General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo - there really IS no answer to Daesche?
This March 2015 article from The Atlantic has been posted here before.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
- most recently that I saw in a response from Bettyellen to an OP by Zombiehorde yesterday asking "What does ISIS want?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027436704
It's long - but appears to be well researched, sourced and extremely well reasoned - and as Bettyellen noted, it asks them what they want rather than examining it from the perspective of western academia. Novel idea, huh?
As I said, it's long. But well worth the read. Maybe I'm not up to speed on the Islamic faith enough to spot the BS - I don't know. But for whatever reason, I read this as the best information I have seen concerning what ISIS is and what it wants.
It discusses how ISIS is a hard line, ultra conservative and very literal version of Islam - but a version of Islam nonetheless. And one that is very clearly supported by passages in the Koran - at least as they regard things like slavery, rape, crucifixion, end times and the killing of non-believers. Muslims who view such passages as antiquated or inapplicable in modern times are apostates condemned to death - and while many Muslims ignore or de-emphasize these passages, there is an undeniable and genuine conflict with God's Word caused by doing so.
The article, near its end, states:
"A theological alternative to the Islamic State existsjust as uncompromising, but with opposite conclusions."
This is described as "quietist Salafism", and is presented in the article as an antidote to ISIS because it's followers...
"...believe that Muslims should direct their energies toward perfecting their personal life, including prayer, ritual, and hygiene. ... they spend an inordinate amount of time ensuring that their trousers are not too long, that their beards are trimmed in some areas and shaggy in others."
and...
Their first priority is personal purification and religious observance, and they believe anything that thwarts those goalssuch as causing war or unrest that would disrupt lives and prayer and scholarshipis forbidden.
Sounds good, right? The article notes that this is not a moderate version of the Islamic faith - and is still considered extreme - but it offers a hard line version that is not immediately repulsive to Muslims who are offended by the perceived hypocrisy of being a Muslim who ignores very specific passages in the scripture.
But here's the problem. To achieve this reconciliation between the scripture and a position of non-violence, this alternative version has to still believe in the violence. Just not yet.
Through this fastidious observance, they believe, God will favor them with strength and numbers, and perhaps a caliphate will arise. At that moment, Muslims will take vengeance and, yes, achieve glorious victory at Dabiq.
So, this antidote to ISIS - the non-violent, hard line alternative to the violent, hard line Islamic faith - is really just delayed violence. They're saying "Oh, we're definitely gonna rape, enslave and crucify the non-believers, just not today".
What this article left me with is a profound sense of futility. There are no good options.
If the prophecies of Mohammad and the Koran are, indeed, interpreted literally, then a religious war appears to be inevitable. And while the West may not desire it (and that is, I guess, debatable with regard to some), it is apparent that such a conflict is what they want - either NOW (via ISIS), or at some time in the future. If another is attacking you in religious fervor, you cannot easily avoid being drawn into it - even defending yourself is still opposing. We can proclaim to all the world that we're NOT fighting a religious war against Islam. But if you are at war with ISIS - bombing, drone-splatting, and eventually getting boots dirty - you are at war with the self proclaimed one true Islamic faith. That has the ring, unfortunately, of a semantic distinction. It's really saying "we're not making war against all the Islamic guys, just these Islamic guys". (And I understand Pres. Obama's reasons for not referring to them as "Islamic" - and I have defended his doing so with republican friends many, many times. But after reading this article, I don't really think I can honestly do that anymore. Daesche is certainly an abomination, but it is an abomination of Islam's making - just as the Crusades were an abomination of Christianity's making).
But, even if the Koran is NOT interpreted literally, and this Caliphate is destined to slowly fail just as the previous one (the Ottoman Empire), that can only happen as the non-literal interpretations eventually marginalize the literal ones (much like Christianity has done to a largely successful extent by way of OT vs NT - sure, still plenty of Jesus following crazies out there, but on a much smaller and less effective scale). But that will take decades, perhaps even centuries. The death and destruction - and loss of innocents - in the meantime is incomprehensible. There will be many more San Bernadinos. Maybe more 9/11s. Maybe worse?? But for certain there have already been hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Middle East Muslims executed as apostates - and that's not going to stop any time soon.
Damn. I am depressed.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)my father's generation would have taken to t he streets if after fighting a four year war in the early 1940's, our military brass left heavy duty equipment there for the taking for the people of Germany.
How is it we spent over ten years in Iraq, and yet we didn't have the resources available to bring back our complex military equipment including vehicles and weaponry.
