I'd ask hat if you're going to comment, read the whole piece... But I doubt some will go to the trouble..,
What ISIS wants
What ISIS wants
Good, long read on ISIS, Salafism, jihad
- Thread starter gr8indoorsman
- Start date
(ISIS) is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident,
even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays
true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some
potential converts that the group's message is false, and military tools
can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to
persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will
matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn't last until the
end of time.
In other words, we damn sure better be ready to be in it for the long haul, and not have some limp-wristed "leader" who b*tches about people being on a "high horse" when condemning these barbarians.
I'm sure there are the apologists who just want to "get along" with them and understand what we did to create them...
The author surmises that we must wait them out, aiding their demise along the way, rather than engaging them directly in a ground war. I am inclined to agree, but there really isn't a good answer.
This is a good, long read. I wish most Americans would take the time to read it. Or, at least, a news program would take the time to make a show that hits on the high points of this article.
Ask and receive thanks to PBS & NPR
Diane Rehm had a panel discussing ISIS this morning. One of the contributors was the author of the article, Graeme Wood.
If you've never listened to Diane, her voice may take some getting used to, but the content was excellent.
Charlie Rose also had former deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morell, on last night. There is a delay for a few days on his site, but it should be up this week.
I haven't had time to read the article from The Atlantic yet, but I'll probably get to it this evening.
Diane Rehm had a panel discussing ISIS this morning. One of the contributors was the author of the article, Graeme Wood.
If you've never listened to Diane, her voice may take some getting used to, but the content was excellent.
Charlie Rose also had former deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morell, on last night. There is a delay for a few days on his site, but it should be up this week.
I haven't had time to read the article from The Atlantic yet, but I'll probably get to it this evening.
Re: Ask and receive thanks to PBS & NPR
I think you'll find the article well-written and even-handed.
I think you'll find the article well-written and even-handed.
Also read that last night, great piece...
Glad to see this getting some airplay.
I also just read a CNN article where a CNN analyst used the word "cult," which is kind of what you get out of the Atlantic piece. So he must have read it too.
If the article reflects reality, ISIS is in many ways an end-of-days cult. A very large and growing one, a scale enabled (in my opinion) by modern social media. And ISIS wants nothing more than to engage western armies on the ground and on its turf (as I've been saying for weeks). We are smart to avoid that.
In many ways, ISIS is not an entity that ever wants to establish and sustain itself as a nation-state in the world as we know it. It's Jim Jones on steroids.
And in the above dimensions I think ISIS is very different from both violent and non-violent Salafist organizations and ideologies around the world, let alone more mainstream Muslim sub-groups.
Glad to see this getting some airplay.
I also just read a CNN article where a CNN analyst used the word "cult," which is kind of what you get out of the Atlantic piece. So he must have read it too.
If the article reflects reality, ISIS is in many ways an end-of-days cult. A very large and growing one, a scale enabled (in my opinion) by modern social media. And ISIS wants nothing more than to engage western armies on the ground and on its turf (as I've been saying for weeks). We are smart to avoid that.
In many ways, ISIS is not an entity that ever wants to establish and sustain itself as a nation-state in the world as we know it. It's Jim Jones on steroids.
And in the above dimensions I think ISIS is very different from both violent and non-violent Salafist organizations and ideologies around the world, let alone more mainstream Muslim sub-groups.
obviously a well written article
I would, well quibble or argue isn't the right word, because the article is clearly well-researched by people infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than I, but I suppose I would generate some questions based on the article:
1) What does the author(s) make of those who are "in it for the lulz" as it were? I would be interested in what percentage of the ISIS troops are fanatically religious folks versus folks in it for the killing/power versus folks in it because "the pay is good" or people in it because "if I don't they'll kill me." I ask this because I've read other articles of folks who came in to ISIS, then left after it ended up being "too much" for them.
I think this would affect our approach. If the answer is, the vast majority of the troops are fanatical believers, then identifying socio-economic/political issues would be a waste of time. If the answer is, most of the troops fit into some other column, then such an identification has merit in reducing the pool of willing/available troops. Of course, one of the issues is, when you have 7 billion people, finding a few hundred thousand religious fanatics is really easy.
