The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Black Flags
MIDDLE EAST
>
ARCHIVE - APRIL 2017 (KICKOFF APRIL 3RD) - Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS - DISCUSSION THREAD
Hi Everyone, I'm Nick, reading the book in Cambridge in the UK. I've become steadily more interested in history, current affairs and non-fiction over the last few years and this book seemed to offer a good insight into an important topic.Overall, I'm mostly surprised by the style of the book. I used to reading non-fiction or history where the author is very dry and often working with limited or conflicting information. Because Warrick had the chance to interview so many of the people featured in the book, or read first hand accounts by them or by others, he can say exactly what people were thinking and feeling at the time, which makes the book feel almost like a novel (a thriller) to me! It makes for an easy read, but I am still trusting that it's all accurate.
Regarding Discussion topic 2: What is the significance of the epigram?:
"I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life." - Khalid ibn a-Walid (seventh-century Islamic warrior, companion of Muhammad)
Has anybody ready anything by the War Nerd aka Gary Brecher
. He's written The War Nerd Dispatches
and War Nerd
.He has a rather cynical opinion of the kind of person who is attracted to ISIS. Namely, that they are often low-status young men. His opinion is that many young men simply don't have a very good understanding of their own mortality. They don't really understand what it means to die and part of the reason they embrace a glamorous death is that they simply cannot conceive that they'll ever really cease to exist.
The other reason is that they think the greatest acheivement of a man is dominance over other people and getting laid. So violent gangs like ISIS appeal to them because everybody is terrified of them and they get sex slaves.
It's not true of all young men, of course, but seems to be true of a small number who go in for petty violence, gangs and misogyny.
It did strike me as I was reading the book that Zarqawi's background in petty crime reminded me of Khalid Masood, the terrorist responsible for the recent attack on Westminster Bridge. They're both criminals, Masood was a convert, and Zarqawi's transition to hard-line Islam has a similar flavour as conversion, they both strengthened their Islamist beliefs and connectioins in prison.
Mod
You have great insight into how gripping the book is for non fiction and I think he did an exceptional job in his research as well.
I have not read the War Nerd books.
But let me stop right here and show you the correct citations that we use here for books to take advantage of the powerful goodreads software which will cross populate our entire group site and goodreads.
both by
Gary BrecherA single book would look like this for future reference:
by
Gary BrecherBook cover, space, the word by manually added, space, the author's photo if available and always the author's link.
Very interesting observations. Although some of the recruits are actually very well off - came from good homes and had great educations. It is a little bit of both.
Yes, in a way Khalid and Zarqawi were similar yet Khalid had a nice upbringing and was very well liked and then things went wrong. The Arab prisons were breeding grounds for these kinds of folks.
Terrific to have you here and to read your posts. I look forward to reading more.
When you look at the Middle East through a geopolitical lens, Western powers were and are a big part of the problem. Not for the first time, Great Britain promised a people an autonomous state in exchange for getting rid of a common enemy - and then reneged on that promise. When Britain and France created "artificial" new countries out of the Ottoman Empire, they set the stage for conflict that continues to today. The desire for an authentic, autonomous state is understandable, but reaching consensus about what that goal looks in real life is the problem, as anyone who lives in a democratic society can tell you. ISIS is imposing their own vision, and it is attractive to too many people who desire a sense of belonging and purpose. I struggle with what to do about the internet. I certainly would welcome internet companies shutting down any promotion of violence, but would that then include just groups like ISIS or also Hillary Clinton who recently called for more strikes in Syria? Who gets to decide? And who gets to decide what the Middle East should look like?
message 105:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 08, 2017 04:18PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
I do not place folks in Congress like John McCain and others who believe that we have not done enough in Syria in the same pot as videos of beheadings or telling folks to go out and kill innocent people.
Taking out the air strips and destroying the planes and supplies of chemical weapons so they cannot kill babies, children and innocent people again is not the same as watching beheadings. There are guidelines and rules for what cannot be said or watched on television - so I think the same rules or some rules should apply to the internet and we do already have them in place for hate speech.
I think there should be more strikes than what they did - the fact that some of the planes were not destroyed at that airbase indicates they have more to do so I agree with her and McCain. However, the prime enemy is ISIS - not protecting or ousting Assad who is just a puppet.
You had me until you placed Clinton in the same bucket as ISIS beheadings and did not add in the Republicans in Congress who agree with her. But I came back in and thought of something I wanted to add - why is she weighing in now anyway - I guess she has as much right as Jeffrey Lord or Anderson Cooper or Gloria Borgia and she was Secretary of State so she knows the players and the situation well so maybe I answered my own question. Everybody has an opinion and I think talk is very cheap when the world does nothing and sees these people and their suffering - I think that is the point - everything is politicized.
As far as Trump there are a zillion tweets telling Obama to not get involved with Syria. He has changed his position like everything else but at least he did something.
