterly in England in the fifth century. It is true that Germany never had been part of the Roman empire, and so the lack of government in German (and points east and north) could not be considered as due to a failed state, but I was talking about Western Europe, which in typically means those portions of Europe that had been part of the Roman Empire. Germany and Scandinavia become part of the West after they develop government even though they were never Roman, because they had linguistic and cultural similarities to the Franks, English and because it had adopted Catholic rather than Orthodox Christianity.

Saxon England enjoy a unified state, peace and a cultural flourishing in the reign of Edgar the Peaceful, it did not long survive, they failed to provide the primary purpose for government, to maintain the peace against external invasion and insurrection. They were conquered by Danes (1016), Normans (1066) and endured "The Anarchy" (1138-1153) before government was re-established under Henry II.

Rome failed, after centuries of success, but I don't consider it a "state" of the same kind that developed in the late medieval times. It was an empire = the boundaries of the latest conquest. It was not a dynasty and had no relation to the peoples conquered. It did have law and government, but it was not a state. The failed state of Rome was not just any failed "state," it was the climax and the end of the age of empires.

Some empires were like this, e.g. Mongols, Viking, Zulus, but not all. The Chinese and Roman Empires had very long traditions of government. The former generated it all on their own; the latter borrowed some things from the Greeks. The Arabs, Persians, Parthians, Selucids, Medes and old Persians all ruled over overlapping areas with a very long tradition of government beginning with the Assyrians in the 8th cent BC. I believe the Incas had a government, but a very peculiar one, in which dead men held considerable power.

I should probably talk about a definition of government. I follow the notions of Berman who dates the rise of the Western legal traditions and the government this law supports in the 12th and 13th centuries. Berman makes three points:

So by government I mean the development of institutional structures in which state functions are handled by professionals and not members of the warlord's family or posse, plus a body of law that is the "work product" of government. After all, what do we elect to run our modern governments? Mostly legislators, who not surprisingly, are mostly lawyers.

So government exists where there are (1) bureaucracies and (2) bodies of well-developed law. The first was invented by the Assyrians, who can be thought of as the inventors of government. The state is thousands of years older. Some time ago I posts by scheme of mega-awakenings. The development of government is associated with the first of these in around 600 BC (Assyrian empire ended in 612, Draconian law codes in Athens from ca. 621 BC, Solon's revisions early 6th cent, Roman republic founded 509 BC). The Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious tradition began around then as (traditionally) did Confucianism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.

So maybe you mean a failure of government.

You said

Standard operating procedure at one time. Before the rise of the Western form of government Europe consisted of what we today would call failed states, like Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and now Syria. And the great empires that co-existed and preceded this period were also brutal by modern standards.

I don't disagree, if you mean by "preceded this period," preceded medieval Europe. The Muslim and Arab countries have little history of modern democracy, and there is brutality there; although these countries you mention had been "states" with functioning governments before, and Europe had been preceded by an Empire. The age of great empires had governments, but were not states as we know them today.

We can tolerate the brutality of an Assad, a Saddam, or a Taliban, if they don't threaten others and ourselves. But Assad's brutality was such that he opened the way for the most brutal and backward "state" possible to take root in his country, the IS; and the Taliban created just what the IS now creates, a safe haven for terrorists that did, can and will attack the USA and our allies. I understand, brutality is more common there. But I'm not sure how much of this backwardness we can safely allow. Can the USA cure it? No, their own movements like the Arab Spring will eventually cure it, and we can help them in this movement if they ask us to, but we can't fight their battles for them.

And if the terrorists or their state DO attack the USA, it has the right to strike back. Just how, and to what extent, is of course debatable.

The rise of the Modern West dates from the period between the Cluniac and Mendicant mega awakenings, as I outlined in the pre-1435 thread.

Yes I agree.

I tend to agree with Hillary on this one.

quote:

The Islamic State (ISIS) has the potential to be more dangerous to the United States than al-Qaida if its advance is not stopped, said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The potential 2016 presidential candidate said President Barack Obama made the right decision to launch a military offensive against the extremist group in Syria and Iraq, The Washington Post reported.

"It's a serious threat because this is the best-funded, most professional, expansionist jihadist military force that we have ever seen," Clinton told the Economic Club of Chicago, according to the Post. "This is far more advanced and far richer than al-Qaida ever was."

She added that the group "will attempt to launch attacks against Western targets if it has the ability to do so."

