Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LethalShade wrote:And, more importantly, if the apocalypse actually happens, they'll die like everyone else.

Well, that's an acceptable outcome to them.

LordofHats wrote:And neither of these preclude wanting to be a state... Just because they're not trying to become the typical "lets all have a national contract and consent of the governed for the betterment of us all" kind of country, doesn't mean they don't want to be a state. I'm not sure what's so hard about this concept. A state is simply a political body (polity) under a single leadership (government). It's very simple.

We're arguing over semantics at this point. They don't want to exist in perpetuation as a functioning state. There will be no settling with them because there is nothing they want from the West or any country in the Middle East except for territory. That they want that territory only to expand their "state" and continue headlong into the apocalypse.

I understand what you are saying so there is no need to try to explain it to me as being simple.

Because all Muslims are crazy... Right. Not even gonna bother this time. Calling a mulligan.

Did I say all Muslims are crazy? No, I did not. What I am implying is that ISIS is, in fact, not crazy. They aren't all suffering from being mentally deranged. Their beliefs are firmly rooted in Islamic doctrine, something that makes Westerns very uncomfortable to say. When the President gets on TV says, "ISIS isn't Islamic," it just isn't true, even though it is comforting that most Muslims reject ISIS. However, their ideology is very Islamic, just a bad interpretation of Islam.

To give an idea, ISIS strikes me as the particular brand of crazy I like to call "Imperial Japan Crazy." This is the kind of crazy where logic, reason, and sound strategy and tactics don't matter. Because we're gonna win anyway. Even if you lose and everyone dies in a glorious charge against the enemy, it don't matter. Because we're gonna win anyway! A real military would probably consider retreating to a better position and reorganizing our force but I ain't gonna do that. I'm gonna win anyway! I can die right here right now, having achieved nothing to realistically harm my enemy and it won't matter. Because We're gonna win anyway! You know what, I'm gonna just go die right now! Cause I'm gonna WIN!

Dying is part of their plan. They're on a messianic mission to herald the end of the world, but that doesn't make them crazy. (I interpret crazy to meaning mentally deranged, not in control of their actions, which I don't believe describes ISIS; fanatical? Yes. Crazy? No.They know what they're doing, which helps us because we can predict what they will do in the future).

Irony of course being that this is not a mentality that leads to actually winning. It leads to everyone dying pointlessly in complete disconnection from reality because the group is as a whole, utterly convinced they will win anyway to the point reality no longer matters. What it is unfortunately good at, is killing lots of your enemies before you inevitably lose.

Yeah sure, in the real world. ISIS doesn't care about the real world, they believe they are ordained by God, they're ideologically pure. The fact that the apocalypse won't happen and they won't be led to glory after the Second Coming of Jesus doesn't even cross their minds.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We've already seen it happen with the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, and the Reds (in Russia). It's political reality. Events could take a turn, where we have no choice but to accept the Islamic State as an actual state. It'll suck and I really hope not, but it is a possibility.

You forgot north korea, who likes to lob missiles over our allies. and they are actually developing nukes. World interest in them: None at all.

They are old school. People want fresh new threats for their personal security and freedom.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We've already seen it happen with the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, and the Reds (in Russia). It's political reality. Events could take a turn, where we have no choice but to accept the Islamic State as an actual state. It'll suck and I really hope not, but it is a possibility.

You forgot north korea, who likes to lob missiles over our allies. and they are actually developing nukes. World interest in them: None at all.

Also ignoring the fact that the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, al-Qaeda, and just about every over Islamic terror group have not and do not share ISIS's apocalyptic worldview (like most Christians, these groups and non-radical Muslims believe in the End of Days, but not that they are currently under way). They all have demands and their actions are to help pressure the West into coming to terms with those demands. ISIS has no demands for the West other than for them to die. Their terror actions are to pressure the West into fighting them head on so they can fulfill their prophecies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I agree with everything scooty posted on this page.

Please... someone hold me!

Succumb to the Dark Side, Whembly...

The UN passed a resolution at the weekend that effectively legalises warlike actions against ISIL.

 whembly wrote:
...

At this point, it's asinine to really believe that once ISIS has it's "caliphate" state, that they'll behave like other modern countries.

...
...

It's more like the opposite. If the ISIL started to behave like other modern countries, while holding a substantial territory governed by a caliph, they would be closer to being accepted into the family of nations.

