by cofty 50 Replies latest social current
I remember listening to an historian back in '89 immediately after the astonishing collapse of Communism. He was asked what the future of global politics would look like now that the Cold War was over.
He replied that the world would now return to the age-old conflict between Islam and the West. I wondered what the hell he was talking about.
I wish I could remember who he was.
within every single religion there are fundamentalists who go to extremes
What would a Jainist extremist look like?
Isis and radical Islam are completely legit interpretations of the things their prophet Mohammed commanded.
cofty - He replied that the world would now return to the age-old conflict between Islam and the West. I wondered what the hell he was talking about.
I wish I could remember who he was.
Yup. He wrote a whole book about it—although it may have been a different person. Maybe I'll be able to find the name.
cofty - What would a Jainist extremist look like?
Maybe a person who literally wouldn't hurt a single fly? Note that I'm not talking about extremism necessarily characterised by violence but rather extreme interpretation of an ideology.
cofty - I remember listening to an historian back in '89 immediately after the astonishing collapse of Communism. He was asked what the future of global politics would look like now that the Cold War was over.
He replied that the world would now return to the age-old conflict between Islam and the West. I wondered what the hell he was talking about.
I wish I could remember who he was.
My quick Google search resulted in a name Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist, who in 1992 proposed a hypothesis called the Clash of Civilizations. Later, in 1996, he wrote a book called The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. However, to my knowledge, he was not a historian, so I don't think this is the guy you are talking about. I wish I could go back to my World Issues class (just for a second though!) during which we discussed it...
Thanks Saename that might be it. My recollection of it is sketchy, it was a radio interview on the BBC so I might even have the year wrong.
That's why they are so dangerous. Despite all the claims of politicians to the contrary, you always negotiated with terrorists because that's how terrorist campaigns are usually ended. But there is nothing that they want that is reasonable or that we should be willing to surrender. There is nothing that will make them happy.
They just need to die. All we can do is keep removing them in as clean and surgical way as possible while at the same time empowering the moderate voices.
Every time some misguided fool (like batman) makes a big fuss when islam is criticized then we score an own goal and make it harder for the moderates to win. Heck, the regressive left object more to islamic apostates who speak up than to the monsters they are standing up against. It's insane.
But there is some truth to the idea that we have created the problem - the idiotic lack of planning after Iraq is the direct cause of many individuals involvement and the roots go back to seeding islamism as a landmine for the Russians when they were in Afghanistan. Of course our "allies" in the region are also responsible for weaponizing their own various versions of the religion too.
Its not isis fighting the west its isis fighting anybody who doesnt do what they want ANYBODY it makes no difference it makes no difference if the other person comes from america or the middle east and a muslim.YOU MUST DO WHAT ISIS WANTS and nothing else in the places that they have took control over in the middle east they have put posters up showing muslims how to pray the isis way
extremism thrives on inducing passive agreement. An extremist will use whatever comes to hand to do this - religious symbols and rituals, secular symbols and rituals and whatever else is at hand to endow themselves with authority. We've seen this happen throughout history and we know this so well yet we ask why ISIS formed in Iraq and Syria.
The Iraq war was pivotal to the formation of ISIS and this was already known before we went to war. Generally when such a decision is taken there is consensus of a 30 year commitment to rebuilding the state so that ISIS type extremists and criminals do not take charge and people are allowed to build a democracy out of the ruins of war. But this did not happen.
Climate change also comes into it - Syria is in the grip of a drought that many think is down to climate change. However, Assad added to this state of affairs by over working the land to make Syria self sufficient. He achieved this self sufficiency for a short while but is now paying the price.
to put your opening post into context, cofty, here is an extract from the Clarion which indicates that the main purpose of that issue of Dabiq was to use propaganda to recruit more people to their side and for conversion purposes. so this is a slightly different nuance to the one you are suggesting and makes the situation more complex. admitting complexity negates extremism and is not meant to cause self loathing although it may have an unsettling effect. being unsettled is to be welcomed if it stops extremism don't you think? whats more we get to use our brains - a win win situation
http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq
Issues of Dabiq released so far:
The fifteenth issue of the Islamic State's Dabiqmagazine is called Breaking the Cross and is targeted at discrediting Christianity and Western secularism. Unlike previous issues which have primarily been directed at Muslim majority societies, this issue is full of propaganda aimed at converting non-Muslims to Islam.
Sections include "Why we hate you and fight you" along with a conversion story "Why I came to Islam" from a former Christian woman from Finland. The main feature "Breaking the Cross" is an extended rebuttal of Christian and Jewish theology which sets forth the arguments to believe in Islam.
