The death of the caliphate

[siam]

He kind of started two wars that he paid for on the credit card, one of which was totally unnecessary and his administration lied about that one a lot. He took the country into massive debt. The economy collapsed in his final year in office. He introduced a literal torture program and his administration lied about that a lot. I've shown you polling data of international opinion of the US under GWB, he really tanked America's reputation internationally.

I agree with you that we could look at the Bush wars as the start of ISIS. yr previous analysis was also interesting....
...but there is another way to look at this too....that it would not have mattered who the Presidents or Prime ministers were of the Western governments...because the military-industrial complex of the West needed an enemy. It was a matter of survival as without an enemy, there is no use for the groups ideology/paradigm---its meaning or purpose. Al-Qaeda/ISIS are a mirror image of this same ideology---it needs an "enemy" for its own survival---its meaning and purpose is all about good vs evil--they (the good guys) fighting against invasion and oppression from the bad guys (the others)
...and this all started with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the collaboration with the U.S., S.A, and Pakistan. The military-industrial complex had an enemy---the Soviets...so they partnered with the Afghan freedom fighters (...the Taliban...some of whom later became Al-Qaeda)---but once the U.S.S.R collapsed---both sides needed a new enemy....Bin Laden chose America---and America chose Iraq and Afghanistan....(because both were weak countries---one (Iraq) devastated by sanctions as well as previous wars and the other (Afghanistan) also by war ) The U.S. did not choose S.A. even though Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi because that would have been inconvenient to the military-industrial complex which heavily depends on fuel for its war machines.....

Bush could have used the strong ties between S.A. and the U.S.A to get Bin Laden (a Saudi) out of Afghanistan without a war (the Taliban were pro-Saudi and would have co-operated with Saudi pressure)---but such a maneuver would not benefit the military-industrial complex....they wanted war and they got their wars....and Al-Qaeda morphed into ISIS....and "zionism" a religio-nationalist ideology that justified taking over land for a "Chosen people" became the ideology of ISIS and its Caliphate. (It is the same type of ideology in which Western nations fought for global spheres of influence during colonialism and later the U.S. and U.S.S.R in the cold war period)

The core of this type of paradigm is simple---"we" are better than you therefore we are entitled to x (x=power, territory, resources, cultural/moral hegemony...etc)
That is why the "you" is required---the "you" is the designated "enemy", ....usually everyone else but their "group" (the "we").

[Cow Poke]

Just repeating expert opinion.

"expert opinion" is not fact, and has been wrong before.

Sorry if you find reality hilarious.

No, Star -- it's you I find hilarious.

[Cow Poke]

The core of this type of paradigm is simple---"we" are better than you therefore we are entitled to x (x=power, territory, resources, cultural/moral hegemony...etc)
That is why the "you" is required---the "you" is the designated "enemy", ....usually everyone else but their "group" (the "we").

So, perhaps you can realize that the west is the "you" to ISIS, which needs to control territory, resources, and people, and don't mind chopping off heads in their wake?

The OP is about the fact that ISIS is losing ground, and therefore, the caliphate is, reportedly, collapsing.

[siam]

So, perhaps you can realize that the west is the "you" to ISIS, which needs to control territory, resources, and people, and don't mind chopping off heads in their wake?

The OP is about the fact that ISIS is losing ground, and therefore, the caliphate is, reportedly, collapsing.

the "other" for ISIS is everyone else including Muslims who are not of their "group"---as you know---ISIS has caused more carnage to Muslims than it has to the "West"....

...as to the ISIS "Caliphate" I hope it remains dead...though this (territorially) was inevitable since its success was due to ex-Baathist military...(they themselves were merely a collection of angry youth)...what I hope is that with the loss of territory---the idea also dies. But, sometimes, bad ideas can come back and haunt us!

I don't have anything against co-operation and alliance between communities/nations...I think that is a good thing---I don't agree with colonialism or religio-nationalism, either Western or Muslim....The first concept is based on reciprocity/mutual respect---the other (colonialism) tends towards abuse/exploitation and religio-nationalism (= a particular territory belongs exclusively to one particular "religion"/group only) is a toxic idea...

[Roy]

You know, the hypocrite that wants others to admit to their mistakes while running away from his own mistakes instead of admitting to his own mistakes.

That would be you.

[Cow Poke]

the "other" for ISIS is everyone else including Muslims who are not of their "group"---as you know---ISIS has caused more carnage to Muslims than it has to the "West"....

But, you're aware they don't claim to be Christian, or Jewish, or.... they're your brethren.

Seriously, why do you suppose (your opinion, please) they're not more loudly and publicly denounced by Islam as a whole? (or, maybe you think they are)

..as to the ISIS "Caliphate" I hope it remains dead...though this (territorially) was inevitable since its success was due to ex-Baathist military...(they themselves were merely a collection of angry youth)...what I hope is that with the loss of territory---the idea also dies. But, sometimes, bad ideas can come back and haunt us!

I don't have anything against co-operation and alliance between communities/nations...I think that is a good thing---I don't agree with colonialism or religio-nationalism, either Western or Muslim....The first concept is based on reciprocity/mutual respect---the other (colonialism) tends towards abuse/exploitation and religio-nationalism (= a particular territory belongs exclusively to one particular "religion"/group only) is a toxic idea...

I appreciate your calm reasoned answers, Siam.

[lilpixieofterror]

That would be you.

Irony at its finest. I'm sure you've come up with a reason why I was cherrypicking, yet Starlight wasn't, right?