If Google simply took off the videos of terrorist organizations and canceled their accounts and access by their IP addresses due to violent videos of someone's loved ones getting decapitated or worse or trying to tell bystanders or folks they do not even know - to hurt people randomly who are just going to the store or working then I would think that would be a step in the right direction.
Deciding what to do is one thing but the world wringing their hands and moaning about the poor people in Syria who are dying and the world is still doing nothing is another. It is so hypocritical I think. Saying that we would do something if we could is shallow and untrue. The response should have been a world response not everybody hiding behind the skirts of someone else going in and usually it is us.
Russia is hopeless - they have zero conscience.
I believe that it makes sense to take the videos YouTube and to ban their IP's it just seems like a slippery slope to go down. If Youtube wants to do that then I would say that's a positive thing but if it becomes law and the government makes YouTube and other sites take it down then I think that dangerous. It's just what's next? What can they suppress next? Naturally I'm suspicious of censorship just because it's easy for the people in control of it to pick and choose what that want people to see. I understand that you said the TV laws could apply to the Internet but I believe that's assuming that the TV laws are 'good' laws. I would argue that no matter what we do their will always be another medium to spread their propaganda and their ideas will permeate through any of these artificial borders. We must defeat the idea by giving people another option and a better option. Before ISIS we had Al-Qaeda and after ISIS I'm sure something will take its place if it's the best perceived option for those people. It's just seems taking those videos of the Internet won't solve those problems and will potentially give the government or powerful companies more power to control what and how people think. We see that the spread of ideas isn't reliant on the Internet or any particular medium. Book 1 in this book is a living example. The ideology spread through prison, in the most isolated remote regions in the Middle East, they took these radicals and isolated them with physical barriers but that didn't stop them. We need to defeat the ideology show people that's it not what they should think because it's not in their best interest. We made these same mistakes in Cold War we censored and imprisoned people. It's just validates their message and creates in ignorant population, who doesn't know the truth they just know what they are told to be believe.
message 107:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 08, 2017 06:11PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
For example we realize that we need to walk down the street adequately dressed to not shock anybody - why wouldn't we have rules to protect all of us from shock and disturbing horror on the internet and decapitations.
I think it is a bit different from censorship.
We need to curb the appetite for violence and that has been acquired by what people see on television - on the computer - on their video games - lack of decency and decorum - being marginalized - there are a lot of reasons but I think the visual videos are addictive to those who have budding violent or angry natures and want to strike out.
But that is just my humble opinion.
I just finished the first 5 chapters. So far, it is a story of people doing their best to obstruct radicals and jihadists within the margins of the law (ok, besides some Jordan tactics of questioning suspects). And a story of a gangster who managed to slip through almost every loophole there could be find. It is also a frightening story: somewhere in some prison there might be another fresh converted gangster building up his hate and revenge against 'non-muslim, corrupt' governments and societies.The book is so well written. I will read the book first and then dive into the actual situation in the Middle East. It is so complicated (international politics, religion, regional feuds, etc.) and I know so little about it. I really hope the book and this discussion will learn me more about it.
It is so fascinating to read everyones views on it, thank you all for sharing them.
Hi everyone, I'm Celeste and I live in Australia... I joined the history club not long ago because I wanted to read more than just fiction, when Black Flag popped up as the book of the month I saw it as a good opportunity to learn more about ISIS and who they really are.
I've only read the prologue but so far I like the book, ISIS do seem like they're a cult with crazy followers, I don't know what they're really fighting for but I've heard that there are legitimate reasons for their group so I'm hoping that I learn the reasons why! I don't sympathize with them but I do want to understand them more and their reason for fighting.
message 110:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 09, 2017 09:59AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Harmke welcome - your comments are spot on. We thank you for sharing as well.
Mod
I joined the history club not long ago because I wanted to read more than just fiction, when Black Flag popped up as the book of the month I sa..."
Celeste welcome - we are glad to have you with us and we hope the book gives you more information. If you are new to non fiction this is actually a good book to start with - it is gripping, well researched and very well written. We look forward to reading your posts.
Harmke wrote: " It is also a frightening story: somewhere in some prison there might be another fresh converted gangster building up his hate and revenge against 'non-muslim, corrupt' governments and societies.."Yes, I was really struck by the fact that the jihadi's seem to be just criminals; gang members with a thin veneer of religion laid over the top.
Mod
What's the deal with Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi? Seems like their isn't much info available about him. From what Ive read he seems more like an ideological leader, more like Maqdisi then Zarqawi.
Timmy wrote: "What's the deal with Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?"Yes, it seems like he was very quiet, studious, and kept to himself. And then got involved in the more practical side of jihad after his stint in Camp Bucca. I think it was harder for Warrick to get information on him after that because he was only associating with other jihadi's deep in Iraq and Syria - not the kind of people that Warrick can easily interview.
