• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Isis

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
I really think it's time that those of us, most of us, who know, that belief without evidence is a dangerous isotope, need to speak up.

I don't have children. I don't have a spouse. But I have many people whom I care about

We all need to speak up about the dangers involved in belief without evidence. In particular, religious faith, which is, and has, clearly driven politics and war for millenia.

Though Stephan Harper stands as stark evidence, I don't wish to use him in this discussion. Rather, could we kindly elect an atheist as a governmental leader?

I do have an investment in future generations, though, they are not my direct children. I imagine you, as a reader, do have children, and therefore should be very concerned about the brewing cultural war to come.

It can be diffused by absolving us of the practice of belief without evidence (aka "faith")

But it will come to us regardless.

I implore all readers, if you harbour something similar to "faith" to question, and discard it.

-jM
A&D
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I'd agree completely with what you said but add a cautionary note - let not our disgust at their atrocities lead us to foolish action.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
...and the Iraq thread has had a lot of ISIS commentary so kind of thought you would post in there.
 

Agent Smith

TRIBE Member
I'd agree completely with what you said but add a cautionary note - let not our disgust at their atrocities lead us to foolish action.
You can't behead innocent civilians of a global superpower publicly under the frame of extremest ideology and not expect some significant action to be taken. Personally I believe Obama has been as measured as could be expected given the circumstances.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
The issue is a strategic one - the US can't get involved without delicately threading a needle that defeats ISIS while not benefitting Assad regime and Iran too much and ending with a sunni minority in Iraq and Syria that feels secure enough to not need a bulwark like ISIS (and in turn this means outside Sunni supporters won't feel motivated to send resources in to ISIS either) - and they need to do all THAT without getting dragged into a quagmire and ending up with yet more blood and treasure spilt against "Extremists" that until today, doesn't seem to do much but breed chaos and more extremism. Recall that ISIS has been formed partly from regional historical trends (deep sectarian divide, but also history like Assad regime destroying mosques with families inside and Shiite revenge attacks backed by the Iraqi government) - but in large part America itself created the space for ISIS by "taking action" in 2003 against Iraq and the chaos that resulted. What unintended consequences could occur from this action, and what guarantee do we have that ISIS won't just morph or be replaced by equally odious actors?

Has America learned the lessons on the limits of its power and how its application needs to be calibrated so carefully?

I'm not convinced - especially with the speed at which ISIS has been propagandized and action demanded by parties inside america that should know better. All THAT said, it looks like the Obama administration is attempting a kind of regional diplomatic angle (ISIS can only be defeated if its regional supporters step up) - I'm just not sure they will be able to truly get at the root of this: a deep sectarian rift causing a minority, beset on both sides by torturing and ruthless dictators (Assad in Syria and the Iraqi shiite government) to seek a force that can protect them.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/08/lesson-americans-refuse-learn-war/

More from Glenn on the drumbeat to war.
 
Last edited:

praktik

TRIBE Member
Fave quote from the GG piece:

"For those who keep running around beating their chests talking about the imperative to “destroy ISIS”: will that take more or less time than it’s taken to “destroy the Taliban”?"
 
Last edited:

praktik

TRIBE Member
Mission creep already happening:

The Ever-Expanding War Against ISIS | The American Conservative

It hasn’t taken very long for last month’s “limited” intervention in Iraq to expand far beyond anything that the administration originally described to the public.
...
Administration officials were denying that they planned for a “sustained” campaign just a few weeks ago, and now they’re saying the opposite. Obama said that he wouldn’t “allow” the U.S. to be dragged into a new war, and he is now setting out to take the U.S. into that war. What we’re seeing now is not so much mission creep as mission gallop, and it all seems to be happening without any serious consideration of the costs or the potential dangers of such an expansive campaign.

Even if the U.S. does not eventually commit large numbers of ground troops to this campaign, the U.S. will be at war in two countries where it does not need to be fighting. This is every bit as much a war of choice as the earlier wars in Iraq and Libya, and it hasn’t been thought through any better than those were.

The problem with this isn’t just that the intervention was initially sold to the public as something completely different from what it is becoming, but also that there has been no serious debate over this new policy. The near-instant consensus that ISIS must be “destroyed” isn’t based on an accurate or sober assessment of the threat the group poses to U.S. security. It is almost entirely a product of overreaction, panic, and anger because of the group’s truly appalling behavior. The administration was using alarmist rhetoric about ISIS from the start, and now it is preparing to back up that rhetoric with ill-considered military escalation. This is very unwise, and if the administration is allowed to do this it is going to end up costing the U.S. more in the coming years than anyone expects.

