Burnwinter wrote:The goal of IS and its offshoots is not just to radicalise Islam but to radicalise the West.
I think its been well reported that extremists have wanted to a big incident like this in France to cause division so they can radicalise more French Muslims. I'm sure this will work now too.
It's all our fault, terrible Western imperialists that we are.
Gurgen wrote:It's all our fault, terrible Western imperialists that we are.
There is one peculiar thing though... there are millions of Christians living in the Middle East, yet they don't slaughter innocent civilians. So strange. I wonder why only muslims seem to do it, when Islam has absolutely nothing to do with extremist terrorism.
Qwiss! wrote:Burnwinter wrote:The goal of IS and its offshoots is not just to radicalise Islam but to radicalise the West.
I think its been well reported that extremists have wanted to a big incident like this in France to cause division so they can radicalise more French Muslims. I'm sure this will work now too.
A large part (at least 20%) of Islam/muslims is already radicalised.
Kel Varnsen wrote:Gurgen wrote:It's all our fault, terrible Western imperialists that we are.
There is one peculiar thing though... there are millions of Christians living in the Middle East, yet they don't slaughter innocent civilians. So strange. I wonder why only muslims seem to do it, when Islam has absolutely nothing to do with extremist terrorism.
This is good, solid research right here. Write a paper on it.
Kel Varnsen wrote:Gurgen wrote:It's all our fault, terrible Western imperialists that we are.
There is one peculiar thing though... there are millions of Christians living in the Middle East, yet they don't slaughter innocent civilians. So strange. I wonder why only muslims seem to do it, when Islam has absolutely nothing to do with extremist terrorism.
Well most of those Christians don't really have the means to do anything. They are not only treated like second class citizens, but actually are second class citizens in a lot of cases. Even in so-called enlightened countries like Turkey some Christians are forced to hold church gatherings in basements. No-one in the West gives a shit about them though.
Kel Varnsen wrote:Qwiss! wrote:I think its been well reported that extremists have wanted to a big incident like this in France to cause division so they can radicalise more French Muslims. I'm sure this will work now too.
A large part (at least 20%) of Islam/muslims is already radicalised.
20% of 1.3 billion? That's nearly 300m that you're suggesting are radicalised - across the world. That figure seems way too high
So Hollande says this was planned and organised by IS, does this result in an increase in their involvement in Syria/Iraq or does everyone keep on relying on the Kurds?
otfgoon wrote:So Hollande says this was planned and organised by IS, does this result in an increase in their involvement in Syria/Iraq or does everyone keep on relying on the Kurds?
It's a horrible decision to have to make. It's obvious these cunts are going to keep carrying out these attacks as long as they are able to, so you'd have to say we need to put boots on the ground now. On the other hand you just know a full-scale military intervention is going to be a clusterfuck, with long-term consequences no-one can foresee.
Mirth wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:A large part (at least 20%) of Islam/muslims is already radicalised.
20% of 1.3 billion? That's nearly 300m that you're suggesting are radicalised - across the world. That figure seems way too high
Just look at any poll or elections across muslim countries. At least 20% av Muslims can be labelled as Islamists.
Kel Varnsen wrote:Mirth wrote:20% of 1.3 billion? That's nearly 300m that you're suggesting are radicalised - across the world. That figure seems way too high
Just look at any poll or elections across muslim countries. At least 20% av Muslims can be labelled as Islamists.
Genuine question, have you been to any Muslim dominant country? I don't mean the ones that are politically and socially unstable - I mean the rest.
Mirth wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:Just look at any poll or elections across muslim countries. At least 20% av Muslims can be labelled as Islamists.
Genuine question, have you been to any Muslim dominant country? I don't mean the ones that are politically and socially unstable - I mean the rest.
Yep. Turkey and Egypt.
Edit: what's interesting about both Egypt and Turkey (as well as Jordan) is that a strong, non-religious military is basically what keeps the countries from becoming crazy theocracies. Though that may be changing in Turkey now...
I remember when I was in school we use to have discussions about how the American govt needed to stop supporting (or ignoring) these brutal dictators in the Muslim world. WELP, shows how ignorant we were even though I use to argue in favor of the dictators but adding clauses like "I don't agree with their methods, but ..." I would get responses in class like how could you argue for the new Hitler? I would shrug and think it wasn't a big deal if they got taken out. oops.
We need to say "our bad Assad, you don't have to go" before he joins them. If Saddam still had his boot on Iraq's neck there would be no ISIS right now. Weird how this shit works. Democracy in the middle east ... what a horrible joke that is.
Burnwinter wrote:(NB: the link goes to a large PDF)
https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/dabiq71.pdf
Thank you for the link. It's a sickening, almost fascinating read - having read the Quran on more than one occasion I know the verses they refer to and it's nauseating to see how fucked up you can interpret some of them and how factually wrong some of the translations are.