2) IF we assume they are religious fanatics who deeply are seeking apocalypse, how does that really change our strategy? I don't see much in the way of attempts to negotiate with them. In fact, that would seem to support the usual American "we don't negotiate with terrorists" position, because you can't negotiate with crazy (I get it, they are arguing they aren't crazy...I would argue if you are trying to bring on religious apocalypse...you're crazy in my book). I agree with the article's argument that the current military strategy is the best of bad options. I think ISIS hastens its own demise by getting more and more ME Muslim nations on board with going up against it.
3) The article seems to argue that identifying areas where ISIS has backfired or done something illogical is the wrong way to look at it, because, in effect, what they are doing is perfectly logical to them. I would assert that few people do things that they subjectively view as illogical. I think it is legitimate for non-ISIS folks to look and think, that's illogical to burn that pilot, or do other things that end up ginning up Islamic anger towards ISIS. Having said that, I think the article is right that ISIS's type of "crazy" is to some extent predictable, and does have an internal logic to it, and that understanding that internal logic is helpful.
4) The problem I have with the ISIS is just REALLY Islamic argument. There are parts of the Bible Christians have, I think rightfully, re-assessed for want of a better word. There are crazies who want to go back to the beginning as it were there, but I don't think that makes them "Real" Christians, nor do I think if/when they do violence (Branch Davidians for example) that means we can't call them "unChristian." Religions evolve over time. Old rules give way to new ones. That's no less true for Islam than any other religion.
I would, well quibble or argue isn't the right word, because the article is clearly well-researched by people infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than I, but I suppose I would generate some questions based on the article:
1) What does the author(s) make of those who are "in it for the lulz" as it were? I would be interested in what percentage of the ISIS troops are fanatically religious folks versus folks in it for the killing/power versus folks in it because "the pay is good" or people in it because "if I don't they'll kill me." I ask this because I've read other articles of folks who came in to ISIS, then left after it ended up being "too much" for them.
I think this would affect our approach. If the answer is, the vast majority of the troops are fanatical believers, then identifying socio-economic/political issues would be a waste of time. If the answer is, most of the troops fit into some other column, then such an identification has merit in reducing the pool of willing/available troops. Of course, one of the issues is, when you have 7 billion people, finding a few hundred thousand religious fanatics is really easy.
2) IF we assume they are religious fanatics who deeply are seeking apocalypse, how does that really change our strategy? I don't see much in the way of attempts to negotiate with them. In fact, that would seem to support the usual American "we don't negotiate with terrorists" position, because you can't negotiate with crazy (I get it, they are arguing they aren't crazy...I would argue if you are trying to bring on religious apocalypse...you're crazy in my book). I agree with the article's argument that the current military strategy is the best of bad options. I think ISIS hastens its own demise by getting more and more ME Muslim nations on board with going up against it.
3) The article seems to argue that identifying areas where ISIS has backfired or done something illogical is the wrong way to look at it, because, in effect, what they are doing is perfectly logical to them. I would assert that few people do things that they subjectively view as illogical. I think it is legitimate for non-ISIS folks to look and think, that's illogical to burn that pilot, or do other things that end up ginning up Islamic anger towards ISIS. Having said that, I think the article is right that ISIS's type of "crazy" is to some extent predictable, and does have an internal logic to it, and that understanding that internal logic is helpful.
4) The problem I have with the ISIS is just REALLY Islamic argument. There are parts of the Bible Christians have, I think rightfully, re-assessed for want of a better word. There are crazies who want to go back to the beginning as it were there, but I don't think that makes them "Real" Christians, nor do I think if/when they do violence (Branch Davidians for example) that means we can't call them "unChristian." Religions evolve over time. Old rules give way to new ones. That's no less true for Islam than any other religion.
"The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic."
If only the Obama administration was capable of acknowledging this. Hopefully the rest of the news media, but more importantly the entertainment media. will come to this realization as well. The sooner we view Islam accurately the better.
Probably my favorite line was this:
Many denials of the Islamic State's religious nature, he said, are rooted in an "interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition."
Amen!
If only the Obama administration was capable of acknowledging this. Hopefully the rest of the news media, but more importantly the entertainment media. will come to this realization as well. The sooner we view Islam accurately the better.
Probably my favorite line was this:
Many denials of the Islamic State's religious nature, he said, are rooted in an "interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition."
Amen!
Re: obviously a well written article
IF we assume they are religious fanatics who deeply are seeking apocalypse, how does that really change our strategy?
With regards to our strategy why should it matter if they're seeking apocalypse or not? They're seeking to establish a global Islamic caliphate. Killing them is entirely legitimate.
