• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Israel and ISIS

J

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
Flankerl said:
Why would you start this thread?

This is not a good idea at all.
Click to expand...
You don't think this is an important topic ? It is based on an article from a respected and legitimate source, the Washington Post. Are you afraid of something ?
 
Last edited:
J

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
Flankerl said:
Based on my experience on this Forum this Thread is a bad idea.

Legitimate sources don't mean anything.
Click to expand...
Please explain your concern. The legitimacy of the source is the most important foundation for discussion. Are you afraid there will be criticism of Israel ? You can defend her. Did you read the article ?
 
Laika

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Jake1001 said:
Please explain your concern. The legitimacy of the source is the most important foundation for discussion. Are you afraid there will be criticism of Israel ? You can defend her. Did you read the article ?
Click to expand...

It's as the article said, this is "kicking up a hornets nest". The debates on whether ISIL is representative of Islam, or whether Israel can co-exist with Muslim-majority states, including palestine, in the middle east are controversial even here. A Large part of the forum's internet traffic is from the US, so you'll get loads of people asking "Is ISIL really our problem?" or "doesn't America have better things to do?". maybe throw in some references to the United Nations and whether US military involvement against ISIL is a "crime against peace" or imperialism and whether ISIL has any rights as an unrecognised government under international law or is just a "terrorist organisation". Then your OP poured gasoline on the issue by saying "Is radical religion the problem?" which means the Atheists can get stuck in and denounce both ISIL and Isreal as representative of religions and therefore religions are evil, violent and dangerous, maybe dragging christians into it too.

Even without 20 pages of forum in-fighting, you can be sure it's "more complicated" than whether we should or even could become involved. After the invasion of Iraq, the problem is less the "why" but the "how". There isn't such a thing as a clear victory any more, especially if escalating the conflict de-stabilises a region which is crucial to the world economy because of it's oil reserves. Instead we get dragged into decade long gurrella warfare in which all the original intentions of the participants becomes a distant memory and "winning" is expensive in terms of lives, resources and will power.

We could skip the 20 pages and admitt "winning" what maybe a "just" war isn't the morally clear cut distinction what it used to be. (edit: assuming it ever was).
 
Moishe3rd

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Reality says that Israel will be cautious when fighting their enemies. They always have been.
Reality says that Israel is surrounded by "splinter states" that are hostile to Israel. They always have been.
And, reality says that Israel will try and strike back with overwhelming force in the face of a massive threat. They always have....
So? Nu?
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
A new world war would change neither Israel's nor ISIS's attitude to each other.
However it could reduce the worlds population by 50 %
Which could equally solve a few other world problems.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Terrywoodenpic said:
A new world war would change neither Israel's nor ISIS's attitude to each other.
However it could reduce the worlds population by 50 %
Which could equally solve a few other world problems.
Click to expand...
In the sense that having one's legs amputated solves smelly feet, sure.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Some interesting insights and statements in that article.

One is the implicit idea that ISIS is ultimately a military problem, to be solved by military action. I find that highly questionable.

Another is the IMO rather odd expectation that there is such a thing as a desirable "US Leadership" in the Middle East that is supposed to be growing "by default of other players". That is an exceedingly dangerous idea to consider.

This statement, in particular, I find almost funny, bordering on satyrical.

But most players still want to hold America’s coat while the United States does the bulk of the fighting.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how sincere it is, and I guess I know little about how much fighting is happening there, let alone how much of it is made by US troops.

But I do know that after over ten years of largely pointless troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US public opinion will be very much opposed to any significant numbers of US military presence opposing ISIS on the ground. Paying mercenaries, sure. Cowardly loosing bombs over ISIS, no doubt. But "the bulk of the fighting"? This sounds like a misguided joke, really.

Then comes the best part of the article. Despite being brief and poor in detail, it still reminds us that the region is basically doomed to instability in the predictable future. An almost accidental description of the regimes of Mubarak in Egypt, of the Assads in Syria and of Gadaffi in Lybia as "secular" reminds us of how relative the meaning of such a word is in Muslim communities.

