Islamic Coalition v. Daesh

[T.Lex]

Saudis announce Islamic anti-terrorism coalition - BBC News

Saudi Arabia has said 34 mainly Muslim nations have joined a new military alliance to fight terrorism.
...
It comes amid international pressure for Gulf Arab states to do more in the fight against so-called Islamic State.
Saudi Defence Minister Mohammed bin Salman said the new alliance would co-ordinate efforts against extremists in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.
...
The Shia-majority nations of Iran and Iraq are noticeably absent, as is their ally Syria.
...
The list of 34 members: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Palestinians, Qatar, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

This could almost be a WWIII thread. Can't help but wonder if this will evolve/devolve into Sunni v. Shia.

 

[HoughMade]

Merry Christmas to you too.

 

[spencer rifle]

This could almost be a WWIII thread. Can't help but wonder if this will evolve/devolve into Sunni v. Shia.

Simply a "my brother and me against my cousin" to decide which extremist terrorism will be inflicted on the rest of the world. If we get involved it will become "me and my cousin against the world."
The only hope is to keep them killing each other as long as possible.

 

[T.Lex]

Merry Christmas to you too.

Twas the week before Christmas, and all through the Mid-East
Not a creature was stirring, neither man nor beast.

The ordnance was hung by the racks with care,
In hopes that properly vetted targets soon would be there.

The leaders were just back from COP 21
With visions of pure energy straight from the sun

Hollande was the host and Merkel the belle,
Jinping was there and Modi as well.

When what to Obama's ears should intrude
Daesh and AQ out being rude!

Away to the teleprompter he flew like a flash,
Dug up some rhetoric and summoned his Ash!

Blood had been spilt in cities and on sand,
And the world waited for leadership and a helping hand.

Putin and Erdogan continued to fight,
Shots fired, hot emotions, and personal spite.

When what to our wondering eye would appear,
But a coalition of countries, with much to fear.

Oil prices were down and business was bad,
Something must be done - profits must be had.

Terrorism was killing not only the innocent,
But making it hard to meet the profit percent.

So a Saudi King and his princes many,
Called all their friends and said, "Show us the money."

They needed commitments of materiel and arms,
Sidewinders, Hellfires, and even some HARMs.

More rapid than Westerners, the allies they came,
And we could all hear, as the king called them by name.

"On Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Djibouti,
On Egypt, Morocco, Qatar and Turkey!"

From the Persian Gulf to the Suez Canal,
Now dash away, dash away, dash away all!

The sky would be filled mostly with Falcons,
Some Typhoons, Tornadoes, Hornets and Phantoms.

Chasing and blowing up terrorist cells,
Across the landscape with bombs and shells.

But the ground troops necessary will be the issue,
Lest the grand coalition be a pile of tissue.

Brother against brother, big against puny,
Ancient traditions, Shi'a and Sunni.

The oldest of divisions with weapons of today,
The newest means of death, forgotten debts they will pay.

The question will be, "What is the war for?"
The answer will be complicated, too many ways to keep score.

This Christmas-time will highlight the refugee's plight,
And the hope that resolution will appear overnight.

ETA (challenge accepted):
If at the end,
The sun goes dark,
No one's a friend,
And the land is stark,
The people gone,
And the desert - glass,
Perhaps we won,
Perhaps we pass.
Did we gain
All that we sought?
Or for all the pain,
We earned a parking lot.

*drops mike*

 

[historian]

This could almost be a WWIII thread. Can't help but wonder WHEN this will evolve/devolve into Sunni v. Shia.

FIFY

 

[printcraft]

Twas the week before Christmas, and all through the Mid-East
Not a creature was stirring, neither man nor beast.

The ordnance was hung by the racks with care,
In hopes that properly vetted targets soon would be there.

...........

9.5/10

You would have gotten 10 if you would have worked in "glass" and "parking lot".

 

[T.Lex]

9.5/10

You would have gotten 10 if you would have worked in "glass" and "parking lot".

Edited. Boom.


ETA:
I want my half point, biatch.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

...I'm skeptical of Saudi, and if political opponents will be "terrorist" suspects now. We'll also see how much is talk vs action. Talk is a good start...but its not the finish.

 

[printcraft]

Edited. Boom.


ETA:
I want my half point, biatch.

9.9 because of back edit......

 

[T.Lex]

...I'm skeptical of Saudi, and if political opponents will be "terrorist" suspects now. We'll also see how much is talk vs action. Talk is a good start...but its not the finish.

