Question about ISIS
Discussion
Mods - please don't move this to NP&E as i can't reply due to a lifetime ban...
What is the message these attacks are trying to relay ? - my understanding, death to all those that do not worship or mock Allah ?
if so, how can they 'risk' random crowd attacks ? - surely they don't know the beliefs of everyone in that crowd?
what if there were fellow Islamics in that group they just mowed down?
surely Allah isn't down with killing those that DO believe ?
What is the message these attacks are trying to relay ? - my understanding, death to all those that do not worship or mock Allah ?
if so, how can they 'risk' random crowd attacks ? - surely they don't know the beliefs of everyone in that crowd?
what if there were fellow Islamics in that group they just mowed down?
surely Allah isn't down with killing those that DO believe ?
I dont know the answer, but imagine its more along the lines of creation of disruption through perceived random actions that then leads to panic and fear
what the real motivator is behind it all that sits with the leader of any ISIS centre cell - I couldnt begin to imagine - assuming there is such a thing rather than just a spread of series' of small splinter cells and lone wolfs that are seeking justice for their own perceived injustices,
what the real motivator is behind it all that sits with the leader of any ISIS centre cell - I couldnt begin to imagine - assuming there is such a thing rather than just a spread of series' of small splinter cells and lone wolfs that are seeking justice for their own perceived injustices,
These attacks are not being organised by ISIS. They are being done by people who have been radicalised, often online, and then its easy for ISIS to say "Yeah, we did that one too, we created that"
But that's not really what is happening - there aren't messages going back and forth from some ISIS HQ bunker to a guy in London saying "Yeah, get a van and a couple of mates and do this"
ISIS just want to claim they are involved with everything, when they aren't. Which makes it all the more difficult to police.
But that's not really what is happening - there aren't messages going back and forth from some ISIS HQ bunker to a guy in London saying "Yeah, get a van and a couple of mates and do this"
ISIS just want to claim they are involved with everything, when they aren't. Which makes it all the more difficult to police.
But what is it that they actually want? I was discussing this with somebody the other day - with the troubles in NI years ago, at least you could clearly understand why they were doing it (even if you didn't agree), and what resolution they were trying to achieve.
But what do these radicals actually want - it seems it is basically just to kill every non-muslim?
In other words - we can't do <what they want> to stop the attacks, because they don't actually want any other resolution than killing non believers?
(Note, I'm not suggesting we should do <what they want> - personally, I think they should stop killing them so quickly and string them up - but I am curious whether there is actually any potential "solution".
But what do these radicals actually want - it seems it is basically just to kill every non-muslim?
In other words - we can't do <what they want> to stop the attacks, because they don't actually want any other resolution than killing non believers?
(Note, I'm not suggesting we should do <what they want> - personally, I think they should stop killing them so quickly and string them up - but I am curious whether there is actually any potential "solution".
davek_964 said:
But what is it that they actually want? I was discussing this with somebody the other day - with the troubles in NI years ago, at least you could clearly understand why they were doing it (even if you didn't agree), and what resolution they were trying to achieve.
But what do these radicals actually want - it seems it is basically just to kill every non-muslim?
In other words - we can't do <what they want> to stop the attacks, because they don't actually want any other resolution than killing non believers?
(Note, I'm not suggesting we should do <what they want> - personally, I think they should stop killing them so quickly and string them up - but I am curious whether there is actually any potential "solution".
This is the crux of how senseless it is and how stupid the people who commit it are.But what do these radicals actually want - it seems it is basically just to kill every non-muslim?
In other words - we can't do <what they want> to stop the attacks, because they don't actually want any other resolution than killing non believers?
(Note, I'm not suggesting we should do <what they want> - personally, I think they should stop killing them so quickly and string them up - but I am curious whether there is actually any potential "solution".
The original point of it was to 'strike back' at westerners who have bombed and invaded Arabic countries.
