ISIS demolish ancient city of Nimrud

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Remember when the Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan? Well, ISIS have decided to bring a little of that very specific brand of crazy to Iraq and are busy destroying Nimrud, which is the site of the Assyrian city of Kalhu (it gets a mention in the Bible as Calah). BBC story here if you can stomach it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

[windjammer]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

[Mopsus]

Alas, it must not be very easy to sell a city on the black market.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

[muon2]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

Do those costs include sending soldiers from concerned countries to fight on the ground? If so, is that view held by enough of the public to spur action by those governments? I doubt anything less will stop the madness.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

That propaganda clip of ISIS members trashing Mosul museum is nauseating. Partly because of the distressing content, and also because ISIS know how to push our buttons. Ugh. I hope this damn group implodes already.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

Do those costs include sending soldiers from concerned countries to fight on the ground? If so, is that view held by enough of the public to spur action by those governments? I doubt anything less will stop the madness.

Polls seem to indicate a solid majority of Americans now support sending troops on the ground. With some diplomatic efforts, it seems possible to forge a coalition including both Western powers and local nations (Egypt and Jordan, as well as Irak obviously, have already sent troops).

[Tender Branson]

Fucked-up c**nts.

[afleitch]

We should demolish Mecca in retaliation. Oh wait the Saudi's already did that...

[Storebought]

Destruction of pre-Islamic artifacts happened in Maldives, but that incident flew under the radar.

[© tweed]

Year Zeroes happen every now and again.  1789, 1871, 1975...

[© tweed]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

why?  how many fcks did you give about "Nimrud" before 5 minutes ago?

[Mopsus]

Year Zeroes happen every now and again.

Year 1436, actually.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

why?  how many fcks did you give about "Nimrud" before 5 minutes ago?

It wasn't being destroyed five minutes ago.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

why?  how many fcks did you give about "Nimrud" before 5 minutes ago?

It wasn't being destroyed five minutes ago.

That doesn't quite answer the question.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[Antonio the Sixth]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

why?  how many fcks did you give about "Nimrud" before 5 minutes ago?

It wasn't being destroyed five minutes ago.

That doesn't quite answer the question.

The "question" was not worth answering anyway.

[ingemann]

Sad but not really something I want to sacrifise western lives to stop, even if we stopped it, they would do the same in a few years. So unless we plan to depopulate the Middle East (which I don't) and remake it as one big museum, these thing will keep happening.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would certainly be a less frightening world if we could blame the botched US invasion of Iraq for ISIS. But aside from wishful thinking, I'm not sure why anyone aside from dictator-apologists like George Galloway would accept that as truth.

Please elaborate. I might be missing something, but I have a hard time imagining how ISIS could have become such a powerhouse without the post-2003 chaos in Irak. Of course the post-2011 chaos in Syria certainly helped, but would it have been enough?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would certainly be a less frightening world if we could blame the botched US invasion of Iraq for ISIS. But aside from wishful thinking, I'm not sure why anyone aside from dictator-apologists like George Galloway would accept that as truth.

Please elaborate. I might be missing something, but I have a hard time imagining how ISIS could have become such a powerhouse without the post-2003 chaos in Irak. Of course the post-2011 chaos in Syria certainly helped, but would it have been enough?

Saddam's regime was less stable than Assad's prior to the US invasion. International sanctions had leveled Iraq's economy, the country had been in a quasi-war with the United States for over a decade, and its internal divisions were only less palpable because its government had no qualms about massacring any group that piqued its suspicion.

So your assumption is that the Arab Spring would have roughly the same effects in Irak as it had in Syria? That makes sense, but it would still mean that ISIS would have developed much more recently. Besides, Saddam's Irak was the opposite of Assad's Syria: a majority-Shiite country governed by Sunnis. ISIS gained so much traction in Irak by playing on the Sunnis' resentment against the new Shiite leaders of the post-Saddam era. I don't think they would have found the same support if they were fighting against Saddam.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would certainly be a less frightening world if we could blame the botched US invasion of Iraq for ISIS. But aside from wishful thinking, I'm not sure why anyone aside from dictator-apologists like George Galloway would accept that as truth.

Please elaborate. I might be missing something, but I have a hard time imagining how ISIS could have become such a powerhouse without the post-2003 chaos in Irak. Of course the post-2011 chaos in Syria certainly helped, but would it have been enough?

Saddam's regime was less stable than Assad's prior to the US invasion. International sanctions had leveled Iraq's economy, the country had been in a quasi-war with the United States for over a decade, and its internal divisions were only less palpable because its government had no qualms about massacring any group that piqued its suspicion.

So your assumption is that the Arab Spring would have roughly the same effects in Irak as it had in Syria? That makes sense, but it would still mean that ISIS would have developed much more recently. Besides, Saddam's Irak was the opposite of Assad's Syria: a majority-Shiite country governed by Sunnis. ISIS gained so much traction in Irak by playing on the Sunnis' resentment against the new Shiite leaders of the post-Saddam era. I don't think they would have found the same support if they were fighting against Saddam.

"Roughly the same"? Not likely - it's pointless to predict exactly what would have happened because so much is contingent on the politics of Saddam's inner circle - but whatever effect it had would very likely have been at least as bloody for Iraq as it actually has been. Consider, for instance, that the 1991 uprisings against Saddam had a death toll comparable to the Syrian Civil War to date.

Yes, but the question is whether or not ISIS would still have developed in these conditions. And the most likely answer is probably "yes, but much more slowly" IMO. At this point in time, it would still be a manageable threat and certainly wouldn't control half of Iraq.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is now reported that they are also trying to level another ruined city, namely Hatra. The city was the capital of a Parthian client start in the first and second centuries AD and is was notable for its stunning architecture. It was also the setting for the opening scene of The Exorcist, weirdly enough.

[Insula Dei]

The ray of hope in this miserable tale is that for now at least, we haven't seen video images of the alleged destructions at Nimrud and Hatra. ISIS is not usually reticent about its atrocities, so that the lack of hard evidence to back up these reports might mean things aren't quite as bad as we're being led to believe.