I think that'll be a difficult avenue for SA to follow - just taking out political opponents like Assad did/does/is doing. That's a broad coalition. Just consider Qatar and Lebanon. The former is basically reliant on the US while the latter is puppet state for as many as 3 different puppet masters that are nearly open enemies of the US. It will be difficult for SA to form any sort of cohesive consensus for anything other than attacking Daesh.

But, I'm glad you posted in the thread. I'm interested in your insight in the Sunni v. Shi'a angle, if you are comfortable with it. I'm really not sure how much to make of that, as I've only read various portrayals of the schism. I have little firsthand knowledge of it.

Along similar lines, does the king really care whether the West thinks Muslim nations should do more? I mean, he's never really cared about that kind of thing before. That makes me think there's something else in play.

9.9 because of back edit......

Meh... I'll take it.

 

[Spear Dane]

Saudis announce Islamic anti-terrorism coalition - BBC News



This could almost be a WWIII thread. Can't help but wonder if this will evolve/devolve into Sunni v. Shia.

Are you unaware that it IS Sunni vs Shia and has been since ten minutes after Mohammed died?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

HO HO HO...BLT's for everyone........

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think that'll be a difficult avenue for SA to follow - just taking out political opponents like Assad did/does/is doing. That's a broad coalition. Just consider Qatar and Lebanon. The former is basically reliant on the US while the latter is puppet state for as many as 3 different puppet masters that are nearly open enemies of the US. It will be difficult for SA to form any sort of cohesive consensus for anything other than attacking Daesh.

But, I'm glad you posted in the thread. I'm interested in your insight in the Sunni v. Shi'a angle, if you are comfortable with it. I'm really not sure how much to make of that, as I've only read various portrayals of the schism. I have little firsthand knowledge of it.

Along similar lines, does the king really care whether the West thinks Muslim nations should do more? I mean, he's never really cared about that kind of thing before. That makes me think there's something else in play.


Meh... I'll take it.

It's a broad coalition on paper, at least. What does Lebanon bring to the table and how loud will their voice be? Qatar is a fairly liberal player, but they are also bordering Saudi, have a teensy-weensy military that probably isn't as effective as a well trained pack of boy scouts (I was friends with many of them, that doesn't mean I ignored their capability seemed to be lacking), and their influence is generally via politics and money. Saudi doesn't need money, and probably doesn't care much about the politics. I don't think SA will be barrel bombing their own detractors, I think they are more discrete than that, they still work hard to dissuade dissent via a police state.

Sunni V Shi'a seems to REALLY matter to some Muslims...and some other Muslims aren't sure which one they are, if either. I can't honestly give any kind of read on how many of either. I can't tell you if ANY of my friends are Sunni or Shi'a. It's possible they just assume I know, I suppose, but not one of them has ever identified themselves by school or doctrine. My guess is it a distinction that matters more when you are fighting or in scholarly debate than in routine interaction, but that's just from my own observation. Your "cultural Muslims" or "secular Muslims" or whatever you want to call the Islamic equivalent of the guy who goes to church on Sunday (if that) because his wife drags him there, they may not even know which they are. The imam who did my conversion was almost certainly Sunni, playing the odds, but never mentioned it and it didn't seem to matter. Islam has schools, as in schools of thought, not actual denominations. It's similar, but not the same. I've written and deleted a couple of attempts to try to encompass the difference as I see it, and all fall well short. I think in Christianity you tend to belong to a single denomination or you are non-denominational and the lines don't blur. You don't say, or even subconciously, think I'm part Baptist/part Episcopalian. Islam, schools have blurrier edges and that's a more real possibility. Salafism, for example, is at it's roots the belief that Islam is best understood and practiced by understanding Mohammed and the earliest Muslims, that the later religion has been twisted by political struggle, misinterpretation, etc. The problem is that's not an idea, not a doctrine, and if you selectively pick and choose without context then you can paint a very different picture than if you present the whole story. As a result, Salafism can end up being a very conservative "-ism" and is overrepresented among extremists...but's it's also one of the most tolerant when presented fully. Sufism is a more spiritual/mystical school within Islam, can be more esoteric than practical, and can be both Sunni AND shi'a and tends to be sort of "Unitarian" so...it's both and neither, but probably more Sunni more often...which just really says it's complex, and again I'm not sure how much people even think about it in these terms.

I suspect a lot of the Sunni V Shi'a in modern times boils down to politics and gives a sprinkling of religious cover to war and violence to maintain political power. If you aren't allowed to kill fellow Muslims, you need a work around if you want to have an Iraq V Iran war and your soldiers need to kill fellow Muslims. So, you play "they aren't REALLLLLY Muslim because...doctrine differences..." and then you can have your war and not be killing fellow Muslims so your soul is safe and your soldiers will not rebel for the sake of their own souls. I don't think the modern day wars are BECAUSE of the schism, I think the schism is used to justify the wars. Ancient wars, a combination of truly believing in doctrinal differences but also for power, who gets to be leader. Look at the European and Arabic world of the time, and that's the way rulership worked. Charismatic leader unifies a bunch of people, charismatic leader dies, if no strong and apparent heir is agreed upon quickly, followers/sons squabble and either war or divide up the realm, lather, rinse, repeat until subdivisions are too small and fragmented and get taken over by the next charismatic leader takes over.

 

[T.Lex]

Are you unaware that it IS Sunni vs Shia and has been since ten minutes after Mohammed died?

I think it is easy to say that, but as BBI describes, the reality is more complicated than that.

It's a broad coalition on paper, at least. What does Lebanon bring to the table and how loud will their voice be? Qatar is a fairly liberal player, but they are also bordering Saudi, have a teensy-weensy military that probably isn't as effective as a well trained pack of boy scouts (I was friends with many of them, that doesn't mean I ignored their capability seemed to be lacking), and their influence is generally via politics and money.

It is still important to recognize that the countries in that list all consented to be on that list, knowing what other countries were on the list. That is no small feat in foreign relations. Some of those countries are on there just to feel part of the cool crowd, obviously. (Moreso than Lebanon, what exactly does Bangladesh bring to the table? They have about 45 combat planes, most of which are MiG-21s.) I can tell you, though, from a foreign policy mechanics perspective, just getting that array of countries to agree to agree to a coalition is a big step.

But of course, ultimately, the endeavor will be judged by its actions.

Sunni V Shi'a seems to REALLY matter to some Muslims...and some other Muslims aren't sure which one they are, if either. ... My guess is it a distinction that matters more when you are fighting or in scholarly debate than in routine interaction, but that's just from my own observation. Your "cultural Muslims" or "secular Muslims" or whatever you want to call the Islamic equivalent of the guy who goes to church on Sunday (if that) because his wife drags him there, they may not even know which they are.

As with politics in any context, divisions help consolidate power. The lineage issue seems, from a moderately-informed outsider's perspective, as a local control issue that evolved into a schism. From that schism, much blood has flowed. Mostly for political reasons rather than religious.

 

[T.Lex]

Oops.

'Members' surprised by Saudi anti-terror coalition plan - BBC News

Officials in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia all said they had not formally agreed to join the alliance.

 

[INPatriot]

Are you unaware that it IS Sunni vs Shia and has been since ten minutes after Mohammed died?

This made me laugh out loud. You should have had a mic drop comment after this!

 

[indiucky]

I suspect a lot of the Sunni V Shi'a in modern times boils down to politics and gives a sprinkling of religious cover to war and violence to maintain political power.

Sounds like Northern Ireland...

 

[printcraft]

Oops.

'Members' surprised by Saudi anti-terror coalition plan - BBC News

[video=youtube;8bchnLOT7ic]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bchnLOT7ic[/video]

 

[BugI02]

I think that'll be a difficult avenue for SA to follow - just taking out political opponents like Assad did/does/is doing. That's a broad coalition. Just consider Qatar and Lebanon. The former is basically reliant on the US while the latter is puppet state for as many as 3 different puppet masters that are nearly open enemies of the US. It will be difficult for SA to form any sort of cohesive consensus for anything other than attacking Daesh.

But, I'm glad you posted in the thread. I'm interested in your insight in the Sunni v. Shi'a angle, if you are comfortable with it. I'm really not sure how much to make of that, as I've only read various portrayals of the schism. I have little firsthand knowledge of it.

Along similar lines, does the king really care whether the West thinks Muslim nations should do more? I mean, he's never really cared about that kind of thing before. That makes me think there's something else in play.


Meh... I'll take it.

Advertising campaign. Wahhabism is losing market share.

 

[BugI02]

<snip> If you aren't allowed to kill fellow Muslims, you need a work around if you want to have an Iraq V Iran war and your soldiers need to kill fellow Muslims. So, you play "they aren't REALLLLLY Muslim because...doctrine differences..." and then you can have your war and not be killing fellow Muslims so your soul is safe and your soldiers will not rebel for the sake of their own souls. <snip>

This sort of hairsplitting has always bothered me, BBI. Christians certainly have done it also, and it makes me think that those who do are not really believers. To whit - If they believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, do they really believe he doesn't know their true heart in these matters? Do they truly think they will not be called to account? They are only fooling themselves and their followers.