Clinton also predicted that Congress would take "some kind of legislative action" when it reconvenes after the November election.

Last week, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that Obama ignored his and Clinton's advice to arm Syrian rebels in 2012 as a means of preventing the rise of the militant group.

This summer, Clinton openly blamed Obama's foreign policy for creating the conditions for the jihadists to take over much of Iraq.

She said in an interview published in The Atlantic in August, that it was Obama's refusal to "build up a credible fighting force" which led to the rise of ISIS.

"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against [Syrian leader Bashar] Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," Clinton said.

But last month she downplayed divisions, saying she backed Obama's strategy in Syria to arm rebels and conduct airstrikes.

"Whatever the debates might have been before, this is a threat to the region and beyond," Clinton said, according to CNN. "The situation now is demanding a response and we are seeing a very robust response."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Hil...#ixzz3FfpAMM9K

Originally Posted by Mikebert

...
So AQ killed Americans in New York, while ISIS kills Americans who fall into their clutches. AQ gains from exploding a dirty bomb in the US. ISIS does not.

I understand the state/state-less paradigm but what makes you assume that ISIS would behave as a state in a manner that would pose the self-constraints you assume?

What possible information or credentials do you have that allows any confidence whatsoever in this conjecture about ISIS internal motivations, rationality, and self constraint?

Even if you were a former religious nut case yourself, do you really believe your experience is necessarily applicable to people of not only a different religion, but culture, history and therefore likely completely different psychology?

Good questions, to which I would add; do we really want to sit back and allow another and even more powerful "state" just like the Taliban in the heart of the Middle East; one which may be even more ruthless and aggressive than the Taliban state? One which may be an even-more powerful base for anti-Western terrorists than the Taliban was?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

They are going to turn on those sociopaths -- and quite possibly do to IS what IS did to them. Cruelty entices harsh retribution. "Foreign fighters" could be judged against both Islam and the countries that they came from. It may be that the liberal Western societies are the ones in which a Muslim can most freely act in accordance with a conscience informed by Islam.



Hitler was cruel, vindictive, and above all bigoted. He was deeply involved in all planning. He was a quick study on economics and military equipment. He initially sized his enemies up well. He could as easily exploit guilt and war-fear in his intended victims.

It is ironic that Muslims are more free to act in the West ( and particularly in the US), while some of the radical Islamic groups want to attack the US. I will feel better when the other Muslims do attack and destroy ISIL.

Hitler did 'well' in the beginning, but seems to have lost control in the invasion of Russia.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I disagree

I agree with this. The reason for the difference is in the names of the two groups. ISIS is the Islamic State. Being a state means they have a return address. They don't want to threaten America too much because massive retaliation would make a state impossible, they would have to return to just being another terrorist group.

Al Qaeda is a database, an incorporeal object. How do you bomb data? AQ is a brand that describes a certain kind of military religious order. AQ is characterized by a decentralized, cell-based structure. Although America can and did kill individuals in AQ, the meme would (and did) survive. After spending more than trillion dollars fighting two ground wars and countless drone and air attacks, the US is no further to restoring the pre-AQ world than they were after 911.

ISIS needs the US to fight them if they are to accomplish their goal. To gain control of Syria and Iraq they will make many enemies in the region. To offset them they need outside recruits and a unifying theme. By bringing Satan into the conflict they can paint anyone who opposes them as Satanic. After all America is the enemy of ISIS. Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, any local group that opposes ISIS is a friend of America.

But ISIS doesn't want America to fight too hard, because they cannot found their Caliphate upon smoking ruins. AQ wasn't trying to conquer anything so they did not care how hard the US attacked them. AQ had no interest in central Asia, their target was 2000 miles away, well out of the war region.

So AQ killed Americans in New York, while ISIS kills Americans who fall into their clutches. AQ gains from exploding a dirty bomb in the US. ISIS does not.

Kill them now. Kill them later. That's the choice. Dollars and cents wise, it's cheaper to kill them now than killing them later.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Israel is all take and no give. They even frustrate our actions in the region at times. By your standard, what do we owe them?

We owe them the same loyalty we owed our #1 ally, the British, in World War II - and why should they give back the land that the Arabs lost because the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem bet on the wrong horse in that same war?

