Al Qaeda declares war on ISIS

[ironbite]

As awesome as this news is, a lot of innocent people are gonna die first before these two tear each other's throats out.

[VainRobot]

I'm sure the Middle-East will stabilize eventually, but it's important to note that the current geopolitical state of the region has been the result of decolonization, Cold War politics, and post-Cold War fuckery. Not to mention the US-backed ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

Aside from one minor quibble (the Israeli settlements, though deserving of criticism, aren't "ethnic cleansing"), I agree wholeheartedly.  The problem isn't Islam, it's a series of complex geopolitical factors that created a perfect storm for violence to erupt.  There aren't any vices inherent or exclusive to Muslims, just like with any other religion.

What Fred said, the Israeli settlements are deliberately and forcibly displacing Arabs from their homes, which is the very definition of ethnic cleansing.

[Ultimate Paragon]

As awesome as this news is, a lot of innocent people are gonna die first before these two tear each other's throats out.

That's the tragedy.  Much like with Hitler vs. Stalin, or Hussein vs. Khomeini.

Aside from one minor quibble (the Israeli settlements, though deserving of criticism, aren't "ethnic cleansing"),

Depends what you mean by ethnic cleansing. It's a term from Yugoslavia, it basically means forcible population transfer. That is certainly Israel's policy regarding the Palestinians in Jewish Jerusalem, and indeed is probably policy in most of Palestine.

You honestly think what Israel does is comparable to what the Serbs did in the Yugoslav Wars?  Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Israeli settlements, but I also know some Bosniaks who are offended by the comparison.

I agree.  Here are some of my suggestions:

1. Back moderates wherever and whenever possible.  Show the Middle East that radical Islamism ain't the only answer.  If we'd backed the anti-Taliban coalition in the Afghan Civil War, there might not have been a 9/11.

Better solution: stay out. If the US hadn't backed the Taliban into the 90s in the Civil War until they won they wouldn't have. I'm sure it's possible for the US to do good, I'm just not convinced the political system will ever allow a president to.

You're factually wrong.  Yes, the United States did back the Taliban in the Afghan Civil War, but they were only one of many groups of Mujahideen who opposed the illegitimate communist government and received American aid. 

And whatever happened to you wanking all over Jimmy Carter?

2. Take in refugees, and be fair but firm with them.  Protect them from harassment, make them feel welcome, but if they commit felonies, send them back.  Those who violate hospitality don't deserve asylum.

I don't think there's any need to make concessions to racists. The answer is just treat refugees right and any American who doesn't want to gets deported to Congo to find out how he likes it.

You seem to misunderstand me.  It's not about giving concessions to racists, it's a matter of principle.  I'm not against letting refugees in, just against them committing crimes in the countries that took them in.  That's an appalling violation of hospitality.  If another country is kind enough to take you in for your own protection, committing crimes there is the height of ungratefulness.

Besides, if anything. this would deprive the racists of ammo.  A common complaint they make is that criminals from Africa and the Islamic World are being allowed to live in their countries. 

And honestly, they have a point.  Take a look at the Rotherham case.  At least 1,400 children were sexually exploited by a child molester ring over the course of fifteen years.  Why did these monstrous sex crimes go on for so long?  Because perps were mostly Pakistani, and the police were afraid of being called racist.  But all the cover-ups accomplished was to fuel racism.

Cases like this are goldmines for far-right groups all over Europe.  Not just in Britain, either.  Sweden's ridiculously irresponsible immigration policies gave a lot of momentum to the Sweden Democrats, allowing them to become the biggest political party in the country.  It's a similar story for the French National Front, which took 25% of the vote in the 2014 European Parliament elections.  I'm honestly worried that fascism is going to return to Europe.  That's why felonious refugees need to be deported.  If these criminals get sent back, there goes a major component of their propaganda.

3. Make some kind of compromise with Israel.  Offer them something in exchange for dismantling the settlements.

This is essentially the strategy of the BDS movement, yes.

That's not even remotely what I meant.  My own criticism of BDS aside, they're offering a "stick" (which is really more like a "twig"), but no "carrot".  What I'm talking about is offering the Israeli government some kind of reward for ending the settlement in the West Bank.  Allowing them designation as a nuclear-armed state, for example.

4. Try to avoid putting boots on the ground.  It's been demonstrated many times that you can topple tyrants without outright invading them.

Chiefly by letting enough alone.

