Here's Everything You Need To Know About I.s.i.s

[EconChick]

I was going to post this as a separate thread but it appears to fit here as a reply to the OP

Islamic State – How Can It NOT Be Islamic?


I wish someone would answer that question. Why do I ask? Simple. We have:


Videos of IS “officials” going through marketplaces and shops telling merchants they must shut down to attend prayers.


IS “officials” gathering up books, magazines, pamphlets, and other periodicals and tossing them into piles in the street and burning them. [Shades of Nazi Germany and Communist Europe]


Women and men wearing western clothing are ordered to remove and destroy them. Failure to do so to results in horrible punishments. Same clothing torn to shreds and tossed into piles for rags.


Public punishment such as throwing acid in a woman's face for looking at a man other than her husband. Removal of hands for stealing. Public rapine of women and girls considered to be “loose”.


Destruction of entire legal systems to be replaced by religious leaders handing out unappeasable decisions based upon “Islamic [Sharia] Law”


If this isn't “Islamic” than what is?


According to Repsac3, Accusing Any Muslim of Honor Killing, No Matter the Circumstances, Makes You Guilty of 'Bigotry' @ American Power According to Repsac3 Accusing Any Muslim of Honor Killing No Matter the Circumstances Makes You Guilty of Bigotry


The Pillars of Arab Despotism @ The Pillars of Arab Despotism by Robert F. Worth The New York Review of Books

THAT IS OFF TOPIC.

Read the article, please. Your talking points aimed at influencing the US midterms are not related to the thread.

Of course the question of whether ISIS is Islamic is related to an ISIS thread. I think you fail to grasp the topic.

 

[EconChick]

Shoot, thought I was logged in while typing and all my analysis went into a black hole, darn it.

I HATE IT when that happens!!!

I know, it's like ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. LOL.

 

[EconChick]

Hell our president won't even admit that ISIS is Islamic. With that kind of approach we have NO CHANCE of dealing with them.

I almost bazooka barfed when I heard the talking point from Obama AND Cameron was that ISIS wasn't Islamic.

Aye carumba! They sure as hell aren't Presbyterians.

LOL, Bazooka barfed. Can I borrow that, TD?

 

[Rikurzhen]

The second prong is the 'war" for the hearts and minds of normal average Muslims. This is a propaganda war and it needs to be funded by governments and it must use the talents of normal average Muslims to demonstrate that life does not need to be one of constant strife. Your neighbor might not be Shiia or Sunni like you but he is still your neighbor. You both live in the same town, buy food and clothes in the same shops and read the same books. Your children will play soccer together. What divides you is not as important as what you share as humans. The internet is the tool to use to spread this message and we know it works because it helped in the Arab Spring

You're as deluded as the idiot neocons. You don't know the region, the culture nor the religion and you wish to impose your nonsensical "kumbaya" visions onto people. My suggestion is that you, like Claire Chennault, put together a volunteer group, say the 59th Airborne Division of Atheists, and drop into the region and implement your vision of reform. Bore these people into submission.

This is a wholly Western-Liberal viewpoint on how a society, and people, functions. It is based on a universalist philosophy. That universalism has not been empirically supported.

Pastor Rikurzhen has arrived to spread the sacred Gospel of Conservatism that will be the Savior of the Entire Western World.

Listen carefully, children, to the wise Pastor Rikurzhen because he has been blessed with a special power to see religions where no one else can see them. The voices in his head are directly from God and must be revered by all.

Pastor Rikurzhen is the "Chosen One" who can do no wrong!

So, you got caught with your pants down, a truly horrible vision for us, and now embarrassed, you have no response to the criticism.

The Neocons tried to do what you suggested, they tried to plant a Westernist mindset into the people of Iraq. It failed to take root. Go live in the region and learn how society functions there. It'll be a good experience for you. There are still some countries that are not yet ripped by war.

A fundamental truth is that in order to solve a problem one must first understand the problem. What you're doing is imposing a normative vision of how you think people SHOULD conduct themselves onto a situation and then proposing a solution which works in alignment with that vision. This approach only guarantees failure.

Keep your faith out of your analysis.

Rik you're my bud so let's keep this civil. I spent a lot of time living in the Middle East and in Iraq in particular. Changes did NOT fail to take root. No one was ever trying to make it an American Democracy. Representative government with an Iraqi flavor is more like it.

