ISIS is different from other religious crazies

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by NJlonghorn, Feb 18, 2015.

  1. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    This link (http://theweek.com/articles/539699/liberals-missed-true-threat-isis) explains how ISIS is different from other fringe religious groups, which is not a very difficult case to make. However, the article is interesting not only for what it says, but also for what it does not say.

    Liberals want us to believe that Muslims and their constituent crazies are no different from Christians and Jews and their respective constituent crazies. Conservatives want us to believe that Muslims as a whole are different from Christians and Jews as a whole. The link above does a good job of staking out the middle ground by showing that today's Muslim crazies are crazier than today's Christian crazies and Jewish crazies. But the article is careful not to say that Muslims as a whole are crazier than Christians and Jews. I think this is a critical distinction that is often overlooked.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    NJ -- Good article. Navigating a conversation on this topic is pretty much impossible because there is too much anger and too little understanding.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Excellent article, NJ.
     
  4. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    These guys aren't going away. It is good to finally acknowledge that it is a serious threat but that is not going to be enough to save the civilized world from these monsters. Hopefully the responsible leadership of the world will find a way to stop them or at minimum contain them till they can be isolated enough to stop them.

    Figuring out how to find the ones, ISIS inclined, within our midst is an even tougher item unless there is huge help from the actual peaceful Imams who don't believe in the goals of ISIS/ISIL. That may be too much to ask given the Imams might consider adherents to ISIS/ISIL as muslims and not apostates. Muslims cannot criticise other Muslims.

    Therefore the endgame is for all peaceful Muslims to consider the ISIL/ISIS adherents as apostates to the religion. Whoo boy, we might be waiting a loooooong time before that happens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    I've never heard this. Can you provide a link?

    In any event, as I've demonstrated multiple times in this forum, Muslims have been condemning Muslim terrorism for years. In recent weeks, Muslims around the world have been even more outspoken against ISIS than usual. Here's a good article compiling recent examples.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2015
  6. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Don't forget that Islamic nations Egypt and Jordan are both striking ISIS.
     
  7. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    I'm not an Islamic scholar. It is my understanding that apostasy according to many in Islam, especially the more violent types, is punishable by death. It is that fear that keeps many from being directly critical of Islam itself or individual Muslims while still being free to criticize in the strongest possible ways the acts of Muslims who do wrongs. So the acts are what you will see as being criticized routinely.

    This is a secular article that describes the dangers of being too critical of Islam:

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/08/islamic-apostasy-laws--a-big-disgrace-in-the-21st-century

    I found it doing a very basic google search:

    https://www.google.com/webhp?source...+criticising+other+muslims+apostates&start=10

    John Cleese said it well:

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ren-t-make-jokes-about-the-religion-of-peace/

    BTW> from the article, not from Cleese:

     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
  8. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    So Zork, does your reading of the Koran that Muslims should not criticize other Muslim's mean that NJ's Link showing lots of Muslims criticizing Muslim extremism is invalid? I remember from my study of logic that absence of proof is not proof of absence, but I'm pretty sure we all accept that presence of proof is proof of presence.
     
  9. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

    The link is very generic overall but specific in many ways pertinent:

    The Hadith, not the Koran apparently, is where most of the Apostacy rules are.

    Down further in that link is this from a sect:

    That statement above is pretty simple to do if you are not careful especially when dealing with knife weilding zealots.(only takes one as in the OKC workplace violence recent)

    Read the link. It is eye opening what you find.
     
  10. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    the original link does this in this post or are you talking about a link from another post?
    Typically you find the Imams will criticize the actions of but not the people directly.

    It is welcome that Jordan is now bombing. The Shiia and Sunni battles are interesting to me as well since sometimes they are mortal enemies and sometimes they band together.

    There was an article most of you have seen from "The Atlantic" that had one small part of the whole that described ISIS/ISIL believe Al Quaida are Apostates. That is their method to get to attack them in whatever form, apparently. We should encourage all Imams to preach that ISIS/ISIL are Apostates.

    If nothing else it might encourage the fence sitters to not join up.
     
