Why we hate you & why we fight you.

[Underseer]

I really didn't learn anything new by listening to it. They're just supremacist skinheads willing to commit mass murder. They're not brave or noble people except in their own eyes.

Am I missing anything?

I hate that people still equate skinheads with white supremacists. I know the media constantly pushes this idea, but it's wrong and this perception is the reason the ARA turned violent.

 

[iolo]

So no comments on what was actually said in the article? 90% of what was communicated was religious in nature. Put simply, they hate us because according to their interpretation of Islam, it's their duty to bring the entire world under the control of the caliphate and make everyone Muslims that subscribe to the same interpretation. If this is not the case, and they're lying...why? If they have other grievances, isn't not mentioning them in favor of putting out this narrative counter productive?

If you think that it has little to nothing to do with religion despite what they say, why do you think that?

If that was meant for me, no, it has very little to do with religion in any normal sense. The repression of normal politics in the Middle East under colonialism meant that political ideas have tended to be expressed through and distorted by the language of the mosque, and that both politics and religion have been deeply distorted by the process.

 

[braces_for_impact]

So no comments on what was actually said in the article? 90% of what was communicated was religious in nature. Put simply, they hate us because according to their interpretation of Islam, it's their duty to bring the entire world under the control of the caliphate and make everyone Muslims that subscribe to the same interpretation. If this is not the case, and they're lying...why? If they have other grievances, isn't not mentioning them in favor of putting out this narrative counter productive?

If you think that it has little to nothing to do with religion despite what they say, why do you think that?

If that was meant for me, no, it has very little to do with religion in any normal sense. The repression of normal politics in the Middle East under colonialism meant that political ideas have tended to be expressed through and distorted by the language of the mosque, and that both politics and religion have been deeply distorted by the process.

It was meant for anyone.

Interesting idea, any confirming evidence for this? I'd like to explore the idea. My first thought would be that colonialism is a worldwide phenomenon, and I would wonder why we would see this particular distortion in the Middle East, but not elsewhere. Or, perhaps we do and I don't realize it. I also notice that colonialism was scarcely mentioned in the Dabiq article I put in the OP. I would wonder why the people in these effected areas haven't noticed this. Or perhaps they have and I'm unaware. Thanks for your assistance.

 

[iolo]

If that was meant for me, no, it has very little to do with religion in any normal sense. The repression of normal politics in the Middle East under colonialism meant that political ideas have tended to be expressed through and distorted by the language of the mosque, and that both politics and religion have been deeply distorted by the process.

It was meant for anyone.

Interesting idea, any confirming evidence for this? I'd like to explore the idea. My first thought would be that colonialism is a worldwide phenomenon, and I would wonder why we would see this particular distortion in the Middle East, but not elsewhere. Or, perhaps we do and I don't realize it. I also notice that colonialism was scarcely mentioned in the Dabiq article I put in the OP. I would wonder why the people in these effected areas haven't noticed this. Or perhaps they have and I'm unaware. Thanks for your assistance.

It's complicated, but by and large, colonies were costing too much by the end of the Second War, whereas oil had become essential to the working of any western capitalism, and very profitable, so they were ready to move heaven and earth to keep control. The history of Iran is classical - constant interference in the politics, especially when anyone attempted to get serious control of oil. Mossadeqh was seen off, the Tudeh party was repressed, and the Shah was given absolute power when there was talk of nationalisation, for instance, whereas the obvious counter to Soviet expansion was to support the most extreme religious groups, as in Afghanistan. The anti-colonial forces were comparatively weak and usually dependent on the army, and were under continual pressure from the paid agents of The US's ally, Saudi Arabia, which financed such extremism everywhere. 'The Silk Roads' is a history that gives a good picture of the process.

 

[funinspace]

If that was meant for me, no, it has very little to do with religion in any normal sense. The repression of normal politics in the Middle East under colonialism meant that political ideas have tended to be expressed through and distorted by the language of the mosque, and that both politics and religion have been deeply distorted by the process.

It was meant for anyone.

Interesting idea, any confirming evidence for this? I'd like to explore the idea. My first thought would be that colonialism is a worldwide phenomenon, and I would wonder why we would see this particular distortion in the Middle East, but not elsewhere. Or, perhaps we do and I don't realize it. I also notice that colonialism was scarcely mentioned in the Dabiq article I put in the OP. I would wonder why the people in these effected areas haven't noticed this. Or perhaps they have and I'm unaware. Thanks for your assistance.

