Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Are we doing enough to stop ISIS?

Are we doing enough to stop ISIS? (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 02:43 PM
 
Islam is a political system.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
*OAW has a conniption*
Islam is a lot of things to different people, get over it. You were wrong and you're having a stroke over it, now. A Christian minister, or maybe a couple counting some crazy Evangelicals, is happy about the shooting? Compared to 100s of millions of Muslims? Oh my!



Also, that effectively destroys your position, enjoy it (since you chose to ignore it the first time).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
*CTP persists in his foolishness*

.... since you chose to ignore it the first time.
Oh you mean like you just did regarding my post proving that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is NOT a "liberal Muslim" like you claimed but is in fact an avowed atheist going on 14+ years now? Imagine that.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 02:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Oh you mean like you just did regarding my post proving that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is NOT a "liberal Muslim" like you claimed but is in fact an avowed atheist going on 14+ years now? Imagine that.
She certainly is, and was familiar with the conservative aspects of Islam (the truly barbaric side) much longer than you.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 12:31 PM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 04:11 PM
 
More evidence that the "ISIS allegiance" claim may very well have been a cover ....

“Omar Mateen, the Muslim gunman who committed the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, was ‘100 percent’ gay and bore a grudge against Latino men because he felt used by them, according to a man who says he was his lover for two months,” Univision reported Tuesday.

“ ‘I’ve cried like you have no idea. But the thing that makes me want to tell the truth is that he didn’t do it for terrorism. In my opinion he did it for revenge,’ he told Univision Noticias anchor Maria Elena Salinas in an exclusive interview in English and Spanish on Tuesday.

“He said Mateen was angry and upset after a man he had sex with later revealed he was infected with the HIV virus.

“Asked why he decided to come forward with his story, he said: ‘It’s my responsibility as a citizen of the United States and a gay man.’ . . .”

The report also said, “The man, who did not want his true identity revealed, agreed to an interview wearing a disguise and calling himself Miguel. Speaking in fluent Spanish and accented English, he said he met Mateen last year through a gay dating site and began a relationship soon after. He and Mateen were ‘friends with benefits,’ he said. . . .”

The full interview is to air at 10 p.m. ET Friday, to be called “El Omar que yo conocí” (The Omar I Knew).”

Jose Zamora, Univision’s vice president, strategic communications, news, told Journal-isms by email Wednesday that the man “contacted Univision. We interviewed him and starting fact-checking and confirming everything he told us. We continue to investigate.”

He added, “We were able to confirm that he was interviewed by the FBI. There other things he told us. We have been fact-checking all of them and so far all of them check out.”

Since Mateen shot and killed 49 people at Pulse in the early hours of June 12, some critics have accused the news media of downplaying at various time gay and Latino identities of the victims, in favor of casting Mateen as a Muslim who stated allegiance to the Islamic State.

In his blog Wednesday, Allen Johnson, editorial page editor of the Greensboro (N.C.) News & Record, referred to the Univision interview and a report from CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton, who quoted an FBI agent saying that Mateen frequently used online dating sites to seek relationships with men and women.

“Some people have criticized Attorney General Loretta Lynch for saying we may never know for certain what motivated Mateen,” Johnson wrote.

“He mentioned ISIS, her critics say. So obviously it’s Islamic terrorism. Stop hedging.

“But it is not that simple.

“And I’m not sure ISIS now would want to take credit for his actions, given its neanderthal views of gay people.

“The Washington Post reports:

” ‘In a single day in September, the Islamic State killed nine men and a 15-year-old boy in a Syrian town who had been accused of sodomy. In January 2015, a media wing of the extremist group released images that appeared to show fighters pushing men accused of homosexuality off a building in the Iraqi city of Mosul. In July, two men suffered the same fate in the Syrian city of Palmyra, then controlled by the Islamic State. They were shoved off the roof of a hotel after an Islamic State official ruled that they must die.’ “
Gay Man Says Orlando Killer Sought Revenge

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 04:18 PM
 
It's not the radicals, it's Islam.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
More evidence that the "ISIS allegiance" claim may very well have been a cover ....



Gay Man Says Orlando Killer Sought Revenge

OAW
A cover for what?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
A cover for what?
His dangerous crack addiction.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 07:36 AM
 
The 9/11 hijackers were were fond of Jack Daniels and strip clubs. Maybe their imams told them the only way to redeem themselves was to fly planes into the WTC/Pentagon.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 11:51 PM
 


"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 06:37 PM
 
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jun 27, 2016 at 10:58 PM. )
     
Steve Wilkinson
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2016, 02:13 PM
 
I haven't read through the thread... but short answer, no.