I worked closely with Iraqis in every part of the country. Each pocket was different. I sound like I'm repeating myself on threads but I was there before the surge...for 12 straight months....then during...and then after. I could fill a book with the changes I saw. There were plenty of people there that welcomed us. There was progress on many fronts. On other fronts there was little progress. But by the time we left there, Iraq was in relatively good shape and I'll argue that with anyone from now until eternity, including military folks who disagree with me. Most military units were confined to certain areas of the country. That means they weren't afforded an opportunity to assess the entire country.

There was still plenty work to be done, but there's not a doubt in my mind ISIS would not have reached this level of power had we stayed.

I was never in Iraq but I've worked in many countries in the Middle East, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. I have a pretty good basis for understanding the people, the religion, their mindsets, and the various cultures. I have no hesitation in stating that they don't think like Westerners.

I'm going to agree with you that if the US had stayed ISIS wouldn't have developed as it had. I assign a very high probability to that outcome. The problem is that having the US there for the next 100 years is not a feasible strategy. That change that we're talking about arose due to American suppression of the cultural currents. How can I argue that? Because our absence shows that the change wasn't permanent. It's like telling your kids to eat their broccoli, you can force them but as soon as you give them a choice, they won't eat it.

As for the people who welcomed you, I think you're reading too much into what you see because you don't know why they welcomed you. Love of Liberty and an appreciation for the American way is probably down at the bottom of the list. Thinking that they could advantage themselves somehow was probably high on the list.

 

[Jroc]

This article is phenomenal. By far the most comprehensive and informative article ever written on ISIS without the filter of the main stream media.

Great read..

The War Nerd

Who is this genius again?....Not quit sure why you give this guy any credibility on anything?..I'm baffled actually

Other than the Steve Paulson interview, the only non-eXile source of information about Brecher is an email interview with him conducted by Steve Sailer and published by United Press International.[4] The image at the top of each War Nerd column supposedly representing Brecher is actually that of Roger Edvardsen of the Norwegian rhythm & blues band Ehem.[5]

Brecher claims to have been born in 1965 and to have attended community college after high school, dropping out before graduating.[6] He claims to be employed as a data entry clerk in Fresno, California and deeply unsatisfied with his job.[7] Around that time he met Mark Ames, editor of the Moscow-based, English language newspaper the eXile, who offered Brecher a column. He wrote in his first eXile column that life in Fresno is a "death sentence" and that he spends 15 hours a day in front of a computer ("6 or 7 hours entering civilian numbers for the paycheck and the rest surfing the war news"). The War Nerd has since established a large following of its own, and Brecher's work is a regular subject in the eXile's letters to editor.

No one outside of the eXile has proven any direct interaction with Gary Brecher. Brecher's reclusive nature and the lack of information about him have raised speculation (e.g. during his email interview with Sailer) that Brecher is a pseudonym for another eXile contributor. The use of invented characters is not unprecedented for the eXile

Gary Brecher - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[tinydancer]

Hell our president won't even admit that ISIS is Islamic. With that kind of approach we have NO CHANCE of dealing with them.

I almost bazooka barfed when I heard the talking point from Obama AND Cameron was that ISIS wasn't Islamic.

Aye carumba! They sure as hell aren't Presbyterians.

LOL, Bazooka barfed. Can I borrow that, TD?

You bettcha!

 

[jon_berzerk]

The roots of ISIS can be found in the fundamentalist Wahabbist movement that began in Saudi Arabia around the time the British were partitioning the middle east. Essentially they are no different to any of the other extremist groups like Al Queda that are also based in Wahabbism.

It is a fallacy to believe that you can "defeat" a religion by warmongering. You cannot kill an idea. To this day there are still those who believe that Nazism is the only way the world should be. However they are marginalized and treated with the scorn and derision they deserve.

That is not as easy with those who are willing to die for their extreme fundamentalist beliefs and kill innocent women and children in the process. So there needs to be a two pronged approach to dealing with them. One is definitely based in the military but that must be composed of those who have the most to lose under an extremist cult. If they won't fight for their freedom then there is no reason why anyone else should do so on their behalf in my opinion.