The UK have lately had next to no involvement in Arabic countries so this strike back has morphed into randomly killing non believers.
It is so ludicrously pointless because, as has been pointed out, there is no end-game hence literally nothing is achieved.
There is a theory that the 'aim' is to turn non-muslims against muslims which in turn would draw the whole muslim world into this 'fight' rather than the small proportion of extremists but whilst there is an undoubted increase in anti-muslim sentiment I can't see this realistically becoming the third world war.
It seems they want to instigate a war basically. Remember George W. Bush's "you're either with us or against us" statement in his war on terror speech? They decided to be against.
The attacks are deliberately brutal because they want to provoke an extreme reaction from western nations. They want westerners to be suspicious of muslims living among them so people are ultimately forced to pick one side or another. The "grey zone" where muslims live quite happily with non-muslims is what they want to eliminate.
I think most of Europe can cope with this, and our leaders have so far been smart enough to measure our response. With a simpleton like Trump in charge over the pond, however, god knows what the United States will do if/when they're next attacked. It's not like they were the masters of restraint even when they had rational people in charge.
The attacks are deliberately brutal because they want to provoke an extreme reaction from western nations. They want westerners to be suspicious of muslims living among them so people are ultimately forced to pick one side or another. The "grey zone" where muslims live quite happily with non-muslims is what they want to eliminate.
I think most of Europe can cope with this, and our leaders have so far been smart enough to measure our response. With a simpleton like Trump in charge over the pond, however, god knows what the United States will do if/when they're next attacked. It's not like they were the masters of restraint even when they had rational people in charge.
It's more than just a question of ISIS. As many have pointed out on a number of threads there are different sects / divisions within Islam many of whom do not agree with each other, all of whom are considered to be non-believers (Muslim & non Muslims are the same in their eyes). But all of this requires a very long and complex discussion.
Look at some of the attacks perpetrated by Islamic terrorists in Turkey for example which resulted in the deaths of Muslims, on some occasions such as the Ankara bombing last year the intended targets were Kurds (who are mainly adherents of Islam).
There have been / are attacks / wars in Iran, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen (current civil war there), and of course Syria (ignoring the main fight against ISIS), all of which have been against other Muslims.
And there have been the attacks in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood (affiliated with IS) against Christians which are wholly targetted at Christians.
Ultimately it's about wiping out anyone who either doesn't agree with them or who gets in their way.
Look at some of the attacks perpetrated by Islamic terrorists in Turkey for example which resulted in the deaths of Muslims, on some occasions such as the Ankara bombing last year the intended targets were Kurds (who are mainly adherents of Islam).
There have been / are attacks / wars in Iran, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen (current civil war there), and of course Syria (ignoring the main fight against ISIS), all of which have been against other Muslims.
And there have been the attacks in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood (affiliated with IS) against Christians which are wholly targetted at Christians.
Ultimately it's about wiping out anyone who either doesn't agree with them or who gets in their way.
So I'm by no means an expert but I did work for a few years assisting with a Master's thesis on "Post war reconstruction in Iraq" which involved a lot of study of ISIS, amongst other things. I'll try an avoid anything political but heres my two cents.
IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh / Islamist terrorism as a whole, are diametrically opposed to western intervention in the middle-east, women's rights, apostasy, democracy, atheism, religious pluralism, Israel, the abolition of slavery, the Sunni sect of islam, etc etc. Basically add a noun to this list and chances are they oppose it. In Africa Boko Haram, an IS affiliate, have a list of things they oppose that literally ends in "and whatever".
The origins of IS, their links to Al-Qaeda (who they're now at war with), the Pakistani police force and the Iraqi intelligence community, is a whole other topic that is so complex it needs its own post. For a brief summary, consider the arrival of IS as something akin to a civil war in the leadership of Al-Qaeda.