Islam is a complicated religious/political/lifestyle system that you're not going to beat with military force. (Then, there's the issue of which ISIS we're talking about... the gov't overthrow brigade supported by the US State Dept? The pretend ISIS actors being used to scare people into supporting the industrial military complex (videos out of Bethesda MD)? Or, the real radical devotees to Islam engaged in jihad?)

Actual solutions are a combination of military force to keep certain threats minimized, along with political policy changes, AND the big one is more of a war of worldviews/religions. And, unfortunately, the West is less equipped on that latter one than it has been in many hundreds of years. In fact, the way things look currently, in the long term, I wouldn't doubt Islam succeeds in conjuring the West until someone, likely from a current 3rd world country comes and rescues us.
------
Steve Wilkinson
Web designer | Christian apologist
cgWerks | TilledSoil.org
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2016, 02:38 PM
 
Kerry says we're beating them. They are desperate. But, Kerry is an idiot.
     
Steve Wilkinson
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2016, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Kerry says we're beating them. They are desperate. But, Kerry is an idiot.
Yea, well which ISIS (as I said above). We could easily be 'beating' some of them, as we're in control of them and supplying them. We're certainly not beating the real ISIS, as we haven't even tried. We can barely even acknowledge they exist, and the powers that be don't seem to know anything about them or their motivations... we just hear poverty (even though we're purposely working to keep them impoverished, and the pesky fact that many of the terrorists have been quite well educated, successful people).
------
Steve Wilkinson
Web designer | Christian apologist
cgWerks | TilledSoil.org
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2016, 03:30 PM
 
The short form I got was the motivation behind the "real" ISIS is what it says on the tin. It's the Islamic State. The Koran says this is how the Islamic State is supposed to behave.

If they didn't behave that way, they'd lose claim to the title of being the Islamic State.
     
Steve Wilkinson
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2016, 03:47 PM
 
While yes, the religion and political system are a tightly-tied part of Islam, they also aren't (IMO) unified enough, beyond gov't political aspirations, or maybe better, reactions to the West. And, I agree that the behaviour of ISIS can certainly be tied to one interpretation of Islam (which I'd argue is the orthodox, historically grounded one), as much as I also want to recognize that there are many Muslims who disagree.

Just keep in mind that the great Islamic empires weren't really ISIS, nor where they liberal Western Muslims... they were kind of in-between.

But, from what I've seen, the USA's involvement with ISIS and war against them (again, which one?) is complex, with little understanding of what they are really up against (nor, the implications of what they are supporting to accomplish certain short-term goals).
------
Steve Wilkinson
Web designer | Christian apologist
cgWerks | TilledSoil.org
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2016, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Steve Wilkinson View Post
While yes, the religion and political system are a tightly-tied part of Islam, they also aren't (IMO) unified enough, beyond gov't political aspirations, or maybe better, reactions to the West. And, I agree that the behaviour of ISIS can certainly be tied to one interpretation of Islam (which I'd argue is the orthodox, historically grounded one), as much as I also want to recognize that there are many Muslims who disagree.

Just keep in mind that the great Islamic empires weren't really ISIS, nor where they liberal Western Muslims... they were kind of in-between.

But, from what I've seen, the USA's involvement with ISIS and war against them (again, which one?) is complex, with little understanding of what they are really up against (nor, the implications of what they are supporting to accomplish certain short-term goals).
Dr. Warner talks about the "Golden Age" in his update presentation. The "great Islamic empires" were worse than ISIS. Then again, ISIS is just getting started.


Original presentation
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2016, 10:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Steve Wilkinson View Post
While yes, the religion and political system are a tightly-tied part of Islam, they also aren't (IMO) unified enough, beyond gov't political aspirations, or maybe better, reactions to the West. And, I agree that the behaviour of ISIS can certainly be tied to one interpretation of Islam (which I'd argue is the orthodox, historically grounded one), as much as I also want to recognize that there are many Muslims who disagree.

Just keep in mind that the great Islamic empires weren't really ISIS, nor where they liberal Western Muslims... they were kind of in-between.
I'm a little confused.

Are there many Muslims who disagree in the "real" ISIS, or are you talking about the entire Muslim world?

WRT the great Islamic empires, I get the impression the "real" ISIS considers them to have been pretenders to the throne of the Islamic State... one of the reasons being not hardcore enough. I was told there's a lineage dealie-poo as well.
     
Steve Wilkinson
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2016, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Dr. Warner talks about the "Golden Age" in his update presentation. The "great Islamic empires" were worse than ISIS. Then again, ISIS is just getting started.
I mostly agree with what he's saying, but remember this is over many centuries. For example, those dots showing up are each 20 years. Chart the last 20 years, or the 20 years before, and we'd have tons of dots for battles representing all kinds of ideologies. It's kind of like when people talk about the miracles in the Bible or 'God of wrath' of the OT, but forget the timeframe involved (i.e.: miracles were rather rare, and some of the nations God judged literally had centuries to change their ways, etc.).

