Can ISIS be stopped?

[IronFist]

Is ISIS a threat to the whole world which has to be stopped immediately or it's just a local Arab conflict? I think that ISIS is just yet another word for Islamic fundamentalism and Arab nationalism. Even if we get rid of ISIS there will be still people wanting to unite all Arab or Muslim states into a single country. Is there any way to prevent it from spreading around or it would be better just to forget about the region?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The problem is lone wolves. It is quite likely the whole sorry racket will collapse in on itself soon, but then what happens? Untold numbers of radicalised, delocalised, trained ISIS fighters worm their way back into refugee camps, prisons and their own countries, continuing to radicalise others or destabilise areas like the Magrheb, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, the Balkans, the Gulf, the Caucasus and SE Asia through individual acts of terror. iSIS is best understood as a marketing exercise. Linking your regional struggle to the worldwide ISIS brand is a great way to market yourself as a big shot.

How to stop it? Focus on de radicalisation efforts. Tedious, I guess; but the least bad option.

[ingemann]

Can ISIS be stopped; yes rather easily. The better question is whether the price it will cost are one we're willing to pay.

As for Islamic terrorism in the West, it's again a problem which is easy to solve, but for a price no one (or no one sane) is willing to pay.

The best way with these problems are simply to wait them out and not being bleeding hearts or morons about them. Personal I think ISIS are a improvement, because now Islamic terrorism have primarily become the Muslims own problem to deal with, and they will either clean house, or the non-Muslim world will do it for them (and they're really don't wish that, just as it had been preferable for the Germans to get rid of Hitler on their own, rather than letting other do the job).

[Green Line]

The only way to stop ISIS to to get to the root of the problem which is the lack of voices in the Muslim community willing to stand up and denounce the radicals.  Yeah, they denounce the attacks when they happen, but what really needs to happen is a complete wholesale shut down of the radical preachers that are infecting the minds of youngins' all over the world.  And we need to stop the open sky deal with the Gulf Carriers from going into effect.

[Indy Texas]

Is ISIS a threat to the whole world which has to be stopped immediately or it's just a local Arab conflict? I think that ISIS is just yet another word for Islamic fundamentalism and Arab nationalism. Even if we get rid of ISIS there will be still people wanting to unite all Arab or Muslim states into a single country. Is there any way to prevent it from spreading around or it would be better just to forget about the region?

They aren't a threat in the sense that everyone from LA to Tokyo is going to wake up one morning to find Muslims parachuting down from the sky to impose Sharia law on everyone. But consider a situation in which, say, the Assad regime capitulates and ISIS overruns Syria. Suppose Russia begins asking itself, "Who lost Syria?" and decides it hasn't been aggressive enough in foreign affairs - so they start trying to annex more things in Eastern Europe and possibly the Caucasus. Suppose an emboldened Islamic State attacks Iran directly. There are plenty of ways for things to get broken without ISIS breaking them itself.

ISIS is an Islamist group but it is not the be-all-end-all of Islamism. Al-Qaeda has condemned ISIS. Saudi Arabia is, by definition, an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy and they obviously do not like ISIS.

Arab nationalism is a completely separate (and largely defunct) ideology that isn't really compatible with Islamism. Islamism is somewhat like Marxism in that it believes nationalism is largely a false distraction from what "really matters." For Marxists, class was what really mattered. For Islamists, religion is the important thing. National boundaries divide the "ummah" (the community of believers in Islam). Less than half of the "ummah" lives in the Arabic-speaking world. And Arab nationalism requires the accommodation of Christians (which is part of the reason Christians played such a major role in promoting it).

[Gunnar Larsson]

ISIS is an Islamist group but it is not the be-all-end-all of Islamism. Al-Qaeda has condemned ISIS. Saudi Arabia is, by definition, an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy and they obviously do not like ISIS.

Saudi Arabia (and its smaller cousins) is to a large degree the root of the problem. As long as they both support a fundamentalist ideology and have lots of money it is likely that organisations like ISIS will pop up. By having the money to spread their ideology it is widening in influence and appeal (at the cost of more benign types of islam) and rich individuals can directly support organisations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Of course even among extremists there are those that are worse than others and it is hard to imagine ISIS being replaced by something even more extreme.

[ingemann]

Yes organisation like ISIS are obvious a creation of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, but they have lost control over the monster they have created, and they're not really willing to try to stop it, because they hope it will hurt Iran. Ironic the rise of ISIS seem to have benefitted Iran, as it make them look less horrible (giving them a better position in their negotiation to end the sanctions), the Shias (other non-Sunni in the Middle East) unite behind them, their favoured client Hezbollah look positive liberal by now and it have given them a excuse to give less support to Hamas (without anybody taking that support over).