Along with what iolo said, the below article speaks to this narrative.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/06/25/map-isis-hates/

When the jihadists of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) tweeted pictures of a bulldozer crashing through the earthen barrier that forms part of the frontier between Syria and Iraq, they announced—triumphantly—that they were destroying the “Sykes-Picot” border.
<snip>

This symbolic action by ISIS fighters against a century-old imperial carve-up shows the extent to which one of the most radical groups fighting in the Middle East today is nurtured by the myth of precolonial innocence, when the Ottoman Empire and Sunni Islam ruled over an unbroken realm from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and the Shias knew their place. (Indeed, the Arabic name of ISIS—al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil-Iraq wa al-Sham—refers to a historic idea of the greater Levant (al-Sham) that transcends the region’s modern, Western-imposed state borders.)

But why is Sykes-Picot so important? One reason is that it stands near the beginning of what many Arabs view as a sequence of Western betrayals spanning from the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in World War I to the establishment of Israel in 1948 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I'd say it is, like most things, more complicated than simple narratives. Did all the followers of Hitler believe in the Nazi white supremacist narrative? I'm sure many bought in 100%, but were some more probably just opportunists, or just trying to survive, or thinking that Trump would magically make their life better than all those conspiring insiders? Didn't many Christians in their day think it was their responsibility to spread Christianity, even if it was by the cannon and sword? Vasco de Gamma certainly thought that way.

As iolo said, Iran is a good example. The Shaw also continued a path towards western modernization, along with his brutal repression. So the opposition camps ended up on the other side of the road. My father, about 75 years ago went to college and boarded with a couple of Iranians on the east coast, and exchanged letters for another decade or so. As far as I can tell from my dad's stories, they were very western orientated, and quite worldly. Ironically, ME policy is one area that he had always diverted with the GOP BS. As my dad told me since I was a teenager, his Iranian college friends had cautioned that the west was playing a dangerous game getting into the middle between Sunni's and Shiites.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Iraqi's Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims were living peacefully for 1400 years until NOW..........

No, Syed. they weren't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations#Iraq

The Shia suffered indirect and direct persecution under post-colonial Iraqi governments since 1932, erupting into full-scale rebellions in 1935 and 1936. Shias were also persecuted during the Ba'ath Party rule, especially under Saddam Hussein. It is said that every Shia clerical family of note in Iraq had tales of torture and murder to recount.[99] In 1969 the son of Iraq's highest Shia Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim was arrested and allegedly tortured. From 1979–1983 Saddam's regime executed 48 major Shia clerics in Iraq.[100] They included Shia leader Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr and his sister. Tens of thousands of Iranians and Arabs of Iranian origin were expelled in 1979 and 1980 and a further 75,000 in 1989.

It's not often you're right, Syed, but you're wrong again.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I really didn't learn anything new by listening to it. They're just supremacist skinheads willing to commit mass murder. They're not brave or noble people except in their own eyes.

Am I missing anything?

I hate that people still equate skinheads with white supremacists. I know the media constantly pushes this idea, but it's wrong and this perception is the reason the ARA turned violent.

Off topic, but I hate how the media is using this "White nationalist" bullshit title the White Supremacists came up with to be PC. They're white supremacists. Call them that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Iraqi's Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims were living peacefully for 1400 years until NOW..........

So why are they killing each other NOW like they NEVER live in peace before?........

Even within the Shia/Sunni mythology they acknowledge that the split is because factional wars and the odd massacres of Mohammed's decendents (ie Kerbala). You apparently have a highly unorthodox definition of peace. Is Syria in a state of war or is it just a snuggle fest of kindness?

 

[Playball40]

That's fair enough.

But what do you do when you meet someone who insists their religion gives them the right to punch you in the face, and then they punch you in the face?

I would take them at their word. I would use that to address the root of the problem. That's my concern here.

So what 'solution' do you think there could be? I used to buy into the notion of it takes two to destroy a relationship, fight or whatever. No, actually, it doesn't. It takes one. In this case, ISIS. Do you think we can get the ISIS followers to believe differently? If not, then why do we think we can 'solve' the problem? Unless you think that people are drawn to belief in this religious zealotry for reasons OTHER than religion (such as poverty, disenfranchisement, etc.). But, at that point, it isn't really the religion. Religion is a symptom of something else.

 

[Playball40]

So no comments on what was actually said in the article? 90% of what was communicated was religious in nature. Put simply, they hate us because according to their interpretation of Islam, it's their duty to bring the entire world under the control of the caliphate and make everyone Muslims that subscribe to the same interpretation. If this is not the case, and they're lying...why? If they have other grievances, isn't not mentioning them in favor of putting out this narrative counter productive?

If you think that it has little to nothing to do with religion despite what they say, why do you think that?