Those costs will come from the campaign itself, and from the boost to jihadist recruiting and propaganda that U.S. interventions have typically produced over the last thirteen years, and they may also come in the form of attacks on Americans that might otherwise not have happened. Any war with the maximalist goal of “destroying” an enemy is always going to last much longer and will take many more resources and lives than we realize now. If the administration thinks it may take three years, that is the minimum amount of time that we should expect such a campaign to last. A war to “destroy” ISIS will probably take much longer than three years, assuming that it is even possible to destroy such a group entirely without creating more jihadist groups in the process, and almost no one has attempted to calculate what the price of “destroying” ISIS might be. The public has no appetite for another prolonged military campaign, and it is doubtful that they will offer sustained support for a war that the president just told them he was not going to wage.
 
Last edited:

wickedken

TRIBE Member
Mission creep already happening:

The Ever-Expanding War Against ISIS | The American Conservative

It hasn’t taken very long for last month’s “limited” intervention in Iraq to expand far beyond anything that the administration originally described to the public.
...
Administration officials were denying that they planned for a “sustained” campaign just a few weeks ago, and now they’re saying the opposite. Obama said that he wouldn’t “allow” the U.S. to be dragged into a new war, and he is now setting out to take the U.S. into that war. What we’re seeing now is not so much mission creep as mission gallop, and it all seems to be happening without any serious consideration of the costs or the potential dangers of such an expansive campaign.

Even if the U.S. does not eventually commit large numbers of ground troops to this campaign, the U.S. will be at war in two countries where it does not need to be fighting. This is every bit as much a war of choice as the earlier wars in Iraq and Libya, and it hasn’t been thought through any better than those were.

The problem with this isn’t just that the intervention was initially sold to the public as something completely different from what it is becoming, but also that there has been no serious debate over this new policy. The near-instant consensus that ISIS must be “destroyed” isn’t based on an accurate or sober assessment of the threat the group poses to U.S. security. It is almost entirely a product of overreaction, panic, and anger because of the group’s truly appalling behavior. The administration was using alarmist rhetoric about ISIS from the start, and now it is preparing to back up that rhetoric with ill-considered military escalation. This is very unwise, and if the administration is allowed to do this it is going to end up costing the U.S. more in the coming years than anyone expects.

Those costs will come from the campaign itself, and from the boost to jihadist recruiting and propaganda that U.S. interventions have typically produced over the last thirteen years, and they may also come in the form of attacks on Americans that might otherwise not have happened. Any war with the maximalist goal of “destroying” an enemy is always going to last much longer and will take many more resources and lives than we realize now. If the administration thinks it may take three years, that is the minimum amount of time that we should expect such a campaign to last. A war to “destroy” ISIS will probably take much longer than three years, assuming that it is even possible to destroy such a group entirely without creating more jihadist groups in the process, and almost no one has attempted to calculate what the price of “destroying” ISIS might be. The public has no appetite for another prolonged military campaign, and it is doubtful that they will offer sustained support for a war that the president just told them he was not going to wage.
ha so humourous and filled with irony.
 

wickedken

TRIBE Member
I really think it's time that those of us, most of us, who know, that belief without evidence is a dangerous isotope, need to speak up.
..
-jM
A&D
It's not faith or lack of faith I think but rather organized faith. The organization reveals the deep-seated vulnerability of individuality. I think the fix is not not being religious but rather empowering the individual to think for themselves.

Edit: it might be hard here since so many were convinced to be scared during the last prov election.
 

The Kid

TRIBE Member
Am I completely nuts to present the theory that ISIS = CIA? Or is that just too batshit to imagine as a possible reality?!!!

:confused:
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Its a little batshit. There's a lot of visible trends leading to this organic outgrowth of a region in chaos - and decades of repression.

ISIS seems bad sure, but read up on Assad an how they repressed their population to keep the rebellions in check, whole towns of 30k+ people destroyed, torture, destruction of mosques with hiding families inside. Add in the recent history of Iraqi shiite death squads and government ordered torture - the chaos of occupation, the ethnic ties drawing in resources from concerned nations in the sunni Axis and opposing funds from the Shiite axis and you begin to realize you don't need to invent reasons for ISIS to exist or to explain its ruthlessness.
 

randyval

TRIBE Member
Am I completely nuts to present the theory that ISIS = CIA? Or is that just too batshit to imagine as a possible reality?!!!

