Paris Attacks

[twinsnorth49]

 

You think maybe its possible that a subset of Syrian refugees would buy into the theory that Europe caused, and stands to gain by, the sectarian violence in their homeland, and be angered to the point of attacking like this?

No, but ISIS stands to gain by using said people to further the instability in Syria, which for the US is an unintended consequence but a very much intended one for ISIS.

 

At this point it appears to me that ISIS is gaining far more from the sectarian violence in Syria than the US, I wonder why this subset wouldn't see that?..................hmmmm.

[formerly33]

 

I admit I have my biases but am trying to make sense of a confusing situation and it seems clear that the Paris attacks have little or nothing to do with the Islamic extremism discussed so far.

I think you would do well to read the article from The Atlantic that ChiTown and Levi already shared...in case you missed it, here it is again.

 

"What ISIS Really Wants"

 

Maybe you have already though and disagree that they're attempting to draw us into the fight to bring about the apocalypse?

[Mike Sixel]

There is a follow up article on another site, can't recall which right now, saying that Atlantic article is horribly wrong.....that many ISLAMIC leaders have said that reading of the Quran is incorrect.....but the article implies that ISIS is the inevitable outcome if Islam. 

 

The Atlantic article further implies that ISIS is the real Muslims, and everyone else is a faker....really, that article may or may not describe what ISIS wants, but it's implications about the VAST MAJORITY of Muslims and their leaders is awfully biased.

[Willihammer]

 

I think you would do well to read the article from The Atlantic that ChiTown and Levi already shared...in case you missed it, here it is again.

 

"What ISIS Really Wants"

 

Maybe you have already though and disagree that they're attempting to draw us into the fight to bring about the apocalypse?

I saw the article when I googled ISIS. No I don't think all members of ISIS want to bring about the apocalypse. That is ridiculous. I think its likely there are a few hardcore psychos but I'm sure many/most members have secular aims and only ally themselves with ISIS to the extent that helps them achieve their goals.

 

I really think the best way to make sense of the situation is to look at it from the perspective of self-interested parties, the apocalypse wouldn't benefit most of them.

[TheLeviathan]

 

There is a follow up article on another site, can't recall which right now, saying that Atlantic article is horribly wrong.....that many ISLAMIC leaders have said that reading of the Quran is incorrect.....but the article implies that ISIS is the inevitable outcome if Islam. 

 

The Atlantic article further implies that ISIS is the real Muslims, and everyone else is a faker....really, that article may or may not describe what ISIS wants, but it's implications about the VAST MAJORITY of Muslims and their leaders is awfully biased.

 

You may not have understood the point of the article.  Right at the top it talks about who they see themselves as.

 

Frankly, all of those other Islamic leaders could be right. (I bristle anytime someone starts talking about "correct" readings of holy texts.  That answer depends about as much on which way the wind is blowing as actual scholarship.  Christians included) But it doesn't matter how genuinely correct their viewing of their religion is.  The Atlantic article is trying to show us who they think they are.

 

And really, that's all that matters.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I really think the best way to make sense of the situation is to look at it from the perspective of self-interested parties, the apocalypse wouldn't benefit most of them.

 

Many cults and religions have walked themselves gladly to the gates of the apocalypse confident they were right.

 

Religion, man, that's the most powerful drug of all. 

[Willihammer]

 

Many cults and religions have walked themselves gladly to the gates of the apocalypse confident they were right.

 

Religion, man, that's the most powerful drug of all. 

The same author, written a year earlier:

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/119395/isiss-three-types-fighters

 

 

And that leaves the third and final group—perhaps the least appalling but likely the largest and most important. Call them the Sunni Pragmatists. These include Iraqi tribal sheikhs, whose allegiance to ISIS originates not in a cultish death wish but in a desire to win security and well-being, and who seem to be using the Psychopaths and the True Believers as convenient allies. From ISIS, the Pragmatists get a way to punish Baghdad for its long neglect of Sunni regions. From the Pragmatists, ISIS already got a greased path into Iraq that allowed their tiny force to cover large amounts of ground and fulfill the True Believers’ goal of rapid expansion, à la the forces of the Prophet Muhammad in the earliest days of Islam. ISIS’s extension into Iraq happened quickly both because many Sunnis cooperated, and because the Shia-led central government had incredibly weak holds on northern, mostly Sunni cities like Mosul. I observed the dereliction of Iraqi army bases in Mosul in late 2012, and it was clear even then that a serious invading force would face roughly as much resistance as Clark W. Griswold and family encountered at Wally World. To hold all that new territory, now that ISIS forces are spread thin 300 miles beyond Raqqa, will require ongoing buy-in from their local Sunni allies.

 

At least some of the Sunni Pragmatists are ex-Baathists—colleagues of Saddam Hussein who have survived to fight again. The Naqshabandi militia, controlled by Saddam’s vice president, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri (a potential body double for Bryan Cranston), has periodically worked with ISIS to fight the Shia government of Nuri al Maliki. Like his old boss, Douri is no Islamist, which shows just how cynical his alliance with the True Believers has been—and how much more malleable his motivations and goals are than those of his True Believing and Psychopathic counterparts.

