Inside ISIS: Quietly preparing for the loss of the ‘caliphate’
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Latest map of Shirqat (near Mosul) where there is heavy fighting right now https://i.imgur.com/dxb7BHM.jpg Still months of fighting at least until ISIS loses their Iraq 'caliphate' look at all those towns/cities they still control like Hawijah.
ISIS' doom seems as imminent as the coming quagmire between the "victorious" factions.
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3598477/ISIS-execute...
From a strategic perspective a weak ISIS makes other places, such as Europe, more dangerous. Another alternative may see a much more destabilized Middle East if continued weak oil unravels the Saudi welfare state. One point of view is that the multi-decade US warmongering (Bush, Obama, Clinton) could result in a region where Israel is surrounded by failed nation states - the worst case scenario for all parties. When considered, the rebalance in favor of Iran may have been viewed as a pro-Israel move.
I used to be a JW, I can tell you they pulled the 'sell everything and wait for the end' stunt in the 70s. They are still around even though a large number 'fell away' due to the prophesy not being filled.
What happens is the old literature is adapted or ignored. Then the new line is repeated so many times the followers eventually believe it was the old one and there is no inconsistency. If you've ever played the game where you say a word dozens/hundreds of times until it loses its meaning then you have an inkling of how that could occur with contradictory information. It helps that they don't revisit their old books much or they'd get some surprises.
Their organization has 'gone digital' and become much more centralized as they continue to go into the red, which makes analysis more difficult.
Presently they are gearing up for their new apocalypse. They have been making some fairly weird videos involving them escaping to shelters/basements with a survivalist vibe about it.
There's a video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wackkicmf4k
Obviously they are larping. They have no clue how you'd practically survive an actual conflict. I see my relatives packing go-bags but they have no idea what they are doing. The instructions they're getting are becoming weirder like they did with the now forgotten aluminum saucepan controversy.
Well, at least they're not ISIS!
It is still evident that some religions are worse than others and some small religions, often called cults, are liable to go collectively bonkers.
Suppose that you believe there exists a God that will make a judgment of all humans in the future. Suppose a subsection of the population is to be spared and dead faithful ones can be returned.
What then, is the purpose of preparations to live in bunkers? It surely shouldn't have any affect on your chances of getting to Heaven/Earth.
It would however make sense if you wanted to acquire financial aid.
Hatred doesn't mix well with rational thought.
The soldiers who fought for the south were people's family members, and honoring their memory had evolved into a statement against the cultural erosion that many in the south are upset by. It's possible that plantation owners started the war to protect their slave holdings, but I assure you that no poor unlanded Confederate rifleman died thinking about it.
My only quibble is that when it's been explained to me in those terms, the explainers often offered it as the only perspective. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights" or "the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about the industrial states trying to dominate the agricultural states", etc.
The problem is that every time anyone said "the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about X", they were always really trying to say that it wasn't also about slavery. But of course it was also about slavery. There are all sorts of values of X for which one could say, "the Civil War was about slavery, and it was also about X", but there is no value of X that somehow erases the slavery aspect from the origins of the war. It was about a lot of things, but it wouldn't have happened without political disagreements over the continued existence of slavery as a government-protected institution.
There are many people in the south who honor and respect those who died fighting for the CSA, but who still view the war as a great national tragedy in which the south unfortunately chose to stand up for a morally indefensible institution (but may have also been standing up for much more legitimate ideals as well). Those sorts of nuanced views just seemed far less common than the "it wasn't about slavery, it was about X" perspective.
Slavery wasn't even in danger at the time, but Abraham Lincoln was just elected and was very vocal about limiting the spread of slavery to new territories. The southerners were freaking out, believing that if slavery couldn't spread, then it would end up dying out, and all their livelihoods would die out too.
Most of the people in power in the southern were wealthy slaveholders, so they cared a great deal about slavery. For them, it was definitely about slavery.
The non-slaveholding majority weren't as concerned about slavery, but if their state government decided to secede, they felt a loyalty to protect their state. I'd say that for the average southerner who had no slaves, the war was less about slavery and more about a feeling of loyalty towards their state. To me, it seems that the upper class of the southern states dragged their citizenry into war to protect their own way of life, but I don't think that's how the typical southerner viewed it at the time.
This attitude made things very difficult for Jefferson Davis, who was trying to get all the rebellious states to cooperate and work together at a time when they were all screaming about state sovereignty and independence from a federal government.
