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

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)

CNN rolling back that report of 50 now. Nevertheless a horrible scene with all the videos popping up

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-prime-suspect-after-suicide-bombers-kill-41-at-istanbul-airport/ar-AAhJukV?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ansmsnnews11

Now they're saying 41, and suggesting it was ISIS

They've always said it was ISIS. The government suggestion seems to be that 35 people flew in to conduct attacks and there are 33 of them left.

32, rather.

And they lost track of them?

— The three suicide bombers who killed 44 people at Istanbul’s main international airport this week have been identified as citizens of Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Turkish officials said Thursday.

Turkey, which has blamed the Islamic State for the attack, carried out raids across the country on Thursday, detaining 13 people, including three foreigners, in connection with the attack at Istanbul Ataturk Airport on Tuesday night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/europe/istanbul-airport-attack-turkey.html?ref=world

Italy has suspended all arms sales, including important jet repair components, to Egypt following the murder of Giulio Regeni. Would be good to see other countries following that lead.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/italys-regeni-amendment-cancels-sales-military-goods-egypt-over-students-killing-1492370765

Conflicting reports but it looks like there may have been a bombing in Medina, of all places, half an hour ago.

The Saudis have plenty of enemies who'd like to embarrass them.

Most of them would think twice about bombing the holiest or second holiest site in Islam though.

Once you've talked yourself into bombing hundreds of places and killing a few thousand of your fellow religionists, it is not such a huge step to convince yourself that bombing pilgrims at Medina could be a good plan.

getting a bit four lions

Sad how inevitable this feels

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/03/the-worst-alleged-isis-attack-in-days-is-the-one-the-world-probably-cares-least-about/?tid=pm_world_pop_b

Written before the Medina bombing I think. This is about the Baghdad ones.

Public anger in the Iraqi capital, as my colleague Loveday Morris reports, is not being directed at foreign conspirators or even — first and foremost — at the militants, but at a much-maligned government that is failing to keep the country safe.

"The street was full of life last night," one Karrada resident told The Washington Post, "and now the smell of death is all over the place."

been surprised/bummed that the Medina attack has been buried in the US press, I know it's not the first time terrorists have attacked one of the holy cities but still

Something I've been thinking about lately, how a lot of terrorism or suicide bombings and other mass violent acts are taking place or originate in places that had previously seen long stretches of relative stability at the expense of freedom or democracy. That is, lots of places where strong-arm dictators or clans with terrible rights records successfully (?) suppressed bloody factionalism. Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Just locked up (or killed) whomever they deemed troublemakers. Is it the sloppy nature of their so-called liberation that has more recently opened/reopened the flood gates, or simply the loosening of the lid?

Anyway,I doubt I expressed it well - rushing our the door - but can there be any solution to this kind of sort of pure, apolitical terrorism - that is, no clear, achievable goal - beside violent suppression, the way it used to be? How come a democracy like India, with a huge poverty problem and plenty of religious conflicts, generally avoids this kind of stuff? How about Iran, which fuels and embraces extremism but has somehow kept things (relatively) stable, and huge mass violent events minimal?

iirc from the Lawrence Wright book, an attack on Mecca was sort of a foundational moment for what became Al Qaeda

1000 Saddams

imperfect (as bissell stuff often is) but some interesting stuff and v. readable:
http://harpers.org/archive/2016/07/my-holy-land-vacation/?single=1`

xp Josh: Westerners often forget that our own transition from repressive states/lords and tribal/sectarian animosities to tolerant democracies took centuries of bloodshed, (hopefully) exhausting itself only in the 20th century. We still have pogroms at the fringes. That others would embrace our own End of History in scant generations, especially where it conflicts with tribal/pastoral traditions, was wildly ambitious.

President Obama will deploy 560 troops to Iraq to help retake Mosul, the largest city controlled by the Islamic State, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter announced on Monday. It is the latest escalation of the United States’ role in the war here by Mr. Obama, who ran for office on a pledge to end America’s involvement in the conflict.

The additional troops will bring the official number of American service members deployed in Iraq to 4,647. Many will be based at an airfield about 40 miles south of Mosul that was seized by the Iraqis on Saturday.

...American commanders plan to use the base, Qayyarah West Airfield, as a staging area to provide logistical support to Iraqi forces as they move toward Mosul. Some of the troops specialize in infrastructure support like building bridges, which the Iraqis will need for the assault on Mosul because the Islamic State has destroyed many around the city. The Islamic State seized Mosul in June 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/world/middleeast/us-iraq-mosul.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-1&action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article