off topic The politics of terrorism

[Doohicksie]

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

 

I have no idea how accurate it is.  I am unfamiliar with the author, and can't say I know much about the leanings of The Atlantic.  It is a chilling article expanding upon the goals of IS.  Certainly thought provoking.  I imagine our friend, SFiNS, may take issue with some of what's written in the article.

 

I read this when it was current, and saw it again recently.  I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of Muslims do not share the outlook of ISIS, even if ISIS feels their interpretation of the Quran is valid.

 

[Neo]

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

 

I have no idea how accurate it is. I am unfamiliar with the author, and can't say I know much about the leanings of The Atlantic. It is a chilling article expanding upon the goals of IS. Certainly thought provoking. I imagine our friend, SFiNS, may take issue with some of what's written in the article.

He's appeared in credible journals. I detected no agenda in his writing, left or right, east or west, etc ....

 

Very grateful for my weekend's most arresting read ...

I read this when it was current, and saw it again recently. I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of Muslims do not share the outlook of ISIS, even if ISIS feels their interpretation of the Quran is valid.

 

Sincere question ... is that a pie chart of shared belief or membership? I'm struggling with only 150,000 sharing a belief in the three. Edited November 16, 2015 by N'eo

[Doohicksie]

Damned Facebook graphics.  :unsure:

[Hoss]

Sincere question ... is that a pie chart of shared belief or membership? I'm struggling with only 150,000 sharing a belief in the three.

Even if you assume that for every member of these groups there are one hundred who share their beliefs but aren't officially affiliated you're still only at less than one percent of their entire population. Mass murderous violence isn't a belief held within Islam or among a number anywhere near the majority.

 

There are 2.2 billions Christians in the world. There are 5,000 - 8,000 members of the KKK currently. Are we to assume Christians are prejudiced terrorists?

Edited November 16, 2015 by Hoss

[K-9]

You're aware of the nuclear agreement the Great Grifter signed with North Korea in 1994, yes? The one that was supposed to prevent them from going nuclear -- just like the one Obama signed with Iran?

 

Democracies have short memories.

 

Wow.

 

I'd like to hear SFiNS' reaction to that thread.

You'd be well advised to better acquaint yourself with the entire history of the North Korea nuclear program. 

 

The memories of democracies aren't short so much as they are highly selective. 

[Neo]

Even if you assume that for every member of these groups there are one hundred who share their beliefs but aren't officially affiliated you're still only at less than one percent of their entire population. Mass murderous violence isn't a belief held within Islam or among a number anywhere near the majority.

 

There are 2.2 billions Christians in the world. There are 5,000 - 8,000 members of the KKK currently. Are we to assume Christians are prejudiced terrorists?

I didn't assume anything.

[Doohicksie]

Even if you assume that for every member of these groups there are one hundred who share their beliefs but aren't officially affiliated you're still only at less than one percent of their entire population. Mass murderous violence isn't a belief held within Islam or among a number anywhere near the majority.

 

There are 2.2 billions Christians in the world. There are 5,000 - 8,000 members of the KKK currently. Are we to assume Christians are prejudiced terrorists?

 

Let's simplify this a bit:

 

[Hoss]

I didn't assume anything.

I should've clarified. I wasn't pointing that at you. It was more a general statement when it comes to discussing the extremely minuscule portion of Islam's violent tendencies. There are plenty that make the assumption. You were asking about the numbers and are among those that I trust are being straightforward when asking for expansion on a thought.

[JJFIVEOH]

Even if you assume that for every member of these groups there are one hundred who share their beliefs but aren't officially affiliated you're still only at less than one percent of their entire population. Mass murderous violence isn't a belief held within Islam or among a number anywhere near the majority.

 

There are 2.2 billions Christians in the world. There are 5,000 - 8,000 members of the KKK currently. Are we to assume Christians are prejudiced terrorists?

 

Kinda like mass shooters and blaming guns.............

Edited November 16, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[Neo]

I know no one who's blamed all, or blamed most, Muslims for radical Islam. No one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know many who won't recognize radical Islam for fear of being associated with blame no one assigns. It's cowardly and anti-thought.

 

Before you link me to toothless Bill in Utah with some racist Twitter rant, let me say serious or meaningful person. Someone's said everything, somewhere.

 

Radical Islam exists. It's significant. It changes our lives. It won't be ignored.

Edited November 16, 2015 by N'eo

[JJFIVEOH]

Did anybody just watch 60 Minutes? Pelley did interviews with a couple of the witnesses, one of the guys ended up getting shot. They played some footage that I hadn't seen released yet. I just can't imagine............

[K-9]

I know no one who's blamed all, or blamed most, Muslims for radical Islam. No one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know many who won't recognize radical Islam for fear of being associated with blame no one assigns. It's cowardly and anti-thought.