Hello, please pardon my late entry into the discussion. My name is Kristen and I live north of Seattle in Washington State. I picked up a copy of this book last summer in Paris at the famous bookstore Shakespeare and Company. Sadly, the very end of my wonderful 12-day visit to France was marked by the attack in Nice on the evening of Bastille Day. Our flight departed the morning after the attack while the appalling news was spreading around the world. I skimmed the first 50 or so pages of the book after returning home, but my emotional response was too fresh in my mind to really take in the book as a valuable learning tool. It is indeed a gripping and intense chronicle of horrific part of recent history. I'm impressed by the conversation so far by this astute group of readers and look forward to jumping in once I catch up with the first few chapters.
Mod
Maqdisi hates them since the murder of folks who were just helping Muslims.
I meant more in his leadership style. Book 1 describes Maqdisi as an ideological leader detached in a way from the prisoners and from the violence of extremism. I was wondering if Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi was similar to him in that regard.
message 119:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 09, 2017 05:25PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Welcome Kristen -from the state of Washington - we are glad that you are joining us - it is never too late to join the discussion. What horrible symbolism for the book. Ominous purchase on your vacation as it turns out - Glad you got home safely.
We are just like you in terms of readers so do not be intimidated - just jump right in - we are delighted to hear all points of view.
The only ones which are verboten are any that glorify ISIS - that we do not need here.
I am truly sorry for the shock you must have experienced on your vacation no less.
Mod
It doesn't seem that way if he is the one in charge and violence is incited around the globe. He was quiet as a youth and a religious professor at one time I believe. Sad transformation from that or a delusional one.
Mod
Yes, it seems like he was very quiet, studious, and kept to himself. And then got involved in the more practical side of jihad after his s..."
I agree with you Nick - that prison stint transformed him
Mod
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Thank you so much for posting them - they explain a lot but should be in the glossary - I will post a note that you have some articles that might be of interest to folks
message 123:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 10, 2017 07:22AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
WEEK TWO READING ASSIGNMENT - (86 through page 150) - 4/10/17 - 4/16/17
BOOK I: THE RISE OF ZARQAWI - CONTINUED
6. "This war is going to happen" 86
7. "Now his fame would extend throughout the world 95
BOOK II: IRAQ
8. "No longer a victory" 101
9. "So you guys think this is an emergency" 115
10. "Revolting is exactly what we want" 126
11. "It would surpass anything al-Qaeda did" 138
Chapter Overview and Summaries
6. "This war is going to happen"
Chapter Six begins in 2002 - Faddis, the chief CIA spy, arrives in Iraq and very soon thereafter knew Zarqawi's home location down to the square meter on his targeting grid - but he could not get clearance to take him and the others out. Why: Because the existence of terrorist networks on Iraqi soil would undermine one of the pillars of Powell's upcoming speech according to "Powell".
7. "Now his fame would extend throughout the world
Chapter Seven begins with Colin Powell's highly controversial speech to the UN which catapults Zarqawi into fame. The CIA and the Jordanian Intelligence officials watch in horror.
8. "No longer a victory"
The CIA proved that there was no connection between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein but nobody in the White House (Bush and Cheney) were listening. And then on 7 August 2003, the Jordanian Embassy was bombed in Baghdad, Iraq, killing 17 people and injuring dozens and the UN headquarters was hit.
9. "So you guys think this is an emergency"
Chapter Nine begins with the president wanting to know if the agency stood by its report that there was a beginning of an insurgency in Iraq. The problem was that the president (Bush) had landed on a ship to say that we had won.
10. "Revolting is exactly what we want"
Al Qaeda never had the "warm and fuzzies" about Zarqawi. But in January 2004 - Zarqawi thought he would reach out again to Bin Laden who had refused to meet him four years prior. Though Bin Laden was a Sunni himself, he saw himself as a unifier of Muslims and had never expressed interest in attacking Shiite innocents - in fact he had condemned it. McChrystal - chief of the US Joint Special Operations Command was in Fallujah while trying to rout out the insurgents; when arriving at the various homes he saw something that stuck with him - in the eyes of the women there was an intensity of emotion that was unnerving - it was the look of pure unadulterated hatred.
11. "It would surpass anything al-Qaeda did"
Zarqawi's mother died, a Jordanian court had sentenced him to death in absentia for the murder of Foley but he was preparing a big surprise for Jordan and his buddies at the Mukhabarat - he was planning to demolish the Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate [GID; the Mukhabarat] building. In an audio, Zarqawi said that "if we did possess [a chemical bomb], we wouldn't hesitate one second to use it to hit Israeli cities such as Eilat and Tel Aviv."