Stop importing Muslims. Either Muslim immigrants are "religious fanatics" or their descendants will be. Europe has certainly discovered this deadly truth more than we have. There's no reason why we should end up in the situation they are.
The problem I have with the ISIS is just REALLY Islamic argument. There are parts of the Bible Christians have, I think rightfully, re-assessed for want of a better word. There are crazies who want to go back to the beginning as it were there, but I don't think that makes them "Real" Christians, nor do I think if/when they do violence (Branch Davidians for example) that means we can't call them "unChristian." Religions evolve over time.
The Koran was written by Allah. Mohammed is the Perfect Muslim. Until those two beliefs change there is no hope for Islam "evolving". Especially when the most powerful voices in the world, including the West, insist that we respect Islam at all times. There is no significant movement in the world to "re-asses" Islam. If that's even possible.
Old rules give way to new ones. That's no less true for Islam than any other religion.
Not sure that's possible with Islam. Stop pushing the Equality nonsense that all religions are essentially interchangeable. Islam has its own distinct characteristics and we should acknowledge them.
This post was edited on 2/19 10:45 AM by GMM
IF we assume they are religious fanatics who deeply are seeking apocalypse, how does that really change our strategy?
With regards to our strategy why should it matter if they're seeking apocalypse or not? They're seeking to establish a global Islamic caliphate. Killing them is entirely legitimate.
Stop importing Muslims. Either Muslim immigrants are "religious fanatics" or their descendants will be. Europe has certainly discovered this deadly truth more than we have. There's no reason why we should end up in the situation they are.
The problem I have with the ISIS is just REALLY Islamic argument. There are parts of the Bible Christians have, I think rightfully, re-assessed for want of a better word. There are crazies who want to go back to the beginning as it were there, but I don't think that makes them "Real" Christians, nor do I think if/when they do violence (Branch Davidians for example) that means we can't call them "unChristian." Religions evolve over time.
The Koran was written by Allah. Mohammed is the Perfect Muslim. Until those two beliefs change there is no hope for Islam "evolving". Especially when the most powerful voices in the world, including the West, insist that we respect Islam at all times. There is no significant movement in the world to "re-asses" Islam. If that's even possible.
Old rules give way to new ones. That's no less true for Islam than any other religion.
Not sure that's possible with Islam. Stop pushing the Equality nonsense that all religions are essentially interchangeable. Islam has its own distinct characteristics and we should acknowledge them.
This post was edited on 2/19 10:45 AM by GMM
And you are very, very ignorant
"Science is my religion" - Timothy McVeigh
McVeigh was not a Christian. He did not cite commandments from the Bible (because there are none) or examples from Jesus' life (because there are none) to justify his actions. There certainly weren't large numbers of Christians who celebrated his terrorism (unlike with Islamic terrorists). How many Timothy McVeigh's have there been since 1995? How many Islamic terrorist attacks have there been since........one week ago?
But, hey, if you don't like hearing that the Islamic State is very Islamic then take it up with Graeme Wood.
"Science is my religion" - Timothy McVeigh
McVeigh was not a Christian. He did not cite commandments from the Bible (because there are none) or examples from Jesus' life (because there are none) to justify his actions. There certainly weren't large numbers of Christians who celebrated his terrorism (unlike with Islamic terrorists). How many Timothy McVeigh's have there been since 1995? How many Islamic terrorist attacks have there been since........one week ago?
But, hey, if you don't like hearing that the Islamic State is very Islamic then take it up with Graeme Wood.
I agreed with you
ISIS is "very, very Islamic."
In fact they are an Islamic cult. Hello, Mr. Baghdadi? David Koresh is calling, and I have Jim Jones on hold.
Yet you invented the idea that I didn't like hearing that.
I'm aware that McVeigh as "Christian" might not be the best extremist metaphor, though he's said to have been heavily influenced by a version of Christian thought. But I left it out there because that precisely makes the point of "where do you draw the line?"
I'll leave it to someone else to dig up more direct cases where extremists commit acts of violence out of commitment to the purest form of their ideology. There are plenty.
Hey, about that that guy in North Carolina who killed the three Muslims? He's American, very American.
Therefore all Americans want to kill Muslims.
Right?
This post was edited on 2/18 9:45 PM by db
ISIS is "very, very Islamic."
In fact they are an Islamic cult. Hello, Mr. Baghdadi? David Koresh is calling, and I have Jim Jones on hold.
Yet you invented the idea that I didn't like hearing that.