 

Before you link me to toothless Bill in Utah with some racist Twitter rant, let me say serious or meaningful person. Someone's said everything, somewhere.

 

Radical Islam exists. It's significant. It changes our lives. It won't be ignored.

We can feel free to say "radical Islam" all we want. 

 

But there is a very real diplomatic element that better advises world leaders not to use the same phrase. And it's prudent. 

 

Why is it so important for our leaders to say the same thing, anyway? Does that increase the sense of bonding we have in the face of the horror? Does it reassure anyone that "finally" our leaders really know who the true enemy is? As if we or they don't know already?

 

This argument over semantics is useless and serves nothing.  

[Neo]

We can feel free to say "radical Islam" all we want.

 

But there is a very real diplomatic element that better advises world leaders not to use the same phrase. And it's prudent.

 

Why is it so important for our leaders to say the same thing, anyway? Does that increase the sense of bonding we have in the face of the horror? Does it reassure anyone that "finally" our leaders really know who the true enemy is? As if we or they don't know already?

 

This argument over semantics is useless and serves nothing.

 

I wasn't referring to world leaders.

 

If I was, I'd make the same point. Truly, tell me the prudence of not saying the obvious? Do you think Hollande, Putin, Cameron, et al. are being imprudent? How about Abdullah II of Jordan? Are the potential wrongly offended too dumb to understand?

 

I'd suggest the unwillingness to identify what you stand for and against is imprudent.

 

Afterthought: Our leader's never acknowledged the linkage. In fact, he's said ISIS isn't an Islamic organization. I can assure you it's not just semantics to him. It's his strategy. It's the language his staff has adopted. Now here's a policy debate. How does the expressed refusal to link affect strategy?

Edited November 16, 2015 by N'eo

[JJFIVEOH]

We can feel free to say "radical Islam" all we want. 

 

But there is a very real diplomatic element that better advises world leaders not to use the same phrase. And it's prudent. 

 

Why is it so important for our leaders to say the same thing, anyway? Does that increase the sense of bonding we have in the face of the horror? Does it reassure anyone that "finally" our leaders really know who the true enemy is? As if we or they don't know already?

 

This argument over semantics is useless and serves nothing.  

 

The argument over semantics is useless, the argument over recognizing there is a difference is hugely relevant, however.

[Hoss]

I know no one who's blamed all, or blamed most, Muslims for radical Islam. No one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

I know many who won't recognize radical Islam for fear of being associated with blame no one assigns. It's cowardly and anti-thought.

 

Before you link me to toothless Bill in Utah with some racist Twitter rant, let me say serious or meaningful person. Someone's said everything, somewhere.

 

Radical Islam exists. It's significant. It changes our lives. It won't be ignored.

I'm hoping this was directed at the meme and not what I said, because I clarified pretty strongly that I don't believe you're saying that.

 

I don't *know* people who have blamed all or most Muslims for radical Islam but I've seen probably hundreds of people who do. I don't know them, but I'm glad I likely never will.

 

Radical Islam exists and it's not something people deny. There are people whir refuse to call it that because they don't want to give them the credit of their cause. They aren't actually fighting in the name of their God. They're just bloodthirsty idiots killing for whatever reason they want.

[Stoner]

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

 

I have no idea how accurate it is.  I am unfamiliar with the author, and can't say I know much about the leanings of The Atlantic.  It is a chilling article expanding upon the goals of IS.  Certainly thought provoking.  I imagine our friend, SFiNS, may take issue with some of what's written in the article.

The key word I'm sure NS will point to is derived. The Islamic State derives from a coherent interpretation of Islam.

 

Interesting piece. I got through it. Ammo for nfreeman: ISIS is a welfare state, and they have free health care that includes vision! Hipster frames are not covered though.

 

As soon as read about their vision of a decisive victory in a predetermined place — Dabiq — that would start the countdown to apocalypse and glory, I had an idea. Not long after that in the piece, the author got to it.

 

 

If the United States were to invade, the Islamic State’s obsession with battle at Dabiq suggests that it might send vast resources there, as if in a conventional battle. If the state musters at Dabiq in full force, only to be routed, it might never recover.

The author then argues that invading would be too risky because it would provide ISIS with a treasure trove of propaganda opportunities. But, if you've just lost the decisive battle that the prophet said would be won, isn't it all over?

 

Crazy stuff.

[Neo]

I'm hoping this was directed at the meme and not what I said, because I clarified pretty strongly that I don't believe you're saying that.

I don't *know* people who have blamed all or most Muslims for radical Islam but I've seen probably hundreds of people who do. I don't know them, but I'm glad I likely never will.

Radical Islam exists and it's not something people deny. There are people whir refuse to call it that because they don't want to give them the credit of their cause. They aren't actually fighting in the name of their God. They're just bloodthirsty idiots killing for whatever reason they want.