  11. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Here's a very comprehensive (long) article in the Atlantic.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    It probably takes 45 minutes to read it all, but its quite interesting. Here's some of the main points:

    1. The teachings of ISIS state that once a caliphate is established, it is the duty of all true Muslims to migrate to the caliphate if at all possible. This is why so many foreign Muslims - not only from the Middle East but also from Europe and even the US- are travelling to Iraq/Syria. This is a break away from Al Qaeda that plans attacks on foreign targets. The implication is that ISIS sympathizers are less likely to plan and make attacks on US soil because it is their duty to travel to to the Caliphate. Terror attacks are most likely going to be committed by lone wolfs or other radical Islamic organizations such as Al Qaeda.

    2. ISIS practices a literal version of the Koran as practiced by Muhammad centuries ago. Slavery, crucifixion, beheadings, etc. are standard operating procedure. Apostates are to be killed. Christians may be spared if they agree to pay the Jiyza (tax) and submit to the conqueror.

    3. The US could deploy a large number of troops, defeat ISIS, and free the areas they have taken over. However, there are some drawbacks. When the Caliphate is dissolved, the Muslims who migrated to ISIS are no longer required to stay. Some would no doubt return to where they came from and some would probably become lone wolf terrorists. As long as the US occupied the recaptured areas, they would be subject to constant attacks just as we saw in Iraq in the mid 2000s. Leave and something similar once again fills the void.

    4. By the US doing nothing militarily, the Shia (Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah) aren't strong enough to defeat ISIS, but they are strong enough to stop their advance. Because ISIS is dysfunctional, they need to continue expanding in order to survive. They cannot sustain any type of economy that would support a caliphate without constant territorial enlargement. The argument is that the best approach is to stand back and let them "slow bleed" until the movement eventually fizzles under its own weight.

    My comment: Training of "moderate" Muslims as CIA tools has contributed to the expansion of ISIS. This needs to stop.
     
  12. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    I think that the last part of number 4 is our best option. They cannot sustain any type of economy or governing system unless they are expanding. Stop them from expanding and then wait for the collapse. What to do after that is more tricky because our direct involvement isn't necessarily welcome. As stated many times on here, I prefer strong dictators in the ME. I would look to support ones that we could live with in the affected areas to make sure that the scourge of ISIS doesn't reappear. Its not like all of these guys are going to give up once this fails, which it will.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    Should there be any escalation of any kind to the burning of the prisoners alive while in cages, mass be-headings, etc, etc that have happened over the past recent weeks?

    I believe the world needs to send a clear, unequivocal, maybe extremely violent, message in response to the people who are members and those supporting ISIS/ISIL. How that can or should be implemented should be decided soon and publicized.
     
  14. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts


    You want to play into their hand, huh? They're goal is to shock the audience into submission. I think it's best to ignore the theatrics and continue to slowly and cleanly bomb them to death. Stooping to their level only helps their recruitment and validates the tactic.
     
  15. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    no mention of stooping to their level here.
     
  16. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    To put a significant amount of boots on the ground would be punching the tar baby IMO. We would get tangled up in a mess without a clear exit strategy and would create more enemies than we kill. A lot of the locals that don't support isis have been brainwashed about us and our involvement could make their loyalties more murky. Remember, many locals didn't really hate isis until they burned the Jordanian pilot alive.....because he's a fellow Muslim. I think bombing/droning their *** along with supporting the regimes that can somewhat be trusted in the region will work better than rolling in the tar.
     
  17. BevoBeef

    BevoBeef 250+ Posts

    LarryT,

    I totally agree that the US army/marines should not get involved against ISIS. The Iraqis (including the Kurds) do not even want that. So the real question is in Syria where it is hard to figure out who is the real friend there. There is no strategic value in risking US soldiers' lives on the ground with the present boundary conditions for the war.

    However, what I do not understand (with our planes bombing and all those watching over there knowing it is the US pilots doing the killing) is how would putting on the ground more US soldiers cause any more enemies that the limited bombing that we are doing. The bombing itself is causing the same amount of hatred as what our soldiers would cause. I am excluding Iran here because they are our enemies already. If anything, our US bodies would cause better good will if they acted in accordance with policy guidelines set forth for them. I would agree that US soldiers would cause more fear, but that in itself would not create enemies.
     
  18. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    Many Muslims have strange beliefs about non-Muslims being physically on the ground in the ME. Some only care about two cities in particular, others only care about Saudi, others think it is the entire ME. The bombing campaign isn't popular with them either but boots on the ground takes it to another level. Ill be honest, its a cultural/religious thing that I don't really understand.
     

Share This Page