I'm aware that McVeigh as "Christian" might not be the best extremist metaphor, though he's said to have been heavily influenced by a version of Christian thought. But I left it out there because that precisely makes the point of "where do you draw the line?"
I'll leave it to someone else to dig up more direct cases where extremists commit acts of violence out of commitment to the purest form of their ideology. There are plenty.
Hey, about that that guy in North Carolina who killed the three Muslims? He's American, very American.
Therefore all Americans want to kill Muslims.
Right?
This post was edited on 2/18 9:45 PM by db
Re: I agreed with you
I'm aware that McVeigh as "Christian" might not be the best extremist
metaphor, though he's said to have been heavily influenced by a version
of Christian thought.
What commandments from the Bible or examples of Jesus did he or could he cite? None. Yeah, "Christian thought". ISIS on the other hand........
But I left it out there because that precisely makes the point of "where do you draw the line?"
The Koran and the example of Mohammed. As Wood pointed out ISIS (and for that matter other Islamic terrorists) regularly quote the Koran to justify their actions.
If Mohammed was around today would he be trying to destroy ISIS or would he be trying to lead it?
I'll leave it to someone else to dig up more direct cases where
extremists commit acts of violence out of commitment to the purest form
of their ideology. There are plenty.
And they are disproportionately Muslim. Why is that?
Hey, about that that guy in North Carolina who killed the three Muslims?
Why did you identify them as Muslims? Is that why they were killed?
He's American, very American.
There is no tradition in America of killing Muslims because they are Muslim or killing other people over a parking space (which is what actually happened). So, no, he's not "very, very American". No, you're not making a good point you're just once again running interference for Islam by making it seem all groups commit violent terrorism at the same rate. They don't and you know it.
I'm aware that McVeigh as "Christian" might not be the best extremist
metaphor, though he's said to have been heavily influenced by a version
of Christian thought.
What commandments from the Bible or examples of Jesus did he or could he cite? None. Yeah, "Christian thought". ISIS on the other hand........
But I left it out there because that precisely makes the point of "where do you draw the line?"
The Koran and the example of Mohammed. As Wood pointed out ISIS (and for that matter other Islamic terrorists) regularly quote the Koran to justify their actions.
If Mohammed was around today would he be trying to destroy ISIS or would he be trying to lead it?
I'll leave it to someone else to dig up more direct cases where
extremists commit acts of violence out of commitment to the purest form
of their ideology. There are plenty.
And they are disproportionately Muslim. Why is that?
Hey, about that that guy in North Carolina who killed the three Muslims?
Why did you identify them as Muslims? Is that why they were killed?
He's American, very American.
There is no tradition in America of killing Muslims because they are Muslim or killing other people over a parking space (which is what actually happened). So, no, he's not "very, very American". No, you're not making a good point you're just once again running interference for Islam by making it seem all groups commit violent terrorism at the same rate. They don't and you know it.
db, you cannot be that dense.
And you think they're ... "Christians"?
McVeigh renounced his religious beliefs.
ISIS? Not so much! They're committed Muslims.
As hard as you and your ilk try, you will never sully the followers of Christ with these barbarous actions. Even Obama displayed his sheer stupidity (or agenda?) when he tried to compare today's murderous Muslims with the "Crusades".
You're comparing Koresh and McVeigh to the murderous, barbarian Muslims, who have killed thousands and continue to march on?
And you think they're ... "Christians"?
McVeigh renounced his religious beliefs.
ISIS? Not so much! They're committed Muslims.
As hard as you and your ilk try, you will never sully the followers of Christ with these barbarous actions. Even Obama displayed his sheer stupidity (or agenda?) when he tried to compare today's murderous Muslims with the "Crusades".
Re: db, you cannot be that dense.
I am not defending ISIS in any way, however I don't have to think very hard to draw parallels between ISIS' subjugative tactics and the Inquisition.
This post was edited on 2/19 12:21 AM by gr8indoorsman
I am not defending ISIS in any way, however I don't have to think very hard to draw parallels between ISIS' subjugative tactics and the Inquisition.
This post was edited on 2/19 12:21 AM by gr8indoorsman
Re: You too?
Read what I wrote: comparing their subjugative tactics... The Inquisition ordered Jews and Muslims to leave Catholic lands or convert. Those unwilling to leave or convert were subjected to "trials," and at least 150,000 of those cases occurred over time. They tortured many in order to gain "confessions" and burnt others (as many as 5000 according to some sources) at the stake.
