ISIS Want to Clear up Why They Do Terrorism

by cofty 50 Replies latest social current

• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  "If the problem is Islam itself and to quote 'they all need to die' does that mean the answer is the mass slaughter of muslims?" - of course not. I said all jihadis need to die not all Muslims need to die. Please don't misquote me again.

  "My second question is why do ISIS kill muslims?" - ISIS views Shia as apostates and so kills them. Ditto Allawites.

  ISIS also kills Sunni Muslims who transgress Sharia law, and kills Sunnis who reject ISIS. Just because ISIS kills other Muslims doesn't necessarily make it un-Islamic. Muslims have been slaughtering Muslims of different sects for over a millennia.

  Agreed, Western foreign policy has been disastrous and is certainly a factor. But what about Abu Sayyaf? It is a terrorist group based in the Phillippines. It recently killed two hostages - John Ridsdel and Robert Hall. What Western foreign policy prompted this?

  Military action will play an important part in this issue, as will promoting Western education to local people.
  
• 

  Simon

  If the problem is Islam itself and to quote 'they just need to die' does that mean the answer is the mass slaughter of muslims? If not why not?

  You're obviously incapable of understanding basic english statements or are willfully misunderstanding and trying to suggest that "they" refers to all muslims and not all militant islamists which was clear from the context.

  Everyone who has committed war crimes should be executed. I'm happy if those executions happen on the battlefield or by drone.
• 

  tornapart

  They say they commit terrorism because 'you are disbelievers'. if this is their reason then why are many of their targets fellow muslims? What about the atrocities they committed in Kabul and Baghdad recently? Are shiah muslims not believers in their eyes? What about the ISIS attack at Mecca, supposedly their Holy City, back in May? Also the number of lone wolf attackers such as the one in Nice, aren't even practicing muslims, doing many things condemned in the Quran. Many 'non-believers' probably live more moral lives than they do. What they have to say as to their reasons is just a cover for their violent tendencies and desire for destruction. Their real reason is that they want control and power over as many people as they can and will use any kind of fear, terror, destruction, hatred and violence to get it.
• 

  Caedes

  Actually it was Simon who I quoted.

  However the point still stands since the main thrust of this thread has been the fact that ISIS are not a rational political force and the strawman that western liberals do not accept that fact.

  ISIS also kills Sunni Muslims who transgress Sharia law, and kills Sunnis who reject ISIS. Just because ISIS kills other Muslims doesn't necessarily make it un-Islamic. Muslims have been slaughtering Muslims of different sects for over a millennia.

  So have christians, I assume that you don't take the same extreme view about christian extremists? The point is that the actions of ISIS tell a very different story to the simplistic explanation given in the OP and understanding and accepting that people (especially criminals with no respect for human life) might have motivations other than the ones they admit to.

  But what about Abu Sayyaf? It is a terrorist group based in the Phillippines. It recently killed two hostages - John Ridsdel and Robert Hall. What Western foreign policy prompted this?

  What about them? Have I claimed that western foreign policy is to blame for all terrorism? No, I said it was a contributing factor in the example I gave. Please don't misquote me again.
  

  The second takeaway point for this thread made by supporters of the OP is the conflation of mainstream muslims and ISIS.

  You stated that the only good jihadi is a dead one, how far do want to perpetuate the violence? Because the western world is never going to be able to kill all of them. I can't see any difference between your rhetoric and theirs other than the fact that you are of course an armchair hawk.
• 

  Simon

  They say they commit terrorism because 'you are disbelievers'. if this is their reason then why are many of their targets fellow muslims?

  Because they don't consider them believers of their particular form of pure and right, one true islam.

  Are shiah muslims not believers in their eyes?

  No. Only them.

  Also the number of lone wolf attackers such as the one in Nice, aren't even practicing muslims, doing many things condemned in the Quran.

  Don't confuse being a believer of something with adhering to the teachings. Many JWs don't follow all the rules - if a JW abuses a child for instance, it doesn't mean they weren't a JW. They are religious - hypocrisy is to be expected.

  Many 'non-believers' probably live more moral lives than they do.

  Correct

  What they have to say as to their reasons is just a cover for their violent tendencies and desire for destruction.

  Correct. There are monsters in society but normally they are controlled and their behaviour constrained by the rule of law (but still abuse animals, children and other vulnerable people). Occasionally the environment allows them to act out their inhumanity just as with nazism in the last century.

  Their real reason is that they want control and power over as many people as they can and will use any kind of fear, terror, destruction, hatred and violence to get it.

  Yes, it is a militant political ideology masquerading and using a certain religion as cover and unfortunately far too many adherents of that religion seem willing to allow that to happen because the religion prepares the ground for the extremist version and makes people predisposed to follow it. They seem to believe that a hypocritical, monster who calls themselves muslim should still get their support because they label themselves muslim.