 

[twinsnorth49]

I didn't think much of The Atlantic article but I can see how it's somewhat easy to misinterpret one way or the other. Wood seems to have written it with a conclusion in mind  but also tries to place a few caveats throughout that indicate he isn't necessarily doing that.

 

Here are some main issue some scholars have with the article, I tend to agree with them.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/18/3624121/atlantic-gets-dangerously-wrong-isis-islam

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

I didn't think much of The Atlantic article but I can see how it's somewhat easy to misinterpret one way or the other. Wood seems to have written it with a conclusion in mind  but also tries to place a few caveats throughout that indicate he isn't necessarily doing that.

 

Here are some main issue some scholars have with the article, I tend to agree with them.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/18/3624121/atlantic-gets-dangerously-wrong-isis-islam

 

He's not saying this is THE end-all be-all of Islam for all time.

 

But it is for these guys.  What difference does it make what the rest of the Muslim world thinks about it?  If we want to understand ISIS, we have to understand how they think.  What they believe.

 

We have so damn many people rushing to the front to say "No....that's not what Islam is really about!"  I really don't care.  I'm not looking to condemn all Muslims, just these violent bastards.  

 

All I care is that if there is a horde or murdering, raping zealots on the loose - what do THEY believe about themselves?  That's far more telling way to look at things and a far better prism for understanding them.  Getting lost in a web of interpretations about what is "really" Islam is just a fool's errand IMO.

[twinsnorth49]

 

He's not saying this is THE end-all be-all of Islam for all time.

 

But it is for these guys.  What difference does it make what the rest of the Muslim world thinks about it?  If we want to understand ISIS, we have to understand how they think.  What they believe.

 

We have so damn many people rushing to the front to say "No....that's not what Islam is really about!"  I really don't care.  I'm not looking to condemn all Muslims, just these violent bastards.  

 

All I care is that if there is a horde or murdering, raping zealots on the loose - what do THEY believe about themselves?  That's far more telling way to look at things and a far better prism for understanding them.  Getting lost in a web of interpretations about what is "really" Islam is just a fool's errand IMO.

Agreed, I know what you're saying, . I just didn't care for the way Wood framed the article and I only posted the other link as a reference for a wider response to it. 

 

I think it makes a difference what the overwhelming majority of Muslims think because it is one of the most misunderstood elements when it come to radical interpretations of Islam. I realize you understand that, but we both  know most don't and that is already fueling a lot of hatred. 

[formerly33]

I don't agree 100% with the article either; anything of that length is sure to leave a lot of room for conflicting opinions. There were parts that irritated me, for instance:

 

"The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam."

 

It occurred to me that this was equivalent to saying that the modern day Catholic wants to eradicate Protestants.

 

Maybe it bothered me because I have a friend who is a practicing Muslim. I'm quite sure that he's not radical in his religious beliefs; in fact, I would be just as astonished to find out that he joined ISIS as I would be to discover that anyone in this discussion did. As horrible as this sounds, I've stereotyped Muslims, and to me he seems like your "average" Muslim: a normal person who has a religion of preference. I was irked by what I took to be the overall sentiment of the article until I reached the very end, when Wood actually did express his opinion of Muslims, quote, "I suspect that most Muslims appreciated Obama’s sentiment [that the Islamic State is 'not Islamic']."

[TheLeviathan]

Agreed, I know what you're saying, . I just didn't care for the way Wood framed the article and I only posted the other link as a reference for a wider response to it. 

 

I think it makes a difference what the overwhelming majority of Muslims think because it is one of the most misunderstood elements when it come to radical interpretations of Islam. I realize you understand that, but we both  know most don't and that is already fueling a lot of hatred.

 

I guess I just don't see much value in deliberately white washing their beliefs because of those (likely already) Islamaphobic people. I think what he did to boldly lay out just how whacked out they are has tremendous value. He shouldn't have to run from truth for the sake of hurt feelings.

[TheLeviathan]

Also, I think Wood's response article is interesting.

[jimmer]

I don't think it's any surprise, with all the love President Obama reaps on Muslims, that President Obama has defended the Islamic faith by saying that ISIS isn't Islamic. I imagine, as a whole, Muslims love him. 

[formerly33]

 

I don't think it's any surprise, with all the love President Obama reaps on Muslims, that President Obama has defended the Islamic faith by saying that ISIS isn't Islamic. I imagine, as a whole, Muslims love him. 

Hm, well, that wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make....

[Craig Arko]

Another strange ally; this one working from the shadows.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34836400/anonymous-declares-war-on-islamic-state

[Badsmerf]

It would be cool to be good enough with a computer to join a group like that.... as long as they do cool stuff with the knowledge.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I guess I just don't see much value in deliberately white washing their beliefs because of those (likely already) Islamaphobic people. I think what he did to boldly lay out just how whacked out they are has tremendous value. He shouldn't have to run from truth for the sake of hurt feelings.