At some point, if they were big and stable enough, realpolitik would force the rest of the world to accept them. This would not prevent us from declaring war on them, or imposing various economic and cultural sanctions, like happens to other countries such as Russia to pick a relevant current example.

ISIL seem unlikely to do this given their current mode of behaviour.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UN passed a resolution at the weekend that effectively legalises warlike actions against ISIL.

 whembly wrote:
...

At this point, it's asinine to really believe that once ISIS has it's "caliphate" state, that they'll behave like other modern countries.

...
...

It's more like the opposite. If the ISIL started to behave like other modern countries, while holding a substantial territory governed by a caliph, they would be closer to being accepted into the family of nations.

At some point, if they were big and stable enough, realpolitik would force the rest of the world to accept them. This would not prevent us from declaring war on them, or imposing various economic and cultural sanctions, like happens to other countries such as Russia to pick a relevant current example.

ISIL seem unlikely to do this given their current mode of behaviour.

If it hasn't been mentioned yet in the many pages of this thread, would it be too Godwin of me to say these guys are the early 21st century equivalent of Nazis?

It's been mentioned. A lot. But yes, they more or less seem to be shaping up to be the Nazi-equivalent of our age.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We've already seen it happen with the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, and the Reds (in Russia). It's political reality. Events could take a turn, where we have no choice but to accept the Islamic State as an actual state. It'll suck and I really hope not, but it is a possibility.

You forgot north korea, who likes to lob missiles over our allies. and they are actually developing nukes. World interest in them: None at all.

Also ignoring the fact that the Taliban, PLO/Hamas, al-Qaeda, and just about every over Islamic terror group have not and do not share ISIS's apocalyptic worldview (like most Christians, these groups and non-radical Muslims believe in the End of Days, but not that they are currently under way). They all have demands and their actions are to help pressure the West into coming to terms with those demands. ISIS has no demands for the West other than for them to die. Their terror actions are to pressure the West into fighting them head on so they can fulfill their prophecies.

and the wast is just to stupid and ignorant to see that, so they give ISIS exactly what they want.

I know many christians who will say this is the end of times are fully underway. It's also one of the reason christians support Israel, should that temple be built, watch how Israels christian allies turn their backs on them.

When that Temple gets rebuilt, what would that do to people's perceptions of the end times, I wonder.

Probably a severe degree of apprehension that AoS might be released in the near future.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UN passed a resolution at the weekend that effectively legalises warlike actions against ISIL.

 whembly wrote:
...

At this point, it's asinine to really believe that once ISIS has it's "caliphate" state, that they'll behave like other modern countries.

...
...

It's more like the opposite. If the ISIL started to behave like other modern countries, while holding a substantial territory governed by a caliph, they would be closer to being accepted into the family of nations.

At some point, if they were big and stable enough, realpolitik would force the rest of the world to accept them. This would not prevent us from declaring war on them, or imposing various economic and cultural sanctions, like happens to other countries such as Russia to pick a relevant current example.

ISIL seem unlikely to do this given their current mode of behaviour.

Indeed, ISIS won't do it. They will never become a normal state, unless they were to forsake their entire ideological purity and their Khalifa. The Qu'ran clearly states that the Caliphate can never have any borders, the Caliphate must cover the entire world.
IS is the Caliphate. I think some people here don't understand what that implies. Because there is now a Caliph again, whole 'dormant' sections of the Qu'ran have suddenly become 'activated'. Most important of those sections is the offensive jihad (btw: jihad does not mean holy war, it is much, much more complicated than that). It is the duty of the Caliph to commit offensive jihad, and peace with unbelievers can only be temporary. According to the Qu'ran, peace may never be made with unbelievers if the Caliphate has the upper hand, and if not, temporary peace is allowed but hostilities have to be resumed as soon as possible. ISIS will also never accept the authority of any international organisation nor even that of political leaders over their own countries. There is only the authority of God, and the Caliph. Politics and diplomacy (even when in favour of the Caliphate and muslims) are forms of shirk (polytheism, or the acceptance of another authority besides God) in the view of ISIS and according to very, very strict readings of the Qu'ran and Hadiths.
ISIS will never take a place in the community of nations. And not because the community won't accept them, but because ISIS simply can't accept the community of nations. They would be committing heresy. This is also why ISIS rejects, and fights groups like Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia and any other muslim state. To ISIS, those groups have all fallen into the heresy of recognising any other authorities but God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Mind, what really needs to happen is for Islam as a whole to undergo the same modern renaissance that Christianity underwent in the early to mid 18th century. Until there's a wide spread reformation that discards the more "us vs. them" mentality of the medieval ideologies, Islam is going to continue to be a constant thorn in the side for world democracies everywhere.

