Q: are we not MENA? A: we are the rolling middle east, north africa and other geopolitical hot spots thread 2016!

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/5E02/production/_89866042_wedonotsaytreated.jpg

Entirely believable if you ask me. Makes sense he sought at least some support from his biggest enemy to be able to grab the power. And I could see Carter agreeing on this. Also means he got all the more screwed over by Iran, with a kick in the boot of them releasing the American hostages the day he left office.

interesting counter-intuitive argument here about israel + long term status quo that i more-or-less agree w/ (w/ caveat that israel's ability to maintain longterm status quo should not make them blasé about the costs of doing so):
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-06-08/israel-and-post-american-middle-east

for ultimate counter intuitive:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2016/06/07/What-a-Hillary-Clinton-nomination-means-for-the-Middle-East-.html

Tired of these faux conclusive 'here's what this means' articles tbh, when it's all speculative anyway. But I doubt Israel has a lot to fear from Clinton.

Also, "Middle East" is the new "Africa is a country". The "Middle East" is a hollow, lazy formulation of a complex array of countries, tribes, coalitions, rebels.. That is something H. Clinton will find out the coming four years iirc.

tbf she was the SOS i'm sure she knows :p

One can but hope ;)

i was curious and looked up which potus were sos first, interesting list, no one from modern era: jefferson, madison, monroe, jq adams, van buren and buchanan

Van Buren! Now I want to google and find out if he even knew about/did something for, say, the Kurds.

More casualties of war:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/10/in-about-two-weeks-the-lions-and-leopards-at-this-zoo-in-yemen-may-be-out-of-food/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news%3Apage%2Fin-the-news

Discussion of the phrase "radical Islam"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/14/obama-lashes-out-on-loose-talk-on-terrorism-islam/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

“That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t get ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists,’ ” Obama said, referring to the Islamic State militant group after meeting with his National Security Council at the Treasury Department to discuss the administration's counterterrorism strategy. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The president added: “There’s no magic to the phrase, ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point; it’s not a strategy.”

by the same token there's no reason not to say it. i don't think moderate muslims are impressed by our refusing to call it radical islam when that is clearly what it is and does not tarnish all muslims everywhere just like fundamentalist christians does not tarnish all christians everywhere. to play the devil's advocate a little bit - i'm not sure entirely how much i believe this but i think there is an argument to be made as well that obama has concentrated primarily on the military/assassination part of fighting worldwide radical islam and not enough on the ideological side. this doesn't necessarily mean making the argument that islam is somehow uniquely or inherently given towards radicalism but that at least in most personifications is not as great as american capitalism (or whatever exceptionalism argument he wants to make but that he makes some argument about why our life + freedoms + etc are better than the governments of saudi arabia, iran, iraq, egypt, increasingly turkey, most islamic run states even ones that are not officially 'radical'). idk maybe he's right that such an argument would indeed have a deleterious impact on moderates and obv you don't want to alienate sisi or erdogan no matter how much you might like to (tho probably ilx consensus is we could hold ksa's feet to the fire better). hillary is a much better advocate for america on exceptionalism/ideological grounds probably bc of their differing backgrounds + identities. obama much better at articulating the nuances + problems in the system but idk when you're a world superpower and so much depends on signaling things it matters if you give off the impression that you think the US is a force for good in the world or one w/ a mixed record. i love obama btw and this is one of the things i love about him and like i said this is all more devil's advocate. i suspect that when neocons take this tact they are stuck in a cold war mindset where communism + capitalism were having an actual war of the ideas. in the ideological fields the war between islam and the west is as asymmetrical as the war between isis and the west.