I'm not deliberately white washing anything and II didn't say he should run from anything. Is his article above reproach? So they interpret Islam based on it's most literal historical roots, laws and customs, that's not shocking to me, but his article had a touch of hyperbole imo.

 

That's all, my take, nothing more.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not deliberately white washing anything and II didn't say he should run from anything. Is his article above reproach? So they interpret Islam based on it's most literal historical roots, laws and customs, that's not shocking to me, but his article had a touch of hyperbole imo.

 

That's all, my take, nothing more.

I wasn't suggesting you were, sorry if it came off that way. Was talking of the more general reaction in your link.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You may not have understood the point of the article.  Right at the top it talks about who they see themselves as.

 

Frankly, all of those other Islamic leaders could be right. (I bristle anytime someone starts talking about "correct" readings of holy texts.  That answer depends about as much on which way the wind is blowing as actual scholarship.  Christians included) But it doesn't matter how genuinely correct their viewing of their religion is.  The Atlantic article is trying to show us who they think they are.

 

And really, that's all that matters.

 

Uh, I didn't write the other article........and MANY people have decried that article. I was pointing out that that article, according to others, implies things that just aren't true. NOT me, others.

[Craig Arko]

A bit of balm for the pain. Hope is not yet lost.

 

http://davidkanigan.com/2014/11/16/gate-a-4/

[TheLeviathan]

 

Uh, I didn't write the other article........and MANY people have decried that article. I was pointing out that that article, according to others, implies things that just aren't true. NOT me, others.

 

Most of the decrying has been the "yeah but it's not REAL Islam".  I haven't seen many disputes of facts, only disputes about interpretations of Islam.

 

To that I have two things to say:

 

A) Most all religions end up being interpreted by each individual.  The One True _______  isn't really a thing for any religion on the planet.  This author's point wasn't that this is The One True Islam, it's that ISIS believes it is and many of their beliefs have basis in the religion.  Sure, ISIS might be picking and choosing what it wants out of the Koran.....but, really, how common is that?

 

Christians do it all the time.  That's what holy books are - vague, full of contradictions, and moldable into what you want to make it personally.  Getting caught up in the "right way" to read something is a bizarre way to approach religion IMO.

 

So it's not a good interpretation of Islam - so what?  Where does that get us?  Wood's article lets us understand how they think, what they believe, what motivates them.  That's the stated value of the piece.  And that has value.

 

Getting caught in some politically correct back and forth about what is or is not a good interpretation completely misses the damn point and provides nothing to the situation.

[Mike Sixel]

But the article doesn't say "only ISIS thinks this", it says it is THE logical conclusion of Islam. If it ONLY said "ISIS thinks this", well, then it might not be fear mongering of all of Islam. 

[Hrbowski]

 

Christians do it all the time.  That's what holy books are - vague, full of contradictions, and moldable into what you want to make it personally.  Getting caught up in the "right way" to read something is a bizarre way to approach religion IMO.

 

Actually, people make up the contradictions themselves. Having read the whole bible, I find that what many people call contradictions in the bible are easily explainable, and that legalistic christians try to over blow just about everything.

[Craig Arko]

Actually, people make up the contradictions themselves. Having read the whole bible, I find that what many people call contradictions in the bible are easily explainable, and that legalistic christians try to over blow just about everything.

Like Thomas Aquinas.

[Craig Arko]

Another strange ally; this one working from the shadows.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34836400/anonymous-declares-war-on-islamic-state

Interesting follow-up on this.

 

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3005431/malware-cybercrime/anonymous-just-might-make-all-the-difference-in-attacking-isis.html

[twinsnorth49]

I have no issue with the factual parts of Woods article and those facts being what IS adheres to.

 

I agree with Levi that alternate interpretations of Islam by others is really irrelevant and doesn't make the article false.

 

My issue with it is the tone with which I feel it's written. I think Wood goes too far that these true beliefs within the faith are something to potentially fear. Followers of IS might be something to fear, inasmuch as they're a bunch of lunatics, but that's about it, it has nothing to do with Islam to me at all.

[TheLeviathan]

But the article doesn't say "only ISIS thinks this", it says it is THE logical conclusion of Islam. If it ONLY said "ISIS thinks this", well, then it might not be fear mongering of all of Islam.

 

I'm going to need an actual quote....I'm not sure where you got that from.

[TheLeviathan]

My issue with it is the tone with which I feel it's written. I think Wood goes to far that these true beliefs within the faith are something to potentially fear. Followers of IS might be something to fear, inasmuch as they're a bunch of lunatics, but that's about it, it has nothing to do with Islam to me at all.

I think part of what makes them fearsome is their religious zealotry. Their version of Islam is central, but it need not be an indictment of all Islam.

 

The inability to make that distinction is very problematic.

[twinsnorth49]

I think part of what makes them fearsome is their religious zealotry. Their version of Islam is central, but it need not be an indictment of all Islam.

 

The inability to make that distinction is very problematic.

Yes, that's it.