As for the Sauds they fully get the blame for the monster they created, and USA are not cleaning their mess up this time.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I would like to restate that ISIS is not a uniquely violent organisation. The sorts of violent atrocities that ISIS regularly carry out in their territory are no less violent to other similar conflicts and flashpoints throughout the third world (and, when "the First World" was at total war, exactly the same sort of outrage was done then). The difference is ISIS are spreading their ideals (and promoting their ideals) through what is essentially a high-level marketing exercise aimed at the most susceptible people on earth- 15-25 year-olds. ISIS want to be the brand of choice for your young Muslim male. It's not that religious in a sense - the sort of conservative teenager who studies the Koran everyday willingly is not the target market for an ISIS recruit. Indeed, most ISIS members are not noted for being particularly devout. Rather, ISIS feeds on boredom and listlessness; and instead gives them a chance to indulge in what is essentially consequence free delinquency, all while subsuming themselves into the wider branding of ISIS and soaking in all that "solidarity" in the face of universal condemnation (much like young blacks and Hispanics joining gangs in the States)

Ultimately, what territory ISIS controls is the less important factor in dealing with Daesh. More than likely they'll start to crumble and bicker and collapse under its own weight. It's dealing with the people that ISIS have hijacked and brainwashed that will be hardest. I feel worst for the Tunisian government, who are in for a world of pain, sadly.

[The Last Northerner]

Is ISIS a threat to the whole world which has to be stopped immediately or it's just a local Arab conflict? I think that ISIS is just yet another word for Islamic fundamentalism and Arab nationalism. Even if we get rid of ISIS there will be still people wanting to unite all Arab or Muslim states into a single country. Is there any way to prevent it from spreading around or it would be better just to forget about the region?

Like IronFist stated, it is not remotely related to Arab nationalism. The only pretend Arab nationalist leader alive is Assad, who is fighting them. The only real possibility of them spreading is if Israel steps up their bombing Assaid and allow ISIS/ISIL to spread westward. If the paranoid Israelis don't even view them as threat, they probably aren't.

[Peeperkorn]

Is ISIS a threat to the whole world which has to be stopped immediately or it's just a local Arab conflict? I think that ISIS is just yet another word for Islamic fundamentalism and Arab nationalism. Even if we get rid of ISIS there will be still people wanting to unite all Arab or Muslim states into a single country. Is there any way to prevent it from spreading around or it would be better just to forget about the region?

They aren't a threat in the sense that everyone from LA to Tokyo is going to wake up one morning to find Muslims parachuting down from the sky to impose Sharia law on everyone. But consider a situation in which, say, the Assad regime capitulates and ISIS overruns Syria. Suppose Russia begins asking itself, "Who lost Syria?" and decides it hasn't been aggressive enough in foreign affairs - so they start trying to annex more things in Eastern Europe and possibly the Caucasus. Suppose an emboldened Islamic State attacks Iran directly. There are plenty of ways for things to get broken without ISIS breaking them itself.

 

Nonsense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The best way to defeat ISIS to have relatively secular strong men in charge. Like Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad. Well, there's still hope for the last one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The best way to defeat ISIS to have relatively secular strong men in charge. Like Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad. Well, there's still hope for the last one.

Not really.  While it is a case that religion here is to a large extent being used as a proxy for ethnicity, the strength of ISIL is to a large extent due to there being areas of Syria and Iraq that are majority Sunni Arab and feel like they are being oppressed by "outsiders". Alawites such as Assad in the case of Syria and Shia Arabs in the case of Iraq. Sykes-Picot is rearing its ugly head here, but also Arab nationalism.  The French tried breaking up Syria, albeit in an attempt to divide and conquer. Still, if the Alawite State had gained independence from both France and Syria, obviously the history of Syria would be quite different. However, we must deal with facts as they are.  It's doubtful that an Alawite State could be established now, even if Assad came to the conclusion it was his only hope to retain some power.  The Sunni majority in Syria would never agree to it.

[Silent Hunter]

And we need to stop the open sky deal with the Gulf Carriers from going into effect.

Explain this one please. I'm not sure what Qatar Airways and Emirates have to do with the Big Black Flag Posse or whatever we're calling them this week.

[moderatevoter]

And we need to stop the open sky deal with the Gulf Carriers from going into effect.

Explain this one please. I'm not sure what Qatar Airways and Emirates have to do with the Big Black Flag Posse or whatever we're calling them this week.

Not to mention, the Open Skies agreement is already in place. Delta, United, and American want it changed. Boeing and FedEx are siding with the Middle Eastern carriers.

[IronFist]

The best way to defeat ISIS to have relatively secular strong men in charge. Like Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad. Well, there's still hope for the last one.

I don't think there is any hope for Assad. He is losing ground very fast. He doesn't even control 30% of the country. No way he will regain power. Only if he will be controlling a small Alawite-populated part of Syria.

[dead0man]

The best way to defeat ISIS to have relatively secular strong men in charge. Like Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad. Well, there's still hope for the last one.

