Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

Algiers a little different since it was an ongoing occupation. I'm sure OBL believes he scored a tactical coup by getting the US to invade Iraq but I'd suggest that a dispassionate evaluation of the results of that invasion indicate very poor results for people living in the Middle East (as well as the ongoing assassinations of Al-Q leadership including the killing of Nasir al-Wuhayshi yesterday) and mostly no impact on the US. Sure, the US populace is now more reticent to invade a Middle Eastern country, but in terms of destroying the Great Satan any success claimed by Al-Q is utterly delusional.

Sanpaku crediting Al-Q w radicalizing large swathes of young muslims, I'm not sure how to objectively evaluate that. It seems like some of that was happening/would happen anyway (Taliban already going strong, Israel doing a bang-up job as local bad guy, oppressive regimes like Egypt and SA driving radicalization etc.) but idk how you put numbers to that kind of claim.

tbh i've always found that 'oh we meant to do that' argument from OBL to be a. transparently self-serving and b. pretty outlandish. even OBL couldn't have predicted that GWB would've invaded Iraq in response to 9/11

haha yeah I'm p sure invading Iraq was *not* what OBL had in mind, he probably assumed he would be the center of attention

even OBL couldn't have predicted that GWB would've invaded Iraq in response to 9/11

altho tbf I did predict this

Yes, doesn't seem too outlandish.

I don't think OBL anticipated the invasion of Iraq. I think probably he didn't anticipate any particular result besides a strong response from the US. It was a move designed to shake up the status quo of the Middle East, but I don't think he was a particularly brilliant strategist for having successfully induced chaos in the [already precarious] countries around him. Whatever would've happened I'm sure he would've taken credit for, but compared to counterfactuals I don't think this was OBL's most successful result. In general I think it's a pretty poor result.

During the 90s, OBL regularly talked about Iraq (esp the death of children during sanctions, and the airstrikes in '93, '96, '98). His view was it was all of a piece, a crusade by Zionists and Americans against the ummah. I don't know if he expected Americans to be reckless enough to topple Saddam, but he certainly wanted American boots in the Mideast so that the US could be humbled as the USSR had been.

... just not in the country of the two holy places (Arabia).

i know nothing about cypriot music (or really cyprus except for its role for jewish refugees during ww2 and its current occupation by turkey) but this album of cypriot folk music is lovely + jaunty:
http://worldmusiccentral.org/2015/06/19/seasoned-cypriot-folk-music/

oops, i meant that for the outernational thread. oh well, not too off-topic here...

Louis to thread.

Neo-con Krauthammer's new strategy (with his standard dis of Obama thrown in, and well his opposition now to the Iraqi govt is consistent with his desire to blame Iran for everything and to want to put American lives in danger to stop Iran):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-strategy-for-iraq-and-syria/2015/06/18/20a52e28-15f1-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html?hpid=z3

Abandon our anachronistic fealty to the central Iraqi government (now largely under Iran’s sway anyway) and begin supplying the Iraqi Kurds in a direct, 24-hour, Berlin-style airlift. And in Syria, intensify our training, equipping and air support for the now-developing Kurdish safe zone. Similarly, through Jordan, for the Free Syrian Army’s Southern Front. Such a serious and relentless strategy would not only roll back Islamic State territorial gains, it would puncture the myth of Islamic State invincibility.

In theory, we should also be giving direct aid to friendly Sunni tribesmen in Iraq whose Anbar Awakening, brilliantly joined by Gen. David Petraeus’ surge, utterly defeated the Islamic State progenitor, al-Qaeda in Iraq, in 2006-2007. The problem is, having been abandoned by us once, when President Obama liquidated our presence in 2011, why should the Sunnis ever trust us again?

this should be interesting:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-saudi-wikileaks-idUSKBN0OZ1P320150619

From soon after 9/11, when I first started thinking about al-Q in any serious way, my take has been that one of their primary early objectives was to destabilize the existing authoritarian Arab regimes, which weren't radical enough to challenge the west. al-Q saw these governments as easy to sweep aside, given their unpopularity, and the Taliban provided al-Q with a model for the mujahedeen states that would move into the power vacuum. This seems like crude thinking, until you compare it to what has happened.