The average northerner didn't care at all about slavery. At the beginning the northern states had no intention of abolishing slavery. They just wanted to keep the country together and stop the southern states from seceding. Some of the northern states were slave states: they weren't at all in favor of abolishing slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln said that if he could save the union by preserving slavery, he would do so.
Eventually, much later in the war, when there was no hope of the southern states returning voluntarily, Lincoln went ahead and abolished slavery (in the rebellious states only) as a way to hurt them as much as possible. That was really only a way of sticking it to the south and was definitely not a focus of the war for the North.
I definitely would agree that the CSA is looked on in the southern states through rose-colored glasses, and a lot of the more unpleasant realities are glossed over as attitudes change. That's human nature. People who really believe in something tend to reinterpret it as attitudes and opinions change, usually burying the unpleasant aspects in the process.
I suspect that if the southern states had never revolted and seceded, slavery would have slowly dwindled over time and would have eventually been abolished gradually. I don't think that Lincoln would have had the political backing to abolish slavery with the southern states still participating, but he probably would have been able to successfully confine it and make it less appealing.
That doesn't actually fit the facts in explaining the popularity of the Confederate flag as a symbol; the modern popularity of the Confederate flag as a symbol traces directly back to its adoption across the south specifically as a banner of resistance against the civil rights movement, before which it was much less commonly encountered.
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing and they will just rationalize their way to finding a reason to continue. Most will suffer from the sunk cost fallacy and probably resort to the last thing they can think of... suicide bombing. Quite scary when you think about it.
EDIT: Upon further thought. I suppose many might welcome the end as they no longer have to constantly worry about dying... many having started fighting not fully knowing how brutal commanders would be and the amount of obedience demanded and because many joined because they were merely being opportunistic and looking for wealth/income.
Are you sure about that?
Most government-like institutions do some combination of threats of force and useful services. Hamas provides food and shelter for many.
Once a government-like institution gets powerful enough, it can reduce the amount of criminal/unsavory action it engages in, and create propaganda to help with its legitimacy narrative.
> A series of communiques issued in the Islamic State’s Syrian enclave last month closed down Internet cafes in one province and ordered the destruction of TVs and satellite dishes in another. The orders, billed as an effort to eliminate a tool for “disseminating infidel beliefs,” effectively cut off access to news from the outside world.
Tyrants everywhere know their position will not withstand debate.
This is something the tech community can help with: provide uncensorable, unblockable, and anonymous comm channels to keep the world talking.
That's getting harder and harder as Orwell and Huxley come into force.
Absolutely. That's why control of the media is crucial to those that have an agenda and power/control complex. Look at NK, Russia, ISIS.
"Even with the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers..." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-...
The piece you linked also reads like propaganda. Why do we need to hate ISIS just because it has the objective of creating a solidarity movement in the middle east?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/opinions/why-they-hate-us-zaka...
During the 18th and 19th century there were no shortage of pogroms against Jews in Ottoman Empire the the middle east at large, they intensified in the levant following the conquests of Muhammad Ali (pretty much every city that was "liberated" by his forces had a pogrom after party especially Safed and Hebron).
The conclusion that it's all about that it's all about geopolitics and economics is also pretty much a "no-brainer", yes it's a major part of it, but it's not the only one there are plenty of countries around the world which have it as bad or worse than the average person living in the middle east and while there is quite a bit of violence in many of those parts it tends to take quite a different shape, form, and intensity.
Boiling everything to economics simply doesn't explains everything (or nothing depending on how you look at it). Economics do not explain Osama Bin Laden which was born into one of the richest families on the planet, economics do not explain why 2nd and 3rd generations Muslims and converts from Europe drop from their degree programmes and join ISIS, and economics do not explain Syria which while had a household and average income considerably lower than anything one would expect in the west was still better off than India, Pakistan, Peru and was comparable (or higher) than countries like Moldova and Macedonia which are both EU accession candidates.
The fight is not as much of a fight against Islam as a religion, but as it is against Islam as a political ideology so what we need is not as much of a reform as an almost complete decoupling and restructuring of the society and the religion itself, and that unfortunately is a task that will require a considerable amount of time and bloodshed to accomplish.
EDIT:Just to make clear this isn't a poke at Fareed himself, while some of his editorials (especially outside of CNN) aren't that bad, the article in question is. It is the essence of the usual shallow article one can expect from CNN these days, it's the last news outlet that still does its best to try and not "offend" anyone but it does mean it employees fairness for fairness sake which usually means you get a very shallow and watered down content without any actual opinions that while it would be upto you to agree or disagree with would at least make you think.