I responded to you and the meme. I think the meme speaks for itself. (I'm very proud of myself for knowing what "meme" means, by the way. I'm old).

 

Your post, while you were clear wasn't directed my way, made me think of how a question around number of "x" can elicit a "so all "y""? response.

 

Not a personal thing, but linkage that isn't in words, and yet is somehow sucked out of words, is an honest debate obstacle, IMHO.

 

"Fear" is another word I hear a lot. Being prudent, calculating and diligent isn't fearful. It's smart.

 

Glad you're here, every day.

There are people whir refuse to call it that because they don't want to give them the credit of their cause. They aren't actually fighting in the name of their God. They're just bloodthirsty idiots killing for whatever reason they want.

When 100,000 people are killing you and telling you "why" they're killing, I take them at their word that's "why".

 

TRULY no disrespect, but there are times I wonder if our President doesn't still have some reluctant professor in him. "I know Islam to be different, so I'll educate the bastards and tell 'em I'm right and they're wrong". Truly, that's not the partisan in me. That's the "what the hell's he talking about" in me.

 

I've had the same question for both sides of the aisle on many issues. I've had it for myself.

Edited November 16, 2015 by N'eo

[Weave]

The key word I'm sure NS will point to is derived. The Islamic State derives from a coherent interpretation of Islam.

 

Interesting piece. I got through it. Ammo for nfreeman: ISIS is a welfare state, and they have free health care that includes vision! Hipster frames are not covered though.

 

As soon as read about their vision of a decisive victory in a predetermined place — Dabiq — that would start the countdown to apocalypse and glory, I had an idea. Not long after that in the piece, the author got to it.

 

The author then argues that invading would be too risky because it would provide ISIS with a treasure trove of propaganda opportunities. But, if you've just lost the decisive battle that the prophet said would be won, isn't it all over?

 

Crazy stuff.

 

That piece sounded like we should be resigned to the fact that we will need a force on the ground.  That ultimately we will need to give them the fight that they want.

 

It also indicated that winning their hearts and minds isn't a worthwhile strategy.  Ultimately they are looking to put the non-radicalized majority under their thumbs, and rule as the Ottomans did, complete with regularly scheduled conflict with their neighbors for the purpose of expanding their footprint.

 

Small minority or no, these folks are looking to become an empire and are willing to do terrible things to make it happen.

[woods-racer]

After all of this, I've decided I'm crazy.

 

Why?

 

Because I want the opinions of Yuri and K-8.

 

They are the Randell P. McMurphys of the big machine of my known universe. Just crazy enough to be truthful and free of political bias as they see the world, yet they find a middle ground in their own way.

 

I'm doubley crazy for pushing POST.

 

Skål

[K-9]

I wasn't referring to world leaders.

If I was, I'd make the same point. Truly, tell me the prudence of not saying the obvious? Do you think Hollande, Putin, Cameron, et al. are being imprudent? How about Abdullah II of Jordan? Are the potential wrongly offended too dumb to understand?

I'd suggest the unwillingness to identify what you stand for and against is imprudent.

Afterthought: Our leader's never acknowledged the linkage. In fact, he's said ISIS isn't an Islamic organization. I can assure you it's not just semantics to him. It's his strategy. It's the language his staff has adopted. Now here's a policy debate. How does the expressed refusal to link affect strategy?

I think what we stand for is well delineated and articulated by US presidents present and past.

 

We know who the enemy is and what his intentions are.

 

Diplomacy is important in enlisting the very allies we need to win this fight at street level. Words are extremely important and don't mean the same thing to a culture so different than ours. Context is key and easy to misinterpret.

 

What is the difference between radical Islam and Islamic radicals? Your interpretation is quite different than that of the man on the street in the Muslim world. And that man on the street in the Muslim world is key to the whole thing.

[Neo]

K9 - thoughtful. I truly shall consider it. Different point of view - what it provides weighed against what it prevents.

[Doohicksie]

Small minority or no, these folks are looking to become an empire and are willing to do terrible things to make it happen.

 

Nope that's not it at all.  They really think that they are the holy kingdom on earth.  They're not building an empire because they're ambitious; they're doing it out of obedience to their faith.  Most Muslims don't agree with their view of the caliphate, but they can find support for what they're doing in the Quran.

[WildCard]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/french-minister-speaks-on-radical-mosques-567291459811

 

The French interior minister says he's going to start the "dissolution of mosques where hate is preached."

Edited November 16, 2015 by WildCard

[...]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/french-minister-speaks-on-radical-mosques-567291459811

 

The French interior minister says he's going to start the "dissolution of mosques where hate is preached."

 

 

 

I guess better late than never.

[X. Benedict]

And my apologies for my role in taking this thread off-topic.

Condolences to all who have lost friends & family.

Me too. This is my Sabres oasis. I think I'll keep it that way for now.