Senate The Middle East Discussion Thread

Wocky, I'm just going to let you go have your aneurysm in peace. I'm not sure why this is so important to you or what the deal is.

 

The deal is that you are letting your opinion of how you think you would act if you were a radical Islamic militant supercede the actual behavior of the particular individuals we are discussing, who have years of public statements and acts on the record. Your argument makes no sense at all.

 

I am truly and sincerely and deeply sorry for having an opinion. Have you never speculated anything in your life? There wouldn't be a right or wrong answer per se.

Do you know that this entire discussion was based on an opinion, right? All we were doing was poking fun at such naming conventions. You do realize that all the ISIS is doing is tearing around Iraq and Syria acting like fools? That they're not even close to installing an actual country? So what they would call their country is all just speculation? E_S and I were just having a bit of fun..."Hey, like how the countries that have republic in their name always act farthest from..."

Unless you were the winning entry in a contest to determine the ISIS's flag, I honestly don't know why this seems to be bothering you so much. Um, what do you want me to say....It's a nice design, and I see why you won?

 

44, what is baffling is that you seem to think after years of ISIS rhetoric against the very concept of democracy, they're going to suddenly decide that the way to win people over is to be pro democracy. No, they're not. They've spent years winning people over by railing against democracy.

What's baffling is thay you seem to think the second they conquer baghdad they're going to take of a mask and go "hah! Fooled you! We're really the Islamic REPUBLIC in Iraq and the Levant."

What's baffling is that you seem to think this is some fun hypothetical exercise coming up with hypothetical names for nonexistent caliphates, but in reality ISIS is a hour away from Baghdad and short Iranian or US intervention they won't be stopped. Stop trying to come up with a flag and a name for people who already have a flag and a name.

 

I'm pretty sure 44 understands that and he has been facetious with his speculating they'll call themselves a republic.

 

Yes, he was being so facetious that he spent over a page defending it.

 

If you give me their mailing address, I'll send them an apology. Maybe a card with that "hang in there" kitty?

This is for you ISIS:





You may just get your country yet!

 

Christ, Wocky and Vivec. Shut all 31 flavours of the "the **** up". Nobody gives a monkey's left nut what they call themselves, do they? At least not now at this moment in time.

Mr44's whole point was about how they should reach out to get state-level support from Russia and China, and having nothing of any ****ing value whatsoever to add, VivecsLaMent (that's a good one, though, come on. Admit it) gets fixated on a point of order that is gloriously, pissingly-in-the-wind immaterial. "Oh, but they're not a real republic!" Neither is North Korea, and I don't notice you buying tickets to Pyongyang to argue the point.

Jesus Motorboating Christ. And if you reply, I'll assume you haven't had your 31 flavours of shut up yet.

Mr44, moving on from the Ministry of Insignificant Distinction's latest white (racist) paper...

Tactically it would make sense to reach out to those two Permanent 5 states, because they're more likely to be welcoming than the French (and who cares about France? I mean, really?), the UK, or USA. However, China's whole thing with Tibet and Taiwan makes it unlikely in my view that they would be amenable to any form of arrangement with this new REPUBLIC OF ISLAMIC HORSE-**** BRUTAL ****KING AUTOCRATS (Seriously, Vivec, Wocky. Look how cross you've made me). Doing so legitimises secessionist behavior which they cannot abide.

Russia has fairly strongly indicated it doesn't support the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ISLAMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN REPUBLICS and whilst they would've been my most likely choice for it they may be laying low after brutally annexing territory.

With that isolation and with the criteria under the Montevideo treaty there's no way they could achieve statehood, even if, say, Iran and Egypt recognised them.

 

Jesus Christ isn't logged onto this thread at the moment, Ender. Either that or he's got us all on ignore like his believers do.

 

Look at how sweary they made me. On a Friday. Hours before Holland v Spain followed by Australia v Certain Defeat Chile.

For.

Shame

 

Liked for the fact you don't share in this colossal delusion that Australia has any chance against anyone in its group.

 

I have a Holland jersey, I'm pinning my hopes on my genetic people rather than geographic or spiritual.

HUP HOLLAND HUP.

Denk niet dat je vergeven, Wocky en Vivec. U bent niet. Je verspild meer van mijn kostbare tijd dan die afleveringen van 'Sons of Anarchy' Ik heb eens gekeken.

 

Yeah, I see that point about China, because China has different long term goals. Russia however could easily parlay such an action into another fly in the ointment to the West.

Long term, it might make sense for Russia to recognize the new state as payback for Syria, but that would be extremely shrewd on the part of Putin. (Although not out of his capability) Syria is one of Russia's last large military equipment customers and satellites. If Syria is out of reach anyway in that regard, Russia might be very well served by recognizing the new DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ISLAMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN REPUBLICS simply out of the fits it would give NATO.