Their short term objective in 9/11 seemed to be to bait the USA into some kind of extremely heavy-handed tactics that would increase arab resentment toward both the USA and toward the cooperating arab regimes. Under the circumstances, the Iraq War was a gift of manna from GWB to al-Q.

Obama's drone warfare has definitely been effective at decreasing casualties among US soldiers and reducing the overall cost of operations, but like GWB's earlier tactics of invasion, occupation and creation of new puppet regimes, it still generates large quantities of resentment and anger, so that al-Q's basic grand strategy is still well served by Obama's on-the-cheap 'decapitation' war.

"If Baghdad continues to drag its feet, then this whole effort is doomed," Khedery said. "You can never have peace if Baghdad doesn’t want the Sunnis and the Kurds fully integrated as first-class citizens."

...

But the president's desire for a successful nuclear deal with Iran is likely getting in the way of a broad US strategy in the Middle East.

"Obama, because of the dramatic failures in every meaningful other part of his foreign policy, views the Iran deal as his 'Nixon goes to China moment,' his big legacy item," Khedery said. "So he and his team have been unwilling to do anything that would remotely upset the Iranians. This has emboldened Tehran and exacerbated regional tensions."

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-crippling-contradiction-in-obamas-isis-strategy-is-growing-2015-6#ixzz3dixARW5Q

My problem with this neo-con analysis, is that even if Obama was not working on a nuclear deal with Iran, and was instead focussed on trying to force the Iraqi government to treat Sunnis and Kurds fairly and support them on the same level as Shias, I don't think the current Iraqi government would be suddenly more open-minded

and Iran would be acting the same or even worse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/attacks-hit-three-continents-amid-fears-of-escalating-islamist-violence/2015/06/26/c3a76c90-1c08-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html?hpid=z2

Terror attacks believed linked to Islamic militants hit three continents in a matter of hours Friday — deadly gunfire at a Tunisian resort, a beheading in France and a blast at a Kuwait mosque — raising fears of escalating violence during the Muslim holy month dedicated to prayer and peaceful reflection.

peaceful reflection

huh how's that working out

Religious extremists

On Tunisia’s Mediterranean coast, sunbathers raced off the beach and others dove for cover after gunmen opened fire, killing more than two dozen people.

extremists

just another day with more killings

idk if this works, and if it does for how long it will continue to, but if you want to read the new war nerd (about the kurds aka YPG/Jis taking over Tal Abyad) i was able to get around the new pando paywall w/ this link

xps god so horrible

yeah go kurds! i'm team kurds generally speaking

Like the Kurds, don't like War Nerd guy's writing style

152 killed in an IS attack on Kobane yesterday.

Imarat Kavkaz might not have sworn allegiance to them after all.

http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/32173/

Though huge numbers of fighters from the region are going individually.

Al-Shabab killed 30 at an African Union military base in Somalia

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33282778

iran nuclear talks going past deadline
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33304417

according to op-ed a few days ago, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/the-iran-deals-fatal-flaw.html

30 Britons dead, at least. This is major.

how so? do you anticipate a lot of blowback in the uk? i doubt the english are about to drop troops in iraq, or tunisia

As an attack on civilians goes, 30 dead is not exactly minor, but as you point out, it is more likely to sharpen the pursuit of present UK anti-terror policy than to escalate it into a new realm.

(xp) British, if you don't mind.

As an attack on civilians goes, 30 dead is not exactly minor,

Yeah, this really.

As it stands is there anything to indicate that the guy who carried out this is any less of a lone wolf than Dylann Roof? Ditto the guy in France.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in Tunisia.

Which proves what exactly?