Mod
I've read the first three chapters for this week's reading. They reminded me of George W. Bush's description of himself as a "war president." He went looking for a war and he found one. It's also always interesting to me that even people with destruction on their minds feel they have to justify it some way on the public stage. I wish we had a time machine to go back and avoid those misguided decisions.
message 126:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 10, 2017 05:36PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
message 127:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 10, 2017 09:38AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Here are some of the views on the Syrian Airstrike:
Question posed by Chuck Todd was - what is the goal - defeating ISIS or taking out Assad?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/natio...
Discussion topics:
1. What are your thoughts on the various points of view? Who do you agree with or who do you disagree with and why?
2. What would you do and why?
Discussion Topic 1: I agree most closely with Senator Kaine's point of view although I sympathize with Bernies too. I understand that military intervention is nearly necessary right now in Syria but I do think Trump is to militaristic. He speaks endlessly of building an amazingly superior military like what we had in the past. He really likes to create this belief that we were once great and now we are bad and he is going to save the day, he does this with everything practically. In that sense I empathize with Bernie I do believe that it would be helpful to put my money into humanitarian efforts instead of the outrageously disproportionate amount of money going toward the military. 2. With the information that we are aware of at this time I would've done things differently. First send it to congress and if it passed reach out to our allies and attempt to form a coalition against Assad. Then warn Russia and negotiate a possible deal to get Assad out of power. If we have a deal then okay. If not then once the coalition begins attacking see if Assad will relinquish power. If they do, then the coalition will have control of the future of Syria, if not then keep attacking Assad until surrender.
Why?
Getting congressional approval is essential before you embark on a warlike campaign. It allows congress to be heard and ensures the power of the president is kept in check. It also important to get the coalition because it will result in multiple nations spending money and resources into the conflict not just us. That will lower the price of the engagement for the US and will act as a stronger opposition force to Russia which will deter them from any meaningful retaliation. Also if it was only the US like it is now, I believe we would eventually have to negotiate with Russia on who Assad replacement is and it would most likely be someone less radical but with Russian interest. If we have a coalition the strength and numbers will ensure that the future for Syria would be one void of the extreme Russian influence it faces today. I also believe multiple attacks are necessary in order to have meaningful effects on Assads regime. Then once they weaken we can replace Assad with a leader more friendly to the coalition without Russian ties.
Something in Chapter 8 and the description of Zarqawi's campaign to forment civil war in Iraq really chimed with the article Bentley posted earlier in the thread from Virginia Foley.She said: 'While on assignments for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in South America, Africa and the Middle East, we never saw ourselves as potential targets for terrorism. We thought of ourselves as symbols of America’s desire to improve the quality of others’ lives.
It strikes me that she's got it backwards. Foley was a terrorism target because he was a harmless, likeable expression of American goodwill and international friendship. In Iraq Zarqawi targetted Sergio Vieira de Mello, precisely because he was also an expression of international goodwill and friendship, and someone who might actually bring about peace.
ISIS target the people who promote international, inter-ethnic co-operation because they want to isolate communities from each other. They gain power from having a large Sunni base who feel that everyone else is their enemy.
message 130:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 10, 2017 05:37PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
But perversity, mentally ill thugs and evil people who you can decide whether they are mentally ill or not would absolutely want to attack the antithesis of evil which they are (ISIS = Evil) and attack what they are not. They do not want peace; they want to extinguish those folks who can by even their mere goodness stand in their way or thwart their will.
That is the reason why Trump's travel ban worked to their advantage - isolation and designating a group or people or a religion as being shut out of America. That is the view of the Western world that ISIS wants to present.
When Saddam was in charge of Iraq - Sunnis and Shiites got along. They were not enemies. Now they are at each other's throats because of acts of ISIS or being instigated by them.
However, having said all of the above - there are times when love conquers hate but they are not as many or as frequent as we would like.
Another thing that I would like to point out which is really strange about our culture (and Jacques Barzun) saw this early - you have to read his book - he saw that we were currently in a downward spiral as a culture and civilization and things were breaking down. Look at these young kids who are being brainwashed and led to give up their lives from wherever they are from - London, NJ, NY, Texas, France, Belgium - name anyplace - who set off from their families without a care in the world and do not even think twice that they are going to even miss their families or their lives and hop on a plane to god only knows where. There is something very very wrong folks with our society that even their families are horrified and heartbroken.
Somehow they are offering these kids a structure to their life - a purpose which their families could not make them see - goals which are horrendous to the normal person but appeal to these marginalized kids in many instances but not all - and all of a sudden they want to give up these same comforts, their computers, their family perks and tv, their drugs or drinking or whatever else they are into without their families knowledge and take off to the desert. Houston we have a problem. I think the internet needs to have some societal rules like every other medium and place has - it is not censorship - it is decorum, our way of life and ethical and moral values - just some basics for society. If there are no standards for behavior - how low can we go. I think that the techie companies are not seeing things that way - this has nothing to do with free speech or censorship - it has to do with not tearing apart the fabric of our society which we all for the most part hold dear although right now it has tears and rip marks.