The second prong is the 'war" for the hearts and minds of normal average Muslims. This is a propaganda war and it needs to be funded by governments and it must use the talents of normal average Muslims to demonstrate that life does not need to be one of constant strife. Your neighbor might not be Shiia or Sunni like you but he is still your neighbor. You both live in the same town, buy food and clothes in the same shops and read the same books. Your children will play soccer together. What divides you is not as important as what you share as humans. The internet is the tool to use to spread this message and we know it works because it helped in the Arab Spring.

Using both approaches the extremists like ISIS are seen for what they really are, a threat to the peace and stability of the lives of ordinary people. Once it becomes apparent that they are can be beaten they no longer be allowed to intimidate without repercussions. They will be marginalized and ridiculed and if they commit atrocities tried and jailed.

Failure to use both approaches guarantees that the outcome will be the same as always. Do it right this time or don't do it at all in my opinion.

You have a good argument, and perhaps it could work.

However I disagree that you cannot defeat a religion by war. We did it in World War II by totally defeating Shinto extremism. Remember the Banzai? The Rape of Nanking? Not too much difference between Shinto extremism and Islamic extremism. We did this by employing total warfare. We leveled entire cities, and used nuclear power.

Then, after we utterly defeated them militarily, we forcefully changed their culture. General MacArthur was effectively the military Governor. For the next five years we had 350,000 soldiers in Japan enforcing General MacArthur's rule. We outlawed their flag, their nationalism, their extremism. We taught western values in their schools. We broke them so badly that they relied upon us to feed them. We jailed any opposition, and we controlled the press.

We could do the same thing with ISIS, and Islamic extremism in general. We could triple the size of our military, invade (again), blow up many mosques, put observers in the rest of the mosques to ensure they only taught "approved" ideology, outlaw extremism, totally disarm the population, make the population totally dependent upon us for food, water, and electricity, take over the schools to ensure that western values are taught, etc.

It would take 5-10 years of hard-core military occupation, followed by another 10-20 years of slow withdrawal, but we COULD defeat their religious extremism.

However I disagree that you cannot defeat a religion by war.

over the past 1400 years that is the only thing that has stopped their aggression

violence is the only language they understand

until we come to terms with that fact this sort of conduct

will continue and worsen

 

[flacaltenn]

From the article...

ISIS went through a lot of commanders before one stuck. He was a product of Islamic schools and US prison camps. He called himself Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, which means exactly nothing except that he’s claiming to be from Baghdad. He got out of prison in 2009 and walked into a leadership vacuum created by an airstrike which killed his predecessor—nothing like airstrikes to make room at the top—and oversaw ISIS’s move away from pressure once again, out of the cities toward the deserts of Anbar Province where Sunni sheikhs maintained strong clan networks. It wasn’t much, but it was a safe base, and that’s something any mixed militia/guerrilla force requires.

You cannot understand the total clusterfuck of US policy without realizing that NOBODY KNOWS the real conditions under which Al Baghdadi was released. PRESUMABLY because this Admin wasn't into sending anyone else to Camp Gitmo AND/OR because of our embarrassments at Abu Graibh with a few deviant military cops, we turned over too much decision making to Iraqis.. And they WERE given charge of (I guess) everyone taken off the battlefield INCLUDING those with KNOWN AL-Queda ties like this gorilla. Isn't that WHY we went in there?

To take Al Queda off the battlefield? Outrageous that we let him go. IRONIC if the IRAQIS released the very guy that turns Iraq into his Caliphate.. And we want MORE of this policy?

Now -- we hear that we're gonna sort the good guys from the bad guys in Syria BY DOING FREAKING BACKGROUND CHECKS on them.. The incompetence, arrogance and cluelessness is just breath-taking.. Thanks for the article..

 

[Rikurzhen]

until we come to terms with that fact this sort of conduct

will continue and worsen

Why is this our problem and not the problem of Muslims in the region? Why does American blood and treasure need to be wasted to save the blood and treasure of Muslims? Why are you so willing to send American boys to die to save the lives of Muslims in societies which wish us ill. Are you willing to go or send your son to the firing line?

This is a never ending game of whack-a-mole and we're never going to win it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

until we come to terms with that fact this sort of conduct

will continue and worsen

Why is this our problem and not the problem of Muslims in the region? Why does American blood and treasure need to be wasted to save the blood and treasure of Muslims? Why are you so willing to send American boys to die to save the lives of Muslims in societies which wish us ill. Are you willing to go or send your son to the firing line?

