2014 in Iraq

I don't think that would work out so well either. Region is still basically reeling from the last time the west re-drew everybody's borders.

So now we get IS and Assad redrawing borders instead

Assad and IS can draw them, but it is another thing to make them stick, especially since they have altogether different ideas about the matter.

better people who live there draw their own boarders than a conference on a another continent by people who have never even seen the place.

but we know what's best!

actually - redrawing the mideast does sound like a good bit of fun.

*gets a map and some crayons*

anybody got any good ideas for some new country names? How about Muslimania

Sounds like the people living there lose either way if you folks consider Assad, Isis and a non-elected Shia prime minister (all with questionable funding taken from within their borders via force and or from elsewhere--Saudia Arabia, Quatar, Iran) as better than the West

yes people lose there either way. you can't impose good government on another country by force.

Didn't the US arguably do so in Japan

and Germany, but yes there were not the same ethnic divisions as in the mideast and north Africa

anybody got any good ideas for some new country names? How about Muslimania

― Οὖτις

Miserablemania

actually - redrawing the mideast does sound like a good bit of fun.

― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall)

http://www.mcdonnas.com/mbzc/risk-all.jpg

but yes there were not the same ethnic divisions as in the mideast and north Africa

bingo. a lot to be said for ethnic/religious homogeneity

there might have been less of a sense of betrayal&outrage if sykes, picot et al had never visited, held meetings, made promises etc.

I guess it's still okay to judge a guy based on his rap lyrics in some instances:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/foley-killer-jihadi-john-abdel-majed-abdel-bary.html

The guy who beheaded James Foley is grime rapper L.Jinny (Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary):

Or maybe not?

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/08/25/lead-pkg-paton-walsh-who-killed-james-foley-isis.cnn.html

Ugh, Sotloff now reported to be beheaded.

Ugh. And now they're threatening to kill a Brit they're holding next.

― Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Sunday, August 10, 2014 2:53 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Islamic State 'has 50,000 fighters in Syria'
Last updated: 19 August 2014
Monitoring group says the Islamic State group recruited 6,000 members in last month alone, including 1,000 foreigners.

The Islamic State group has an army of more than 50,000 fighters in Syria, and recruited 6,000 people in the last month, a monitoring group has said.

Rami Abdel Rahman, the director of the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said on Tuesday that the group's recruitment push was gathering pace every month.

"July saw the largest recruitment since the group appeared in Syria in 2013, with more than 6,000 new fighters," he said. (Via Al Jazeera)

Shit. First quote was Shari Vari estimated IS's numbers at 15,000 or so. Which is the believable statistic? Could they actually gain permanent control of that region?

Here we go:

High estimates for the strength of ISIS are approx 15,000. Low estimates are about 7,000. This contrasts with an Iraqi army of at least 280,000. The Peshmerga could probably get 200,000 together pretty easily. -sharivari, 3 wks ago

It's possible ISIS is starting to benefit from a bandwagon effect, aided on one hand by their military success and on the other by the ferocity with which they massacre all known opponents.

The 15,000 high estimate was being quoted in an number of different places last month. Whether it was correct at the time or remains correct now is a mystery, though. Idk how anyone would know for sure. The fear would be that they could combine with other rebel groups to boost numbers rapidly.

Lots of the Iraqi army fled and abandoned military vehicles earlier when faced with IS

Such a fucked up situation for the people of Iraq and Syria. Part of me still can't believe that this is what's come of Bush's war.

Literally the worst possible outcome.

At the Nato summit, Barack Obama will ask the UK and other members to join its campaign of air strikes against Isis in Iraq.

British planes have already been involved in helping during the Yazidi humanitarian effort. Security experts are divided about how effective air strikes can be, particularly in the absence of ground forces positioned to capitalise on an adversary's displacement. The US has taken encouragement by the ability of Kurdish and Iraqi forces, aided by US airstrikes, to take the critical Mosul Dam away from Isis, which is said to continue to aim at retaking it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/nato-summit-britain-military-options-islamic-state

Part of me still can't believe that this is what's come of Bush's war.

dude people predicted this from the outset

not ISIS specifically but the massive sectarian conflict

They did not predict half the country would be controlled by an al qaeda-esque Salafist "caliphate"

They did!

As a "worst case scenario." I don't think it was Obama's expectation this would happen when he planned to withdraw.

They did not predict half the country would be controlled by an al qaeda-esque Salafist "caliphate"

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stupidly believed that the US was so militarily and economically powerful that whatever they imagined or desired would be realized, thus you may recall their gobsmacking derision of the "reality-based community" that leaked out of the White House in 2004. They were idiots. It was enraging.

One of al-Q's major strategic aims has always been to undermine and destabilize the regimes of the region, especially the pro-Western ones, but they aren't all that picky. You can't revive the caliphate without sweeping aside all of these regimes. I for one was well aware during the buildup to the Iraq War that Bush was playing patsy to al-Q's strategy by removing Saddam Hussein and I said so. I could probably dig up some relevant quotes from ilx if I rummaged around a bit.

Lots of the Iraqi army fled and abandoned military vehicles earlier when faced with IS

― curmudgeon, Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:32 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've read speculation that if IS gets to Baghdad and overthrows Maliki, half their new recruits will turn around and start fragging their IS 'officers' as thanks for the assist in overthrowing the government people throughout the country seemed to loathe.

I've also read this speculation mocked.

true to form, zizek comes through with one of the pointless and stupid comments on ISIS:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/isis-is-a-disgrace-to-true-fundamentalism/

i'm so excited to read that. i have it saved in a browser tab ready for later.

eh, don't give him the clicks

i think his argument is right -- ISIS is a reactionary movement through and through, it defines itself in opposition to the West and its ideology has no real susbtance on its own that would appeal to people. the only issue one could have with it is that zizek is very provocative with his terms. but that's the point of him in 2014:dialectical inversions of the guiding assumptions in liberal discourse + jokes. my god

i still like him though

Jay Michaelson on vengeance, Torah, humanitarian aid, and cold, calculating rage

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/205072/how-do-we-avenge-steven-sotloffs-death/

Isn't a fundamentalist group reactionary by definition?

Also, it seems a bit odd to pretend that when people talk about Christian Fundamentalism they mean the Amish. I mean, sure, they were fundamentalist 300 years ago, now they're just living fossils.

i guess what he is saying is that real fundamentalists wouldn't try to advance their views through politics. which actually doesn't make sense.

also it contradicts his idea that the left should tap into the "radical emancipatory core" of the christian tradition, which he locates in the "fundamental" texts, the gospels. cf

At the very core of Christianity, there is a vastly different project: that of a destructive negativity, which does not end in a chaotic void but reverts (and organises itself) into a new order, imposing it on to reality.

why would amish "indifference" be fundamental christianity then?

also tibetan buddhism does not involve a "the deep indifference towards the nonbelievers’ way of life." there are strands of buddhism that are like that, but most tibetans adhere to the mahayanan school where the point is to help others find enlightenment. maybe zizek just doesn't know what he's talking about

The problem fundamentalists face is that while trying to return to the pure, true faith they can only do so in the context of an ideological opposition. Fundamentalists are more trapped by the modern than reformers.

And that fundamentalism is not expressed by indifference to the unbeliever but obsession with them.

yeah. z is saying that "real" fundamentalism wouldn't be obsessed with the unbeliever but what he really means is that this is all fundamentalism is, which is why it is bankrupt. it's weird he references this idea of "true fundamentalism" when he could just say that ISIS' ideology is self-contradictory and this suggests it will implode