  I think the tippy-toeing around that some politicians do, afraid to label things "islam" is based on the notion that these normal people would turn to the terrorists cause if we're seen to condemn islam. IMO this is a mistake (Sam Harris explains it far better than be in The Rubin Report) and if they are one statement away from jihadism then we should be rounding them up. I don't think it's the case, I think the majority are afraid or uninvolved in the same way that "we" christians had little to do with the IRA - what were we supposed to do to stop it? And if any moderates do stick their head up they are shot down by the ignorant among us.
• 

  Caedes

  You're obviously incapable of understanding basic english statements or are willfully misunderstanding and trying to suggest that "they" refers to all muslims and not all militant islamists which was clear from the context.

  There has been clear conflation of ISIS and muslims throughout this entire thread which is why I asked the question of how far you think this mass killing should go.

  History must be full of examples where the mass killing of insurgent enemies worked out really well as an approach to peace?

  As I have said there is no reason to suppose that these terrorists are going to give up solely through negotiation but neither is the answer trying to kill all of them.
  
  
• 

  Simon

  So have christians, I assume that you don't take the same extreme view about christian extremists?

  Seriously, how many times does this happen? Stop trying to make things "equivalent". Christianity is not as dangerous as Islam is right now. It is lone individuals with the vast majority law abiding citizens, hardly a force threatening the world or randomly butchering strangers or critics in the same way.

  When Islam allows stage shows mocking it, you can make this argument.

  You stated that the only good jihadi is a dead one, how far do want to perpetuate the violence? Because the western world is never going to be able to kill all of them. I can't see any difference between your rhetoric and theirs other than the fact that you are of course an armchair hawk.

  There's a difference between tit-for-tat violence and applying justice and enforcing law and order. The rules change when there is an outright war scenario but there comes a point where people cannot be contained or rehabilitated and the only course left is to remove them from the world. This happened with the nazi ideology and needs to happen to this one. It will not be a loss. It will save lives, better lives, innocent lives.

  If you are on the battlefield, you should be a target. If you are trying to make the high-street your battleground then you should face the same reality. It is a cancer on society and we need to remove it. We should not be tolerant of the intolerant and allowing their cancer of hate to be spread.

  We just have to make sure that while doing all this we are not creating more injustice through heavy handed approaches. That's why the "carpet bomb" Cruz / Trump approach is so very, very wrong and incredibly dangerous. It plays completely into their hand and is typical of the christian extremists who are most likely to want an outright religious conflict.

  We need to contain and control the crazies in our own midst.
• 

  freemindfade

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D1sW7tu6-s

  enjoy
• 

  Caedes

  It is lone individuals with the vast majority law abiding citizens, hardly a force threatening the world or randomly butchering strangers or critics in the same way.

  That is exactly what you have in the muslim community the vast majority are law abiding citizens. The people who commit these acts are lone individuals with tenuous links to ISIS. There are plenty of doctors at abortion clinics who might have a different opinion about the dangers of christian extremists.

  There's a difference between tit-for-tat violence and applying justice and enforcing law and order. The rules change when there is an outright war scenario but there comes a point where people cannot be contained or rehabilitated and the only course left is to remove them from the world.

  I haven't disagreed that force is needed, I just disagree that the 'kill them all' rhetoric is helpful or conducive to defusing the situation. The situation is not outright war it's terrorism and the terrorists can merge back into the general population at a moments notice and we have no way to counter that short of genocide.
  
  
• 

  Simon

  That is exactly what you have in the muslim community the vast majority are law abiding citizens.

  No, far too many have leanings toward the extremism that is an inherent part of many versions of islam taught around the world. While the majority are not themselves violent, there seems to be enough cover provided for a sizeable number of radicals to exists in their ranks.

  To make it clearer - believing that it is right to execute homosexuals and voicing support for such things makes you an extremist regardless of whether you execute any yourself.

  It's only a combination of the extremes of ISIS and the noise of progressives that prevents many "mainstream" muslim regimes being rightly condemned as extreme. Too much relativism going on.

  I just disagree that the 'kill them all' rhetoric is helpful or conducive to defusing the situation. The situation is not outright war it's terrorism and the terrorists can merge back into the general population at a moments notice and we have no way to counter that short of genocide.

  No one had suggested genocide. I say kill them (the terrorists) when they are in the open and demand that cover not be provided to them when they are not. If a mosque turns out to be harbouring and allowing radicalism, then bulldoze it down. There is far too much treating the muslim religion as untouchable - it shouldn't be, especially if it can't keep it's house in order.

  The irony is of course that the Christian right will object to any action against any group calling themselves a religion rather than allow religion to be policed.