This is a never ending game of whack-a-mole and we're never going to win it.

the way it has been done is whack a mole

whack a mole does not work

you have to lay ruin to the area

for them to get the message

if i was in charge

everyone in the newly formed Islamic State with a firearm

or other arm would be targeted

which could be done mostly from the air

 

[jon_berzerk]

From the article...

ISIS went through a lot of commanders before one stuck. He was a product of Islamic schools and US prison camps. He called himself Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, which means exactly nothing except that he’s claiming to be from Baghdad. He got out of prison in 2009 and walked into a leadership vacuum created by an airstrike which killed his predecessor—nothing like airstrikes to make room at the top—and oversaw ISIS’s move away from pressure once again, out of the cities toward the deserts of Anbar Province where Sunni sheikhs maintained strong clan networks. It wasn’t much, but it was a safe base, and that’s something any mixed militia/guerrilla force requires.

You cannot understand the total clusterfuck of US policy without realizing that NOBODY KNOWS the real conditions under which Al Baghdadi was released. PRESUMABLY because this Admin wasn't into sending anyone else to Camp Gitmo AND/OR because of our embarrassments at Abu Graibh with a few deviant military cops, we turned over too much decision making to Iraqis.. And they WERE given charge of (I guess) everyone taken off the battlefield INCLUDING those with KNOWN AL-Queda ties like this gorilla. Isn't that WHY we went in there?

To take Al Queda off the battlefield? Outrageous that we let him go. IRONIC if the IRAQIS released the very guy that turns Iraq into his Caliphate.. And we want MORE of this policy?

Now -- we hear that we're gonna sort the good guys from the bad guys in Syria BY DOING FREAKING BACKGROUND CHECKS on them.. The incompetence, arrogance and cluelessness is just breath-taking.. Thanks for the article..

ridiculous

 

[Rikurzhen]

until we come to terms with that fact this sort of conduct

will continue and worsen

Why is this our problem and not the problem of Muslims in the region? Why does American blood and treasure need to be wasted to save the blood and treasure of Muslims? Why are you so willing to send American boys to die to save the lives of Muslims in societies which wish us ill. Are you willing to go or send your son to the firing line?

This is a never ending game of whack-a-mole and we're never going to win it.

the way it has been done is whack a mole

whack a mole does not work

you have to lay ruin to the area

for them to get the message

if i was in charge

everyone in the newly formed Islamic State with a firearm

or other arm would be targeted

which could be done mostly from the air

This Islamic expansion has been going on for 1,400 years, so even if you could mange to kill every man with a rifle in the Syria-Iraq area, what are you going to do about mothers raising their sons to avenge their deaths of their fathers or young men who weren't carrying a rifle becoming radicalized at what they see as your efforts to destroy Islam?

 

[jon_berzerk]

until we come to terms with that fact this sort of conduct

will continue and worsen

Why is this our problem and not the problem of Muslims in the region? Why does American blood and treasure need to be wasted to save the blood and treasure of Muslims? Why are you so willing to send American boys to die to save the lives of Muslims in societies which wish us ill. Are you willing to go or send your son to the firing line?

This is a never ending game of whack-a-mole and we're never going to win it.

the way it has been done is whack a mole

whack a mole does not work

you have to lay ruin to the area

for them to get the message

if i was in charge

everyone in the newly formed Islamic State with a firearm

or other arm would be targeted

which could be done mostly from the air

This Islamic expansion has been going on for 1,400 years, so even if you could mange to kill every man with a rifle in the Syria-Iraq area, what are you going to do about mothers raising their sons to avenge their deaths of their fathers or young men who weren't carrying a rifle becoming radicalized at what they see as your efforts to destroy Islam?

are you saying isis is situation normal for Islam

 

[Rikurzhen]

until we come to terms with that fact this sort of conduct

will continue and worsen

Why is this our problem and not the problem of Muslims in the region? Why does American blood and treasure need to be wasted to save the blood and treasure of Muslims? Why are you so willing to send American boys to die to save the lives of Muslims in societies which wish us ill. Are you willing to go or send your son to the firing line?