Iraq and Syria are a breeding ground for disorder which all but promotes membership to one armed paramilitary group or the other. Both states arose from the break up of the ottoman empire at the end of the first world war. Ruled by the British and the French, see Sykes-Pico agreement, by mandate after that. Again, too complicated for me to surmise here, but basically Iraq and Syria haven't had the security and stability needed to become fully autonomous and that lack of security has led to dissent and stagnation. To put that into context, Iraq has been at war for 49% of the time its existed as a country. Needless to say, terrorism flourishes in war. To really understand this topic you've got to look at the two countries right from their foundation. Google the breakup of the ottoman empire.
There's a whole further line of inquiry into Islam and specific sects and tenets that needs to be addressed to fully understand the appeal of IS. The VAST majority of muslims don't condone IS. In fact, the largest demographic killed in terrorist attacks are by and large muslim. Yet IS do claim to be Shi'a muslims and their rhetoric isn't entirely dissimilar to the hard-line Wahhabism found in Saudi Arabia. I'm not insinuating muslims are inherently linked to terrorism but there is certainly a heavy societal impact of the fundamentalist islam preached in that part of the world, an impact that seems to create division and devotion in equal measure. For studying Islam I'd recommend, first and foremost, simply buying and reading a Quran. Search for Christopher Hitchens and John Green on youtube for light soundbites on the religion.
To answer the original question, how can they target indiscriminately / what if they kill a muslim : The Quran has the concept of Jihad, holy war. This is unique to Islam, don't mention the crusades it had no basis in scripture, just take me at my word. Only Islam has the notion of holy war, killing for god. This is not an insignificant portion of the Quran. Christopher Hitchens suggests that Islam is by definition, of being the final word of god, an insinuation to violence. I'll let you make up your own minds on that. The point is though, there are a lot of applicable quotes for justifying killing apostates, non believers etc. This isn't to say there aren't quotes to the contrary of that, simply that these terrorist inciting Imams have all the quotes they need. To kill a muslim is kafar BUT, crucially, IS and the Taliban's doctrine states that a muslim opposed to jihad is no true muslim. The Taliban consider democracy to be an attempt to usurp Allah and thus everyone living in one is the enemy, muslim or no. Not to mention the fact Sunni and Shi'a muslims kill each other in conflicts all the time. Consider them like protestants and catholics in Ireland.
TL;DR - IS are nasty folks who saw an opportunity in the chaos to use archaic scripture to justify atrocities and total war.
I hope I've cast a little light on who IS are, what they stand for and how they came about.
IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh / Islamist terrorism as a whole, are diametrically opposed to western intervention in the middle-east, women's rights, apostasy, democracy, atheism, religious pluralism, Israel, the abolition of slavery, the Sunni sect of islam, etc etc. Basically add a noun to this list and chances are they oppose it. In Africa Boko Haram, an IS affiliate, have a list of things they oppose that literally ends in "and whatever".
The origins of IS, their links to Al-Qaeda (who they're now at war with), the Pakistani police force and the Iraqi intelligence community, is a whole other topic that is so complex it needs its own post. For a brief summary, consider the arrival of IS as something akin to a civil war in the leadership of Al-Qaeda.
Iraq and Syria are a breeding ground for disorder which all but promotes membership to one armed paramilitary group or the other. Both states arose from the break up of the ottoman empire at the end of the first world war. Ruled by the British and the French, see Sykes-Pico agreement, by mandate after that. Again, too complicated for me to surmise here, but basically Iraq and Syria haven't had the security and stability needed to become fully autonomous and that lack of security has led to dissent and stagnation. To put that into context, Iraq has been at war for 49% of the time its existed as a country. Needless to say, terrorism flourishes in war. To really understand this topic you've got to look at the two countries right from their foundation. Google the breakup of the ottoman empire.