In the case of ISIS, they give non-believers - even other Muslims - the option of paying a tax or submitting their women to slavery to show their subjugation to the caliphate in exchange for the ability to live in its territory. If you do not want to submit to ISIS, you must leave the territory. If you do not submit to ISIS or leave, they torture and often murder you.
It ain't that hard to draw a parallel.
Read what I wrote: comparing their subjugative tactics... The Inquisition ordered Jews and Muslims to leave Catholic lands or convert. Those unwilling to leave or convert were subjected to "trials," and at least 150,000 of those cases occurred over time. They tortured many in order to gain "confessions" and burnt others (as many as 5000 according to some sources) at the stake.
In the case of ISIS, they give non-believers - even other Muslims - the option of paying a tax or submitting their women to slavery to show their subjugation to the caliphate in exchange for the ability to live in its territory. If you do not want to submit to ISIS, you must leave the territory. If you do not submit to ISIS or leave, they torture and often murder you.
It ain't that hard to draw a parallel.
Re: "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic."
ISIS is Islamic. ISIS is not Islam. There's a distinction.
Yes, ISIS is Islamic, regarding that there is no question. There are many Muslims who recognize that the texts in the Koran are not applicable/acceptable manners of existence. Indeed, Hezbollah (which is also Islamic) recognizes the United Nations, which, Wood writes, is apostasy in the eyes of ISIS. Yet Hezbollah remains Islamic as well...
ISIS is Islamic. ISIS is not Islam. There's a distinction.
Re: You too?
I'm not saying that the Inquisition didn't commit acts of evil. I'm saying that to bring it up as some equivalent to ISIS is ridiculous. It gets tiresome to hear Westerners repeatedly tear down something from the West's past in order to defend Islam (something that represents the destruction of Western civilization). There's simply no reason to do so and the self-loathing mentality needs to go if we're going to protect ourselves from Islam.
I'm not saying that the Inquisition didn't commit acts of evil. I'm saying that to bring it up as some equivalent to ISIS is ridiculous. It gets tiresome to hear Westerners repeatedly tear down something from the West's past in order to defend Islam (something that represents the destruction of Western civilization). There's simply no reason to do so and the self-loathing mentality needs to go if we're going to protect ourselves from Islam.
I have no idea
why you are so obsessed with raw numbers.
However, a quick search shows the Portuguese Inquisition alone resulted in the burning of almost 1,200 people.
The Spanish has estimates from 3-5 thousand.
That's ignoring those tortured or threatened to convert or be tortured (a much larger number, as if folks believe you, they aren't really going to hold fast for long). It ignores the "ingenuous" torture tools invented or refined by the various inquisitions. Of course, Christians didn't invent torture, and some of the things they used had a long history (thanks Romans), but the idea that somehow they weren't as barbaric as ISIS today is ignorant.
In Bosnia, somewhere between 20-50 thousand women and girls are thought to have been raped, most of them Muslim, by Serbians (Christian), and there was ethnic cleansing. That's not even a century ago. Plenty of evidence that some of those lynched in the US were also burned alive, again, just last century.
Let's not even talk about what the Spanish did to convert the natives to Christianity in the Americas, or the widespread support for slavery in Christianity, or Christian treatment of the Jews in Europe for centuries (aka Pogroms).
The idea that Christianity doesn't have enough blood on it's hands to not turn it's nose up at another religion is ignorant and laughable. Of course, the vast majority of Christians don't countenance that anymore, and disavow it and would never participate in it. Just like the vast majority of Muslims.
why you are so obsessed with raw numbers.
However, a quick search shows the Portuguese Inquisition alone resulted in the burning of almost 1,200 people.
The Spanish has estimates from 3-5 thousand.
That's ignoring those tortured or threatened to convert or be tortured (a much larger number, as if folks believe you, they aren't really going to hold fast for long). It ignores the "ingenuous" torture tools invented or refined by the various inquisitions. Of course, Christians didn't invent torture, and some of the things they used had a long history (thanks Romans), but the idea that somehow they weren't as barbaric as ISIS today is ignorant.
In Bosnia, somewhere between 20-50 thousand women and girls are thought to have been raped, most of them Muslim, by Serbians (Christian), and there was ethnic cleansing. That's not even a century ago. Plenty of evidence that some of those lynched in the US were also burned alive, again, just last century.