Like you say, the goal is to radicalise both sides in an effort to force an eventual war between those who they consider Muslims and the rest of the world; they know the consequences their actions have on the overall public and want to use the hatred that comes as a reaction to incite more hatred to recruit more and bring the overall situation to a head.
But I don't think for a second that right wing ideologues and Western commentators don't understand IS' goal; on the contrary, they have more or less formed a symbiosis where they follow the very same goal, even if their motives are diametrically opposed. And the diabolic thing is that even knowing what's happening it's working perfectly well. Decent people I grew up with have felt ostracized enough to be led astray and follow Daesh and al-Nusra into Syria, now I see decent people that I grew up with feeling threatened and running into the arms of far right parties and movements.
Also is it possible to create an ignore list for certain threads?
Meatwad wrote:I remember when I was in school we use to have discussions about how the American govt needed to stop supporting (or ignoring) these brutal dictators in the Muslim world. WELP, shows how ignorant we were even though I use to argue in favor of the dictators but adding clauses like "I don't agree with their methods, but ..." I would get responses in class like how could you argue for the new Hitler? I would shrug and think it wasn't a big deal if they got taken out. oops.
We need to say "our bad Assad, you don't have to go" before he joins them. If Saddam still had his boot on Iraq's neck there would be no ISIS right now. Weird how this shit works. Democracy in the middle east ... what a horrible joke that is.
Assad couldn't join the IS if he wanted to but that aside you're mostly right. Democracy is not a viable concept to implement in war torn countries. After Sykes-Picot you had randomly drawn borders in the area, if someone did that in Southern California/Mexico all hell would break loose already, now imagine dozens of ethnicities, cultures and religions in an area that's much more congested.
Saddam was a dictator who had countless civilians murdered and something had to be done about it certainly, but given that nobody gave a fuck about his treatment of the Kurdish people when he was still fighting our fight against Iran we could have as well tried a policy of inclusion; that way more than a million people would probably be still alive today, even if he had escaped punishment for his atrocities.
But of course, let's just look at religion and blame that for IS killing 127 people in France. Even if the same IS killed more than 100,000 Muslims in the Middle East.
i typed out a long post and then deleted it.
this is just heartbreaking, i have nothing else to even say.
jones wrote:But of course, let's just look at religion and blame that for IS killing 127 people in France. Even if the same IS killed more than 100,000 Muslims in the Middle East.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Meatwad wrote:Weird how this shit works. Democracy in the middle east ... what a horrible joke that is.
Democracy is a wider concept than just vote every 4 years or so. Voting is a mechanism that presupposes far deeper layers regarding human existence, which would in turn enable thinking of "rule of the people". Just popping up with an ideal in impossible circumstances for it to be applied says not a lot about the ideal itself - this would be basically true of any ideal. Equality or justice. eg.
The mess in such torn areas as Syria or Iraq is a consequence of impossible circumstances on so many levels, it is actually hard to separate even for the sake of analysis. But that doesn't change the fact that what we can or should choose in the end is shaped, at least at the core, by ideals - and then we need to try to see what happens to them when thrown into the pot of reality.
The tragedy of trying to follow the decent path in an all-choices-are-tragic situations is not unique, unfortunately. It is applying to it the tag "right choice" that is a bit sickening, as it effectively forces you to choose something horribly wrong (only less wrong than the alternative in the circumstances). Working upwards in the negative part of some ideal seems bleak, but there must be some meaning of the word "right" which would be proper or sensible when applied to choosing -250 over -350 (say in moral terms, or assessing moral outcomes).
jones wrote:Meatwad wrote:I remember when I was in school we use to have discussions about how the American govt needed to stop supporting (or ignoring) these brutal dictators in the Muslim world. WELP, shows how ignorant we were even though I use to argue in favor of the dictators but adding clauses like "I don't agree with their methods, but ..." I would get responses in class like how could you argue for the new Hitler? I would shrug and think it wasn't a big deal if they got taken out. oops.
We need to say "our bad Assad, you don't have to go" before he joins them. If Saddam still had his boot on Iraq's neck there would be no ISIS right now. Weird how this shit works. Democracy in the middle east ... what a horrible joke that is.
Assad couldn't join the IS if he wanted to but that aside you're mostly right. Democracy is not a viable concept to implement in war torn countries. After Sykes-Picot you had randomly drawn borders in the area, if someone did that in Southern California/Mexico all hell would break loose already, now imagine dozens of ethnicities, cultures and religions in an area that's much more congested.
Saddam was a dictator who had countless civilians murdered and something had to be done about it certainly, but given that nobody gave a fuck about his treatment of the Kurdish people when he was still fighting our fight against Iran we could have as well tried a policy of inclusion; that way more than a million people would probably be still alive today, even if he had escaped punishment for his atrocities.
But of course, let's just look at religion and blame that for IS killing 127 people in France. Even if the same IS killed more than 100,000 Muslims in the Middle East.
Not Assad joining ISIS, joining the other dead dictators in being dead.
