Seem's like the worldwide Salafist uprising is gathering momentum. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, etc.
Directly or indirectly funded by Hope and Change?
In a related story
Tunisia Can’t Cope with Massive Libya Refugee Influx
From the article Libya has suffered chronic insecurity since Gadhafi's ouster, with the new government unable to check militias that helped to overthrow him and facing a growing threat from Islamist groups. Once again, thank you NATO.
What a disaster…Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. Why Hope and Change was so eager to embrace the Arab Spring when he knew little or nothing about the uprise?
reuters.com/article/2014/07/30/us-libya-security-idUSKBN0FZ1IN20140730 Starting to look like Libya may go at least majority Islamist in the near future.
The question is, can they link up with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? If so, they got themselves a pretty big terror nation. However it should be easy to retake such a nation, but to hold it? Well Afghanistan shows that to be very difficult.
The way western nations conduct war, it would be difficult indeed over such a large area. But regional actors don’t mind killing their enemies in droves if necessary, including noncombatants. If, say, it ever comes to large scale war between ISIS and Iran or Iran and Turkey (which isn’t very likely), the atrocities on both sides would be beyond western imagining. One remembers, for example, the deaths of a million Armenians by Turks who thought they might be disloyal, the deaths of thousands of young Iranian boys sent into Iraqi poison gas clouds, electric barriers and the like.
More likely the extremists will spill over into neighboring Egypt and Tunisia, where there are also extremists.
Well, a strong ISIL is one way to get rid of Al Qaeda. Apparently Al Qaeda is not “cool” anymore and is losing young recruits to the more extreme ISIS.
I really hate to even say this, but in many ways this all needed to happen years (centuries?) ago. The ethnic and religious groups in this region have been under some sort of European, American, or Ottoman control for centuries. The current map is not one of the choosing of the people that live there, rather one of convenience for those who controlled the region.
I do not agree with how this is going down, but the reality is you are seeing the struggles of people not having the power to make their own destiny for many generations. The larger picture is that we need to allow the people of this region to determine how they will be governed and associate. The real trick though is to not inflame the bloodshed and resist extremism as much as we can.
Um you know that the Muslims have also fought amongst each other in the past? Even during the Crusades, some factions sided with the Christians or were at least neutral or aided them.
I know that. The issue I’m referring is the more recent history of Imperialism by the Ottoman and European Empires followed by the cold war order imposed on the region via strongmen and dictators. The local people have had very little self determination for quite some time.
The thing these guys are going to find out is that all they’re really destroying is what was best in their own civilizations. Look at Mosul. Betcha dollars to donuts that between eliminating all the Christians and murdering the intellectuals who objected, ISIS is left with a wasteland of a city that produces nothing and is unable to repair what was destroyed.
Given the almost absolute contempt they have for thinking, the ISIS types are literally going to create nothing but scorched earth wherever they gain power. By definition, these guys can’t hold power long or there will be mass starvation and disease and thus nobody to hold power over. Watch and see.
Watch the current administration facilitate a “greater Iran”. It’s happening as we speak.
Historically, the scene wasn’t much better when the peoples of the Middle East DID control their own destinies. In fact, one could reasonably argue that it was worse than during the brief period of European domination. Remember that in the Crusades, some Arab leaders allied with the Europeans against other Arab leaders. They fought each other until “unified” by the Seljuk Turks, the Kwarazmian Turks, the Mamluk Turks or the Ottoman Turks in their turn. That’s particularly true when one takes a wide view of who the “ethnic and religious groups” in the region are. In the region as a whole, there are Persians, Turks, Turkomen, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and other, smaller groups, and none of them has any particular use for the other. Other than under the Ottomans (spotty) and the Europeans, the region never had peace, and it most definitely never had self-rule by any ethnic group exclusively.
One of the worst mistakes people can make in thinking about the region is in assuming that ties like ethnicity, religion or language are truly binding. Arab culture is profoundly tribal. There are really two kinds of Kurds, currently allied with each other but which have sometimes warred against each other in recent memory. Iranians are “ethnicist” in a way, but there are a lot of people in Iran who are not “Persians”; probably the majority. Turks in Turkey are pretty much a solid, state-oriented group. How did Mustafa Kemal put it “Whoever lives in Turkey, speaks Turkish and says he is a Turk…is a Turk”. But Turkey itself is probably 1/4 to 1/3 Kurdish, and they certainly don’t think of themselves as Turks.
Radical Islam itself has internationalist, imperialist ambitions. It’s far from being a “local self-rule” group. And really, Islam has always been that way.
ISIL already has open supporters in Turkey hurriyetdailynews.com/claims-of-allocation-of-camps-to-isil-in-istanbul-spark-debate.aspx?pageID=238&nID=69794&NewsCatID=341
I’m sure it does. But as an Arab group with what seem like imperial ambitions extending outside the Arab areas, that can’t be too welcome a prospect for a lot of Turks.
ISIS/ISIL-oriented people in Turkey might soon learn the origin of the epithet “Terrible Turks”.
Was it that much better in Europe during the middle and dark ages? For the most part not. Forget not we would know little of Greek philosophy, algebra, and so on if it weren’t for Arabs. The Renaissance got its kick start from this knowledge.
Indeed parts of the Middle East are still highly tribal. Then again our own country is made up of many different backgrounds…one difference being we were allowed to find our own collective identity.
And the western world (Christian) has never had such ambitions?
Of course it did. That’s not to say that all imperialisms have no beneficial effects.
Of possible interest, the Church discouraged tribalism in Europe very strongly. If one looks at the marriage laws of the Church during the early Middle Ages, the prohibitions against marrying within degrees of consanguinity and affinity were so strict it became nearly impossible to marry within one’s tribe. That was deliberate, the purpose being to break up tribal structures and at least somewhat discourage tribal warring. Now, the next tribe might only be three miles distant from one’s home, but one did have to at least make that trek.