Let's not even talk about what the Spanish did to convert the natives to Christianity in the Americas, or the widespread support for slavery in Christianity, or Christian treatment of the Jews in Europe for centuries (aka Pogroms).
The idea that Christianity doesn't have enough blood on it's hands to not turn it's nose up at another religion is ignorant and laughable. Of course, the vast majority of Christians don't countenance that anymore, and disavow it and would never participate in it. Just like the vast majority of Muslims.
Re: You too?
In terms of forcing subjugation, the Inquisition and ISIS's establishment of a caliphate are very much equivalent. I am not creating a blanket comparison here. You seem to see things as all or nothing, black and white, but there is nuance involved in these discussions that I think escapes you sometimes.
To act like the atrocities being committed by ISIS are unprecedented by any other religion is ignorant. I agree with you that the basis of those actions is vastly different. The Koran spells out that what ISIS is doing is "God's work" in the eyes of ISIS, but other religions have found basis for atrocities in their respective holy works as well. Here I recall the Hollywood interpretation portrayed in "Kingdom of Heaven" when they would exclaim "GOD WILLS IT!!" and the go do whatever they wanted. The primary difference being that the Catholic church, for example, constantly revises its opinions and stances on many things to stay current with the changing social environments (birth control, women's role in the church, etc.), where as ISIS obviously does not since they recognize no worldly authority other than God. Christians no longer believe that if someone puts out your eye, you get to put theirs out in return. ISIS absolutely believes that apostasy is worthy of anything ranging from eviction and emigration from the caliphate all the way to death by beheading, and will never view beheading as bad because it is acceptable to Allah (according to the Koran), so what a secular government or the UN thinks is irrelevant. Their stated goal is to put as much fear as possible into their potential adversaries so as to remove their adversaries' will to fight and resist. The Inquisition was very much the same in that specific respect.
As Wood says, ISIS desires a return to medieval Islam in every imaginable, brutal way. The vast majority of Muslims, including many fundamentalist sects such as Salafists, do not, even if they support the establishment of the caliphate.
In terms of forcing subjugation, the Inquisition and ISIS's establishment of a caliphate are very much equivalent. I am not creating a blanket comparison here. You seem to see things as all or nothing, black and white, but there is nuance involved in these discussions that I think escapes you sometimes.
To act like the atrocities being committed by ISIS are unprecedented by any other religion is ignorant. I agree with you that the basis of those actions is vastly different. The Koran spells out that what ISIS is doing is "God's work" in the eyes of ISIS, but other religions have found basis for atrocities in their respective holy works as well. Here I recall the Hollywood interpretation portrayed in "Kingdom of Heaven" when they would exclaim "GOD WILLS IT!!" and the go do whatever they wanted. The primary difference being that the Catholic church, for example, constantly revises its opinions and stances on many things to stay current with the changing social environments (birth control, women's role in the church, etc.), where as ISIS obviously does not since they recognize no worldly authority other than God. Christians no longer believe that if someone puts out your eye, you get to put theirs out in return. ISIS absolutely believes that apostasy is worthy of anything ranging from eviction and emigration from the caliphate all the way to death by beheading, and will never view beheading as bad because it is acceptable to Allah (according to the Koran), so what a secular government or the UN thinks is irrelevant. Their stated goal is to put as much fear as possible into their potential adversaries so as to remove their adversaries' will to fight and resist. The Inquisition was very much the same in that specific respect.
As Wood says, ISIS desires a return to medieval Islam in every imaginable, brutal way. The vast majority of Muslims, including many fundamentalist sects such as Salafists, do not, even if they support the establishment of the caliphate.
Re: lol
I just read an estimate that said the Inquisition burned 5000 people at the stake. So, there's one.
Re: I have no idea
And this was over a ~300 year period. You simply have to factor that in. At the rate ISIS is going they will vastly out-evil the Inquisition.
You left out the sex slavery, rape, and child brides for the Inquisition? Was there none? If so then that's yet another comparison where ISIS looks worse.
......or Christian treatment of the Jews in Europe for centuries (aka Pogroms).
No, let's talk about that and compare it to their treatment by Muslims.
The idea that Christianity doesn't have enough blood on it's hands.......
Christianity has no blood on its hands because no Christian has ever done anything wrong.
That's the ridiculous exaggeration you (and others) insist on making to attack your opponents. Why? To defend Islam.
And this was over a ~300 year period. You simply have to factor that in. At the rate ISIS is going they will vastly out-evil the Inquisition.
