You've got a lot of this backwards.
Iraq had a functioning government, military, and police forces when the US withdrew around 2011, and had them for years before. The level of violence was minor at the time. The corruption in Iraq and unwillingness to engage in political compromise made it difficult for the government to function effectively which left opportunities for ISIS. It would have been better if the US had been able to stay, but domestic politics on both sides made that unlikely.
The US was hardly involved in Syria early on, and that is part of the problem. There were more moderate groups that the Obama administration ignored, and they lost a huge amount of ground.
ISIS is essentially an offshoot of al Qaeda, but appears to be surpassing it in some important ways. The US had nothing to do with founding either al Qaeda or ISIS.
Fighters for al Qaeda have come from around the world, and they fight around the world. ISIS fighters have come from around the world, but they are fighting in a much smaller area.
Islamic radicalism has been a growing problem for decades. The many oppressive and dysfunctional or otherwise troubled regimes and societies in the Arab and Muslims worlds made that almost inevitable. Blaming the US is largely misguided, but you could thank the Soviet Union.
I could really condense your post down to one argument: "Our enemies at present do not wage war lawfully and fulfill the obligations necessary for them to receive the full rights and protections of the Geneva Conventions."
There actually is a point to this, and you keep missing it. This isn't simply a question of "nastiness," but of obligations. Even the Germans in WW2 attempted to meet their obligations when fighting at least the Western Allies (US, UK, France, etc.). As I stated before, that obligation is imposed as part of the enforcement mechanism. If you don't care about them meeting their obligations then you shouldn't care about them not receiving full benefit of the treaties. It is just that simple.
You've got this wrong, including that nonsense about "systematically disappearing people." This isn't a question of some South American Junta oppressing poor peasants. It is a war against the barbarians of our age.
Guerrilla tactics were known when the treaties were drawn up so your comment about uniforms is nonsense. It takes very little to comply with the treaty. Armbands, a chain of command, and waging war lawfully is about what it takes. You're claiming that is too much? Nonsense. Tell me, what forces ISIS to behead people or burn them alive? Do you think that it is too much to expect them to not commit atrocities? That isn't a theoretical question, the issue is one played out daily by those barbarians.
Isis sex slaves: 19 women executed for refusing to have sex with militant fighters
ISIS burns 4 hog-tied men alive in new video
ISIS Declares War On ‘The Cross’: 21 Christians Beheaded in Barbaric New Video from the Islamic State
Guantanamo isn't a secret prison, it is well known. The prisoners even receive Red Cross visits. But if the enemy combatants want the full rights and protections of the treaty then they need to abide by it. That is a basic enforcement mechanism built into it. Maybe they could start small, like simply not burning people alive and behead them. They could work their way up to no mass rape and sex slavery.
Far too many people here are outraged when a terrorist leader is killed by a missile as if it were an epic crime of the ages to prevent those evil men from attacking innocent civilians. But those same people who are outraged about terrorists being killed are often wholly indifferent to mass rape, murder, and torture of captives, hostages, and innocents by al Qaeda, ISIS, and the like. How do you think that will go? How do you think it will go now that more and more of them are showing up in Europe? Once the "oxen being gored" are European I expect some "rapid evolution" of views.
Do you know what ISIS is considering doing to captured pilots? (You know they burned one alive, right?) It is an old practice of the Turkish Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire: death by impaling.
They'll probably put video of it on Youtube.
Targets in Baghdad were bombed, Baghdad as a whole wasn't. The US didn't profit from bombing Baghdad, so that is nonsense. Citing Haliburton doesn't make the case stronger.
You are peddling nonsense.
How fitting that you use the word "zombie"
It is about sexual assault, pure and simple.
Less than 800 prisoners in total have been held in Guantanamo, and at present there are only about 120 left there. They have been held there legally. You're taking nonsense.
It is stupid to think that Assange is going to end up in Guantanamo. He isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda, nor does anyone seriously assert that, and those are the only people that end up in Guantanamo.
I can't spare you or take from you a quality you possess.
Ecuador isn't acting in good faith, they are acting on behalf of Assange. They are creating unnecessary hoops for Sweden to jump through.
They are in a prisoner of war camp.
Criminal courts are completely irrelevant regarding prisoner of war status. Not even the same body of law.
Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. The question is, are they enemy combatants? Once again, not a question of criminal law.
No, the term "extra-judicial imprisonment" doesn't apply since it isn't a judicial question to begin with. All that is required is that a competent tribunal approve their detention, and that has occurred.
Would Britain have been helpless in the face of an invading German army unless they littered or something? You know, a criminal offense? Were the German and Italian prisoners held by Britain held illegitimately (minus those held for littering, or rape)?
You might have exhausted this line of thought, do you care to go on about torts committed by al Qaeda and the proper thing is to sue them? Or maybe move on to some admiralty offense? Or perhaps environmental law? I would have to assume that chopping off the heads of Christians in the surf as ISIS have been doing lately is going to mean untreated blood polluting the waters which may be an offense under environmental legislation. Perhaps that environmental outrage will finally stir up people of certain political persuasions against them when the head chopping won't.
I think something like 30% of the "totally innocent" prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay there were released went back to the battlefield and terrorism.
I'm sure. But anyway
And that means you think politicians are happy to lose elections. Right . . .
Swedish legal procedures have been discussed here often enough that I have to assume you are engaging in wilful distortion. Before Assange can be tried he has to be charged, before he can be charged under Swedish law he has to be questioned. Questioning him remotely if they expect to change him does no good since he can't be arrested to face Swedish justice. Your insinuation that he would be sent to the US is nonsense, and both Sweden and the UK would have to agree. Only Assange's fantasist supporters then it would be easier to extradite him from the UK to Sweden and then to the US when both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to the extradition than to simply extradite him from the UK where only the UK has to agree. For the UK to agree there would have to be a warrant from the US and charges, and nonesuch exists.
The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay aren't there because of "extra-judicial imprisonment." They are being held prisoners of war in the conflict against al Qaeda and its associates. Assange isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda. There is no way he is going to end up there.
Or did somebody share a "pinky swear secret" with you, dear, dear "fellow patriot"? Please good sir, share with us your news
Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.