While I agree with you on the whole Mordy, this

i don't think moderate muslims are impressed by our refusing to call it radical islam when that is clearly what it is and does not tarnish all muslims everywhere just like fundamentalist christians does not tarnish all christians everywhere.

does not ring true. It's certainly not the experience of my Muslim friends. For a lot of people a Muslim equates to being radical, at least in Western Europe. Every incident like what happened in Colorado definitely puts moderate Islam in a bind. Moderates will be called upon to denounce an act done by radicals because they share the same religion, even though they have a very different interpretation of said religion, and radical Islam being very far from moderate (moderate means non-violent, non-batshit, in essence, no?) Islam. Fundamental (and batshit insane) Christians don't tarnish moderate Christian. But fundamental/radical Islam definitely tarnishes all Muslims, at least from a western pov.

"For a lot of people Islam equates to being radical", I meant to say

colorado?

Orlando soz

xxp right but i mean they have legitimate things to worry about (islamophobic backlashes, their kids becoming radicalized) but i don't think obama taking care not to say 'radical islam' sets them at ease in any way. they know who isis is - they're not confused that actually maybe they aren't an islamic organization. not calling it radical islam just seems like playing stupid for no conceivable gain. idk i would be interested in hear a muslim weigh in on this - maybe it is a small comfort, idk.

they're not confused that actually maybe they aren't an islamic organization

They're denounced as un-Islamic by moderate Muslims all the time. How right or wrong that is another matter.

ppl are whatever they say they are, is how I look at it.

Listen, the BBC call them the So-Called Islamic State, that's their policy, that's how they are referred to ALL the time, what would the Trumpingtons make of that? It does get on your nerves admittedly.

calling them un-islamic is a way to try and capture the legitimacy + meaning of the religion and setting terror outside the parameters of mainstream islamic discourse but it's not that they don't know that isis is islamic when they say this. they know they aren't communists, or nationalists, or shock capitalists. they're not fascists - al-baghdadi is barely a charismatic figure - and they aren't white supremacists. this is obv a radical + literalist reading of islam. so who is fooled by not referring to them in any way as islamic?

i know isis isn't grinding their teeth that some kafir president is calling them un-islamic. what do stupid westerners know about what islam is?

ISIS models itself after the practices of medieval caliphates, and many of their modern horrors aren't too far removed from bloody episodes of that era. Modern weaponry, sympathizers among poorly integrated immigrants to the West, and a remarkably effective internet propaganda arm are the innovations. Our disgust at stoning adultresses, amputating hands of thieves, beheading suspected spies and burning bomber pilots alive reflects just how far the global standards have advanced. Like other Islamic organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah, I wouldn't be surprised if they also did charity work and contract for trash disposal in the areas they control.

To call them un-Islamic would be like calling Appalachian snake-handling congregations un-Christian, when the later may be the truest modern reflection of what early Pauline Christianity was like.

the thing is, politicians calling them islamic or not is an instrumental decision, not one that is (or should necessarily be) grounded in history of theology.

er i mean, history OR theology

^ otm. The target of the message isn't ISIS or 'moderate Muslims' - it's a handful of angry losers in the west who, for the most part, aren't conventionally religious and don't have a strong grip on theology, but are looking to fit into a grand clash of civilisations narrative to boost their own self-worth. If politicians and other Muslims believe it is useful to undermine that narrative by placing it outside of Islam, whether they have the standing or not is not particularly important.

right-wing American hack Ed Rogers:

The difference is that calling these terrorists what they are — radical Islamists — would be reassuring to those Americans who have doubts about Obama’s proficiency as commander in chief. By using the phrase, it would help build confidence that he actually understands the problem and therefore has a viable plan to defeat the enemy. After all, he is the one who used the term “jayvee team” to describe the Islamic State. He is the one who declared Iraq “sovereign, stable and self-reliant.” He is the one who announced an absurd withdrawal date from Afghanistan. He is the one who took six years to declare the Ft. Hood shooting a terrorist attack and not an incident of “workplace violence.”

So to be clear, using the phrase “radical Islam” isn’t about trying to make the Islamic State “less committed to trying to kill Americans.” Mr. President, it is not about the Islamic State, it’s about you. Your specific refusal to use the term rattles Americans and increases doubts about your grasp of the threat that the Islamic State presents. Islam has a problem, and Obama needs to say so. He needs to help the world come together and work this out — and admitting the problem out loud is an essential step.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/06/15/its-important-the-president-says-radical-islam-heres-why/

It's clear - if I create doubt it's your failure if you don't dispel it.

