Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 282

On February 24 2015 00:46 RCMDVA wrote:


US Civil War 35M population / 750,000 war dead

On February 24 2015 00:46 RCMDVA wrote:


US Civil War 35M population / 750,000 war dead

On February 24 2015 00:22 kwizach wrote:

You're joking, right? Not only are you continuously misrepresenting what puerk writes, but you are the one painting Muslims with the broadest strokes and describing those who do not hold unfavorable views of ISIS as a monolothic group. With regards to the point at hand, puerk was perfectly right in saying that the enemy factions fighting can often react differently based on who is opposing them, and will engage in behind-the-scenes diplomacy more easily with some actors than with others. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of Middle-East dynamics knows this, and it has nothing to do with "[presuming] that Muslims are one big monolithic group" - it's exactly the opposite.

With regards to your laughable suggestion that the only solution to trouble in the Middle-East is the use of force, it's again the kind of answer that you'll hear from people who simply do not understand the processes of radicalization in the area. The use of force is one aspect of a short-term answer to the issue. Achieving a long-term solution notably necessitates the use of diplomacy with surrounding state actors (including Iran, contrary to your repeated skepticism bordering on opposition with respect to the negotiations going on on their nuclear program), encouraging them to progressively adopt more democratic institutions (a long-term process), helping the development of these states' civil societies (through aid programs), and - and this is key - encouraging, supporting, and working on state actors in the region to support moderate exegeses and Islamic schools of thought. Addressing these issues on the theological front is absolutely necessary for long-term solutions. This does not mean that by snapping our fingers we can achieve a retreat of salafism, for example, but the political powers in the region often do have the religious legitimacy to engineer progressive (and very slow) shifts towards more moderate readings of Islam. Among Salafists, this means starting by encouraging Madkhalism instead of other forms of Salafism. Also, anti-radicalizations programs in Muslim countries too often focus on leading individuals and groups to renounce violence but not political radicalization (or sometimes not even violence itself but rather violence at home). Reform of these anti-radicalization programs should be encouraged in order to have them address political radicalization, but this can only truly be achieved by fostering democratic (and economic) reforms as well.

I'm not going to go into more detail since you get the idea: your call to "bomb, baby, bomb" is patently ignorant of the complexities of radicalization processes in the area, is completely short-sighted, and focusing on that only serves to further mask the more difficult paths that do need to be taken in order to truly make progress.

On February 24 2015 01:08 xDaunt wrote:

No, I got it right when it came to puerk's posts, and you are making the same mistake that he is. Even suggesting that we can just put Arab peoples back under the thumbs of the Turks or the Persians (Iran) and everything will be okay is just laughable in its ignorance of history and Middle Eastern dynamics.

On February 24 2015 01:08 xDaunt wrote:
Such thought can only be born from the idea that Muslims are a monolithic entity, which is of course, absurd.

On February 24 2015 00:48 pretender58 wrote:
A good read, especially for you, xDaunt: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

On February 24 2015 00:48 pretender58 wrote:
A good read, especially for you, xDaunt: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

On February 24 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:

I did read it. Pay close attention to the author's conclusions.

Killing "every Muslim" certainly isn't necessary, but many Muslims will have to be made to suffer in ways and in scope that our Western sensibilities will no longer tolerate in order to truly win this conflict.

So when you start asking the question of what is required to defeat such a population in this modern era, the answer isn't pretty: complete subjugation of the population in question with overwhelming military power that destroys both the will and capacity for resistance.

On February 24 2015 02:05 pretender58 wrote:

They don´t match yours, if you are implying that.
He acknowledges that ISIS is indeed islamic and a possibly very long "war" against ISIS is in store for us, but he doesn´t share your imagination of a fight "The West vs. the Muslim/arab world".
His remarks (e.g. about Salafism as a "theological alternative" or "most Muslims aren’t susceptible to joining jihad") are also in stark contrast to your very radical statements like or

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.

Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else.

Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It 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.

On February 24 2015 02:21 xDaunt wrote:

Here are some of the key passages:



and then at the end....



The author very clearly is concluding that radical Muslims are likely ideologically implacable, which is the foundation for my entire argument. What the author does not do, is take the next logical step and propose a solution for how to deal with radical Muslims. Clearly, such a conversation isn't something that is going to be (or should be) printed in The Atlantic. I, however, have no problem engaging in such a discussion, but given the severity of the subject matter, I certainly get why people don't want to hear it.

And just to be clear, I'm not prepared to write off all Muslims and paint this as an issue of the whole of Islam against the West. However, there is no denying that there is a disturbingly large percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims that is problematic and does constitute a challenge (if not an outright threat at this time) to Western civilization.

On February 24 2015 02:05 pretender58 wrote:

They don´t match yours, if you are implying that.
He acknowledges that ISIS is indeed islamic and a possibly very long "war" against ISIS is in store for us, but he doesn´t share your imagination of a fight "The West vs. the Muslim/arab world".
His remarks (e.g. about Salafism as a "theological alternative" or "most Muslims aren’t susceptible to joining jihad") are also in stark contrast to your very radical statements like or

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.

Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else.

Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It 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.

On February 24 2015 01:29 kwizach wrote:

That's not what anyone has been suggesting. Pay attention to what's being written instead of strawmanning anything that does not look like your clash of civilizations fantasy.

...which is again not what we've been saying, as opposed to you presenting the issue as a clash of civilizations and painting the Muslims who are not completely opposed to ISIS' views as a single block.

I'm not sure what "I have yet to see any proof that it works" is supposed to mean. If you had any knowledge of the history of Islam and Islamic thought, you'd know that strains of Islamic thought can appear, grow, evolve, devolve, retreat, based on numerous factors which include the popularity of preachers within communities, the theological influence of certain scholars, the political support behind specific schools of thought, their institutionalization, the domestic and international social, political and (economic and physical) security environments, etc. Addressing the factors which lead radical strains of Islam to gain and maintain popularity is a necessary path for a long-term solution, as is combating those advocating for violence on theological grounds. Like I said, this is already part of the anti-radicalization programs of several countries in the Middle-East, except those programs mostly seek to put an end to the idea of committing violence at home and not to political radicalization or necessarily to violence per se (they sometimes encourage violent radicals to indeed resort to violence, but against foreign enemies on foreign soil).

I'm sure you have "proof" that dropping bombs is sufficient to ensure that people do not get radicalized, though. Simply brilliant.

On February 23 2015 22:59 Mikau wrote:

Let's not pretend that this situation is occurring for any other reason than us Westerners meddling in the middle east, and the last thing that will solve it is more meddling in the middle east.

On February 24 2015 02:05 pretender58 wrote:

They don´t match yours, if you are implying that.
He acknowledges that ISIS is indeed islamic and a possibly very long "war" against ISIS is in store for us, but he doesn´t share your imagination of a fight "The West vs. the Muslim/arab world".
His remarks (e.g. about Salafism as a "theological alternative" or "most Muslims aren’t susceptible to joining jihad") are also in stark contrast to your very radical statements like or

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.

Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else.

Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It 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.

On February 24 2015 02:21 xDaunt wrote:

Here are some of the key passages:



and then at the end....



The author very clearly is concluding that radical Muslims are likely ideologically implacable, which is the foundation for my entire argument. What the author does not do, is take the next logical step and propose a solution for how to deal with radical Muslims. Clearly, such a conversation isn't something that is going to be (or should be) printed in The Atlantic. I, however, have no problem engaging in such a discussion, but given the severity of the subject matter, I certainly get why people don't want to hear it.

And just to be clear, I'm not prepared to write off all Muslims and paint this as an issue of the whole of Islam against the West. However, there is no denying that there is a disturbingly large percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims that is problematic and does constitute a challenge (if not an outright threat at this time) to Western civilization.

On February 24 2015 05:04 Jibba wrote:

I don't think you read it carefully enough.

He makes a very clear distinction between the AQ network and ISIS, both in terms of behavior and aspirations. AQ, as we've known since the beginning, is driven by secular, political goals. For that there's no clash of civilizations. Wood argues that ISIS is truly driven by religious goals, in which case there would be a clash of civilizations, except it would probably be the first time in history that an armed movement was fueled by non-political goals.

You're using a (mostly) meaningless term, 'radical Muslims', and conflating at least 3 different groups as one. Pick who you mean to talk about. There are very big differences between those in AQ, those in ISIS, and those who are sympathetic on the internet towards a country we've destroyed.