:confused:
like almost too obvious. just look into their leader and who trained him.
i'm pretty sure they can be as blatant as they want, as no one seems to care to even acknowledge the dirty business going on.
 

randyval

TRIBE Member
the whole thing seems very orchestrated, rallying the undesirables into a "go die for you god" cause, what really sucks is a lot of Innocent people are getting hurt in the process.
my faith in humanity is dwindling.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Still there's a natural need for a Sunni force to protect Sunnis.

The CIA will be one force amongst many trying to tilt things in their favour.

Their track record in this endeavour the last few decades has not been good.

Bob Baer has some great commentary on why that is.

What we are witnessing now is an almost reflexive Western reaction - isis hits all the right notes to get us in a tizzy. America and the West have been in autopilot in the ME for a while now and it shows in the chaos and their waning influence.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Friend posted this in a discussion on the topic lately:

"I believe that in the future we shall come to feel that Stalin's foreign policy, instead of being so diabolically clever as it is claimed to be, has been merely opportunistic and stupid." - George Orwell

I think many make the same mistake with American foreign policy.
 

randyval

TRIBE Member
interesting to see msm talking about what everyone else seems to be talking about.
seems like these aren't your run of the mill isis vids, like the mass execution vids released last month.


DENVER (CBS4)- Some of the nation’s best media forensics experts are located in Denver and are analyzing ISIS videos for authenticity and to learn more about the people who made the videos.

The University of Colorado Denver is home to the National Center for Media Forensics. According to their website, media forensics is the scientific analysis of recorded media in the form of audio, video, and still imagery evidence obtained during the course of investigations and litigious proceedings.

Jeff Smith, Associate Director of the CU Denver National Center for Media Forensics said the video released by ISIS can show several things, including how sophisticated the group is.
Assoc. Dir. of CU Denver Nat'l Center Forensic Media analyzes ISIS video (credit: CBS)

Assoc. Dir. of CU Denver Nat’l Center Forensic Media analyzes ISIS video (credit: CBS)

“We can see the microphones that are used in the stand up,” said Smith. “It exemplifies skilled planning and premeditated nature to carrying out this message to America.”

MORE ON ISIS: cbsdc.com

The video can also shows us something surprising about what are said to be videos of the beheadings of journalist James Foley and Steve Sotloff.

“What’s most interesting is that the actual beheading that takes place in the videos, both of them are staged,” said Smith.

However the bodies shown later on in the video are real. Smith said the production value is of high quality. There was likely a director and the use of several cameras and editing equipment.

“I’ve not seen a video made by terrorists of this quality but I don’t think that our government has either, this isn’t the typical handicam video in a cave,” said Smith.

Smith said that analyzing the videos might provide clues about other captives.

“Can we somehow put together the pictures and learn more about the other hostages, are they still alive?” asked Smith.

Researchers are also looking at the videos in hopes of figuring out what location they were recorded.
Media Forensics Experts Analyzing ISIS Video In Denver « CBS Denver
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
^^ Sounds like someone is collecting rumours off the streets of Cairo!!

hehe

In Northern Lebanon, Life Under ISIS’s Shadow

in other news this was a really fascinating look at Tripoli and how the ISIS shadow is creeping closer. Shows you how the cultural elements of ISIS reach places before they do (pamphlets, flyers, armbands, etc) and gives you a bit of a feel for the street level view of regional towns that are living their lives near the chaos of civil war in Syria and Iraq.
 

Primavera

TRIBE Member
We should probably just play it safe and move all the Muslims to Antarctica for a few years until they learn to play nice with the rest of humanity.
 

Primavera

TRIBE Member
It might work. It just might.

Give them all canned goods, Canada Goose jackets to keep warm, take away their bomb making materials so they don't harm the penguins.

Of course the like 95% of completely harmless, law-abiding, non-radical Muslims who don't deserve to be there at all are going to be totally and utterly pissed off at the 5% of fundamentalist/jihadi/isis/non-muslim hating radicals that got them exiled from the rest of Earth.

Can't blame em.

It would get awkward.

It would make a great reality TV show.
 
Last edited:
Top