ISIS beheads 21 Coptic Christians in Libya that were Egyptians....

Yeah, remember that those nations and their borders were essentially Western creations . . . that is definitely part of ISIL's program. They made a video in which they symbolically erased the Sykes-Picot line. The names "Iraq," "Jordan," and "Syria" really mean nothing to them, and, as 50 said, to others of their ilk.
 
The nation-state has been unraveling over the past few decades and ISIL is an example of the rise of non-state actors and the on-going damage they can cause. I just think this is an example of "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." If ISIL can create enough chaos to make established nation states less secure, they create an opportunity to chip away at the power structures that maintain those nation states. I don't know what the ultimate goal of that would be except to return the Middle East to a world of smaller communities and economies that could resist the West. I believe ISIL (and perhaps some radical Islamists) believe the nation-state is an invention of the West and does not suit the needs of the populations of the Middle East (all conjecture on my part). If push comes to shove, my guess is every established government in the Middle East (and the world) would band together--regardless of religion--to rub groups like ISIL out because of the threat to order.

What they say - a Caliphate, an ever expanding Caliphate. ISIS --> ISIL --> ISILANA --> ISIILANAT --> ISPIILANATE...
 
Funny thing is that when the partition took place it was over cheap oil for the Royal Navy. The end game to maintain the British Empire.

Cheap oil vs the traditions people held held for centuries

The cheap land of Western N American continent vs the traditions people held for centuries
........................

In that light the fight makes a little more sense.
ISIL = Geronimo's last stands ???
 
What they say - a Caliphate, an ever expanding Caliphate. ISIS --> ISIL --> ISILANA --> ISIILANAT --> ISPIILANATE...

Given that their successes so far have been in an already rebel-held part of a state in the midst of civil war and in a borderline failed state without a functioning military, I'm not sure what their game plan would be when it comes to achieving that.
 
Given that their successes so far have been in an already rebel-held part of a state in the midst of civil war and in a borderline failed state without a functioning military, I'm not sure what their game plan would be when it comes to achieving that.

Notwithstanding, their goal is their goal.
 
"...Centuries have passed since the wars of religion ceased in Europe, and since men stopped dying in large numbers because of arcane theological disputes. Hence, perhaps, the incredulity and denial with which Westerners have greeted news of the theology and practices of the Islamic State. Many refuse to believe that this group is as devout as it claims to be, or as backward-looking or apocalyptic as its actions and statements suggest.

Their skepticism is comprehensible. In the past, Westerners who accused Muslims of blindly following ancient scriptures came to deserved grief from academics—notably the late Edward Said—who pointed out that calling Muslims “ancient” was usually just another way to denigrate them. Look instead, these scholars urged, to the conditions in which these ideologies arose—the bad governance, the shifting social mores, the humiliation of living in lands valued only for their oil.

Without acknowledgment of these factors, no explanation of the rise of the Islamic State could be complete. But focusing on them to the exclusion of ideology reflects another kind of Western bias: that if religious ideology doesn’t matter much in Washington or Berlin, surely it must be equally irrelevant in Raqqa or Mosul. When a masked executioner says Allahu akbar while beheading an apostate, sometimes he’s doing so for religious reasons.

Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”..."
 
...According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

All Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad’s earliest conquests were not tidy affairs, and that the laws of war passed down in the Koran and in the narrations of the Prophet’s rule were calibrated to fit a turbulent and violent time. In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”...
 
This could be a turning point. Just in the last month, France has renewed interest in fighting. Egypt conducted strikes for the first time in decades, and Japan is beefing up their military ready to fight for the first time since WWII.

It's unfortunate those Coptic Christians got beheaded, but up until today, the Egyptian Army had no desire to work with us against ISIS. Now perhaps they and Libya will wake up and join the fight.

Iran is also a wildcard. If it's true we've been negotiating a deal with Iran about their nuclear program, they could step in and use force against ISIS, because they don't want their own dictatorship to crumble because of ISIS fighting within their borders.
 
Iran is also a wildcard. If it's true we've been negotiating a deal with Iran about their nuclear program, they could step in and use force against ISIS, because they don't want their own dictatorship to crumble because of ISIS fighting within their borders.

Iran isn't a wild card, if ISIL becomes a threat to them, they'll fight them. Shiites don't like radical Sunnis. Much less the other Persian vs Arab issues.
 
The author of the article discusses various strategies - landing particularly in favor of a containment strategy, but not discounting a hawkish land/air assault due to ISIS not being Al Qaeda. For the Caliphate to exist and draw Muslims to its fight it has to have a "state." Maybe that can work - especially if the forces are large and predominately Muslim themselves. Fascinating article.
 
Back
Top