Barzun was brilliant but he passed away at 104.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/art...
by
Jacques BarzunIn the New York Times article above - this quote struck me as did what Barzun stated in a book which is like a 4 year college degree:
"He traced periods of rise and fall in the Western saga, and contended that another fall was near — one that could cause “the liquidation of 500 years of civilization.” This time the decline would be caused not by scientism and absolutism, he maintained, but by an internal crisis in the civilization itself, which he believed had come to celebrate nihilism and rebellion.
And yet, in the cycles of history, he believed another renewal would come.
“It is only in the shadows,” he wrote, “when some fresh wave, truly original, truly creative, breaks upon the shore, that there will be a rediscovery of the West.”
Rebellion may be part of what we are seeing with these youth coupled with nihilism.
What is Nihilism?
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
message 131:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 10, 2017 08:25PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Timmy, I did not see your post. Trump went to military school growing up so I wonder whether than might be the reason he is so enamored with the military. Not that our military isn't vitally important - where would be without them. But he is willing to eliminate all of the discretionary spending to spend more in that area. Is it possible that we have a lot of waste going on with existing military budget line items that could be used for more modern planes and protection for our troops - Ike warned of the large military complex which feeds itself.
Trump does like to surround himself with generals too. I think though that Mattis and McMaster in that order and to an extent Kelley are good influences considering who else he has surrounded himself with.
Now as far as his response - I think somebody needed to respond and respond in that way - the world is good at talking but not that great in protecting the world's populace from harm and from folks who ignore the world's treaties. Especially when there are children and babies purposely gassed. This is in the same vein with what was done by the Nazis to the Jews in the concentration camp's gas chambers - different method but the same ending - although in much larger numbers. It was horribly, horribly wrong then and it is now.
I do agree with Graham and with McCain and it is also no surprise that Kerry wanted things to be done as well in Syria and said that there were four voices indicating that to Obama yet "he" (Kerry) lost. This is not a new situation.
They tried to go the diplomacy route and you have to have honorable people overseeing things to make it work and we can see how that was handled. Russia was supposed to keep Assad in line.
I do not like Iran being involved along with the Russians and that is worrisome. The Russians are so worried about their port that they cannot think clearly and would do stupid things I fear. And Iran would look for any excuse.
Timmy - right now I do not think that Assad is going anywhere and that is why he is being brazen and acting tough - he is hiding behind the skirts of Russia and Iran. And the only reason he is there now is because of Russia and Iran period. Posting photos with the caption back to work and then bombing the same area the next day sends the exact message that Lindsey Graham heard loud and clear.
message 132:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 10, 2017 09:38PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
a) There are 14 opposition groups in Syria right now operating against Assad.
b) King and Kaine feel that Trump needs to come to Congress just like Obama did when he wanted to do more with Syria and was nixed.
c) It would be a very big mistake to go into Syria with troops because that is exactly what ISIS wants us to do - to become bogged down in Syria.
d) Senator King thinks that a well thought out strategy for Syria needs to be articulate and he has not seen one yet.
e) Rubio thinks the strikes were legal and Kaine thinks not - but it was the moral thing to do. President Trump should not have done this without coming to Congress according to Kaine.
f) Spicer says Article II of the Constitution gives Trump the right - I don't think it does but Presidents have been given a lot of latitude in the past.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/politic...
message 133:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 10, 2017 10:57PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
1. Did you think it was odd that in 2002 that the CIA's Chief Spy had never heard of Zarqawi? But very soon thereafter he had him in his sights?
The spy chief was: Charles Faddis
2. Do you find it odd that he wrote a book about scrapping the CIA in October 2011 - that was news to me?
The book was Beyond Repair.
by
Charles S. Faddis3. Did you know that Faddis was running for Congress and that Evan Mcmullen of Utah who ran for President was also CIA - that I did not know. Are any of you familiar with either of these two folks? Stoney Hoyer - the incumbent won (a democrat)
An interview with Faddis which is interesting:
http://andmagazine.com/us/1427231993....
It didn't strike me as odd that Faddis had barely heard of Zarqawi. At this point Zarqawi was still a small time terrorist. It seems like the CIA was probably uninterested in a lot of the little fish until 9/11 when suddenly every Islamist became a lot more interesting.
Mod
message 136:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 11, 2017 07:30AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Relatives and other mourners showed their grief during the funeral for the victims of the bombing of a cathedral in Alexandria. Credit Aly Fahim/European Pressphoto Agency
Discussion Questions:
1. Isn't this the same plan that they used in Iraq? - divide the country by pitting the Sunnis against the Shiites and against the Americans and the UN forces?
2. Also you could say that ISIS is trying to pit the Americans and the Russians/Iranians in a conflict over Assad in Syria. What can the world do to avoid this? How can you get Russia to come down on the side of right versus continually worrying about their port? Did they have something to do with the "new" chemicals in Syria and/or did they turn a blind eye?