Also there's this:

Islamic State urged its followers on Tuesday to escalate attacks against Christians, Shi'ites and Sunni Muslims fighting with a U.S.-led coalition against the ultra-radical group.

Jihadists should turn the holy month of Ramadan, which began last week, into a time of "calamity for the infidels ... Shi'ites and apostate Muslims", Isalmic State spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani said in an audio message. He urged more attacks in Iraq, Syria and Libya.

"Muslims everywhere, we congratulate you over the arrival of the holy month," he said. "Be keen to conquer in this holy month and to become exposed to martyrdom."

You asked if there's anything to indicate that the guy who carried it out is less of a lone wolf. Yes, there is. A particular organization called for his actions and then took responsibility for them after they happened.

I know all that, I'm not living in Idaho here, you know? OK, so there is something to indicate that the guy who carried it out is less of a lone wolf, I'll concede that.

(Apologies to Idahoans everywhere btw)

yeah even if there was no explicit coordination, fact that there is powerful group/ movement/ quasi-state calling for, taking credit for, celebrating massacre, & calling for more makes it qualitatively different from dylann roof case

was it conclusively determined whether aq or daesh was 'behind' hebdo attack? (iirc aq claimed responsiblity)

this might also be pivotal event bc so far unclear if/ when/ to what extent (despite rhetoric) daesh would be engaging in international aq-like terrorism, e.g. against western targets

but this may be different from aq precisely in lack of top-down coordination, more reliant on inspiring so-called 'lone wolves'

if that’s the case, in one sense daesh advances in ME (military issue) are separate issue from daesh-inspired international terrorism;

on the other hand, daesh advances in ME, pr victories, progress toward ‘caliphate’, may render them more powerful recruiters, propagandizers, effective cause of international terrorism than aq ever was

but this may be different from aq precisely in lack of top-down coordination, more reliant on inspiring so-called 'lone wolves'

Sort of what I was fumbling towards.

But, I suppose we;ll find out more in the next few weeks.

i'm inclined to believe IS had more to do w/ Tunisia specifically bc they haven't taken responsibility for France or Kuwait. if they were just trying to get credit for any Islamic violence they can, they wouldn't be so discriminating

i'm not sure what the difference is tho. it's not like roof's attack is any less reprehensible just bc it can't be traced back to one specific right wing hate group. 'lone wolf' was a term made up by the american right (at least acc to the ADL) to describe terrorists who act independently enough that they can't be traced back to a parent organization. it would be silly to consider 'lone wolf' attacks exculpatory for right wing organizations when they're an explicit attempt to duck that responsibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/world/americas/isis-online-recruiting-american.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

i don't usually follow this stuff so sorry if you guys already did this

but wau

xp reluctantly have to be creepy liberal again

don’t know if you’re correct about right wing ‘made up’ origin of term ‘lone wolf’, but as term frequently used by obama admin officials (e.g. by eric holder, state dept, dhs, cia, fbi etc), i’m not convinced current usage is necessarily ideologically suspect

there’s a difference between exculpating & recognizing qualitative differences (esp governmentally relevant differences, e.g. for law enforcement purposes)

re ‘ducking responsibility,’ do you mean particular ‘right wing organizations’ (understandable & i’d agree) or ‘right wing organizations’ in general (i’d strongly disagree)?

as strong free speech advocate (even of speech i might find loathsome & vehemently oppose), i consider qualitative differences here important to recognize, otherwise it wd justify indiscriminate level of governmental intervention in & restriction of speech & private association i consider unacceptable/unconstitutional, which wd not just affect right wing

(of course roof’s attack is no less reprehensible!!!!! whether it’s apt to call him a ‘lone wolf’ or not)

i'm specifically referring to this: http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/curtis.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism

Thanks largely to the power of the Internet, white supremacist Alex Curtis of San Diego, California, became one of the most influential voices on the racist right in the late 1990s.