We "let enough alone" in Iraq in 1991.  How well did that work?

And military intervention succeeded in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, and Mali, among others.

[niam2023]

I remember hearing that the Taliban and ISIS were now fighting?

What happened with that?

[RavynousHunter]

ISIS is probably fighting a two-front war.  Kinda like Germany did during WWI.  Should probably give those krauts a ring and have them tell these morons how well it worked.  And the Germans had the advantage of Prussian leadership and soldiers.

[guizonde]

*in the voice of a cartoon character*

"this won't end well."

[Askold]

I will stand by my comment about the popcorn (I will also stand by my popcorn and eat it ...While standing? ...This metaphor didn't go as planned) because those two groups would have killed innocent people anyway so having them use some of their energy fighting each other will at least mean that they won't unite and become a bigger threat.

Al Qaeda has been near death several times (If 9/11 had been prevented no one in the western world would have remembered them.) but one of their strengths has been the ability to recruit new members into the franchise while ISIS is much more dangerous organization no matter how you measure it, but their advance has been stopped a while ago. Better that they fight each other than unite when their recruiting programs in particular would have had dangerous amounts of synergy and could have allowed ISIS to keep pushing forwards.

[VainRobot]

I remember hearing that the Taliban and ISIS were now fighting?

What happened with that?

From what I've gathered, it was more that a few mid-ranking commanders defected to ISIS rather than ISIS starting a campaign in Afghanistan. Less of a new offensive and more a bit of in-fighting. Given that these two fronts are separated by 1,000 miles, I doubt ISIS is going to make a full-on offensive push there anytime soon.

[Id82]

Absolutely. This just seems like further escalation and violence that the region does not need any more of. It's easy to dehumanize the Middle-East as just that place where conflict happens, but people LIVE THERE. This is going to result in thousands of innocents being displaced or killed.

When two rival gangs in Chicago fight children die in the crossfire. It's no different in Iraq and Syria. Families are going to be broken and this violence will perpetuate more violence.

Dammit Donnie why did you have to go get all smart on us.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I really hope these conflicts end the religious wars when it comes to Islam, just as the Thirty Years' War did when it came to Christianity.

[Eiki-mun]

I really hope these conflicts end the religious wars when it comes to Islam, just as the Thirty Years' War did when it came to Christianity.

You think the Peace of Westfalen ended religious ears among Christians? Not in the least, only in the HRE. France still had another hundred years of religious civil conflict, and most European countries afterward (England, Spain, Sweden) only avoided it due to overwhelming religious majorities.

[Lt. Fred]

I really hope these conflicts end the religious wars when it comes to Islam, just as the Thirty Years' War did when it came to Christianity.

You think the Peace of Westfalen ended religious ears among Christians? Not in the least, only in the HRE. France still had another hundred years of religious civil conflict, and most European countries afterward (England, Spain, Sweden) only avoided it due to overwhelming religious majorities.

And of course then there's WW2.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I really hope these conflicts end the religious wars when it comes to Islam, just as the Thirty Years' War did when it came to Christianity.

You think the Peace of Westfalen ended religious ears among Christians? Not in the least, only in the HRE. France still had another hundred years of religious civil conflict, and most European countries afterward (England, Spain, Sweden) only avoided it due to overwhelming religious majorities.

And of course then there's WW2.

...How exactly was that a religious conflict?

[Lt. Fred]

I really hope these conflicts end the religious wars when it comes to Islam, just as the Thirty Years' War did when it came to Christianity.

You think the Peace of Westfalen ended religious ears among Christians? Not in the least, only in the HRE. France still had another hundred years of religious civil conflict, and most European countries afterward (England, Spain, Sweden) only avoided it due to overwhelming religious majorities.

And of course then there's WW2.

...How exactly was that a religious conflict?

Holocaust.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I really hope these conflicts end the religious wars when it comes to Islam, just as the Thirty Years' War did when it came to Christianity.

You think the Peace of Westfalen ended religious ears among Christians? Not in the least, only in the HRE. France still had another hundred years of religious civil conflict, and most European countries afterward (England, Spain, Sweden) only avoided it due to overwhelming religious majorities.

And of course then there's WW2.

...How exactly was that a religious conflict?

Holocaust.

You know converted Jews died in the Holocaust, right?  Nazi anti-Semitism was primarily motivated by ethnicity, not religion (although they weren't exactly fond of Judaism).