3. What do you think of the article and what do you think of the ISIS strategy in Egypt and how it will affect Egypt? What could Egypt do that it is not doing? Other than a complete shut down? What about the new president Sisi who came to power through a coup?
4. What did you think of the newspapers being pulled off of the stands because it criticized the Egyptian government (that is censorship and goes back to some of Timmy's postings)?
Also Timmy this might interest you about what you considered "a slippery slope" - the following really is a dangerous slippery slope and takes things much too far into the abyss for Egypt but I think at this point in time they are used to it as the article indicates.
The article states - "Additionally, the president will have the power to censor newspapers and intercept electronic communication, a provision that his supporters have suggested could be used to crack down on critics on social media, one of the last arenas of relatively unrestricted speech in Egypt.
“We’re likely to see people who tweet or use Facebook for political purposes, or to call for protests, being tried in these courts,” said Mai El-Sadany, a nonresident fellow for legal and judicial analysis at the Tahir Institute for Middle East Policy
5. Do we see this happening in our country under the guise of "extreme vetting" - they are asking for cell phones and may if you are trying to get into this country for your Facebook and social media passwords? Timmy - I agree with you on the above however.
What do others think?
6. Why do you think that ISIS is targeting Christians in their businesses, homes and churches? The article gives some reasons - what do you think of those reasons?
7. Do you think that ISIS was trying to hurt the Coptic patriarch: Tawadros II? And what about the visit by the Pope later this very same month - it that wise? The Pope is going to go ahead with the visit which shows a lot of courage. What are your thoughts?
8. The Vatican had this to say in addition to its prayers for the people who were killed and for what Tawadros II is going through. What did you think of the Vatican's message and what the Pope had to say?
The Vatican stated - "What happened caused disorder and tremendous suffering, but it cannot stop the pope's mission of peace," he added.
Additionally I found this very interesting -
The pope had also voiced his condolences Sunday for victims of the double bombing, which has led Egypt to declare a three-month state of emergency.
The Pope said: "May the Lord convert the heart of those who sow terror, violence and death and also the heart of those who make weapons and trade in them."
Francis will become the second Roman Catholic pope to visit Egypt, following John Paul II's historic trip there in February 2000.
Here is the article:
Attacks Shows ISIS’ New Plan: Divide Egypt by Killing Christians
By DECLAN WALSHAPRIL 10, 2017
CAIRO — Grief and rage flowed through Egypt’s Christian community on Monday as tear-streaked mourners buried the victims of the coordinated Palm Sunday church bombings that killed 45 people in two cities. The cabinet declared that a state of emergency was in effect. A newspaper was pulled off newsstands after it criticized the government.
It was just the reaction the Islamic State wanted.
Routed from its stronghold on the coast of Libya, besieged in Iraq and wilting under intense pressure in Syria, the militant extremist group urgently needs to find a new battleground where it can start to proclaim victory again. The devastating suicide attacks on Sunday in the heart of the Middle East’s largest Christian community suggested it has found a solution: the cities of mainland Egypt.
Since December, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has signaled its intent to wage a sectarian war in Egypt by slaughtering Christians in their homes, businesses and places of worship. Several factors lie behind the vicious campaign, experts say: a desire to weaken Egypt’s authoritarian leader, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi; a need to gain a foothold in Egypt beyond the remote Sinai deserts where jihadists have been battling the army for years; and a desire to foment a vicious sectarian conflict that would tear at Egypt’s delicate social fabric and destabilize the state.
“There’s a significant propaganda factor to this,” said Mokhtar Awad, a militancy expert at George Washington University. “ISIS wants to show that it can attack one of the Arab world’s most populous countries.”
Few believe it can succeed. The sheer demographics of Egypt mitigate any Iraq-type success, in which the Islamic State fed off deep tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. Christians make up just 10 percent of Egypt’s people, who are mostly Sunni Muslims, and despite deep-rooted prejudices, there is no popular support for a bloody pogrom.
Yet for now, unless the Egyptian government can bridge its wide security gaps, Egypt’s Christians seem likely to bear the brunt of the Islamic State’s ambitions — and the fight could have broader consequences for civil liberties and political freedoms in a country where both are already in short supply.
A line of wooden coffins borne by Boy Scouts, and marked with the word “martyr,” filed through the doors of an ancient monastery on the outskirts of Alexandria on Monday. A mournful drumbeat accompanied the procession. The coffins held the remains of some of the 17 people killed on Sunday in a blast at the gates of St. Mark’s Cathedral, the historic seat of Christendom in Egypt. It was perhaps the most ambitious of the two attacks because the Coptic patriarch, Tawadros II, had been inside the church at the time.
Remainder of article: (read the remainder of this excellent article here):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/wo...