That was actually an ongoing process, but like in the West, it was tied to nationalism. And Arab nationalism was destroyed in the Six-Days War and died with Nasser. Islamic revivalism has filled the void that nationalism left behind.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
They don't want to exist in perpetuation as a functioning state.

Circular logic? In politics a state exists because it proclaims itself to exist and other states acknowledge it exists. The entire world acknowledges ISIS exists (except those loonies touting that silly conspiracy that ISIS is a CIA/Mossad conspiracy < this is a thing). They're legitimacy is another story and whether they'll be around in 10 years anymore speculative. Ideology can shift rapidly when practicality mandates it, even crazy ideology.

What I am implying is that ISIS is, in fact, not crazy.

IDK. I might believe Jesus is gonna come back on down someday and all this BS will finally be over, but I'm not exactly wishing for it to happen tomorrow (come on JC. Can we at least get to the super bowl ). I sure as hell ain't starting a holy war because I'm completely certain that JC is coming really soon and I need to prove my faith by murdering all those Apostate Christians making mah Christianity look bad. And feth those Atheists. I'll get to them.

In the range of normal human behavior, ISIS seems pretty crazy. Granted, I agree that the typical ISIS member, radical yes, but utterly deranged probably not. The mentality of group is often distinct from the mentality of individual members.

Yeah sure, in the real world. ISIS doesn't care about the real world, they believe they are ordained by God, they're ideologically pure. The fact that the apocalypse won't happen and they won't be led to glory after the Second Coming of Jesus doesn't even cross their minds.

Yeah... That's what I just said. Except we both know (95%!) that probably isn't happening. Meanwhile, fighting groups with the above mentality, gets extremely bloody because these guys ain't going to think much about throwing their lives to the meat grinder with bomb vests.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's been mentioned. A lot. But yes, they more or less seem to be shaping up to be the Nazi-equivalent of our age.

It's always nice when a genuinely evil empire rises. Brings people together. Whether to oppose them, as slaves to them, or in a mass grave, may vary.

Though I do liken them more to Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge myself.

Modern-day Nazis? No, not even close. Remember, the Nazis were voted into power.

Is ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/WTFever you want to call them Islam? No. Are they Islamic? Yes. Sort of. In the same sense that the WBC is Christian, but not Christianity. Or the Klan or, hell, even the Nazi Party, to go full-Godwin.

Can ISIS be defeated through conventional means? Yes. Can what gave rise to ISIS be defeated through conventional means? Hahahahahahaha... hell no. Defeating ISIS, and whatever is going to rise to power after ISIS, is going to require a fundamental change in foreign policy on behalf of the West, and a fundamental change in the socio-political landscape in the Middle East and Africa.

The rise and prominence of groups like ISIS is indicative, symptomatic even, of the end of the dominance of superpowers and hyperpowers. Over the past six centuries, world politics have basically been determined by the actions, or inactions, of one or another major players on the world stage, whether that was Italy, Germany, England, Spain, the United States, the Soviet Union, China, etc.

But, ISIS doesn't really respond to the actions that those powers have traditionally used. Economic sanctions? They don't give a feth. Targeted strikes? Just plays into their hands. All-out war? Is exactly what they want, because there is a 99.9999% chance that the US and Europe will totally feth up the rhetoric and demagoguery used to sell that idea, and then that *will* turn into an actual repeat of the Crusades (which, for those who didn't pay attention in history class, were catastrophically terrible for Europe).

What's the solution? I have no fething idea, but I do know that we cannot continue as we have been over the last forty years, because that obviously isn't working.

 Psienesis wrote:
Modern-day Nazis? No, not even close. Remember, the Nazis were voted into power.

Is ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/WTFever you want to call them Islam? No. Are they Islamic? Yes. Sort of. In the same sense that the WBC is Christian, but not Christianity. Or the Klan or, hell, even the Nazi Party, to go full-Godwin.