Well, it's like how the US Civil War wasn't about slavery. No matter how many times you point to however many documents where the Slaveholding States spelled out clearly and consistently that this was the one issue they were leaving the country over, you'll always get people patiently explaining to you how irrelevant that topic was and how all the people who started the war did so for completely different reasons which were really important to them despite the fact that they never got around to ever mentioning them.

I agree with that. It may not have been about 'race'' but it was definitely about 'slavery'

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Well, it's like how the US Civil War wasn't about slavery. No matter how many times you point to however many documents where the Slaveholding States spelled out clearly and consistently that this was the one issue they were leaving the country over, you'll always get people patiently explaining to you how irrelevant that topic was and how all the people who started the war did so for completely different reasons which were really important to them despite the fact that they never got around to ever mentioning them.

I agree with that. It may not have been about 'race'' but it was definitely about 'slavery'

It was about States' Rights. Specifically the Confederate states' rights to continue with slavery.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I would take them at their word. I would use that to address the root of the problem. That's my concern here.

So what 'solution' do you think there could be? I used to buy into the notion of it takes two to destroy a relationship, fight or whatever. No, actually, it doesn't. It takes one. In this case, ISIS. Do you think we can get the ISIS followers to believe differently? If not, then why do we think we can 'solve' the problem? Unless you think that people are drawn to belief in this religious zealotry for reasons OTHER than religion (such as poverty, disenfranchisement, etc.). But, at that point, it isn't really the religion. Religion is a symptom of something else.

Well, thus far I think the best ideas I've seen to help are along the lines of Maajid Nawaz's work at Quilliam. His focus is on changing the interpretation of the Koran and Islam from something so literal, and changing the base of Islam from conservative to more liberal. He fosters a campaign to help stop radicalization. This obviously focuses on the more religious causes of extremism, to which so far I have thought to be not the only cause, but a major cause of Islamic terrorism.

The reason for this thread was to ask those that do not think that religion is a factor in Islamic terrorism to provide reasons why they think so, since the OP article I mentioned weighted the Islamic faith as the most over riding factor in why Islamic terrorists (ISIS specifically) hates us. Put simply, when ISIS says this, I believe them.

I think the causes of Islamic terrorism and Jihad are complex. I think there are more factors than religion, but that religion is the major factor at the root of the problem. If that's the case, then that is what the majority of our countermeasures should be focused on. If that's not the case - and so far I still do not see any reason to think it's not, then perhaps we should focus our efforts elsewhere.

I worry. I worry that one of these fanatics that really believes in the concept of Jihad and Jahannam will get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction. Even a failed attempt using such a weapon could be disastrous for so many people around the world. A successful attempt is almost beyond contemplation.

When a Christian fundamentalist kills a doctor working at an abortion clinic, and says he did it because his religion believes abortion is murder, and that he was essentially stopping the murder of children, I trust that his motives make sense to him, and that he knows his own mind. When a Jihadist blows themselves up in a car bomb in a busy market and says he did it for Islam, I likewise give them the benefit of the doubt. I never see people doubting the reasoning behind the murderer of the doctor, but I often see anything but Islam listed as motivations for the Jihadist: colonialism, poverty, lack of education, being marginalized, etc. While I realize the problem can be complex and have lots of factors involved, I often notice that people will actually say that Islam is not a factor at all, or a very minor one. I thought the Dabiq article was clear and concise as to the motivations behind why these people do what they do, but I find people simply don't believe them when they tell us this is why they want to destroy the West. So, I'm looking for those that believe this to back up their claims with evidence.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree with that. It may not have been about 'race'' but it was definitely about 'slavery'

It was about States' Rights. Specifically the Confederate states' rights to continue with slavery.

It was certainly about States' rights. The war was over the question of whether States have the right to secede from the Union once they join it. As Lincoln said, it was about preserving the Union. Although, yes, one of the reasons that the States seceded was over the question of slavery but it was the the question of secession, not slavery, that was the point of the war.

Makes me wonder what the EU will do to try to preserve their Union if the UK follows through with their Brexit referendum vote.

 

[sdelsolray]

Christians and Jews LIED about Saddam Hussain's WMD and invaded to slaughter Iraqis.............

Could you provide evidence that all Christians and Jews did that?
Or do you want to blame some specific Christian and Jews?
If so, again, please provide any evidence that they invaded in order to slaughter Iraqis.

Syed doesn't do evidence. He merely asserts.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It was about States' Rights. Specifically the Confederate states' rights to continue with slavery.

It was certainly about States' rights. The war was over the question of whether States have the right to secede from the Union once they join it. As Lincoln said, it was about preserving the Union. Although, yes, one of the reasons that the States seceded was over the question of slavery but it was the the question of secession, not slavery, that was the point of the war.

