Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The War Against ISIL Begins Now. Obama's Speech + Translation The War Against ISIL Begins Now. Obama's Speech + Translation

08-12-2015 , 08:09 AM
Inside the Kurdish rollback of ISIS and the possible American betrayal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/wo...ampaign=buffer
08-13-2015 , 10:06 AM
The theology of rape

Quote:
One 34-year-old Yazidi woman, who was bought and repeatedly raped by a Saudi fighter in the Syrian city of Shadadi, described how she fared better than the second slave in the household — a 12-year-old girl who was raped for days on end despite heavy bleeding.

“He destroyed her body. She was badly infected. The fighter kept coming and asking me, ‘Why does she smell so bad?’ And I said, she has an infection on the inside, you need to take care of her,” the woman said.

Unmoved, he ignored the girl’s agony, continuing the ritual of praying before and after raping the child.

“I said to him, ‘She’s just a little girl,’ ” the older woman recalled. “And he answered: ‘No. She’s not a little girl. She’s a slave. And she knows exactly how to have sex.’ ’’

“And having sex with her pleases God,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/wo...=pl-share&_r=0
08-13-2015 , 12:24 PM
Utter horror.
08-14-2015 , 02:35 AM
https://news.vice.com/topic/islamic-state

Has some of the best articles on the battles going on
08-14-2015 , 08:44 AM
Huehuecoyotl doing good work keeping this thread filled with fascinating articles. Even if they're all from the NYT.
08-14-2015 , 03:32 PM
What?

Quote:
The parents of the late American hostage Kayla Mueller say they were told by American officials that their daughter was repeatedly forced to have sex with Abu Bakr Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State group.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000067
08-14-2015 , 05:16 PM
I have to stop reading this thread.
08-14-2015 , 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Rape is awful but I'm not really sure what people thought they did to/with her.
08-15-2015 , 10:15 AM
To be fair, the story does sound concocted. The head of a the terrorist organization who hasn't been seen in public for a while and has a virtual bullseye on his back comes over and rapes an American woman repeatedly that US intelligence is probably hunting? I'd be surprised if Bagdadi went anywhere near prisoners or anyone from any other country other than Iraq.
08-15-2015 , 10:57 AM
concocted by whom? The terrorists wife and other sex slaves? Or are you saying the U.S. Gov made it up?
08-15-2015 , 10:59 AM
They needed her in a secure position so they kept her with the chief financier of Isis oil interests. When baghdadi stopped by to chat, he also choose to rape her. Hardly far fetched.
08-15-2015 , 05:50 PM
Meh just count me skeptical. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just seems odd to me
08-16-2015 , 06:00 PM
Quote:
But even as these controversial laws and programs were taking shape, a quiet revolution was taking place among the analysts who do the hard work of counterterrorism analysis inside the agencies of Canada, the United States and Britain.

A couple of years ago, those analysts began asking the question: What if we have it backward? Could it be that terrorists are not people with extreme ideas trying to build up the courage to turn them into murder, but rather violence-prone people hunting for some excuse to turn their proclivities into deeds?

This was in part because the old “violent extremism” approach was failing to produce results. Studies of thousands of known terrorists and killers have identified little that will predict violent behaviour. Religious upbringing doesn’t make people more likely to commit attacks. Nor does poverty. Nor does age, neighbourhood, ethnicity, social class, marital status, education level or immigration status. Even extremism itself: People who hold fundamentalist Islamic beliefs or racist right-wing beliefs are not hugely more likely than anyone else to commit an attack.

..

In the weeks before an attack, terrorists tend to change address (one in five) or adopt a new religion (40 per cent of Islamic terrorists and many right-wing terrorists did so). And they start talking about violence: 82 per cent told others about their grievance; almost seven in 10 told friends or family that they “intended to hurt others.”

A huge proportion had recently become unemployed, experienced a heightened level of stress or had family breakdowns. And most had done things that looked like planning – including contacting known violent groups.