Can ISIS be defeated through conventional means? Yes. Can what gave rise to ISIS be defeated through conventional means? Hahahahahahaha... hell no. Defeating ISIS, and whatever is going to rise to power after ISIS, is going to require a fundamental change in foreign policy on behalf of the West, and a fundamental change in the socio-political landscape in the Middle East and Africa.

The rise and prominence of groups like ISIS is indicative, symptomatic even, of the end of the dominance of superpowers and hyperpowers. Over the past six centuries, world politics have basically been determined by the actions, or inactions, of one or another major players on the world stage, whether that was Italy, Germany, England, Spain, the United States, the Soviet Union, China, etc.

But, ISIS doesn't really respond to the actions that those powers have traditionally used. Economic sanctions? They don't give a feth. Targeted strikes? Just plays into their hands. All-out war? Is exactly what they want, because there is a 99.9999% chance that the US and Europe will totally feth up the rhetoric and demagoguery used to sell that idea, and then that *will* turn into an actual repeat of the Crusades (which, for those who didn't pay attention in history class, were catastrophically terrible for Europe).

What's the solution? I have no fething idea, but I do know that we cannot continue as we have been over the last forty years, because that obviously isn't working.

Just a nitpick here, but the crusades were not bad for Europe at all. The medieval islamic world was in many areas (in fact, in pretty much everything apart from warfare and agriculture) much more advanced than medieval Europe. The crusades brought many new ideas and innovations to Europe, which were essential for the eventual start of the renaissance. The crusades were also a period of relative peace and calm within Europe itself, as the nobility was more focused on fighting external foes rather than their traditional infighting.

My idea is that we should give ISIS that battle at Dabiq they want. They believe God will give them victory there, but we will utterly crush them, and their ideology with it. By defeating them in a battle at Dabiq, we would show the falsity of their beliefs, undermining their authority.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
idea is that we should give ISIS that battle at Dabiq they want. They believe God will give them victory there, but we will utterly crush them, and their ideology with it. By defeating them in a battle at Dabiq, we would show the falsity of their beliefs, undermining their authority.

But... but... that's exactly what ISIS wants us to do... so we shouldn't do that.

Or something...

 whembly wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
idea is that we should give ISIS that battle at Dabiq they want. They believe God will give them victory there, but we will utterly crush them, and their ideology with it. By defeating them in a battle at Dabiq, we would show the falsity of their beliefs, undermining their authority.

But... but... that's exactly what ISIS wants us to do... so we shouldn't do that.

Or something...

Meh, send them to hell in a pillar of fire if they want. They'll die like they want, then have an "Oh " moment when they get to the other side.

They actually are supposed to lose that battle. The loss starts the AoS (forgot who used it first but I'm carrying the torch).

So giving them that battle would be on the high end of stupid. They won't commit their full forces. The West will defeat a token army and the bat signal will go up.

Deep down I bet the top dogs of ISIS are pretty rational and are making rational (if evil) decisions.

Now this isn't the first caliph in history. So what makes this caliph so different? The Ottoman Empire was on its way to liberalizing in the 1920s until Europe ripped it apart post WWI for its resources. If ISIS establishes itself and then cools down for a decade or two would it then liberalize? Would the world forgive them for what they did?

I suspect we won't find out lol.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Just a nitpick here, but the crusades were not bad for Europe at all. The medieval islamic world was in many areas (in fact, in pretty much everything apart from warfare and agriculture) much more advanced than medieval Europe. The crusades brought many new ideas and innovations to Europe, which were essential for the eventual start of the renaissance. The crusades were also a period of relative peace and calm within Europe itself, as the nobility was more focused on fighting external foes rather than their traditional infighting.

This is true.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

My idea is that we should give ISIS that battle at Dabiq they want. They believe God will give them victory there, but we will utterly crush them, and their ideology with it. By defeating them in a battle at Dabiq, we would show the falsity of their beliefs, undermining their authority.

This is not. Under the mentality the acocalypse comes when it comes. If ISIS forces are defeated at Dabiq then its not the real battle of Dabiq, the next one is.

Let me help you understand this. Go to YouTube and type in the words armageddon 2012 or apocalypse 2012. Look at the date of the videos predicting various world ending problems in 2012 from before 2012, then do the same search for 2013, 2014, 2015 etc.
I want as far as 2025 and found apocalypse videos for them all, mostly based on the Bible Code. I am sure i could track further.