There's a whole further line of inquiry into Islam and specific sects and tenets that needs to be addressed to fully understand the appeal of IS. The VAST majority of muslims don't condone IS. In fact, the largest demographic killed in terrorist attacks are by and large muslim. Yet IS do claim to be Shi'a muslims and their rhetoric isn't entirely dissimilar to the hard-line Wahhabism found in Saudi Arabia. I'm not insinuating muslims are inherently linked to terrorism but there is certainly a heavy societal impact of the fundamentalist islam preached in that part of the world, an impact that seems to create division and devotion in equal measure. For studying Islam I'd recommend, first and foremost, simply buying and reading a Quran. Search for Christopher Hitchens and John Green on youtube for light soundbites on the religion.
To answer the original question, how can they target indiscriminately / what if they kill a muslim : The Quran has the concept of Jihad, holy war. This is unique to Islam, don't mention the crusades it had no basis in scripture, just take me at my word. Only Islam has the notion of holy war, killing for god. This is not an insignificant portion of the Quran. Christopher Hitchens suggests that Islam is by definition, of being the final word of god, an insinuation to violence. I'll let you make up your own minds on that. The point is though, there are a lot of applicable quotes for justifying killing apostates, non believers etc. This isn't to say there aren't quotes to the contrary of that, simply that these terrorist inciting Imams have all the quotes they need. To kill a muslim is kafar BUT, crucially, IS and the Taliban's doctrine states that a muslim opposed to jihad is no true muslim. The Taliban consider democracy to be an attempt to usurp Allah and thus everyone living in one is the enemy, muslim or no. Not to mention the fact Sunni and Shi'a muslims kill each other in conflicts all the time. Consider them like protestants and catholics in Ireland.
TL;DR - IS are nasty folks who saw an opportunity in the chaos to use archaic scripture to justify atrocities and total war.
I hope I've cast a little light on who IS are, what they stand for and how they came about.
Edited by Oliver James on Monday 5th June 14:30
Edited by Oliver James on Monday 5th June 14:34
Edited by Oliver James on Tuesday 13th June 12:21
Oliver James said:
TL;DR - IS a nasty folks who saw an opportunity in the chaos to use archaic scripture to justify atrocities and total war.
I hope I've cast a little light on who IS are, what they stand for and how they came about.
You've got Sunni and Shia mixed up. I hope I've cast a little light on who IS are, what they stand for and how they came about.
Edited by Oliver James on Monday 5th June 14:30
Oliver James said:
So I'm by no means an expert but I did work for a few years assisting with a Master's thesis on "Post war reconstruction in Iraq" which involved a lot of study of ISIS, amongst other things. I'll try an avoid anything political but heres my two cents.
IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh / Islamist terrorism as a whole, are diametrically opposed to western intervention in the middle-east, women's rights, apostasy, democracy, atheism, religious pluralism, Israel, the abolition of slavery, the Sunni sect of islam, etc etc. Basically add a noun to this list and chances are they oppose it. In Africa Boko Haram, an IS affiliate, have a list of things they oppose that literally ends in "and whatever".
The origins of IS, their links to the Taliban (who they're now at war with), the Pakistani police force and the Iraqi intelligence community, is a whole other topic that is so complex it needs its own post. For a brief summary, consider the arrival of IS as something akin to a civil war in the leadership of the Taliban.
Iraq and Syria are a breeding ground for disorder which all but promotes membership to one armed paramilitary group or the other. Both states arose from the break up of the ottoman empire at the end of the first world war. Ruled by the British and the French, see Sykes-Pico agreement, by mandate after that. Again, too complicated for me to surmise here, but basically Iraq and Syria haven't had the security and stability needed to become fully autonomous and that lack of security has led to dissent and stagnation. To put that into context, Iraq has been at war for 49% of the time its existed as a country. Needless to say, terrorism flourishes in war. To really understand this topic you've got to look at the two countries right from their foundation. Google the breakup of the ottoman empire.