Interesting article on the Coptic religion in Egypt:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articl...
A funeral procession on Monday for victims of a church bombing in Alexandria, Egypt. The attack killed 17 people. Credit Amr Abdullah Dalsh/Reuters
More:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new...
http://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-...
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/pop...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-wa...
Relatives and onlookers gather outside a church after a bomb attack in the Nile Delta city of Tanta, Egypt on Sunday.
Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty Images
Source(s): The New York Times, Newsweek, Catholic News Agency, News24, Reuters, European Press Service Agency, Getty Images, NPR
message 137:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 11, 2017 08:08AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
However this was done by Saddam Hussein against his own people.
The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians.
Thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.
The incident, which has been officially defined by Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal as a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people in Iraq, was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.
More:
https://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja...
http://libcom.org/history/1988-the-ha...
https://www.opendemocracy.net/article...
http://ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc...
http://www.srpc.ca/cjrm/vol-9/issue-3...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...
On this day - BBC News - March 16th, 1988
Source(s): Civil Rights Watch, Wikipedia, lib com.org, open Democracy,
e-Kurd Daily, Society of Rural Physician of Canada, BBC News
Skeetor wrote: "I believe Russia has condemned the attack as an aggression on a sovereign country by the US but I don't think they will do anything other than halting the air safety agreement for US planes. "I think Russia [Putin] will need to be careful what they say regarding any foreign intervention in another country. they are not lily white in that department. I think we (the world) pulled a Neville Chamberlain when we let Russia get away with their invasion of Crimea.
message 139:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 11, 2017 09:09AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
It is great when you can get world condemnation against a country or dictator but you do have to do something about humanity and stand up not just with idle words sometimes. And gassing people and babies is "one of those times" and as afraid as everybody is.
It is hard to defend gassing by anyone even though Putin is trying to go through the hoops to do that and only looks like the thug that he is.
However as the article that I attached said: (that was a good thing that Russia did in 2013 - they are capable of it)
The former Cold War foes even worked together in 2013 to remove and destroy more than 1,300 tons of Syrian chemical weapons and agents.
Now however everything he is doing makes him look not only complicit but guilty himself.
Unfortunately appeasement does not work and we have seen that time and time again but it does not mean that we cannot continue to try diplomacy - but nothing can bring these Syrian babies back or the Kurds who were gassed by Saddam.
I think the Middle East cares less about inflicting these horrible deaths on innocent women and children or anybody for that matter - Iraq, Iran, Syria are all guilty of it.
More:
Article from AP insinuates Russia knew about the chemical bombing before the strike and then tried to cover it up or at the very least tried to cover it up by bombing a hospital:
https://www.apnews.com/19772be1238e49...
https://www.apnews.com/e5861e08811643...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-sa...
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...
http://fox17online.com/2017/04/11/til...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/wo...
Bentley wrote: "9/11 was 2001 though and Faddis arrived in 2002"Your absolutely right, I should have been clearer. As far as I can tell, Zarqawi was uninteresting before 9/11, after 9/11 the CIA became a lot more interested in Islamists in general, Faddis was sent out to Iraq in 2002 to gather intelligence, and (partly as a result of his work) Powell made Zarqawi famous in February 2003 when he publicly labelled him the link between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
So as far as I can see the chronology goes: 2001, Zarqawi is a small fish ---> 2002 Faddis investigates Zarqawi --->2003 Powell makes Zarqawi famous.
Bentley wrote: "Halabja chemical attack perpetrated on the Kurds - the Kurds have had their issues too - March 16th, 1988However this was done by Saddam Hussein against his own people."
Does it make sense to think of the Kurds as Saddam's own people? I thought the Kurds and the Arabs thought of themselves as distinct and separate people? Different language, different culture, different heritage?
Nick wrote: "Timmy wrote: "What's the deal with Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?"Yes, it seems like he was very quiet, studious, and kept to himself. And then got involved in the more practical side of jihad after his s..."
Adding to what Nick and Timmy wrote...it seems to be that Baghdadi basically embraced his intellectual leanings and became more a radical cleric than a jihadi front line fighter. I stand to be corrected if my memory is off.
Bentley wrote: "Michael I agree and as much as I do not want to see a military conflagration - by letting these folks like Russia, Iran, North Korea and Assad and China get away with everything they want to do onl..."Bentley also wrote: "I think the Middle East cares less about inflicting these horrible deaths on innocent women and children or anybody for that matter - Iraq, Iran, Syria are all guilty of it."
I am interested to see what Iran does with regard to supporting Syria and Russia after the chemical attacks. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians in the Iran -Iraq War in the 80's. Will Iran now remain in support? This would mean supporting the kind of attack that they were victims of themselves. Or will they turn a blind eye and stay the course?
Nick wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Halabja chemical attack perpetrated on the Kurds - the Kurds have had their issues too - March 16th, 1988However this was done by Saddam Hussein against his own people."
Does it ..."
It does in the sense that in spite of their different culture and language they were Iraqi citizens. French Canadians are still Canadians even with a different culture and language. Hispanic Americans are still citizens of the states but still have a distinct culture and language. It is likely they were seen and a low cast type of people but citizens of the country non-the-less.
I fell a bit behind in the discussion so I apologize that this will be post #4 in a row.Bentley said something about being concerned for our society. I too have been thinking this way for quite some time now. North American civilization does not have to continue, does not have to remain strong, and can fade away even though we often act like these things could never happen. Rome faded. Greece faded. The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, the British Empire is not what it once was, etc, etc.
We have few, if any, leaders that are of the same caliber as the founding fathers. In fact, in spite of my political leanings, I do not see much hope for the future if we cannot come up with better leaders to run for office. Having said this I do not believe governments will solve many of these issues. I think at some level, if real change is going to happen it will come from the grass roots through ordinary heroes like ever other remaking of civilization throughout history. We need a citizenry that is better read and that takes time to wrestle with the issues for themselves. Presidential debates are a gong show. That is thought one.
Thought number two: The war on terror. Warrick does a very good job of laying out the sequence of events. He points out many places that decisions were made on wrong or bad intelligence. Easy for everyone to see in hindsight. How much was contrived at the time and how much was really believed? Hard to judge in some respects. Early on in the war, it seems to me, our successes were the result of well executed small unit and elite unit engagements. I believe we began to derail when we switched to conventional, large unit deployments. I was in favor of going into Iraq but would have liked to have seen it accomplished in a different way. Of course, it is easy to sit back and be an arm chair general. I wasn't in the situation room, I was not in Brigade HQ and I was not a young soldier back a SAW through the streets of Iraqi and Afghan villages.
All of this to say we may be in danger of falling into the same traps. 59 Tomahawks vs a well placed SEAL team and lazer-guided munitions. Drone strikes vs. good intelligence and well placed sniper teams, etc.
How do we overcome that fact that many of the countries that are openly and publicly supposedly on the side of ISIS are also countries from which a lot of monetary support flows to ISIS. I believe we have to continue to strike at ISIS and even influence the situation in Syria in some way and in effective ways. I am just not sure that those ways are through conventional military responses rather than through covert style attacks. We seemed to see a lot of progress when we were fighting the War on Terror through covert, elite unit style strikes than when we tried of fight a large scale conventional style war.
Just some thoughts spurred on by some of the side comments that have been made throughout and some of my own thinking.
message 146:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 11, 2017 01:42PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Michael stated - "I think at some level, if real change is going to happen it will come from the grass roots through ordinary heroes like ever other remaking of civilization throughout history. We need a citizenry that is better read and that takes time to wrestle with the issues for themselves. Presidential debates are a gong show. That is thought one".
Bring back the League of Women Voters group which use to run all presidential debates with rules that were adhered to and sensible issues to be discussed while we are at it and keep the cable news networks out of it.
message 147:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 11, 2017 01:41PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Mod
Your absolutely right, I should have been clearer. As far as I can tell, Zarqawi was uninteresting before 9/11, after 9/11 the CIA ..."
The dots are connected better.
Mod
However this was done by Saddam Hussein against his own people."
Does it ..."
They were Iraq's countrymen nonetheless at the time though horribly treated.
Michael wrote: "It does in the sense that in spite of their different culture and language they were Iraqi citizens. French Canadians are still Canadians even with a different culture and language.Yes, but does being an Iraqi citizen mean something in the same way that being Canadian does? A Canadian may be a Canadian first and not an American, just because they both speak English. A Kurd on the other hand may be a Kurd first and have far more in common with other Kurds in Turkey than other Iraqi's in Iraq.
The reason it came up was Bentley mention Saddam gassing his own people, as if it were somehow different when they're your own. But I think for Saddam, the Kurds were not his own in any meaningful way. They were the enemy.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Terror Years: From al-Qaeda to the Islamic State (other topics)The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (other topics)
If the Oceans Were Ink: An Unlikely Friendship and a Journey to the Heart of the Quran (other topics)
If the Oceans Were Ink: An Unlikely Friendship and a Journey to the Heart of the Quran (other topics)
ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Lawrence Wright (other topics)Carla Power (other topics)
Carla Power (other topics)
Michael Weiss (other topics)
Lawrence Wright (other topics)
More...
The internet is like the wild wild west right now and there needs to be something done about these ISIS inciteful and disgusting videos. TV isn't allowed to do certain things so maybe there should be some safeguards here and I believe there are lawful things that should be done.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and hope for peace on earth and only good people and that would help us. But we need to stem the tide of folks who are citizens going to ISIS to be trained or worse - we certainly do not want them coming back nor going in the first place or getting ideas to become a homegrown terrorist.