Why if I lost a bet at Belmont Park and went to the mutuel window and tried to get my money back, the Pinkertons would severely pummel me about the head and shoulders, and I would be even worse off than I was before - which accurately sums up what happened to the Arabs first in 1949 (when they lost the Negev) and again in 1967 (when they lost Judea, Samaria, and Gaza).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

We owe them the same loyalty we owed our #1 ally, the British, in World War II - and why should they give back the land that the Arabs lost because the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem bet on the wrong horse in that same war?

Why if I lost a bet at Belmont Park and went to the mutual window and tried to get my money back, the Pinkertons would severely pummel me about the head and shoulders, and I would be even worse off than I was before - which accurately sums up what happened to the Arabs first in 1949 (when they lost the Negev) and again in 1967 (when they lost Judea, Samaria, and Gaza).

Because conquests are not necessarily legitimate in today's world, for foreign affairs is not a casino.

We don't owe Israel anything; they owe us a great deal. They are holding up their own peace process by continuing to occupy and conquer Arab lands.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So maybe you mean a failure of government.

The modern term "failed state" means lack of government. Technically a warlord capable of maintaining control over a specific territory is a state. All states in in the pre-government era (e.g. Eqypt up to the Persian conquest) were "warlord states".

And as there are different kinds of states with varying levels of government, there are varying kinds of governments with various levels of externally-validated legitimacy.

In a world where are almost all governments were autocracies, a government was legitimate if the king was legitimate. Hence the frequent struggles over legitimacy of heirs.

In modern times, a more scientific, empirical test has been substituted for bloodline legitimacy. For example, in our own country the struggle for the successor to William VII between Albert and the future George VI was resolved by the counting of hanging chads and suspected judicial skullduggery. The result was questionable, but there was no war as in 1066, 1138 and 1455.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I understand the state/state-less paradigm but what makes you assume that ISIS would behave as a state in a manner that would pose the self-constraints you assume?

How is ISIS not behaving as a state? Do they not call themselves a state? AQ never did that. Are they not administering law (as they define it) upon the regional population? AQ never did that. They lived apart for the rest of Afghan society and did not seek to impose their own Arab belief upon the local population. Rather, they left that to the Taliban. It was always clear, the Taliban was the state, AQ were GUESTs of the state, As guests that means no meddling. ISIS is different. They do NOT defer to the local tribal rulers. They seek to impose their OWN law. Only states do that.

What constraints, other than self-interest, do you imagine a state operates under?

What possible information or credentials do you have that allows any confidence whatsoever in this conjecture about ISIS internal motivations, rationality, and self constraint?

What credentials are needed. It is self-evident. What I have done is a common tool for solving different problems, a coordinate transformation. For example if you are analyzing flow in a pipe it is useful to shift to cylindrical coordinates. A similarity transform is useful for simplifying certain types of problems. Outside of mathematics this idea is sometimes called paradigm shift or framing. Basically in order to think about something you have to put into in a framework in which you can comprehend the data that the thing is generating. Otherwise all is noise and your thinking will be disordered and useless.

AQ is a cell-based subversive organization and it is useful to think about them as such. To gain insight one can look at examples for history of other subversive organizations. Such organizations want to disrupt, to sow disorder and spark opposition. Hence the aim for splashy "demonstrations". In fact peaceful actions by subversive organizations are often called "demonstrations". Violent ones are consider as terrorism (e.g. Oklahoma bombing or 911).

Now ISIS calls itself a state, while AQ never did. And ISIS acts like a state while AQ never did. To assume that ISIS is a subversive organization like AQ is sloppy thinking. Why not take them at their word and consider them as a state? States are frequently brutal evil things (e.g. Nazi Germany). Warlord-states like that established by the Great Heathen Army in England over 865-870 or William the first in 1066-71 are also brutal. Lawarence of Arabia was a scholar of medieval warfare and found the mode of understanding that comes from the study of medieval warlords useful into forging the Arabian tribes into a potent fighting force during WW I. Most of his fellow British officers could not understand the Arabs, by looking far enough back into the British past Lawrence found useful analogies.

If you adopt the frame of a medieval warlord, and then put yourself in the shoes of ISIS leaders, what would do? How do you build a state? How can you get other men to flock to your banner, as opposed to those of your enemies? Most warlords achieve this by being a giver of gold (money)? But to become a giver of money you have to take it from someone else, and that takes men, for which you need money. It's the classic bootstrap problem. Without money, you need reputation. Without reputation why should anyone join you? And to achieve reputation you need to take on thge biggest and baddest dude around and get him to take you seriously. By getting Obama to go to war they have accomplished this. Obviously ISIS must really be a big deal if the mighty US deigns to fight them, after previous dissed them as "third rate".