You left out the sex slavery, rape, and child brides for the Inquisition? Was there none? If so then that's yet another comparison where ISIS looks worse.
......or Christian treatment of the Jews in Europe for centuries (aka Pogroms).
No, let's talk about that and compare it to their treatment by Muslims.
The idea that Christianity doesn't have enough blood on it's hands.......
Christianity has no blood on its hands because no Christian has ever done anything wrong.
That's the ridiculous exaggeration you (and others) insist on making to attack your opponents. Why? To defend Islam.
Re: I have no idea
Again, you asked us to compare the atrocities. We did. Sheer volume is yet to be determined, and anyway doesn't speak to the argument you're trying to espouse. I understand that it's simpler for you to just shift your goalposts, but it's also irresponsible to do so.
And at any rate, how does declaring "ISIS is worse than any thing evaarrrrr!" change what we should do? ISIS is Islamic. ISIS is not Islam.
I'd argue that's precisely why it won't last 300 years nor ever reach the totals of the inquisition. They behead someone today, the whole world knows and can weigh in. Hell, they've been around for like a year and already have the military weight of a half-dozen countries thrown against them. The same can't be said of the inquisition.
Again, you asked us to compare the atrocities. We did. Sheer volume is yet to be determined, and anyway doesn't speak to the argument you're trying to espouse. I understand that it's simpler for you to just shift your goalposts, but it's also irresponsible to do so.
And at any rate, how does declaring "ISIS is worse than any thing evaarrrrr!" change what we should do? ISIS is Islamic. ISIS is not Islam.
Re: I have no idea
And at any rate, how does declaring "ISIS is worse than any thing evaarrrrr!" change what we should do?
It doesn't. Especially when no one is saying that.
ISIS is Islamic. ISIS is not Islam.
Is Mohammed, the founder of Islam, Islam?
I believe in a previous discussion you hid behind the "Well, in the context of the time he was living in......." argument. Does that apply to the Inquisition?
And at any rate, how does declaring "ISIS is worse than any thing evaarrrrr!" change what we should do?
It doesn't. Especially when no one is saying that.
ISIS is Islamic. ISIS is not Islam.
Is Mohammed, the founder of Islam, Islam?
I believe in a previous discussion you hid behind the "Well, in the context of the time he was living in......." argument. Does that apply to the Inquisition?
Re: I have no idea
Of course it applies to the Inquisition, and that's the distinction. ISIS is seeking a return to medieval Islam. As I've said in three separate posts in this thread, and as Wood mentions, most Muslims, including many Salafists, do not want to return to that, nor do they agree with the manner in which Baghdadi is establishing the caliphate, even if they indeed want a caliphate established!
well when they get there let me know
although I don't have the fetish with raw numbers you do.
I threw in rape in Bosnia for you. Sex slavery? I dunno, I suspect the Spanish didn't have too bad a time "converting" the Indian women in the Americas.
Treatment by Muslims of Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages? Actually, there's evidence that Jews preferred living under Muslim rule in Spain because the Muslims left them alone so long as they paid the tax, and didn't try to convert them (or blame them for killing Christ).
Yep, to defend Islam. And if someone made similarly stupid claims about Christianity and asserted that Islam was better, I'd likewise try to "defend Christianity." So, ya got me, I'm defending Islam from ridiculous arguments.
although I don't have the fetish with raw numbers you do.
I threw in rape in Bosnia for you. Sex slavery? I dunno, I suspect the Spanish didn't have too bad a time "converting" the Indian women in the Americas.
Treatment by Muslims of Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages? Actually, there's evidence that Jews preferred living under Muslim rule in Spain because the Muslims left them alone so long as they paid the tax, and didn't try to convert them (or blame them for killing Christ).
Yep, to defend Islam. And if someone made similarly stupid claims about Christianity and asserted that Islam was better, I'd likewise try to "defend Christianity." So, ya got me, I'm defending Islam from ridiculous arguments.
"medieval" Islam.......
........existed up until about 100-200 years ago. It went away because the eeeeevil West colonized them.
I don't doubt that a lot of Muslims don't want to return to that. But that doesn't determine the truth of what Islam really is. Muslims are supposed to pattern their lives after Mohammed. What kind of Islam would he want?
........existed up until about 100-200 years ago. It went away because the eeeeevil West colonized them.