This is a never ending game of whack-a-mole and we're never going to win it.

the way it has been done is whack a mole

whack a mole does not work

you have to lay ruin to the area

for them to get the message

if i was in charge

everyone in the newly formed Islamic State with a firearm

or other arm would be targeted

which could be done mostly from the air

This Islamic expansion has been going on for 1,400 years, so even if you could mange to kill every man with a rifle in the Syria-Iraq area, what are you going to do about mothers raising their sons to avenge their deaths of their fathers or young men who weren't carrying a rifle becoming radicalized at what they see as your efforts to destroy Islam?

are you saying isis is situation normal for Islam

I'm saying that it's a means to an end. I'm saying that the tactics being used are not new, they were famously used by Abd al-Wahhab back in the 19th Century.

Among the most atrocious acts committed in modern Islamic history has been the sack of Karbala in 1802. Unfortunately, this remains a little known fact to most Muslims. However, at a time when the cultural and religious heritage of the Muslim world is once against under severe threat, when shrines and mosques are bulldozed by the self-styled holy warriors and caliphs of our time, it remains more essential than ever to familiarize ourselves with these historical events. It is crucial to note that the Wahhabis—not unlike modern-day militants—were inspired by a mix of religious zeal and a desire for wealth. By 1802, the Wahhabi-Saudi state had seized control of the vast majority of the Arabian peninsula and even managed to raid into southern Iraq, then under Ottoman control. One of the worst massacres was committed at Karbala in April 1802, right before the beginning of the holy month of Muharram, during the pilgrimage to the shrine of Imam al-Husayn b. Ali (d. 680). The following are two accounts, one by an eyewitness, a non-Muslim Frenchmen, and the other by a Wahhabi propagandist writing in Arabia during the eighteenth century.

That day came at last…12,000 Wahhabis suddenly attacked the mosque of Imam Husayn; after seizing more spoils than they had ever seized after their greatest victories, they put everything to fire and sword…The elderly, women, and children—everybody died by the barbarians’ sword. Besides, it is said that whenever they saw a pregnant woman, they disemboweled her and left the fetus on the mother’s bleeding corpse. Their cruelty could not be satisfied, they did not cease their murders and blood flowed like water. As a result of the bloody catastrophe, more than 4000 people perished. The Wahhabis carried off their plunder on the backs of 4000 camels. After the plunder and murders they destroyed the Imam’s shrine and converted it into a trench of abomination and blood. They inflicted the greatest damage on the minarets and the domes, believing those structures were made of gold bricks.” [Rosseau, Description, pp. 74–75]
​

This is how you build a nation in Islam. Islam is a religion of war, it's a religion of war against factions too. Look at Islamic expansion. Spain, Constantinople, there's a reason that 99.8% of the population of Muslim nations is Islamic.

We can't stamp this out, too many Muslims want a society ordered on Islamic principles. These western influenced nations, Syria arising from the French Mandate certainly qualifies, are a model that they reject.

Think of what is going on as communists trying to design their own societies. The Soviets launched the Holodomor and the Gulags, the Chinese had their Great Leap Forward, the Cambodians had their Killing Fields and they all realized that they needed to spill blood in order to make their perfect societies. The principal reason that we're no longer seeing national revolts and adoption of communism is that everyone, including the freaky leftists in the West, have seen the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of communism. Muslims aren't at that stage with respect to their dreams of an Islamic-ordered world, they dream of a Caliphate and that dream will never, ever, die so long as it's suppressed, especially when it's suppressed by the Great Satan, America.

What Islam desperately needs is a revolt from within - Muslims have to rise and fight against ISIS and prevail and thereafter use a victory to launch an Islamic Reformation and to cast off 7th Century barbarity. This is THEIR BATTLE, NOT OURS. Here, take a look through this window into a different society:

The Sakina Campaign plans to carry out a scientific survey to determine the position of the Saudi public on the "caliphate" announced by the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. This comes after the results of an opinion poll of Saudis were released on social networking sites, claiming that 92% of the target group believes that "IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law."
​

Think of this like a cross between a civil war and a regional war. We don't want to get sucked into the maw here. We had our Civil War and it resolved our differences, but imagine how that event would have played out if foreign nations had picked sides and sent troops and warships and actively engaged. The ramifications of such actions would very likely still be influencing our foreign policy today. Look at our interactions with Iran today, ever since we had the CIA overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953:

"The '28 Mordad' coup, as it is known by its Persian date [in the Solar Hijri calendar], was a watershed for Iran, for the Middle East and for the standing of the United States in the region. The joint U.S.-British operation ended Iran's drive to assert sovereign control over its own resources and helped put an end to a vibrant chapter in the history of the country's nationalist and democratic movements. These consequences resonated with dramatic effect in later years. When the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-year reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians.
​

The simple point here is that This Is Not Any Of Our Business.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Here's a UK article. It pays, in my mind, to heed the advice of those who know history, the religion, and culture of the region rather than bomb-happy neocons and loopy liberals who want to democratize the Middle East:

To hawkish right-wingers, but also to many militant liberals, the antidote to the problem of Isis is clear: the application of military power to defeat the jihadists and lay the foundation for a humane and stable political order, beginning in Iraq but eventually extending across the Islamic world.