I have posted here and some apologists or other for the military will come aboard and say, "Well, it would have been impossible to bring our equipment back." Really? If it was possible to bring the equipment to Iraq, how was it impossible to bring it back?
And why was the entire game plan of our war in Iraq simply to create division among the people there, and to further instability?
I am firmly convinced that the USA, Israel and also Saudi Arabia helped this organization develop.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)..., our oil-driven policies in the last century did as well, and our (the West's) ME policies for the last millennium are partly to blame too. But the prophecies of Muhammad go back well before all that. To these extremists, this was all pre-ordained, and has to happen for their salvation. That's what is so depressing to me - this was in their book long before we really did anything to trigger it.
But, I don't think the West has conspired to create this organization. I think we have unwittingly - perhaps by willful ignorance - aided it. I do believe the Saudis - at high levels - are directly involved, motivated either by religious fervor or regional control/profits. The Saudis are NOT our ally.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)in the last few years.
If the average blogger "living in his mom's basement" can notice that then the intelligence bigwigs can too.
This thing isn't going to stay regional either, it's going to spread further afield.
6chars
(3,967 posts)You have a view, you interpret objectively ambiguous new information as confirming this view, you are reinforced in this view.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)utterly irresponsible. The entire invasion, war and exit were all irresponsible.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)It is rumored that Halliburton is buying ISIL/IIS oil. So if that is the case, Dick Cheney is certainly not suffering for his irresponsibility and criminal behavior.
And the CIA's goal of having total instability in that region of the world is being totally met, as well.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I do think that militarily defeating Isis in Syria and Iraq will be a catastrophic blow to them. No more oil money, no more caliphate. Caliphates aren't defeated by infidel nations. So if we can do that, we will have disproven the prophecy and inflict a major blow to Islamic terror networks worldwide.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)How do you defeat them militarily? We cannot insert ground forces, so how exactly do we do that?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)close their accounts and money sources.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Back in the day, the British people got po'ed after the Mahdi killed Chinese Gordon. So they spun up the army to invade from Egypt, take Khartoum and kill the leaders (the Mahdi had already died at that point.)
Read The River War by Churchill (yes that one). It offers excellent insight into Islam and that part of the world and the peoples that live there.
We don't do punitive raids anymore.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,722 posts)If we decided to end it now, think Dresden but with B-52's leveling and killing everyone. If we want to drag it out and be cautious, well keep doing like we are doing and maybe we can make it last a couple hundred years, maybe longer. Think "hundred years war".
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I keep forgetting
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Why are we supporting jihadi rebels in Syria?
Why did we knock over Libya and leave it to fall apart?
We're not being told the full story and until we demand the truth we will just continue on this path.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)It's amazing to listen to all the endless blather and BS and psychobabble...and then find such a concise article!
I liken trying to get people to look at the truth as like trying to rub a dog's nose in its own vomit...it just refuses to accept it and pushes back.
(Sorry for the crude analogy but that's what it feels like).
The problem is that the stakes are very high now and people need to stop sleepwalking and wake the heck up.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)which would make Qatar, not Russia, the major source of natural gas for the EU:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipelineistan-war/
War is still a racket and religion is an excellent way to get people interested in fighting in one.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)it is highly probable that its thorough nuclear obliteration - coordinated and consented to by all the major world powers - will be inevitable. It is one thing that could likely be agreed upon by the major players. No sane country or world can tolerate the existence of an ISIS state.
And yes, the problem is firmly rooted in religion.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Before someone like Trump gets power and does something regretful.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)We really, really, really, really wanted the Assad government to fall, you see. Because he's a tyrant... and freedom... and life is precious ... and god... and the bible.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,331 posts)"the self proclaimed one true Islamic faith". The 'self proclaimed' qualifier is important. The rest of Islam doesn't accept that. And the Crusades weren't made by all of Christianity, for that matter - the Ethopian church had nothing to do with it, for instance, and the Orthodox church rapidly found itself a target rather than an ally. So it's not accurate to say Daesh "is an abomination of Islam's making", or that we are really "fighting a religious war against Islam".
The Koran, like many (probably all, but I don't know) scriptures, has contradictory messages. Daesh chooses to believe the apocalyptic bits. Others don't, but that doesn't mean Daesh has the 'right', or a better, interpretation, so it's not inevitable that they'll continue to get lots of recruits. While it may take decades for all the violent Islamists in the world to go away, that doesn't mean Daesh is bound to survive that long. It's a political entity, and can be broken up just as quickly as any other. And that means the mass executions might stop relatively quickly. The terrorism not so quickly, unfortunately.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... general perspective on it. But I do think we are being disingenuous when we try so hard to distance Daesche - or daesh... whatever it is - from Islam. It's no less a religious entity than the KKK or Westboro. It may still be relatively small percentage wise, but they occupy and are running a country sized region, and their army is perhaps equal or near equal to any other military in the immediate region (except Israel).