The bottom line IMO is that there is no easy nor painless future possible in the Middle East. I am worried that the article writer seems to hold significant hope that one might be found "if only" the USA could be convinced of "doing their part" by commiting troops with gusto to establish or keep "leadership in the region". I find that both unrealistic and undesirable, myself.

I think Israel is correct in being cautious. But I also think it is not being nearly cautious enough, nor non-militaristic enough.
 
J

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
Laika said:
It's as the article said, this is "kicking up a hornets nest". The debates on whether ISIL is representative of Islam, or whether Israel can co-exist with Muslim-majority states, including palestine, in the middle east are controversial even here. A Large part of the forum's internet traffic is from the US, so you'll get loads of people asking "Is ISIL really our problem?" or "doesn't America have better things to do?". maybe throw in some references to the United Nations and whether US military involvement against ISIL is a "crime against peace" or imperialism and whether ISIL has any rights as an unrecognised government under international law or is just a "terrorist organisation". Then your OP poured gasoline on the issue by saying "Is radical religion the problem?" which means the Atheists can get stuck in and denounce both ISIL and Isreal as representative of religions and therefore religions are evil, violent and dangerous, maybe dragging christians into it too.

Even without 20 pages of forum in-fighting, you can be sure it's "more complicated" than whether we should or even could become involved. After the invasion of Iraq, the problem is less the "why" but the "how". There isn't such a thing as a clear victory any more, especially if escalating the conflict de-stabilises a region which is crucial to the world economy because of it's oil reserves. Instead we get dragged into decade long gurrella warfare in which all the original intentions of the participants becomes a distant memory and "winning" is expensive in terms of lives, resources and will power.

We could skip the 20 pages and admitt "winning" what maybe a "just" war isn't the morally clear cut distinction what it used to be. (edit: assuming it ever was).
Click to expand...
There are times when we have to stand up and do the right thing, hornets nest or not.

So "Is ISIL really our problem" ? I think we have to say yes to this.

"Doesn't America have better things to do " ? No.

Is radical Islam the problem ? Yes.

Any other questions ?
 
J

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
Moishe3rd said:
Reality says that Israel will be cautious when fighting their enemies. They always have been.
Reality says that Israel is surrounded by "splinter states" that are hostile to Israel. They always have been.
And, reality says that Israel will try and strike back with overwhelming force in the face of a massive threat. They always have....
So? Nu?
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts about the use of nukes ?
 
J

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
LuisDantas said:
Some interesting insights and statements in that article.

One is the implicit idea that ISIS is ultimately a military problem, to be solved by military action. I find that highly questionable.

Another is the IMO rather odd expectation that there is such a thing as a desirable "US Leadership" in the Middle East that is supposed to be growing "by default of other players". That is an exceedingly dangerous idea to consider.

This statement, in particular, I find almost funny, bordering on satyrical.

I have no idea how sincere it is, and I guess I know little about how much fighting is happening there, let alone how much of it is made by US troops.

But I do know that after over ten years of largely pointless troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US public opinion will be very much opposed to any significant numbers of US military presence opposing ISIS on the ground. Paying mercenaries, sure. Cowardly loosing bombs over ISIS, no doubt. But "the bulk of the fighting"? This sounds like a misguided joke, really.

Then comes the best part of the article. Despite being brief and poor in detail, it still reminds us that the region is basically doomed to instability in the predictable future. An almost accidental description of the regimes of Mubarak in Egypt, of the Assads in Syria and of Gadaffi in Lybia as "secular" reminds us of how relative the meaning of such a word is in Muslim communities.

The bottom line IMO is that there is no easy nor painless future possible in the Middle East. I am worried that the article writer seems to hold significant hope that one might be found "if only" the USA could be convinced of "doing their part" by commiting troops with gusto to establish or keep "leadership in the region". I find that both unrealistic and undesirable, myself.

I think Israel is correct in being cautious. But I also think it is not being nearly cautious enough, nor non-militaristic enough.
Click to expand...
Agreed ! We have seen that military action generally does not work. So, how does one change the paradigm in the region ? In my view, the only answer is.....education !
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top