In other words: People who commit violent terror attacks, it turns out, are not identifiable by the ideas they hold, but rather by the things that they do. The violence comes first, the thinking second.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...service=mobile
08-17-2015 , 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
This. Violence-prone people obv gonna be violence prone.

But I also think anti-terror policy ought to be reminded that violence-prone people tend to take the path of least ideological and cognitive resistance to justify their violence. Some paths are less resistant than others, especially in places/communities where violence is glorified as a path to... something.

Simply looking for angry people in those places - in particular where you can't/shouldn't police and monitor closely - may be leaving big gaps in coverage.
08-24-2015 , 05:04 PM
Quote:
The kidnapping of a group of U.S.-trained moderate Syrians moments after they entered Syria last month to confront the Islamic State was orchestrated by Turkish intelligence, multiple rebel sources have told McClatchy.

The rebels say that the tipoff to al Qaida’s Nusra Front enabled Nusra to snatch many of the 54 graduates of the $500 million program on July 29 as soon as they entered Syria, dealing a humiliating blow to the Obama administration’s plans for confronting the Islamic State.

Rebels familiar with the events said they believe the arrival plans were leaked because Turkish officials were worried that while the group’s intended target was the Islamic State, the U.S.-trained Syrians would form a vanguard for attacking Islamist fighters that Turkey is close to, including Nusra and another major Islamist force, Ahrar al Sham.
lol NATO

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nati...e32206167.html

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 08-24-2015 at 05:17 PM.
08-24-2015 , 05:19 PM
It's high time we back the Kurds 100% (including forming a new nation if that's what they want) and tell Turkey to stick it up their ass.
08-24-2015 , 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Ouch.
08-24-2015 , 06:34 PM
It still makes me laugh that people are surprised by Americans being basically laughed at for their clumsiness with Middle East policy.

Oh, and lol@ people who think these sorts of train-and-arm programs with small groups making unenforceable promises will accomplish anything.

What a disaster for US foreign policy in the ME this past decade.
08-24-2015 , 06:49 PM
I don't think you'll find many arguments against that sentiment here.
08-24-2015 , 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLTheCookies
I don't think you'll find many arguments against that sentiment here.
I suspect our proposed solutions will differ somewhat.
08-24-2015 , 07:57 PM
Couldn't we send an armored division into the ISIS controlled area that would improve the occupied and refugees lives? Seems like a three to six month operation that would be a hell of a lot cheaper than firing million dollar missiles at pick up trucks and spending a million dollars for a fighter that is no better than a boot. We would lose some men (200?) and it would not be a long term solution couldn't this be justified on humanitarian reasons alone? Who hates us more for going this route?
08-24-2015 , 08:13 PM
First US serviceman that gets tortured by ISIS on video - and a) now we're in as deep as possible and b) your media bubble goes bananas blaming Obama for it.
08-24-2015 , 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
First US serviceman that gets tortured by ISIS on video - and a) now we're in as deep as possible and b) your media bubble goes bananas blaming Obama for it.
People are understandably tired of war and the President would have to sell intervention. I am not sure if my neocon self could be convinced that the terrorism threat posed by ISIS would warrant intervention.(Obama could convince me easily, Graham not so much). Intervention based on reducing suffering that did not make the region less stable would win me over.
08-24-2015 , 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
First US serviceman that gets tortured by ISIS on video - and a) now we're in as deep as possible and b) your media bubble goes bananas blaming Obama for it.
Wait, what? Did the media bubble sign the order authorizing these lolbad moves?

In all seriousness, can someone explain to me who set these policies or made these orders or whatever?

Like I assume the State Dept authorizes some action in some limit and the CIA or someone chose these tactics? The article seemed to suggest State Dept involvement but my understanding is that leaves tactical decision-making to another organization.
08-24-2015 , 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
People are understandably tired of war and the President would have to sell intervention. I am not sure if my neocon self could be convinced that the terrorism threat posed by ISIS would warrant intervention.(Obama could convince me easily, Graham not so much). Intervention based on reducing suffering that did not make the region less stable would win me over.
Of course. Intervention doesn't have to mean arming 500 people and letting countries with opposing interests have key information.

      
m