A leading proponent of "lone wolf " activism, Curtis encouraged fellow racists to act alone in committing violent crimes so that they would not incriminate others. He called for the elimination of nonwhites by "whatever means necessary" and promoted assassination, illegal drug sales and biological warfare as useful strategies. He popularized the so-called "5 words" - "I have nothing to say"- which he urged extremists to use whenever questioned by police as a means of obstructing prosecution. Curtis himself was arrested in November 2000 and charged with three federal counts of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of various individuals. In March 2001, Curtis cut a deal with the government, pleading guilty to the charges in return for the recommendation by prosecutors of a reduced sentence. He received a three-year sentence in June 2001.

thanks for link mordy, see better where you were coming from, but to equate
alex curtis/ dylann roof = "american right"
is roughly analogous to saying
nidal malik hasan = "american muslims"
or ted kaczinski = "american environmentalists"
or valerie solanas = “american feminists”
or weather underground = “american left”

(nb fort hood classified by gov as workplace violence rather than terrorism; i disagree; i consider hasan & roof both terrorists even though they may be ‘lone wolves’)

who knows if roof was inspired by ‘lone wolf’ idea propagated by 'white supremacist Alex Curtis of San Diego, California' in the 90s. according to that nyt article, roof explicitly cited ccc as influence, which (loathsome though it is) is on a level with some loathsome 'anti-zionist' views among some academics— not like alex curtis/ isis explicitly advocating murder (which is NOT to exculpate that disgusting speech! but strictly speaking distinguishes ccc & those antisemitic professors from ’terrorist’ label). but this issue of relation between hateful speech/ orgs and individual murderers prob best discussed elsewhere

there is something which differentiates roof from others: depths of traumatic american history (analogue may be be anti-semitism in europe), still to an extent open wound

lack of recent statistical pattern of related terrorist acts supports view of roof as ‘lone wolf’-- which is NOT to deny existence of related hateful ideology, manifested in different ways in the present, but imo seems qualitatively different situation from e.g. aq or isis (i could be wrong) (anyway this is off topic for this thread)

just got around to reading j's link-- wow indeed (fascinating, absurd, scary)

In early February, a number of other Twitter users, including Mr. Shaikh, read Alex’s timeline and recognized the signs of her growing radicalization. They threw lifelines into the digital sea.

“I know they seem sweet,” wrote one who went by the handle @KindLadyAdilah. “They are grooming you,” she added, “If you went there you would die or worse.”

“Can I just ignore them?” Alex asked, “I swear I have, like since last night, cutting off ties is hard and they gave me stuff.”

On Feb. 13, @KindLadyAdilah advised her to stop accepting their gifts. Alex promised she would tell Faisal to stop sending them.

But a few days later another envelope arrived at her cousin’s house, containing more chocolate and a Hallmark card decorated with a cutout of a kitten. When she opened it, two $20 bills fell out.

“Please go out and enjoy a Pizza TOGETHER,” it says, signed, “Twitter friends.”

Alex spent her Valentine’s Day curled up on her bed, discussing the theological justification for suicide bombings with an ISIS supporter. She does not know his real name or even what he looks like – his profile picture was of a roaring lion. His handle was @SurgeonOfDeath.

by 'american right' i meant the extremist american right, otherwise generally speaking i agree w/ you that "this issue of relation between hateful speech/ orgs and individual murderers" is worth discussing and it's something i think about - esp the fact that in politics today everyone is in a rush to demonstrate that MY ideological allies are not responsible for heinous acts while YOUR ideological allies clearly are. it's offensive to say that social milieu X produces terrorists bc X is comprised of many individuals, but it's accurate to say social milieu Y produces terrorists bc Y is clearly saturated w/ the ideas that inspire terrorism. iow culture is either responsible for the aberrant, heinous crimes that arise from it, or it isn't. (nb i also wonder what it means to say that anyone is responsible for their actions in an age where good/evil has been replaced by theories of mental illness / neurology / determinative social conditions etc)