I'm pretty sure all three of those murdered many more people than ISIS has.  They may in fact be better than ISIS, but only in the same way getting shot in the face is better than dying of butt cancer.

[ingemann]

The best way to defeat ISIS to have relatively secular strong men in charge. Like Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad. Well, there's still hope for the last one.

I don't think there is any hope for Assad. He is losing ground very fast. He doesn't even control 30% of the country. No way he will regain power. Only if he will be controlling a small Alawite-populated part of Syria.

70% of the Syrian population live in areas under Assad control (12-13 million people). He control the grain baskets, most of the gas fields, but he have lost control over the oil fields.

A interesting fact is if we look at official Syrian population statistic a good guess are that this population are split with 3-4 million Alawites (some say that the Alawis are in fewer than official numbers says, but even in worst case, I can't see how they make up less than 3 million people), 1-2 million Christians (may be bigger because of Iraqi refugees) and 2-3 million other Shias and Druzes.

The refugees out of Syria are mostly Sunni Muslims.

These factors explain why a Assad collapse are unlikely, most of the population live in areas he control. The minorities make up at least 50% of the population in areas he control, and nothing indicate broad opposition to him by Sunnis in areas he control. In fact they seem mostly loyal. So if Assad is going to lose power, it will because the rebels remove him. Nothing indicate that they will be able to do that. They have got rid of some of the loyalist enclaves, but at no point have they taken his core territories. The biggest rebel triumph was the conquest and ethnic cleansing of a Armenian coastal town (Kessab) on the border with Turkey a year ago, which the government reconquered.

[Zezano]

I doubt they will be stopped but the only regimes standing up to them are Iran and Syria. The United States and it's allies are part the problem not the solution.

[Simfan34]

The only way to stop ISIS to to get to the root of the problem which is the lack of voices in the Muslim community willing to stand up and denounce the radicals.  Yeah, they denounce the attacks when they happen, but what really needs to happen is a complete wholesale shut down of the radical preachers that are infecting the minds of youngins' all over the world.  And we need to stop the open sky deal with the Gulf Carriers from going into effect.

Which one of the legacies is paying you?

[Frodo]

It seems Islamic State fighters are not content with waiting for their 72 or so virgins in the next life -they want them here and now in this life as well:

ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape:
Claiming the Quran’s support, the Islamic State codifies sex slavery in conquered regions of Iraq and Syria and uses the practice as a recruiting tool.

Written by RUKMINI CALLIMACHI; Photographs by MAURICIO LIMA
AUG. 13, 2015

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blue3]

It seems Islamic State fighters are not content with waiting for their 72 or so virgins in the next life -they want them here and now in this life as well:

ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape:
Claiming the Quran’s support, the Islamic State codifies sex slavery in conquered regions of Iraq and Syria and uses the practice as a recruiting tool.

Written by RUKMINI CALLIMACHI; Photographs by MAURICIO LIMA
AUG. 13, 2015

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another article I read tonight said Baghdadi personally raped American hostages.


Everytime I think ISIS can't get more cartoonishly evil...

[DavidB.]

This is nothing new, right? The whole sex slavery thing has been used for years already.

[Storebought]

Has anyone noticed how little attention IS has received from US "allies" in the region? Turkey, Saudi Arabia and -- especially --  Israel all have had sparingly little to say about it.

They all have reason to keep quiet about the IS insurgency: IS carries out a good deal of their foreign policy objectives in Syria and Iraq. They attack Kurds, benefitting Turkey; IS tortures Shias and "heterodox" Muslims allied to Iran, the primary opponent of Saudi Arabia and Israel; Israel has yet to complain about the IS-backed civil war in Syria that limits that country's funding of Hamas.

None of those three countries had much if any opposition to Al Qaeda, either.

If the US wants to stop IS, then we should direct our "allies" to stop tacitly supporting it.

[ingemann]

Has anyone noticed how little attention IS has received from US "allies" in the region? Turkey, Saudi Arabia and -- especially --  Israel all have had sparingly little to say about it.

They all have reason to keep quiet about the IS insurgency: IS carries out a good deal of their foreign policy objectives in Syria and Iraq. They attack Kurds, benefitting Turkey; IS tortures Shias and "heterodox" Muslims allied to Iran, the primary opponent of Saudi Arabia and Israel; Israel has yet to complain about the IS-backed civil war in Syria that limits that country's funding of Hamas.

None of those three countries had much if any opposition to Al Qaeda, either.

If the US wants to stop IS, then we should direct our "allies" to stop tacitly supporting it.

What can USA (realistic) threaten with if they don't obey? You don't get Congress to support punish Israel, Turkey are in a category where they can tell Obama to  off and USA for some reason never do anything to the Saudis.

So why should they not continue seeking their own interest over those of USA?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even if the governments of those countries wanted to get involved in a big way its unlikely that two would be able to for reasons of... er... optics... while the Saudis would probably only go and lose.