Makes me wonder what the EU will do to try to preserve their Union if the UK follows through with their Brexit referendum vote.

I was being facetious, but yes, you're right. Secession was the immediate cause of the war, while slavery was one of the major (if not the main) causes for secession.

The EU won't do anything like start a war against the UK; it has no legal basis to do so, unlike the USA, which had legal grounds to force the CSA to remain in the Union.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It was about States' Rights. Specifically the Confederate states' rights to continue with slavery.

It was certainly about States' rights. The war was over the question of whether States have the right to secede from the Union once they join it. As Lincoln said, it was about preserving the Union. Although, yes, one of the reasons that the States seceded was over the question of slavery but it was the the question of secession, not slavery, that was the point of the war.

Makes me wonder what the EU will do to try to preserve their Union if the UK follows through with their Brexit referendum vote.

No, it really wasn't. That's nothing more than a whitewashing of history. They were very clear and straightforward about what they were doing in literally every single fucking thing that they did or said. The ... recalibration ... of their positions came after the war was already over, not when they were actually going to war for the sake of continuing slavery.

Succession was the byproduct of a feeling that slavery would be curtailed if they stayed within the US, it wasn't their primary motivation. There's a reason that the Skaveholding States seceded and the Freedom Loving States or whatever weren't a name that anyone proudly called themselves.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was certainly about States' rights. The war was over the question of whether States have the right to secede from the Union once they join it. As Lincoln said, it was about preserving the Union. Although, yes, one of the reasons that the States seceded was over the question of slavery but it was the the question of secession, not slavery, that was the point of the war.

Makes me wonder what the EU will do to try to preserve their Union if the UK follows through with their Brexit referendum vote.

No, it really wasn't. That's nothing more than a whitewashing of history. They were very clear and straightforward about what they were doing in literally every single fucking thing that they did or said. The ... recalibration ... of their positions came after the war was already over, not when they were actually going to war for the sake of continuing slavery.

Succession was the byproduct of a feeling that slavery would be curtailed if they stayed within the US, it wasn't their primary motivation. There's a reason that the Skaveholding States seceded and the Freedom Loving States or whatever weren't a name that anyone proudly called themselves.

You should read history a little closer. While it is true that the States seceded because they were afraid that new territories being admitted as States could add more congressional power to the growing abolitionist movement, not all slave States seceded. At the time the war started there were four slave States that remained in the Union (Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky), plus slavery was allowed Washington D.C.

The war was about the right of States to secede (to save the Union), as clearly stated by Lincoln in his letter to Horace Greeley (a staunch Republican abolitionist) in response Greeley's strong editorial insisting that Lincoln free the slaves.

Lindoln's letter to Horace Greeley

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.... I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free

The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until almost three years into the war and did not free any slaves in even Tennessee because it was at that time already occupied by the Union. It only freed slaves in the "States in rebellion".

 

[Syed]

Originally Posted by braces_for_impact

I think the best ideas I've seen to help are along the lines of Maajid Nawaz's work at Quilliam. His focus is on changing the interpretation of the Koran and Islam from something so literal, and changing the base of Islam from conservative to more liberal. He fosters a campaign to help stop radicalization. This obviously focuses on the more religious causes of extremism, to which so far I have thought to be not the only cause, but a major cause of Islamic terrorism.

do you think reinterpretation of the koran makes jews not to bulldozed palestinian's homes?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Originally Posted by braces_for_impact

I think the best ideas I've seen to help are along the lines of Maajid Nawaz's work at Quilliam. His focus is on changing the interpretation of the Koran and Islam from something so literal, and changing the base of Islam from conservative to more liberal. He fosters a campaign to help stop radicalization. This obviously focuses on the more religious causes of extremism, to which so far I have thought to be not the only cause, but a major cause of Islamic terrorism.

do you think reinterpretation of the koran makes jews not to bulldozed palestinian's homes?

I try to never ignore replies on this forum. Unfortunately, Syed, I've watched you long enough on here to know better than to waste any of my time in reply to anything you post. If you ever decide to actually engage in discussion here, real discussion, then use some original thought that shows some kind light is on in there somewhere, not another programmed robotic response from your programming.

 

[Syed]

Originally Posted by braces_for_impact




do you think reinterpretation of the koran makes jews not to bulldozed palestinian's homes?

I try to never ignore replies on this forum. Unfortunately, Syed, I've watched you long enough on here to know better than to waste any of my time in reply to anything you post. If you ever decide to actually engage in discussion here, real discussion, then use some original thought that shows some kind light is on in there somewhere, not another programmed robotic response from your programming.

as long jews bulldozed palestisnian homes terrorism will NOT STOP