What ISIS Really Wants

[Nice Squirrel]

Who here has read the "huge ass article" yet?

I did. It was good. Explained a lot.

 

[ksen]

Who here has read the "huge ass article" yet?

Me.

I even read a bunch of the comments at the bottom.

- - - Updated - - -

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

Which was kind of the point of the whole article. The west is going out of its way to not label ISIS what they make perfectly clear that they are.

 

[barbos]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

A huge ass article about how the West is [deliberately(?)] misunderstanding that ISIS is all about Islam and isn't just "Al-Qaeda's jv team". And instead of trying to deny or wave away the Islamness of ISIS in order to truly defeat them we have to come to grips that they are a millenial religious group actively seeking to bring about the apocalypse.

My best friend is a turkish muslim. We haven't talked about ISIS yet but I'll probably bring it up next time we see each other to get his thoughts.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.

I just read the article and wanted to post it, but it appears you posted it.
I have to agree with the article. ISIS is no al Quaeda, they are David Koresh on steroids, these people actually believe that shit from 7th century to the letter. Reasoning with them is pointless, but all out land war with them is a stupid idea too, because that's exactly what they want. We need to let them collapse on their own. I mean bleeding them with air strikes here and there is fine, but no western armies on the ground.
Fact is, they are pretty faithful followers of their asshole prophet and if they collapse without glory it will be a huge blow to that whole retarded idea.

 

[barbos]

Who here has read the "huge ass article" yet?

I have, it's very good. I hope Obama reads it too.

 

[Axulus]

I don't see what your point is?

The point was at the end, let them get on with it.

There are also far more "pious" muslims rejecting ISIS and their caliphate.

I'm not convinced.

Well the data clearly says otherwise:

The most striking as well as encouraging finding is that ISIS has almost no popular support in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon—even among Sunnis. Among Egyptians, a mere 3 percent express a favorable opinion of ISIS. In Saudi Arabia, the figure is slightly higher: 5 percent rate ISIS positively. In Lebanon, not a single Christian, Shiite, or Druze respondent viewed ISIS favorably; and even among Lebanon's Sunnis, that figure is almost equally low at 1 percent.

Nevertheless, there is a real difference between almost no support and no support at all. Since 3 percent of adult Egyptians say they approve of ISIS, that is nearly 1.5 million people. For Saudis, the 5 percent of adult nationals who support ISIS means over half a million people. And even in tiny Lebanon, 1 percent of adult Sunnis equals a few thousand ISIS sympathizers. In any of these places, this is enough to harbor at least a few cells of serious troublemakers.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...t-about-islamic-state-have-surprising-results

You once again seem to be falling into the trap in thinking there is just one Islam or just one "correct" interpretation of Islam.

 

[TSwizzle]

Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”

This won't sit well with some.

 

[barbos]

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

Which was kind of the point of the whole article. The west is going out of its way to not label ISIS what they make perfectly clear that they are.

Be reasonable here, they (politicians) can't call them what they are because then it would look like West is waging war on islam.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

Which was kind of the point of the whole article. The west is going out of its way to not label ISIS what they make perfectly clear that they are.

Be reasonable here, they (politicians) can't call them what they are because then it would look like West is waging war on islam.

For some reason, some people just don't understand propaganda and how important it is to convince people to kill themselves for an irrational and mindless cause.

- - - Updated - - -

The point was at the end, let them get on with it.

There are also far more "pious" muslims rejecting ISIS and their caliphate.

I'm not convinced.

Well the data clearly says otherwise:

The most striking as well as encouraging finding is that ISIS has almost no popular support in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon—even among Sunnis. Among Egyptians, a mere 3 percent express a favorable opinion of ISIS. In Saudi Arabia, the figure is slightly higher: 5 percent rate ISIS positively. In Lebanon, not a single Christian, Shiite, or Druze respondent viewed ISIS favorably; and even among Lebanon's Sunnis, that figure is almost equally low at 1 percent.