What does this tell you. I tell you what it tells me, the apocalypse cult is never wrong, its just deferred. When some nuts are proven wrong about the world not ending, along comes the next prophesy for the next year.
ISID will prove just the same, if the infidel come to Syria and fight at Dabiq in 2016 and the world does not end, then perhaps the real battle is in 2017. When in 2017 the same result occurs, the apocalypse must be 2018 and so on and so forth.

[spoiler]

 Grey Templar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
idea is that we should give ISIS that battle at Dabiq they want. They believe God will give them victory there, but we will utterly crush them, and their ideology with it. By defeating them in a battle at Dabiq, we would show the falsity of their beliefs, undermining their authority.

But... but... that's exactly what ISIS wants us to do... so we shouldn't do that.

Or something...

Meh, send them to hell in a pillar of fire if they want. They'll die like they want, then have an "Oh " moment when they get to the other side.

Can we nuke them from orbit to a backing track of Atom Bomb Baby? Please?

Doubt they'll liberalize.

Most likely long term case is that a rough stalemate is reached, ISIS eventually has more or less defined borders and are at constant war with their neighbors. They churn out a constant stream of attacks similar to Paris outside their borders. What happens to their recruitment pool is that the local one eventually dries up but they continue to recruit dissatisfied individuals from elsewhere in the world. And until someone actually has the balls to actually kill them all nothing changes.

Worst case is the above happens but they slightly change their system to actually create a semi-functional country and they become an actual major military threat beyond their borders and not just a terrorist group. Even worse is if they get their hands on some nuclear material, either actual atomic bombs or just enough to make dirty bombs to ship overseas.


Another tactic which I think might work would be if we were to starve them of resources. Set up a total blockade around their territory and allow nothing in or out(If anything so much as twitches near the perimeter fill it full of high explosives). Then use airpower to destroy all their internal resources. Crops, animals, vehicles of any kind, any internet connections, etc...

Eventually they'll begin starving and lose any ability to go on the offensive. Then they'll be forced to surrender in humiliation or ingloriously starve to death.

You do realise that there are still civilians in the territories claimed by ISIS?

konst80hummel wrote:
You do realise that there are still civilians in the territories claimed by ISIS?

Yeah, and how much longer will they be innocent civilians?

Eventually, they will all be firmly in league with ISIS or they'll have been murdered by ISIS. ISIS won't tolerate moderates in their territory.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
They actually are supposed to lose that battle. The loss starts the AoS (forgot who used it first but I'm carrying the torch).

So giving them that battle would be on the high end of stupid. They won't commit their full forces. The West will defeat a token army and the bat signal will go up.

I just recently saw something in the news, or maybe a linked article in this thread... but apparently ISIS are trying to push for Megiddo, where the apocalypse and the heralding of the end times is supposed to happen.... Personally, I say we line up, WW1 style 20 miles on "their" side of the city, and say, "you cannot start the apocalypse if you cannot reach Megiddo... so, Molon Labe, biatch!!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Eventually, they will all be firmly in league with ISIS or they'll have been murdered by ISIS. ISIS won't tolerate moderates in their territory.

Well, even if they aren't in league with ISIS, the smarter ones who value their lives will play a very good tune showing that they are in league, and it will make little difference to us on the outside.

Oh yeah, thats a good idea. Bum rush Israel.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh yeah, thats a good idea. Bum rush Israel.

I think it'd look like something from the IG Codex

 Grey Templar wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
You do realise that there are still civilians in the territories claimed by ISIS?

Yeah, and how much longer will they be innocent civilians?

Eventually, they will all be firmly in league with ISIS or they'll have been murdered by ISIS. ISIS won't tolerate moderates in their territory.

A lot of people will just keep their heads down, pay token attendance at rallies etc and pay the 'taxes' they are forced too, while hoping for the regime to get chucked out.

Given how many beheadings keep happening, I don't think just keeping a low profile is cutting it with these uys.

Well they can't behead everyone in their whole land, and they don't know what people are thinking, so however many they behead, it doesn't mean the rest of them are true believers.

At some point the possibility of those civilians being innocent of the crimes of ISIS ceases to outweigh the damage ISIS causes to the rest of the world. Lots of innocent people were killed to remove Hitler from power, it was still worth it.

Are you arguing for mass killing of everyone who happens to live in an ISIL controlled area?

How would you achieve this aim?