Here is the problem. They ARE third rate. Why should we grant them a status they haven't earned? Well we have, that's water under the bridge. Now we wait to see how well the analogy works. Does ISIS go away or do jihadists flock to their banner?

But ISIS has a long way to go. They have to get the US to send in ground troops. The US can bomb for 50 years. They need to get us to deploy troops. Only in that way will America (who fear death and cannot tolerate even the death of their soldiers) be persuaded to withdraw. Only then can ISIS gain a reputation as the Arabi state that defeated the crusaders, like the great Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb. And then in some postwar peace process mediate by the local Sunni powers, they will have the legitimacy to become the rulers of a Sunni Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How is ISIS not behaving as a state? Do they not call themselves a state? AQ never did that. Are they not administering law (as they define it) upon the regional population? AQ never did that. They lived apart for the rest of Afghan society and did not seek to impose their own Arab belief upon the local population. Rather, they left that to the Taliban. It was always clear, the Taliban was the state, AQ were GUESTs of the state, As guests that means no meddling. ISIS is different. They do NOT defer to the local tribal rulers. They seek to impose their OWN law. Only states do that.

What constraints, other than self-interest, do you imagine a state operates under?


What credentials are needed. It is self-evident. What I have done is a common tool for solving different problems, a coordinate transformation. For example if you are analyzing flow in a pipe it is useful to shift to cylindrical coordinates. A similarity transform is useful for simplifying certain types of problems. Outside of mathematics this idea is sometimes called paradigm shift or framing. Basically in order to think about something you have to put into in a framework in which you can comprehend the data that the thing is generating. Otherwise all is noise and your thinking will be disordered and useless.

AQ is a cell-based subversive organization and it is useful to think about them as such. To gain insight one can look at examples for history of other subversive organizations. Such organizations want to disrupt, to sow disorder and spark opposition. Hence the aim for splashy "demonstrations". In fact peaceful actions by subversive organizations are often called "demonstrations". Violent ones are consider as terrorism (e.g. Oklahoma bombing or 911).

Now ISIS calls itself a state, while AQ never did. And ISIS acts like a state while AQ never did. To assume that ISIS is a subversive organization like AQ is sloppy thinking. Why not take them at their word and consider them as a state? States are frequently brutal evil things (e.g. Nazi Germany). Warlord-states like that established by the Great Heathen Army in England over 865-870 or William the first in 1066-71 are also brutal. Lawarence of Arabia was a scholar of medieval warfare and found the mode of understanding that comes from the study of medieval warlords useful into forging the Arabian tribes into a potent fighting force during WW I. Most of his fellow British officers could not understand the Arabs, by looking far enough back into the British past Lawrence found useful analogies.

If you adopt the frame of a medieval warlord, and then put yourself in the shoes of ISIS leaders, what would do? How do you build a state? How can you get other men to flock to your banner, as opposed to those of your enemies? Most warlords achieve this by being a giver of gold (money)? But to become a giver of money you have to take it from someone else, and that takes men, for which you need money. It's the classic bootstrap problem. What works is verything is reputation. Without reputation why should anyone join you--unless

I agree with you that we should treat ISIS/ISIL as a state. If they ever threaten the USA , then we should put an end to the threat.

Originally Posted by radind

I agree with you that we should treat ISIS/ISIL as a state. If they ever threaten the USA , then we should put an end to the threat.

Precisely. As a state, they have a return address. They claim to represent the people within their terrority. If they cannot protect their own people they lose legitimacy and will soon cease to be a state. So if they actually are foolish enough to attack our homeland like AQ did on 911, then we level their capital with B52s packed with whatever is needed to ignite a firetor and kill as many Sunni Arab civilans (and embedded ISIS members) as possible. You kill their people and they lose legitimacy. Tribal leaders have nothing to gain from a tribe of corpses.

This is the difference between a state and a subversive group. The latter does not have support of the people around them, so they must keep a low profile. As a result, bombing the surrounding population does not diminish support for the subversive group. But ISIS has local allies who are of the same ethnicity and culture of ISIS. They are not Arab aliens in a Pashtun population like AQ was. For many they are more legitimate than either the Shia Arab government, or the secular Arab opposition.

"Return to sender, address unkown,
No such number, no such zone."

