ISIS / IS / ISIL / The Islamic State

Excuse my ignorance but why do the media refer to them as the 'so-called Islamic State'?

Excuse my ignorance but why do the media refer to them as the 'so-called Islamic State'?

Because no other "nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government" considers them to be "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government."

Mainly because they're not a state - the thinking is that it offers them a legitimacy they do not deserve. They are some way from UN recognition at this point

Thank you both, thought it was something along them lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_bracket#ISIS_Drive

Also because it's said that the so-called Islamic State not Islamic, although presumably they'd disagree with that.

Microcosm fail

In the sense that say, a load of people who called themselves Christians got together and followed the most horrendous old testament doctrines they could find, they would be deemed 'unchristian', even though technically they are doing things 'by the book'.

Which is the main thrust of the Atlantic article. Kinda. Maybe.

Nope. Although don't tell me. Going to get this.

Spoilt it! Was stuck thinking how Octalink would have been related or if it were because of the exploding diagram.

Various opinions on bombing Syraq:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/syria-airstrikes-cameron-case-highly-contentious

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/jeremy-corbyn-labour-mps-airstrikes-syria-isis

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/syria-airstrike-case-david-cameron-seven-points-analysis

Only Grauniad links, as I'm fairly predictable, but I expect there's enough warmongering tub-thumping out there in the rest of the press to fill your boots.

Let's try the other side of the coin.

Let's say the great powers, including Russia, all just backed off and left Daesh alone. What would you expect to happen?

Let's also say the west backed off and Russia didn't. What would you expect to happen then?

Edit to add - I'm not expressing an opinion for or against, I just want to know what people think would be the outcome of not intervening.

https://vimeo.com/61849275?from=outro-embed

It's pretty well accepted by serious commentators that bombing by 'great powers' almost always leads to increased recruitment for these sorts of groups. So I guess recruitment would be down? Attacks like Paris are specifically designed to encourage these kinds of kneejerk bombing campaigns which kill civilians and feed the narrative being peddled.

I'm never a fan of appeals to the authority of unnamed 'serious commentators'. But sure, that's maybe one outcome. What about in Syria and Iraq? What if Daesh managed to wrest control of all of Syria? What might that look like?

Didn't Noam Chomsky predict all of this in the 70's?

I wouldn't recommend not intervening, and I can't say I've heard any serious commentators suggest not intervening. The aim of those opposed to nonsensical air campaigns is simply to have a proper UN mandate for intervention, to restore some semblance of international law in these cases.

The idea 'we bomb and a ground-based guerrilla outfit whom we support will sort out the aftermath' simply wouldn't work. That would only mean that civil war would continue to simmer under the surface even if it could ever end (there is no guerrilla campaign in the world which isn't bitterly opposed by some).

A negotiated peace settlement which brings lasting peace and stability and would be accepted by all could only be brokered by the UN. Needless to say, certain Western powers have no interest in bringing stability to the region, as this would mean an increased oil price.

However that may be (and I'm obviously not naïve about the UN's capabilities), it is very important to move away from the Bush Jr. way of starting illegal wars just to remove a formerly compliant American puppet governor who knew too much about the Bushes and their cronies--oligarchy at its worst.

Off the top of my head Louise Richardson and Richard English

I'm not sure if they are pro or against intervening in this case but on the specific point I made about kneejerk bombing campaigns they are pretty unequivocal

Simon Jenkins: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/david-cameron-syria-macho-foolish-labour-jeremy-corbyn

Not sure if he argues for or against intervention, but certainly against intervention without a ground campaign.

Another commentator:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner

Albert Pike received a vision, which he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871.

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

Sounds great - got an ETA on this?

Is that a direct quote from his actual letter?

Interesting that he used the terms he did. For context Herzl wouldn't have even been 10.

ISIS, now ETA. Damn who next the IRA?!

The war on Isis continues.

Shit got real.

Let's try the other side of the coin.

Let's say the great powers, including Russia, all just backed off and left Daesh alone. What would you expect to happen?

Depends what you mean by back off. Leave them alone totally or not carry out direct attacks? If you leave them alone totally then either they will succeed and establish a power block, or local groups will fight them for power and absorb them and their supporters into their ranks.

I've heard some interesting arguments and explanations recently for the rise of Islamic extremism. One that has really struck me is that it is rooted in the under representation of the Islamic states on the world stage after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Tied to that is also the lack of stability caused by the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the West's subsequent medeling.

Linking this to your question... The logic is that you need to stabilise these countries and empower them. This can only be done by the local/regional groups. That then means that a proxy war makes the mors sense than direct action. Ultimately though in this argument you need to allow stronger Islamic states to exist and allow them a voice on the world stage.