Yeah it's basically one of those moves I feel like is ok for rhetorical purposes even though it feels incorrect on a more nuanced level.

Saying that they're "unislamic" I mean, sorry, xp, not in response to that op Ed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/obama-radical-islam/487079/

51 US Diplomatics Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/syria-assad-obama-airstrikes-diplomats-memo.html

While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad. The president has resisted such pressure, and has been backed up by his military commanders, who have raised questions about what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power — a scenario that the draft memo does not address.

The State Department spokesman, John Kirby, declined to comment on the memo, which top officials had just received. But he said Mr. Kerry respected the process as a way for employees “to express policy views candidly and privately to senior leadership.”

Tehy are calling for bombing of Assad's government but not US troops on the ground

It calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”

Such a step would represent a radical shift in the administration’s approach to the civil war in Syria, and there is little evidence that President Obama has plans to change course. Mr. Obama has emphasized the military campaign against the Islamic State over efforts to dislodge Mr. Assad. Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, have all but collapsed.

meanwhile: [/I] according to a senior Pentagon official, Russia conducted airstrikes in southern Syria against American-backed forces fighting the Islamic State.[/I]

what a shmuck:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/world/middleeast/mahmoud-abbas-claims-rabbis-urged-israel-to-poison-palestinians-water.html

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/747075591522893826

A joint statement by Turkish and Israeli negotiators announcing a reconciliation deal to be published within hours, Israeli official says

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36639834

The reconciliation deal between Israel and Turkey will see a return to normal diplomatic relations, but ties are unlikely to have the warmth that they did in the past.

It is Turkey's growing diplomatic problems - strategic tensions with Russia; difficulties with Europe due to the growing authoritarianism of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan; and above all the failure of Turkey's Syria policy (which has also soured ties with Washington) - that have prompted this move

And in other news: Erdogan 'sorry' for downing of Russian jet

difficulties with Europe due to the growing authoritarianism of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

is this really why Europe has "difficulties" with Turkey? They seem mostly okay with growing authorianism of various Euro gov'ts (Poland, Hungary, etc.)

authoritarianism, I should say

The President of the European Parliament said the recent Polish constitutional reforms "had the characteristics of a coup" and the European Commission is currently deciding whether it's such a breach of the rule of law Poland should lose all voting rights, so it's not as if they're clapping them on.

I did not know that thx

Opposition leader MK Isaac Herzog accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday of groveling before Turkey, by agreeing to pay out compensation to families of 10 Turkish citizens killed in confrontations with IDF soldier aboard a Gaza-destined flotilla in 2010 as part of a reconciliation deal with Ankara.
"The agreement with Turkey is a part of the pattern of the prime minister's activities. He starts with big declarations, moves on to promises, and winds up groveling," Herzog wrote in a post on his Facebook page.
"Restoring relations with Turkey is an important diplomatic goal but compensating the attackers of IDF troops is inconceivable, especially when those signing onto the deal are the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Bennett trio."

gmafb w/ this guy is he for real? he's trying to outflank bibi on the right by deriding a diplomatic achievement? what a fuckin stooge

Two explosions and gun fire at Istanbul Ataturk airport.

10 dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/world/middleeast/israel-hannibal-procedure.html

this is imo actually v good + unexpected news. have no idea if lieberman has anything to do w/ it but still a v promising shift in policy.

10 dead

At least 28 now. This is a concerted attempt to destroy the Turkish tourist industry and seems to be working. Much wider economic damage though, as companies refuse to let employees visit.

50+ fatalities being reported now

It is most definitely working. See the numbers released earlier today by Turkey (screens in this tweet, last column indicates percentage change in tourists compared to last year). Russia obv down -90%, but nearly all over, people aren't coming any more.

Turkey says it was an IS attack, though it's not been claimed yet. Xp

Oh man (xp)