There's a whole further line of inquiry into Islam and specific sects and tenets that needs to be addressed to fully understand the appeal of IS. The VAST majority of muslims don't condone IS. In fact, the largest demographic killed in terrorist attacks are by and large muslim. Yet IS do claim to be Shi'a muslims and their rhetoric isn't entirely dissimilar to the hard-line Wahhabism found in Saudi Arabia. I'm not insinuating muslims are inherently linked to terrorism but there is certainly a heavy societal impact of the fundamentalist islam preached in that part of the world, an impact that seems to create division and devotion in equal measure. For studying Islam I'd recommend, first and foremost, simply buying and reading a Quran. Search for Christopher Hitchens and John Green on youtube for light soundbites on the religion.
To answer the original question, how can they target indiscriminately / what if they kill a muslim : The Quran has the concept of Jihad, holy war. This is unique to Islam, don't mention the crusades it had no basis in scripture, just take me at my word. Only Islam has the notion of holy war, killing for god. This is not an insignificant portion of the Quran. Christopher Hitchens suggests that Islam is by definition, of being the final word of god, an insinuation to violence. I'll let you make up your own minds on that. The point is though, there are a lot of applicable quotes for justifying killing apostates, non believers etc. This isn't to say there aren't quotes to the contrary of that, simply that these terrorist inciting Imams have all the quotes they need. To kill a muslim is kafar BUT, crucially, IS and the Taliban's doctrine states that a muslim opposed to jihad is no true muslim. The Taliban consider democracy to be an attempt to usurp Allah and thus everyone living in one is the enemy, muslim or no. Not to mention the fact Sunni and Shi'a muslims kill each other in conflicts all the time. Consider them like protestants and catholics in Ireland.
TL;DR - IS are nasty folks who saw an opportunity in the chaos to use archaic scripture to justify atrocities and total war.
I hope I've cast a little light on who IS are, what they stand for and how they came about.
That's a good perspective Oliver, thanks for sharing.IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh / Islamist terrorism as a whole, are diametrically opposed to western intervention in the middle-east, women's rights, apostasy, democracy, atheism, religious pluralism, Israel, the abolition of slavery, the Sunni sect of islam, etc etc. Basically add a noun to this list and chances are they oppose it. In Africa Boko Haram, an IS affiliate, have a list of things they oppose that literally ends in "and whatever".
The origins of IS, their links to the Taliban (who they're now at war with), the Pakistani police force and the Iraqi intelligence community, is a whole other topic that is so complex it needs its own post. For a brief summary, consider the arrival of IS as something akin to a civil war in the leadership of the Taliban.
Iraq and Syria are a breeding ground for disorder which all but promotes membership to one armed paramilitary group or the other. Both states arose from the break up of the ottoman empire at the end of the first world war. Ruled by the British and the French, see Sykes-Pico agreement, by mandate after that. Again, too complicated for me to surmise here, but basically Iraq and Syria haven't had the security and stability needed to become fully autonomous and that lack of security has led to dissent and stagnation. To put that into context, Iraq has been at war for 49% of the time its existed as a country. Needless to say, terrorism flourishes in war. To really understand this topic you've got to look at the two countries right from their foundation. Google the breakup of the ottoman empire.
There's a whole further line of inquiry into Islam and specific sects and tenets that needs to be addressed to fully understand the appeal of IS. The VAST majority of muslims don't condone IS. In fact, the largest demographic killed in terrorist attacks are by and large muslim. Yet IS do claim to be Shi'a muslims and their rhetoric isn't entirely dissimilar to the hard-line Wahhabism found in Saudi Arabia. I'm not insinuating muslims are inherently linked to terrorism but there is certainly a heavy societal impact of the fundamentalist islam preached in that part of the world, an impact that seems to create division and devotion in equal measure. For studying Islam I'd recommend, first and foremost, simply buying and reading a Quran. Search for Christopher Hitchens and John Green on youtube for light soundbites on the religion.
