Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

That way we could also show to everyone in the world that the easiest way to carve your own country out is to be as excessive in pointless violence as you can

Yup yup, like I said I'm not saying that it's a good idea at all - merely that we can offer them something they want if it comes down to it.

Though that said, I think excessive violence has been recognized as the fastest path to nationhood since the concept of nationhood appeared.

[garbon]

That way we could also show to everyone in the world that the easiest way to carve your own country out is to be as excessive in pointless violence as you can

Yup yup, like I said I'm not saying that it's a good idea at all - merely that we can offer them something they want if it comes down to it.

I don't know. I feel like they'd laugh at the notion that was something we could give them (well maybe not now while they are on the run) but previously when they were just getting it done anyway...

[Jacob]

I don't know. I feel like they'd laugh at the notion that was something we could give them (well maybe not now while they are on the run) but previously when they were just getting it done anyway...

Well, I'm sure they wouldn't frame it as us "giving them stuff" as much as "Allah has granted us this as a reward for our struggle" or whatever, but my impression is that in the end they're primarily about controlling the Ummah (and coincidentally the profits generated from them) rather than anything else, so if we were willing to offer concessions it would be along those lines.

That said, I don't think we're willing to offer concessions along those lines, or along any other lines for that matter.

[Josquius]

Except we aren't empowering them.
And which group do you suggest talking to here?

I just told you the reasons why you are empowering them. Supporting ISIS becomes a valid way to extract concessions with the West. Can't you see the message you're sending out if you agree to "talk to ISIS"?

And that's why if you want to bargain with somebody, you talk to moderate Islamic branches. For example, you know the reason Spain is riddled with Salafist mosques? Because we make things so difficult for regular muslims to build them, that the Saudis barge in and use their vast money and influence to do it instead.

I don't see the logic.
We are willing to talk. So we talk with Daesh. Daesh being Daesh we don't give them anything and we can come away with "They demanded shariah law and virgin sacrifice and god knows what. We offered investment in improving the quality of life of Iraqis but they weren't interested. hmm...."
Helps rubbish claims of them fighting against imperialism for the good of the people and means in the future if anyone is thinking of turning to extremism they may stay their hand a little before they give in to extremes, they know that we're willing to talk.

And which moderates would you suggest we talk to?
Daesh are the problem at hand.

[garbon]

I don't know. I feel like they'd laugh at the notion that was something we could give them (well maybe not now while they are on the run) but previously when they were just getting it done anyway...

Well, I'm sure they wouldn't frame it as us "giving them stuff" as much as "Allah has granted us this as a reward for our struggle" or whatever, but my impression is that in the end they're primarily about controlling the Ummah (and coincidentally the profits generated from them) rather than anything else, so if we were willing to offer concessions it would be along those lines.

That said, I don't think we're willing to offer concessions along those lines, or along any other lines for that matter.

It strikes me that it'd be a Chamberlain-like concession.

I'm not convinced that if they ever fully established their Caliphate that they'd be content to let the rest of the world continue all heathen like. But all that is pure speculation.

[Zoupa]

Sometimes there is no point in talking. Daesh is a prime example. They've done too much to the Yazidis, to us, to the Kurds, to the christians in Syria. They just need to be killed, to be blunt.

I'd talk with Assad though. He's a giant turd that did terrible stuff too, but at least he understands the game and we could actually get somewhere with him.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, sometimes negotiation makes sense, other times not. It somewhat made sense to try negotiating with the Taliban, they had a narrower set of goals focused on Afghanistan, and conceivably would've been willing to maybe put down their weapons in exchange for a seat at the table. Various Afghani warlords had agreed to peace already; it ends up the Taliban maybe won't come to a settlement, but it at least made sense to try.

I'd agree on  Assad, he has interests and goals that could coincide with ours. I see little to no overlap over ISIS, their ideology is apocalyptic and they believe in permanent, continuous war against infidels and apostates (so all Muslims who don't ascribed to their specific sect of Wahhabist-inspired fundamentalism, and all non-Muslims), there can be no meaningful overlap of goals and thus negotiation makes little sense.

[Berkut]

I don't know. I feel like they'd laugh at the notion that was something we could give them (well maybe not now while they are on the run) but previously when they were just getting it done anyway...

Well, I'm sure they wouldn't frame it as us "giving them stuff" as much as "Allah has granted us this as a reward for our struggle" or whatever, but my impression is that in the end they're primarily about controlling the Ummah (and coincidentally the profits generated from them) rather than anything else, so if we were willing to offer concessions it would be along those lines.

That said, I don't think we're willing to offer concessions along those lines, or along any other lines for that matter.

It strikes me that it'd be a Chamberlain-like concession.

I'm not convinced that if they ever fully established their Caliphate that they'd be content to let the rest of the world continue all heathen like. But all that is pure speculation.