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How is ISIS not behaving as a state? Do they not call themselves a state? AQ never did that. Are they not administering law (as they define it) upon the regional population? AQ never did that. They lived apart for the rest of Afghan society and did not seek to impose their own Arab belief upon the local population. Rather, they left that to the Taliban. It was always clear, the Taliban was the state, AQ were GUESTs of the state, As guests that means no meddling. ISIS is different. They do NOT defer to the local tribal rulers. They seek to impose their OWN law. Only states do that.

As I remember, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had the same goal as ISIS (the IS): to establish a caliphate. But it is more accurate to call the IS a new Taliban. One was already too many; we don't need another one. But, I guess, "it depends on what the definition of IS, IS."

But ISIS has a long way to go. They have to get the US to send in ground troops. The US can bomb for 50 years. They need to get us to deploy troops. Only in that way will America (who fear death and cannot tolerate even the death of their soldiers) be persuaded to withdraw. Only then can ISIS gain a reputation as the Arabi state that defeated the crusaders, like the great Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb. And then in some postwar peace process mediate by the local Sunni powers, they will have the legitimacy to become the rulers of a Sunni Arab state in the Western Iraq-Syrian region.

That is one way, but it won't happen until after 2025 at least. The US will not send ground troops anywhere until then, in any large numbers. Obama won't send them, so that leaves it to the next turn of the Jupiter cycle (and in less cosmic terms, that also means that the American people are war weary from the previous war cycle and therefore will not approve any such ground invasion for a while). But if they are allowed to establish themselves until then, they will gain status and power. It will be up to other Arabs and Muslims in the region to defeat them on the ground; but we can help, and we need to.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Precisely. As a state, they have a return address. They claim to represent the people within their terrority. If they cannot protect their own people they lose legitimacy and will soon cease to be a state. So if they actually are foolish enough to attack our homeland like AQ did on 911, then we level their capital with B52s packed with whatever is needed to ignite a firetor and kill as many Sunni Arab civilans (and embedded ISIS members) as possible. You kill their people and they lose legitimacy. Tribal leaders have nothing to gain from a tribe of corpses.

Do we really want to wait until they attack and kill thousands of Americans before we lift a finger to help those who are opposing them?

This is the difference between a state and a subversive group. The latter does not have support of the people around them, so they must keep a low profile. As a result, bombing the surrounding population does not diminish support for the subversive group. But ISIS has local allies who are of the same ethnicity and culture of ISIS. They are not Arab aliens in a Pashtun population like AQ was. For many they are more legitimate than either the Shia Arab government, or the secular Arab opposition.

Well, yes BUT AQ also has some support among Arabs, and on the other hand, support for IS among the people there and alliances with them will probably fade quickly because of what they do.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Do we really want to wait until they attack and kill thousands of Americans before we lift a finger to help those who are opposing them?

Did we really want to wait until Japan had first attacked us before we decided to kill millions of them? Or do you subscribe the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war?

...support for IS among the people there and alliances with them will probably fade quickly because of what they do.

Then they will go away, no need for us to do anything.

Look, consider what the Turks are doing. ISIS is not an abstract threat for them. They can actually be observed in action from within Turkey. They could be attacking inside of Turkey within the hour if they decided to do that. If ISIS are the crazed monsters you and Playwrite make them out to be, the Turks should be shitting bricks. Yet, they have a powerful army. They have an air force. Their country is not in civil war. Why aren't they taking decisive action to degrade this threat that is right at their doorstep?

When I see American talking heads 5000 miles away bloviating about the HUGE threat ISIS poses as a justification for war and then I look at the Turks who are only a few miles away not taking any aggressive action, I smell a snow job.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

We owe them the same loyalty we owed our #1 ally, the British, in World War II.

Why? Israel is nothing like Britain. Our country was once part of Britain, we share a common language and history, and we inherited our political, economic and intellectual culture from them. Much of what makes America great is part of this inheritance. We were the second country on earth to industrialize, because we had been part of Britain, who was the first. American entrepreneurs were just like their British counterparts; by the 1790's they had implemented stolen British textile technology in America. With our vast natural wealth and low population density, all we needed to rise to the very top were the cultural tools we got from them.

What might we be like if our mother country been Spain? We might be more like Argentina and less like Canada (like the US and Canada, Argentina and Uruguay are majority white European).

As for Israel, we have different languages, cultures and religion. We inherited nothing from them. They do nothing for us but whine and make demands. If anything, they owe us, we owe them nothing.