To answer the original question, how can they target indiscriminately / what if they kill a muslim : The Quran has the concept of Jihad, holy war. This is unique to Islam, don't mention the crusades it had no basis in scripture, just take me at my word. Only Islam has the notion of holy war, killing for god. This is not an insignificant portion of the Quran. Christopher Hitchens suggests that Islam is by definition, of being the final word of god, an insinuation to violence. I'll let you make up your own minds on that. The point is though, there are a lot of applicable quotes for justifying killing apostates, non believers etc. This isn't to say there aren't quotes to the contrary of that, simply that these terrorist inciting Imams have all the quotes they need. To kill a muslim is kafar BUT, crucially, IS and the Taliban's doctrine states that a muslim opposed to jihad is no true muslim. The Taliban consider democracy to be an attempt to usurp Allah and thus everyone living in one is the enemy, muslim or no. Not to mention the fact Sunni and Shi'a muslims kill each other in conflicts all the time. Consider them like protestants and catholics in Ireland.
TL;DR - IS are nasty folks who saw an opportunity in the chaos to use archaic scripture to justify atrocities and total war.
I hope I've cast a little light on who IS are, what they stand for and how they came about.
Edited by Oliver James on Monday 5th June 14:30
Edited by Oliver James on Monday 5th June 14:34
2 points though - you say IS is against the Sunni sect but Whabbism is from the Sunni side. Explains the Saudi support and funding.
Later you mention IS as being Shi'a - IS are opposed to Shia.
ETA: wl606 has already covered this above.
wl606 said:
Oliver James said:
TL;DR - IS a nasty folks who saw an opportunity in the chaos to use archaic scripture to justify atrocities and total war.
I hope I've cast a little light on who IS are, what they stand for and how they came about.
You've got Sunni and Shia mixed up. I hope I've cast a little light on who IS are, what they stand for and how they came about.
Edited by Oliver James on Monday 5th June 14:30
jonah35 said:
This is the big thing that few bother to read.
Isis wish to establish a caliphate and to kill all non believers. They will not stop until this is established even if it takes 1000 years.
All isis believers believe it is their destiny to die whilst trying to help this come about.
Yes and this is a concept the majority of normal people just cannot comprehend, the fact a group of people can be so blinded and committed to achieving an outcome, hence the problems we all now have to live with.Isis wish to establish a caliphate and to kill all non believers. They will not stop until this is established even if it takes 1000 years.
All isis believers believe it is their destiny to die whilst trying to help this come about.
Quite timely - along the lines of current discussion -
www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10378/defeating-extremi...
www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10378/defeating-extremi...
Likes Fast Cars said:
jonah35 said:
This is the big thing that few bother to read.
Isis wish to establish a caliphate and to kill all non believers. They will not stop until this is established even if it takes 1000 years.
All isis believers believe it is their destiny to die whilst trying to help this come about.
Yes and this is a concept the majority of normal people just cannot comprehend, the fact a group of people can be so blinded and committed to achieving an outcome, hence the problems we all now have to live with.Isis wish to establish a caliphate and to kill all non believers. They will not stop until this is established even if it takes 1000 years.
All isis believers believe it is their destiny to die whilst trying to help this come about.
But the idea of putting them in jail for 3 years does not solve a thing. They will try and push their message in jail and when they get out. Our punishments do not work. They do not.
Having police kill them is good for our citizens but thats what they want. They want to die so they can say theyre a true believer.
A guantanamo bay system would simply mean we would end up paying out millions in compo without solving a thing.
Root and branch reform, is necessary but it WILL not come about so it will continue.
Best thing you can do as a western brit is to make some money and eventually when things get too bad in the uk you should just up sticks and leave. You have no other choice. Whether you vote tory or labour it will not help you.
Its a shame but thats what will happen. People living in oxfordshire villages, lily allen, gary lineker, nob geldof etc do not understand but they do not need to - they dont have to live with things as they can just leave the uk if nevessary.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff