News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
So was Nelson Mandela, so you're not saying much.
That is literally false.
Yes and no
When we're dealing with terrorist organizations like ISIS, things aren't always totally clear-cut, there's always going to be groups merging and splitting off, alliances between different groups being made and broken, people switching sides, internal power struggles, name changes, etc.
So yes in the sense that he was not specifically part of the organization known as ISIS when it was known as ISIS
However, al-Nusra Front was at least very closely tied to or even a part of ISI, and ISI would later essentially become ISIS (or ISIL, IS, Daesh, whatever you want to call it)
Personally I'd consider making a distinction between ISI and ISIS to be uselessly pedantic hairsplitting. And depending on how you regard the relationship between ISI(S) and al-Nusra Front, I think it's fair to say that he was either part of or at least very closely-allied with them.
Now as of right now, al-Sharaa/al-Julani seems to be doing an alright job as leader of Syria all things considered, he could certainly be doing a lot worse. But it's still a new and evolving situation and it's hard to say exactly what his intentions are/were, how his thoughts, beliefs, and allegiances have or have not changed. It could be that his actions with ISI were part of a means to this specific end to be a decent leader for Syria, it could be that over the years he has genuinely had a change of heart from being a jihadist, or it could be that the current situation is just a facade to keep international heat off of himself while he consolidates power in Syria and once he has he'll go right back to full-on islamist extremism.
I hope for the best, I'm not really qualified to offer much of an opinion on him beyond that, and I suppose only time will tell.
What? Al-Nusra front was an Al-Qaeda affiliate until they split away completely and became Hayat Tahrir Assham in 2017, but they were always enemies with ISIS. Are you sure you're not mixing up your terrorist organizations?
Again, you can really get into the weeds here about which group splintered off from where, and what name they were operating under at what time
ISIS evolved from ISI (Islamic State in Iraq,) which was also often also known as al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)
Al Nusra started as an offshoot from ISI/AQI who went to establish an Islamic state in Syria around the outbreak of the civil war in 2011 with the authorization and backing of ISI/AQI (and later ISIS) leader al-Baghdadi. al-Julani had already been active in ISI for several years at that point when he went to Syria.
By 2012 they had officially established themselves as al Nusra, and kind of started doing their own thing pretty quickly and regarded themselves as a separate affiliate of al Qaeda instead of a subsidiary of ISI, but that seems to be how ISIS regarded them. Regardless of what its status was formally, I think it's pretty safe to say that al Nusra can trace its lineage at least partially to ISI.
In 2013 baghdadi tried to bring al Nusra formally under his banner and rebranded ISI as ISIS/ISIL (the S or L being al-Sham, the Levant, or Syria, al Nusra basically would have been the Syrian branch if things had gone according to al-Baghdadi's plan) but al quaeda opposed that merger and like you said, al nusra continued to regard themselves as an al quaeda affiliate, and one separate from ISIS. This is where the conflict between all nusra and ISIS began and part of the split between ISIS and Al quaeda
Terrorist organizations aren't exactly doing things by the book with notarized contracts and such. It's a tangled web of shaky alliances and different cells operating mostly independently with lots of internal conflicts. There's a lot of room for interpretation here, but I feel pretty comfortable simplifying things down to saying that al Nusra began as an affiliate or offshoot of the terrorist group that would later become ISIS.
Okay admittedly I didn't know a lot of the history between Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but first we should establish something: Al-Nusra was established as a subsidiary of Al-Qaeda, not ISIS. Note that in 2011, Al-Julani and a few other people were sent by Al-Qaeda with a mandate and funding to establish an Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. They were friendly with ISIS until 2013, but they weren't ISIS except in Al-Baghdadi's mind, which is why Al-Nusra abandoned them as soon as push came to shove. Also in terms of motive and actions, Al-Nusra was an Islamist Syrian rebel group dedicated to establishing a caliphate in Syria, which is very distinct from ISIS's global Jihad objectives.
Now to hop onto Al-Julani specifically: Al-Julani did serve between 2003 and 2006 in AQI/ISI, but because of his arrest he wasn't involved in most of the things we associate with ISIS. Then in 2011 he sided with Al-Qaeda and only maintained friendly ties with ISIS. The idea that both Al-Nusra and Al-Julani were former ISIS is interesting and has more merit than I thought, but it's ultimately not a useful way of thinking about either of them.
Which brings us back to the root of our disagreement
We're in agreement that he was part of ISI. I think we're also in agreement that ISI became ISIS
So do you consider ISI/AQI to be substantially different enough organization from ISIS to be worth drawing a distinction?
To me, I'd consider the distinction to be similar to quibbling over whether a software engineer worked for alphabet vs google, or Facebook vs meta. It's essentially the same organization with most of the same leadership, goals, methods, etc. just with some restructuring and a name change. A useful distinction if you're talking shop about the specific details of their structure and operation, but for the average layperson having a casual discussion on Lemmy they can be generally understood the be the same organization.
Yes, because AQI came before a lot of the baggage we associate with ISIS.
Was it? The way I understand it they were more of a resistance militia fighting against the US occupation of Iraq. Maybe it's because they didn't have the power to do more than that yet, but the average AQI-era soldier wouldn't be involved in the kind of flagrant attacks against civilians or human rights abuses that characterized and continue to characterize ISIS. I mean why would you attack civilians with the US army right there?
Al Qaeda has always been pretty clear on their Intentions in Iraq, in 2005 they specifically outlined a 4 stage plan
Step 1: expulsion of US forces from Iraq
Step 2: establish an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq
Step 3: extending the jihad to surrounding countries
Step 4: "the clash with Israel"
So yes, they were in opposition to the US occupation, but that was more of a means to an end, not exactly altruistic Iraq freedom fighters. And around that same time they were also carrying out attacks on Iraqi tribespeople and clashing with nationalist insurgents. Yes they got somewhat more extreme over time, but like you said a lot of that can be attributed to them growing in power, and arguably dealing with the US occupation was more pressing to them at the time so that's where most of their resources went.
And step 3 definitely seems to be in line with expanding operations into Syria.