I don't think you have to speculate on that at all. They are happy to tell you exactly what their plans are, and they are very clear that any "peace" with them would only EVER be contemplated as a temporary condition to be entered in if and only if it is seen as being tactically useful to do so until such time that they can continue their overall goal of 100% conversion or subjugation.

They are, if nothing else, completely honest about their intentions.

[Jacob]

It strikes me that it'd be a Chamberlain-like concession.

For sure. Like I've said in every single post I've made on the subject, I'm not saying it's a good move. I'm merely pointing out that there is "stuff we can give them".

I'm not convinced that if they ever fully established their Caliphate that they'd be content to let the rest of the world continue all heathen like. But all that is pure speculation.

That's a long way down the road even if everything comes up ISIS from here on out. There'd be plenty of time for a Cold War style entente to develop, for example.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, sometimes negotiation makes sense, other times not. It somewhat made sense to try negotiating with the Taliban, they had a narrower set of goals focused on Afghanistan, and conceivably would've been willing to maybe put down their weapons in exchange for a seat at the table. Various Afghani warlords had agreed to peace already; it ends up the Taliban maybe won't come to a settlement, but it at least made sense to try.

I'd agree on  Assad, he has interests and goals that could coincide with ours. I see little to no overlap over ISIS, their ideology is apocalyptic and they believe in permanent, continuous war against infidels and apostates (so all Muslims who don't ascribed to their specific sect of Wahhabist-inspired fundamentalism, and all non-Muslims), there can be no meaningful overlap of goals and thus negotiation makes little sense.

I agree with most of this. I disagree on Assad. There is no way to destroy ISIS that doesn't involve destroying Assad first.

[Jacob]

I don't think you have to speculate on that at all. They are happy to tell you exactly what their plans are, and they are very clear that any "peace" with them would only EVER be contemplated as a temporary condition to be entered in if and only if it is seen as being tactically useful to do so until such time that they can continue their overall goal of 100% conversion or subjugation.

They are, if nothing else, completely honest about their intentions.

Really?

I was under the impression that it was primarily about establishing "proper" Islamic rule in the Islamic world and the current conflict was characterized as one of defense not conquest. To be honest, though, I haven't dug into it that much - are there any specific things you have in mind when you state that Daesh et. al. have an honestly stated goal of 100% conversion and subjugation?

[Berkut]

It strikes me that it'd be a Chamberlain-like concession.

For sure. Like I've said in every single post I've made on the subject, I'm not saying it's a good move. I'm merely pointing out that there is "stuff we can give them".

I'm not convinced that if they ever fully established their Caliphate that they'd be content to let the rest of the world continue all heathen like. But all that is pure speculation.

That's a long way down the road even if everything comes up ISIS from here on out. There'd be plenty of time for a Cold War style entente to develop, for example.

Why would you think that they would have any interest in such an entente?

Do you really think that if ISIS established some permanent political entity they would *stop* encouraging terrorism like Paris or Orlando on the basis of some "entente"?

I don't - if they did, they would not be ISIS anymore. The best we could hope for would be a temporary peace because they decided that peace with the West might be useful for a while so as to allow them to go screw with some other place instead.

[The Brain]

No true ISIS would stop using terror against the West.

[Jacob]

Why would you think that they would have any interest in such an entente?

Do you really think that if ISIS established some permanent political entity they would *stop* encouraging terrorism like Paris or Orlando on the basis of some "entente"?

I don't - if they did, they would not be ISIS anymore. The best we could hope for would be a temporary peace because they decided that peace with the West might be useful for a while so as to allow them to go screw with some other place instead.

I dunno. I mean, sure Iran exports terrorism once in a while but mostly it worries about the near region (Hezbollah, Yemen et. al.), but they're not particularly active in carrying out terrorist acts against the West on Western soil I don't think, and I don't think that world domination under their particular brand of Islam is that high on their practical list of priorities. From where I'm sitting, the Iranian government is not that far removed from what Daesh claims to be about and would eventually transition to if it had the chance (with the obvious differences between Shia and Sunni). I'd expect that should Daesh succeed in establishing a viable state they'd transition to care about the things that actual states care about and transition to somewhere not too far off Iran.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The fairly famous at this point Atlantic article on ISIS ideology makes a pretty compelling argument they aren't just looking for a reestablishment of the medieval caliphate restricted to those borders, they have a philosophy that at its heart requires a Caliph continually seek to expand his authority. A Caliph that fails to do so, is no longer legitimate.

I mean, if you look at early Islamic expansionism (and how ISIS claims they adhere to an ancient, more "true" form of Islam) it's pretty obvious the early Muslim rulers wanted to take as much land as they possibly could. ISIS seeks to complete what was failed 1400 years ago.

Link - The Atlantic "What ISIS Really Wants"