Nevertheless, there is a real difference between almost no support and no support at all. Since 3 percent of adult Egyptians say they approve of ISIS, that is nearly 1.5 million people. For Saudis, the 5 percent of adult nationals who support ISIS means over half a million people. And even in tiny Lebanon, 1 percent of adult Sunnis equals a few thousand ISIS sympathizers. In any of these places, this is enough to harbor at least a few cells of serious troublemakers.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...t-about-islamic-state-have-surprising-results

You once again seem to be falling into the trap in thinking there is just one Islam or just one "correct" interpretation of Islam.

Once again, the infallible word of a god seems to have gray areas. Odd how that works. Not only does this one god have three major religions following it, there are dozens of splinters within each of those individual religions. And a lot of these people hate each of the others, both intra- and inter-religion.

 

[arkirk]

Me.

I even read a bunch of the comments at the bottom.

- - - Updated - - -

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

Which was kind of the point of the whole article. The west is going out of its way to not label ISIS what they make perfectly clear that they are.

I read more than half the long ass article and reached a point where I began to decipher that Islam is so fractured that nobody can accurately characterize it. It is true that ISIS has a shitload of historic references it relies on and claims a direct relationship to many commonly held beliefs about what Islam is and their leaders are trying assiduously to to make their "caliphate" real. I would like to point out that if you go to central Africa, there is the same kind of fragmentation in even the most primative of religious cultures...including some interpretations of Christianity. There is nothing unique about this group or even Islamism as a whole.

The history of religion in the human race has such a long line of life and death conflicts over who is following the word of god. ISIS in all of its permutations will become split when this of that leader makes a few more mistakes. It is the notion that religion should rule that comes out of chaos and they are making plenty of that for themselves. Out of chaos comes leadership change and fragmentation of religion. This is not a mystery and it also has nothing special to chronicle in any of the cases. It is just another mindless game and the West with its need and obsession with its own religion (oil), when it puts its foot in it (boots on the ground, drones, and arming factions) just exacerbates the situation.

There are more than a billion Muslims in the world. Most of them have some connection with humanistic values. The world is not endangered by ISIS. Iraq, Syria, and in fact the entire middle east is mainly endangered by western military intervention...and the modern version of colonialism. ISIS and in fact, all these terrible regimes and movements in the middle east become only more fanatical the more we irritate and exploit their weaknesses. The formula for violent escalations of conflicts in that area is only made all the more rich by outside forces seeking to control the oil. It really never changes. Just the names and the faces and the persons who shed their blood.

 

[dismal]

Me.

I even read a bunch of the comments at the bottom.

- - - Updated - - -

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

Which was kind of the point of the whole article. The west is going out of its way to not label ISIS what they make perfectly clear that they are.

This is the Cliff notes version:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.

...

Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”

 

[arkirk]

Putting this in a purely religious context. Do not all religious people who worship a monotheistic version of god believe they are the ONLY TRUE FOLLOWERS OF GOD? How can you expect any monotheist to respect any other monotheist with even a slightly differing concept of God and His plans?

You point to ISIS and give it a special opprobrium and gloss over our own versions that result in terrible consequences. I am not defending them...just saying they have the same behavioral markers as any monotheistic religion that empowers its believers to act...including Christianity and Judaism. A drone or a knife...no difference.

 

[Axulus]

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

Which was kind of the point of the whole article. The west is going out of its way to not label ISIS what they make perfectly clear that they are.

Be reasonable here, they (politicians) can't call them what they are because then it would look like West is waging war on islam.

Which is why the type of Islam we are at war with needs to be singled out: Islamism. By not calling it out, people think that all flavors of Islam are essentially one and the same and that we are at war with all of them.

 

[Warpoet]

This won't sit well with some.

That has nothing to do with Axulus' point, which is that the world's Muslims overwhelmingly reject ISIS' ideology, whatever the reason. That's the point that actually matters, one which the link he provided thoroughly bears out, and which you claim not to be "convinced" of despite the fact that the evidence backs it up.

So, were you going to address that, or follow your apparent modus operandi of one line hit-and-run attacks without sticking around to back up your claims?