There are several problems with this analysis. For starters, it glosses over the fact that military power in the form of the 2003 Anglo-American invasion created the opening for the jihadists in the first place. Where there had been stability, US and British forces sowed the seeds of anarchy. The so-called ‘Islamic State’ whose forces in recent weeks have spread havoc across Iraq represents the most recent manifestation of this phenomenon. In short, as far as violent Islamic radicalism was concerned, the putative American solution has exacerbated rather than reduced the problem.

When he ascended to the presidency, Barack Obama seemed to get that. Yet even as he fulfilled his promise to withdraw US forces from Iraq, his efforts to devise a policy toward the Islamic world based on something other than invasion and occupation came up short.

Obama’s failure stemmed from myriad causes, not least of them developments in the region that his administration did not anticipate and could not control. In Syria, Libya, Egypt, and now in Iraq itself, events and their consequences have time and again caught Washington by surprise. . . .

Militarists take a certain satisfaction in the evident collapse of Obama’s efforts to end the Iraq war. If they have any complaint, it’s that the President was too slow to pull the trigger and ought to widen the US target array. Even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now positioning herself for a presidential run, is signalling her appetite for more vigorous action, for example against Syria’s Assad regime.

To what end? Apart from mounting resistance to the ‘Islamic State’ — a force of perhaps 10,000 fighters lacking either an air force or a navy yet said to threaten the world’s only superpower — what is America’s strategic objective? The answer is that there is none. For the US, military action has become a substitute for strategy, indeed, for acknowledging the fact that nearly a quarter-century of military involvement in Iraq and in the Middle East more generally has produced next to nothing of value. Only the naive, the obtuse or the dishonest will believe (or profess to believe) that trying harder has the slightest chance of producing a different and more favourable outcome.

The United States and its European allies do not possess the wit nor the will nor the might to fix whatever it is that ails much of the Islamic world. This is the principal lesson that the long Iraq war has to teach. The beginning of wisdom lies in recognising that fact.
​

Read the rest at the website.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Great article! Two points to think about though. In the 3 months since the article was published, ISIS has become ultra-rich and secondly, they have been embraced by Hamas and others.

Yet they still have faced no real opposition and only succeed like the article says, Where there is a power vacuum.

That's true and at this point I believe they could be eradicated by one U.S. Army division. And that's only if the campaign was managed by the Army and not by Obamessiah and his hordes of "yes men."

Put 1st Cav on their asses......30 days max.

Garry Owen!

Agreed! Garry Owen could use the help of at least a company of Devil Dogs to whup those suckers in no time flat. Semper Fi!

The same sad jingoistic claptrap that won the Vietnam War......for the Vietnamese.

 

[Plasmaball]

Good read, basically saying we should let things play out....boots on the ground is stupid and you will never crush these people into submission like one moron here suggested..

 

[Derideo_Te]

Pastor Rikurzhen might believe that he understands the problem but he fails to comprehend that he is part of the problem himself. Yes, ISIS and Al Queda stem from the same Wahabbist root of militant Islamism. And it is a fallacy to believe that they can be defeated by military might alone. Laying everything to waste as Jon_Berzerk suggests makes us no better than them.

Repeating the same military intervention policies of the past are doomed to failed as the OP and many other posters have pointed out and I agree that we must break the cycle.

So I am going to digress and use an analogy here for the sake of clarifying what is happening and how it can be stopped. When I arrived at USMB there was a Rep system in place that was controlled by one segment of the posters and they used it as a weapon of intimidation and oppression. They bludgeoned anyone who dared to speak out against their own beliefs and rewarded those that agreed with them. That was the existing culture.