But, compared to many secular views of Islam and history, what he's saying is very much a needed correction. I also disagree with him a bit on the Crusades. He's comparing scale to scale, and in that regard, he's right (and from a political stance, the Crusades were well justified, and yes, a minor response). But, since they fell under 'in the name of Christianity' they don't fit the Christian worldview, especially when you realize the actual motivations, mentalities, and some of the things done that went beyond a defensive response.

Yet, jihad is historically (I'd say Islamic orthodoxy) fits well within the religious system of Islam. You have to go pretty liberal w/ some postmodern interpretation to get the 'religion of peace' thing.

The problem with ISIS (in comparison to the 'Golden Age') is that they are more renegade, and don't really follow Islam properly either... though I can't say how closely each army/battle did either. I'm pretty up on what Islam teaches, but not nearly as much the historical detail.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm a little confused. Are there many Muslims who disagree in the "real" ISIS, or are you talking about the entire Muslim world?
I'm probably not being clear enough. When I'm talking about real ISIS, I'm talking about actual devotees to Islam who are waging jihad against Western targets based on Islamic principals, or killing others they view as false religions/ideologies or non-true-Muslims, etc. Those people exist, and have for a long, long time. Some of them are trying to organize under what they see as a proper leader and authority, etc. (But, there's disagreement between the Islamic factions over leadership or lineage from Mohammad.)

Then there are Muslim rebel groups the US is propping up and supplying to accomplish various dirty-deeds in the M.E. (ex: overthrow Assad), some of whom would probably be considered part of ISIS.

Then there are the fake 'ISIS' folks used to make various scare videos to convince the US public and other concerned parties to support the industrial military complex and politicians to back the various wars and conflicts.

Then in regard to Muslims, just like Christians or most ideologies/religions, there are a number of types.

First, there are orthodox types that generally take a historical-grammatical approach, which tries to determine the meaning of the text based on what the author was communicating, which typically involves understanding the historical context (original audience), as well as genre (i.e.: teaching? poem? narrative? apocalyptic?)

Then, there is usually a more allegorical or spiritualized approach, trying to find a deeper or spiritual meaning in the text, rather than looking at it more literally. (Note: this is different than a liberal approach.)

There is usually a 'fundamentalist' branch that takes the doctrine very literally, in fact so literally that they often miss the context and genre and make the text say something it was never intended to mean by the original author.

And, finally there's a liberal progression where the meaning is determined by the reader (postmodern reader-responsive), or we can't know so we're at liberty to apply it to modern context as we see fit, etc. Usually this involves a kind of historical snobbery which doesn't take the original seriously... i.e.: we know better now... they were just men of their times, etc. And, then the religion is modified to meet a modern agenda.

There are also often a large group of each religion who just identify culturally, but don't truly practice the religion. However, they might support the views of the religion when it comes to political power, or identify as such when polled.

Most Muslims, like other religions, probably fall into that last category of cultural or nominal Muslims. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't back Islamic government, Shira law, oppose Western policies, etc.

But, I'd argue, that something more akin to ISIS is actually closer to orthodox Islam. The problem is that the rest of the Muslim world, whether they agree or not, is going to have a hard time arguing against that.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
WRT the great Islamic empires, I get the impression the "real" ISIS considers them to have been pretenders to the throne of the Islamic State... one of the reasons being not hardcore enough. I was told there's a lineage dealie-poo as well.
One of the big divisions within Islam is the view of who the successor leadership/spiritual lineage is from Muhammad.
------
Steve Wilkinson
Web designer | Christian apologist
cgWerks | TilledSoil.org
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2016, 07:43 AM
 
ISIS claims responsibility for Cafe attack.
Dhaka cafe standoff: At least 13 hostages rescued - CNN.com
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2016, 08:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Steve Wilkinson View Post
I mostly agree with what he's saying, but remember this is over many centuries. For example, those dots showing up are each 20 years. Chart the last 20 years, or the 20 years before, and we'd have tons of dots for battles representing all kinds of ideologies. It's kind of like when people talk about the miracles in the Bible or 'God of wrath' of the OT, but forget the timeframe involved (i.e.: miracles were rather rare, and some of the nations God judged literally had centuries to change their ways, etc.).

But, compared to many secular views of Islam and history, what he's saying is very much a needed correction. I also disagree with him a bit on the Crusades. He's comparing scale to scale, and in that regard, he's right (and from a political stance, the Crusades were well justified, and yes, a minor response). But, since they fell under 'in the name of Christianity' they don't fit the Christian worldview, especially when you realize the actual motivations, mentalities, and some of the things done that went beyond a defensive response.