 

[funinspace]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

A huge ass article about how the West is [deliberately(?)] misunderstanding that ISIS is all about Islam and isn't just "Al-Qaeda's jv team". And instead of trying to deny or wave away the Islamness of ISIS in order to truly defeat them we have to come to grips that they are a millenial religious group actively seeking to bring about the apocalypse.

I like the point retired General Wesley Clark made in a larger interview about ISIS:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1502/11/cnr.09.html

Aired February 11, 2015 - 15:00
<snip>
ClARK: Look, ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies, because as people will tell you in the region, if you want somebody who will fight to the death against Hezbollah, you don't put out a recruiting poster and say sign up for us. We will make a better world.

You go after these zealots and you go after these religious fundamentalists. That's who fights Hezbollah.

BALDWIN: General, I'm hearing you on...

CLARK: It's like a Frankenstein.

What to do with your monster, after it ripped off its leash?

 

[KeepTalking]

Because it means that their being Muslim is not the problem, but rather that they are blowing shit up and chopping off heads that is the problem, and it is less of a problem for us because they are doing it there instead of doing it here.

It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that they don't think the blowing stuff up and chopping heads off is a problem. They think their god wants them to do it.

But the majority of Muslims do not agree with them, therefor, once again, the problem is not that they are Muslim.

 

[Perspicuo]

Obama, like his predecessor Bush, insists that teh islam is a religion of peace.

As a world leader, he most probably thinks it is his duty to produce a pygmalion effect on Muslims and that non Muslims don't agress them. A laudable intention.

Look, folks, we know ISIS grew from within Islam, but we have an actual world to protect.

Seeing the world go up in flames due to the insistence on something otherwise obvious, is not a very Humanistic thing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

Which was kind of the point of the whole article. The west is going out of its way to not label ISIS what they make perfectly clear that they are.

Be reasonable here, they (politicians) can't call them what they are because then it would look like West is waging war on islam.

Which is why the type of Islam we are at war with needs to be singled out: Islamism. By not calling it out, people think that all flavors of Islam are essentially one and the same and that we are at war with all of them.

And Islamism is going to help correct that? Adding three letters will clear the confusion?

What is wrong with saying we are "at war" with the "sick fucks in charge of ISIS"?

 

[KeepTalking]

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

They label themselves as ISIS, or ISIL, or IS, or whatever the untranslated name is, so what is the problem with using the accurate label they have applied to themselves, as opposed to the entirely inaccurate label that lumps them in with millions of people who do not agree with them?

 

[Axulus]

There seems to be this need to label the violence as a particular religion's violence.

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

Which was kind of the point of the whole article. The west is going out of its way to not label ISIS what they make perfectly clear that they are.

Be reasonable here, they (politicians) can't call them what they are because then it would look like West is waging war on islam.

Which is why the type of Islam we are at war with needs to be singled out: Islamism. By not calling it out, people think that all flavors of Islam are essentially one and the same and that we are at war with all of them.

And Islamism is going to help correct that? Adding three letters will clear the confusion?

What is wrong with saying we are "at war" with the "sick fucks in charge of ISIS"?

Because it's not just ISIS, there's Pakistani Taliban, Afgani Taliban, Boko Haram, among others. The thing these all have in common: they are radical Islamist and they are willing to use violence and terrorism to implement their vision of society by force.

And yes, distinguishing these guys from other Muslims I think is very important. People aren't buying that these radical guys aren't really Muslims, the public is smart enough to see through the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Axulus]

The guys doing the head chopping label themselves.

They label themselves as ISIS, or ISIL, or IS, or whatever the untranslated name is, so what is the problem with using the accurate label they have applied to themselves, as opposed to the entirely inaccurate label that lumps them in with millions of people who do not agree with them?

Which is why a better label needs to be used: they are indeed Muslims (they say so themselves), they clearly hold Muhammad in high regard, attempt to follow the Quran (as they interpret it), but they support radical Islamism. Trying to claim that they aren't Muslims is the no true Scotsman fallacy, and the public sees right through it. Not only that, but it creates confusion among the public: they are unable to distinguish between one type of Muslim from another.