Then a group of what Pastor Rikurzhen labels as "evil libruls" started gaining rep and instead of playing the intimidation and repression game with rep they started sharing it with everyone, regardless of their positions. They treated all voices equally and rewarded everyone for participating and speaking out. The power of rep to intimidate and oppress waned and was falling away.

Then rep was taken away entirely when the new format was introduced but there was still the "Disagree" option and those who had used Rep as a weapon in the past to oppress and intimidate jumped on that and tried to use that instead. But the powers that be stepped in and took that away because they didn't want to see a repeat of what had happened before. Today everyone is equal in USMB and if you want to disagree you have to be able to express yourself and make your point in a valid and substantive manner.

What ISIS is doing is the same as what was happening with Rep only they are using guns to oppress and intimidate those they want to subjugate to their beliefs. They are a minority and their power comes from their ability to use violence rather than persuasion.

The way to defeat ISIS is to not only take away their guns but also their beliefs. And you do that by providing the oppressed with the power to express their own voices and alternative beliefs. You empower the oppressed by making them aware that they are not alone but are actually the majority. They have a right to be free of oppression and intimidation.

The quickest and easiest way to make that happen is to provide them with access to the internet and to use that as the means to show how other Muslims are living in peace and prosperity without oppression and intimidation. Yes, they have their own culture and that is not going to change but they are just as human as we are and motivated by the same desires for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So it is just a matter of getting that message through to millions of Muslims that they don't have to live under the oppression of extremist Wahabbists, they do have another option, they can throw off the yoke and think for themselves.

In WW2 listening to the BBC in occupied Europe would result in being thrown in a concentration camp. Today we can spread the voice of freedom via the internet instead. We can break the cycle of religious intimidation and oppression by looking for ways to demonstrate that life can be better for everyone once we embrace what is good and reject that which harms us all.

The solution here is to beat the concept of oppression with the ideas of liberty, freedom and the rights of all mankind. You cannot kill an idea, good or bad, but when the children of the Middle East learn of the good ideas of freedom and liberty they will want them just as we do rather than the bad ideas of oppression. This is a long term strategy but it was always worked in the past and it will work if we are willing to put aside our blinders and adopt the pragmatism that is necessary to do what is right not just for the oppressed, but for ourselves too, since it is the right thing for us to do.

 

[BullKurtz]

Great article! Two points to think about though. In the 3 months since the article was published, ISIS has become ultra-rich and secondly, they have been embraced by Hamas and others.

Yet they still have faced no real opposition and only succeed like the article says, Where there is a power vacuum.

That's true and at this point I believe they could be eradicated by one U.S. Army division. And that's only if the campaign was managed by the Army and not by Obamessiah and his hordes of "yes men."

Put 1st Cav on their asses......30 days max.

Garry Owen!

Agreed! Garry Owen could use the help of at least a company of Devil Dogs to whup those suckers in no time flat. Semper Fi!

The same sad jingoistic claptrap that won the Vietnam War......for the Vietnamese.

The word "jingoistic" is straight out of Mao's little red book....you've made clear who and what you are. As to "winning in Vietnam", other than a couple fiascoes because of Washington interfering, we beat the living shit out of the NVA and VC whenever they stood and fought us. We didn't lose in Vietnam....we left the fight thanks to your ilk convincing the public communist monsters like Ho and Giap were warm and cozy "nationalists" who just wanted to run their own country. Their minions killed more Vietnamese then we did.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Yet they still have faced no real opposition and only succeed like the article says, Where there is a power vacuum.

That's true and at this point I believe they could be eradicated by one U.S. Army division. And that's only if the campaign was managed by the Army and not by Obamessiah and his hordes of "yes men."

Put 1st Cav on their asses......30 days max.

Garry Owen!

Agreed! Garry Owen could use the help of at least a company of Devil Dogs to whup those suckers in no time flat. Semper Fi!

The same sad jingoistic claptrap that won the Vietnam War......for the Vietnamese.

The word "jingoistic" is straight out of Mao's little red book....you've made clear who and what you are. As to "winning in Vietnam", other than a couple fiascoes because of Washington interfering, we beat the living shit out of the NVA and VC whenever they stood and fought us. We didn't lose in Vietnam....we left the fight thanks to your ilk convincing the public communist monsters like Ho and Giap were warm and cozy "nationalists" who just wanted to run their own country. Their minions killed more Vietnamese then we did.

There there drink some milk and eat your cookie