The wild card here would be Iran, because there would be no way Iran would accept a Sunni version of itself right next door, but from Russia's standpoint, I don't see how important Iran remains to be.

 

Eh, Iran can be pragmatic enough when required. Iran funds and trains HAMAS, and they're a Sunni movement. if they see their long term goals of trolling the world, the Jews, and the US can be accomplished with the PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ISLAM aka ISIS, then they won't care about Sunni/Shi'a rivalries.

 

Up with Holland!

 

This current situation in Iraq, though. Holy hell... wasn't it great that a war was recently fought there (led by a certain world power) in order to secure & preserve a prosperous? Not a waste at all!

 

The Netherlands led a recent war in Iraq?

I always knew that Willem-Alexander Ferdinand was a war monger. Why, you really need a REPUBLIC to keep those constitutional Monarchies in line.

 

I take it in your attempts to come up with new fantastical names for ISIS you've overlooked the development where Iran has sent in troops to fight ISIS.

 

Yeah no, I've been at work Vivec, so I haven't read the news in hours. I can however talk SPS231 with you if you want?

I am happy you took time out of wringing your hands over naming conventions to keep up to date though. A breakthrough.

Also, I can't take them seriously if they call themselves ISIS. Because Archer and the band.

 

I'm pretty sure I can't link the video that ISIS/ISIL themselves created, but it's an hour of brutal murders in HD. Whether these people can successfully achieve their agenda, I'm not sure, but they sure as hell can kill thousands of people along the way.

This is serious.

 

Saddam killed 200,000 of the Kurds while he was in power. Casualties of the Iraq War to remove him and afterwards run to over 100,000. Until these guys harm a Western interest, I'd say leave them to work on that record and instead spend some money on the refugee camps that will crop up like daisies around the edges of the war zone. Unless anyone here actually believes the right wingnut boogeyman of a pan-continental Islamic state with all Christians held as dhimmis is in the making here?

 

The formal name of Qatar is just State of Qatar. Because they don't have any insecurity about what they are. They don't feel any need to project an image of being uber democratic.

Similarly, these people here already think themselves a state and are public in announcing their opposition to the very notion of popular will. They don't feel any need of projecting popular legitimacy. They're denouncing the notion, even before they're in power. Which, one has to admit, is ballsy. Your average fundamentalist movement will put on a pretty face and hug babies until they reach power. There's no reason they would call themselves a republic, because they have no aspiration to neither be, nor purport to be one.

 

Ender, this is really sad and disingenuous.

1. You, of all people, are claiming that we are fixating on a small detail? How many times have you done this in a discussion?

2. ISIS is not a hazy, illl-defined thing. It is a specific organization with particular principles and known membership. Substituting actual facts for your lazy assumptions is the sort of thing you usually like to accuse Americans of doing. Are we really rubbing off on you that much?

3. Mr44 claimed we were wrong because no newly formed country would announce their autocratic intentions in their formal name. This is plainly wrong, as probably the closest model we have for what they're trying to accomplish is Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. That was called the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan." Emirates being decidedly undemocratic.

4. Mr44 claimed that Iran calls itself a republic because this signifies they believe their authority derives from God. In fact, the Iranian constitution mandates popular legitimacy by way of elections several times, whereas in Khomeini's early (pre-Revolution) writings about clerical rule, the term "republic" isn't really used to describe it. He's factually wrong.

5.He, like you, inappropriately and incorrectly ignored the actual reason that several Communist bloc states included words like "Democratic" in their names, implicitly arguing it was disconnected from their ideology and instead solely about some sort of public relations ploy. He makes this public relations point multiply and earnestly across the last page. It's wrong.

6. Even if you've been at work, your last point about Iran was very predictably wrong. ISIS is a threat to the Iraqi government in general, and the leadership of Nouri Al-Maliki in particular. Al-Maliki, leader of the Dawa Party that helped fund the Iranian Revolution, and has continued in a mutually supportive relationship with the Iranian government thereafter. Beyond this, ISIS is a trans-national group. In Syria, both Iran and its partners (the Syrian state, Hezbollah, etc) have deployed against it. Even the organizations it has directed resources to but is more loosely connected with (Nusra, Al-Qaeda's legitimate branch in Syria) have fought against it. Why would anyone in their right mind theorize cooperation between Iran and a group that A)formed in opposition to Iran's allies and B)is already fighting Iran in other theaters?

I'd encourage you to look earlier in this same thread. Trying to speak authoritatively (but from memory) about the early stages of post-Baath government in Iraq, I got almost every single particular wrong. When Mr44 offered up a post with almost a half dozen different corrections, do you know what I did? I said alright, apologized for the errors and the discussion moved on. Both you and 44 were wrong here. Is there something so terrible about just saying that?