Mind that such pogroms was by levantine and peninsular arab locals, not by the court. Ottoman jews weren't first class citizens, but not second class either. For centuries they were the biggest actors in trade in the empire, until the varlık vergisi of the turkish republic. Even in the worst of imperial times they're better of than european jews who were rogued for jewry.
" The fight is not as much of a fight against Islam as a religion, but as it is against Islam as a political ideology so what we need is not as much of a reform as an almost complete decoupling and restructuring of the society and the religion itself, and that unfortunately is a task that will require a considerable amount of time and bloodshed to accomplish. "
Nobody has a right to fight against anything but extremist terror. Christianity as a political ideology is present everywhere in Europe, in some countries the ruling party is called "christian democrats". Islamic rule is a right of a people that demand it, and as long as they aren't bothering anyone else, nobody but they have a say. And in Turkey, where I am, islam penetrates the laic state just like christianity does in christian-majority countries. That's what religion does, and is for.
Today's islamic extremism is a direct result of european expansionism in the territory that actively continued untill WWII. The national state model was imposed on a territory that's under imperial control for millennia, and the states did not represent the populations. Most of these states were and some still are dictatorships or monarchies, and this adds to it as well. Only Turkey was well off as here we have a sound --although wrong-- turkish national ideidentity
P.s. my intention was to counter your points, not to defend the article.
And while I don't want to get into an argument about the role religion does or should play in a democracy, but I'll just say that I think Kemal Ataturk had the right idea. I also completely disagree with you about the source of Islamic Extremism and the cause of it, it's really not a clear cut case as you make it.
It's also laughable to claim that only Turkey has a national identity, while it's true for some parts of the middle east (at large) claiming that Iran or Egypt for example do not have a national identity is absurd, and like it or not over the past nearly 100 years quite a few of them formed. You are looking at the middle east as some unique case it is not, many of the nations of Europe was as "young" as most of the middle eastern countries today when WW2 broke out. The German Empire was only founded in 1871. Turkey came out OK because it's mostly came out whole from WW1, and Kamel Ataturk built it into a modern nation, for the longest time it was kept in check by its army and by one of the only functional supreme court's in the region (well at least until recently, some of the things Erdogan did kinda put it now at odds), it also was lucky enough to join NATO which while being "western/european expansionism" really helped to stabilize it.
I meant among the muslim majority countries that spun off after the fall of the empire. Iran has continuously been home to some local sovereign state since 3200 bc.
Saying things are not clear cut is sort of a way to divide guilt and avoid it. Nations didn't have time to naturally form in middle east. Almost all states have been formed top to bottom, after WWI, whereas in europe some of the current nations' quest to be a nation stretch at least to the 17th century.
Turkey has been established top to bottom and via forced, fascistic westernisation and nationalistic unification, via assimilation and bloodshed, and the people's quest for a real, honourable identity is what the ilk of Erdoğan use to get votes today. I'd love to live in the state Atatürk wanted, but what he did ultimately lead to what we have today, a mess.
" [Turkey] also was lucky enough to join NATO which while being "western/european expansionism" really helped to stabilize it. "
Just as we cannot call a civilisation/nation cruel and savage for one mistake, we cannot say that it's perfect and all innocent because it got one thing right.
For the most part it was rare for nations to form naturally, most of them including those in Europe have evolved through quite a bit of mess, and the middle east now is actually "older" than some European countries not that it was pretty either but it was quite different than what the middle east going through.
And if we are talking about religious terrorist then it's new even in the scale of the middle east, if you look at early Palestinian/Arab terrorist groups they were socialists/communist, the PLO PLFP AMAL and the likes in the 60-70's had nothing to do with religion.
The 1st real religious transformation were the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan they were not only made religious but effectively converted because Islam in Afghanistan at the time wasn't really a religion especially not outside the cities, the literacy rates were extremely low and even now you won't find minarets in the tribal regions.
Saudi Wahhabism was introduced into Afghanistan and from that things like AQ grew which started the "global jihad" movements across the middle east, asia and africa. From the Shia side you had the iranian revolution and after the iran-iraq war has ended the IRGC went to work constructing various proxies across the middle east primarily in the form of Hezbollah which now evolved from a fairly small military organization in the early 80's to effectively a nation state within Lebanon.