Yet, jihad is historically (I'd say Islamic orthodoxy) fits well within the religious system of Islam. You have to go pretty liberal w/ some postmodern interpretation to get the 'religion of peace' thing.

The problem with ISIS (in comparison to the 'Golden Age') is that they are more renegade, and don't really follow Islam properly either... though I can't say how closely each army/battle did either. I'm pretty up on what Islam teaches, but not nearly as much the historical detail.



I'm probably not being clear enough. When I'm talking about real ISIS, I'm talking about actual devotees to Islam who are waging jihad against Western targets based on Islamic principals, or killing others they view as false religions/ideologies or non-true-Muslims, etc. Those people exist, and have for a long, long time. Some of them are trying to organize under what they see as a proper leader and authority, etc. (But, there's disagreement between the Islamic factions over leadership or lineage from Mohammad.)

Then there are Muslim rebel groups the US is propping up and supplying to accomplish various dirty-deeds in the M.E. (ex: overthrow Assad), some of whom would probably be considered part of ISIS.

Then there are the fake 'ISIS' folks used to make various scare videos to convince the US public and other concerned parties to support the industrial military complex and politicians to back the various wars and conflicts.

Then in regard to Muslims, just like Christians or most ideologies/religions, there are a number of types.

First, there are orthodox types that generally take a historical-grammatical approach, which tries to determine the meaning of the text based on what the author was communicating, which typically involves understanding the historical context (original audience), as well as genre (i.e.: teaching? poem? narrative? apocalyptic?)

Then, there is usually a more allegorical or spiritualized approach, trying to find a deeper or spiritual meaning in the text, rather than looking at it more literally. (Note: this is different than a liberal approach.)

There is usually a 'fundamentalist' branch that takes the doctrine very literally, in fact so literally that they often miss the context and genre and make the text say something it was never intended to mean by the original author.

And, finally there's a liberal progression where the meaning is determined by the reader (postmodern reader-responsive), or we can't know so we're at liberty to apply it to modern context as we see fit, etc. Usually this involves a kind of historical snobbery which doesn't take the original seriously... i.e.: we know better now... they were just men of their times, etc. And, then the religion is modified to meet a modern agenda.

There are also often a large group of each religion who just identify culturally, but don't truly practice the religion. However, they might support the views of the religion when it comes to political power, or identify as such when polled.

Most Muslims, like other religions, probably fall into that last category of cultural or nominal Muslims. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't back Islamic government, Shira law, oppose Western policies, etc.

But, I'd argue, that something more akin to ISIS is actually closer to orthodox Islam. The problem is that the rest of the Muslim world, whether they agree or not, is going to have a hard time arguing against that.



One of the big divisions within Islam is the view of who the successor leadership/spiritual lineage is from Muhammad.
This is all good information, but there are still two things I'm confused on.

IIUC, the goal of this discussion is to nail down the "real" ISIS. Something like postmodern, reader-responsive Islam is basically the opposite of what we're trying to nail down. You're making a point here, but my skull is too thick for it to penetrate.

The other has to do with (again, IIUC) the distinction between "garden variety" jihadists, who as you say have always existed, and ISIS jihadists. Isn't the distinction the claim the ISIS jihadist can make to being part of the one legit Islamic State?

You mentioned earlier the component of (presumably the "real") ISIS who are educated and well off. Isn't it the perceived legitimacy of this particular incarnation of the Islamic State which they find so attractive?

I get the impression all the other countries in the Middle East, by virtue of playing the "country" game, have lost their claim to being the Islamic State. From what I understand (have I hedged my bets enough at this point? ) that's what makes the "real" ISIS so damn popular. As you said, if people were merely interested in jihad, there were already plenty of places to go where it gets state support. The difference with the "real" ISIS is for the first time in living memory there's a real Islamic State to be part of.

AFAIK.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2016, 03:16 PM
 
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2016, 09:57 PM
 
What can Europe reasonably do about these guys though?

One of the knife attackers had an 'S file' or whatever they are called. We can't just lock up any muslim who visits Syria for the rest of his life. Locking them up at all (especially in France) seems to make them worse.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2016, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
What can Europe reasonably do about these guys though?

One of the knife attackers had an 'S file' or whatever they are called. We can't just lock up any muslim who visits Syria for the rest of his life. Locking them up at all (especially in France) seems to make them worse.
We need to find a way to cut them off at the source. There's no simple answer here. IMO, it's basically the result of the world getting smaller and violent, authoritarian shitholes spilling their dirty laundry across borders that were once much harder to cross.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:43 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,