I don't doubt that a lot of Muslims don't want to return to that. But that doesn't determine the truth of what Islam really is. Muslims are supposed to pattern their lives after Mohammed. What kind of Islam would he want?
uh no
actually the real issue is that, for a time, Islam was more modern than anything else, and relatively moderate. While Christians were doing pogroms against Jews, the Muslims left them alone so long as they paid a tax. When things starting going wrong was when Britain and others decided to carve up the middle east with zero regard to regional, national, or religious interest.
When they decided an Iraq made up of three disparate groups made perfect sense, that Israel should split into a Jewish half and a Palestinian half, or some of the other, and host of other issues that created REAL resentments that were then fed on by certain groups.
But for you everything equates to...savages, then the West civilizes them, then they aren't grateful enough.
actually the real issue is that, for a time, Islam was more modern than anything else, and relatively moderate. While Christians were doing pogroms against Jews, the Muslims left them alone so long as they paid a tax. When things starting going wrong was when Britain and others decided to carve up the middle east with zero regard to regional, national, or religious interest.
When they decided an Iraq made up of three disparate groups made perfect sense, that Israel should split into a Jewish half and a Palestinian half, or some of the other, and host of other issues that created REAL resentments that were then fed on by certain groups.
But for you everything equates to...savages, then the West civilizes them, then they aren't grateful enough.
Wait them out. Well, while we're waiting, they're butchering.
That could work ... as long as they don't kill your family and friends in the meantime.
Of course, while we're waiting, they're not standing still.
It's an interesting theory.
Re: db, you cannot be that dense.
And that was the entire point of bringing up the Crusades and Inquisition... to defend what ISIS is doing. There was no other reason to go back hundreds of years to something even "The One" doesn't understand.
Of course it is. Unless Al Jazeera took exception?
And that was the entire point of bringing up the Crusades and Inquisition... to defend what ISIS is doing. There was no other reason to go back hundreds of years to something even "The One" doesn't understand.
Hey that was a great link
Going to have to read it again some time as it was just packed with information. A few quick, knee jerk reaction thoughts if you will-
-Well, I think that article did a great job of describing what Islam is. Seems like it is at the point Christianity had with schisms.
-Still tough to decide if US intervention is the right thing or not. The article makes a good case against it especially with Shiite and Kurds around to do the job. However, from spending much time there, I will also say two things:
-Muslims respect and in many cases need a strong leader. They tend to pick the side of the 'Big Chief' as we were called. If the Islamic State gets to big, or has to much success, I think their membership grows exponentially. Then, it gets harder to stop.
-I also think at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, Muslims(Sunni groups) will put aside their religous differences and unite with one another, especially when it comes to ISIS and Al-Qaeda(both Sunni). Both are Sunni, and both have somewhat similar goals, just different ways of going about it. Osama bin Laden was quoted as saying the 9-11 attacks were the result and caused by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. So in the end, I think the two groups have more similar end goals than the article leads on to-although I will say I need to read it again.
Going to have to read it again some time as it was just packed with information. A few quick, knee jerk reaction thoughts if you will-
-Well, I think that article did a great job of describing what Islam is. Seems like it is at the point Christianity had with schisms.
-Still tough to decide if US intervention is the right thing or not. The article makes a good case against it especially with Shiite and Kurds around to do the job. However, from spending much time there, I will also say two things:
-Muslims respect and in many cases need a strong leader. They tend to pick the side of the 'Big Chief' as we were called. If the Islamic State gets to big, or has to much success, I think their membership grows exponentially. Then, it gets harder to stop.
-I also think at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, Muslims(Sunni groups) will put aside their religous differences and unite with one another, especially when it comes to ISIS and Al-Qaeda(both Sunni). Both are Sunni, and both have somewhat similar goals, just different ways of going about it. Osama bin Laden was quoted as saying the 9-11 attacks were the result and caused by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. So in the end, I think the two groups have more similar end goals than the article leads on to-although I will say I need to read it again.
Apparently, you don't understand that their brutality is as likely to be their undoing as anything else. Do you really think putting American troops on the ground to combat them is the right answer? Really? Did you even read the linked article?
No, once again it's you who doesn't understand. Their brutality is increasing, not "undoing" them. Apparently you don't understand that.
Where did I suggest "putting American troops on the ground to combat them is the right answer"? (Hint: I didn't. Apparently you don't understand that.)
Hey, idea! Lets just go with great "leadership" of "The One"... hold a JOB FAIR for them! In your word: Really?
This administration is filled with morons.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
"I was saved by God to make America great again"- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values
- Latest: New Pal Boiler