Perhaps what is most concerning is that, yes, it may be true that most of the Islamic faith is NOT "fundamental" like Daesche, but that fundamentalism - the simplicity of it - is apparently what is so attractive about it. Most ALL Muslims have been taught from childhood that "one day" there WILL be a Caliphate, and there WILL be a battle with the West, and that there WILL be Armageddon. Why are we so surprised that, given the political climate of the ME, more and more young Muslims are inclined to think this is it?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)the KKK or Westboro can be shown to be disconnected from most of the New Testament.
Not so for Daesh: they are in line with many passages of the Quran and hadiths
(NB; not that I harbor any sympathy for Christianity, just being factual)
kcr
(15,317 posts)between groups who insist on literal interpretation of religious texts, or what they believe their interpretation is, and those who do not. It's not about distancing them, it's distinguishing them. They are different.
Lumping the fundies and radicals in with all religious people will not make anyone change their minds. This goes for Muslims and Christians, any religion. It only pisses everyone off and further entrenches the us against them mentality, which is definitely not something you want to do if discouraging fundamentalism is the goal.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I think the poverty and inequity has to be addressed before we can put a lid on such extremism. right now they feel great about stealing from others- taxing them and using the oil profits for violence. i think if people had a roof on their head and enough food, there would be little need for such nonsense. how to unentangle things so as to make that happen? no idea.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... to somehow disrupt their ability to attract disenfranchised young Muslim men who feel like they have little else to turn to. I read an article in Cracked.com a couple of weeks ago (linked from here) that explained how we created Daesche, and how many of its members joined up initially just for the paycheck.
But I don't know how we begin to address that issue either. We can't even get that right here at home!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)reason they can hate on other muslims so deeply too. and yeah, worldwide, we have no cracked the code for any sort of system that is equitable. reducing abject poverty in they homeland needs to be a part of it.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 11, 2015, 03:27 AM - Edit history (1)
Just many Christians accept the Bible was written by imperfect humans.
The danger comes from the majority of US Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of god, and from the quasi totality of Muslims who believe the Quran is the perfect, eternal word of god.
JCMach1
(27,562 posts)Their religious nature is largely just window dressing for PR and propaganda purposes...
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... But I think these guys are true believers.
JCMach1
(27,562 posts)Saddam's old peep's involvement
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/
Black Market Oil
https://www.rt.com/news/238369-isis-drug-money-trafficking/
http://nypost.com/2015/01/07/are-isis-fighters-fueled-by-piles-of-cocaine/
Drug trafficking
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/20/draining-isis-coffers/the-role-of-drug-trafficking-and-money-laundering-in-fighting-isis
Drug trafficking and money laundering
Anyway, my point is our approach has been 'war' up until this point. Perhaps what we really need to do is what we have done in the past against organized crime. Stop the FLOW OF MONEY and you stop ISIS.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)So whose views are closer to reality?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)She's a vet so she has some extra insight
December 1 2015
October 7, 2015
Official House Page: http://gabbard.house.gov/
More videos https://www.youtube.com/user/tulsipress
Orsino
(37,428 posts)It's a crime syndicate.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... about these guys at first. But after reading that Atlantic article and some others, I'm not buying that anymore. I'm sure some elements of it are just that, but most of the people they are attracting and most of their leaders clearly look to be fundamental end of timers.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Both will obviously result in catastrophe of different kinds.
ISIS are spectacularly evil and well entrenched; not stopping them will result in them causing immense suffering; a war sufficient to stop them doing so them will result in immense suffering.
Obama's current policy of "Kind-of-whelming military force" may well be the least evil - American bombs are killing some innocent civilians, but not as many as an all-out war would, and ISIS is still thriving, but not expanding the way it would if it weren't being bombed.
But there is no good option. I see lots of people on both sides getting immensely angry and self-righteous, and if you look at the likely consequences of what the other side are proposing, and ignore just how appalling the consequences of whichever it is you are yourself advocating is, it's easy to do so.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)"We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic States medieval religious nature. Peter Bergen, who produced the first interview with bin Laden in 1997, titled his first book Holy War, Inc. in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world. Bin Laden corporatized terror and franchised it out. He requested specific political concessions, such as the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia. His foot soldiers navigated the modern world confidently. On Mohamed Attas last full day of life, he shopped at Walmart and ate dinner at Pizza Hut."