Iraq militants seize Mosul

[notorious bum]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Claiming Isis represents Islam is like claiming to the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-10053572.html


edit: also, I really hope the above post was a joke lol

[Andalusian girls]

The Atlantic put out a really good article the other day on ISIS and its goals.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-wants/384980/

A+ would read again

[Stromgarde]

edit: also, I really hope the above post was a joke lol

Not really, what are you taking issue with?

[notorious bum]

How is that redundant ME ideology any different than the political commentary offered by paid war hawks on CNN/Fox? I actually hated myself for reading it about halfway through, and I know I wasn't the only one. I guess my post with Kareem's take completely wooshed. Here's an article I just read that sums it up better: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/...ng-isis-islam/

[notorious bum]

Sorry for the double, but had an amazing late night reading session that ended with this interview. Can never learn enough from the Chomsky.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/16/noam..._isis_partner/

[Stromgarde]

I see your point about 'real Muslims' and gross generalizations present in the article. I would say that it is inaccurate to say that ISIS isn't Islam not because they're batshit crazy and 99.9% of Muslims would agree, but because their entire platform is Islamic fascism, and right now they are trying their best to emulate 7th century style conquest. Much as I hate to disagree with Kareem, he's wrong about ISIS being simply comprised with people just looking for a justification to commit violence. They care a great deal about being 'in the right' by the Koran and other secondary texts, to the point where they have a staff of Islamic scholars busy justifying everything they do by historic example. They want to ignore literally the entire past millennium of history and scholarship w/r/t the Turkish Caliphate etc; because the Turkish Caliphate did not fully implement Sharia, they do not see it as legitimate. Also problematic is that they, as a fundamental tenet of their existence, reject the modern model of international diplomacy and are only interested in conquest and forcing surrender; being an apocalyptic cult, there won't be any negotiating with them.

Diane Rehm did a segment the other day with Graeme as well as Akbar Ahmed, an Islamic scholar and James Jeffrey, a former ambassador in a roundtable on this subject which was another good analysis.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/20...threat-of-isis

[thetruepandagod]

ISIS taking to the seas like it's warcraft 2 up in here.

https://twitter.com/pzfeed/status/568473614267363328






Red is internationally recognized govt led by Gen. Haftar
Green is Libyan Dawn/Muslim Brotherhood/Allied militias
Black is Isis (Ansar as-shariah)

Green and Black have been shown to cooperate in several towns they control

[thetruepandagod]

All these fools got nicer cleaner cars than me, ain't even no infidel blood on the hoods.

[notorious bum]

I'm saying lol I saw a pic yesterday with them riding in gold painted Ranges or something, trying to stunt on America.

[Kuya]

The Atlantic put out a really good article the other day on ISIS and its goals.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-wants/384980/

How is that redundant ME ideology any different than the political commentary offered by paid war hawks on CNN/Fox? I actually hated myself for reading it about halfway through, and I know I wasn't the only one. I guess my post with Kareem's take completely wooshed. Here's an article I just read that sums it up better: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/...ng-isis-islam/

I read both articles and i think the thinkprogress one is arguing a point that Wood never even made.

The article bum posted makes this argument:

Wood appears to have fallen prey to an inaccurate trope all too common in many Western circles: that ISIS is an inevitable product of Islam, mainly because the Qur’an and other Islamic texts contain passages that support its horrific acts.

But what Wood's article is actually saying is:

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.

Wood is concerned more with explaining how ISIL thinks and not with blaming Islam for ISIL. I can understand how those who are quick to interpret any criticism of Islam as islamophobic might come to the latter conclusion, but Wood isn't even doing that.

You should read all of Wood's article. It's actually pretty good.

[Kuya]

I think most eye-opening from Wood's article is how Salafi Quietism can be thought of as a counter weight to Jihadist Salafism. Same literal interpretation, different conclusions.

[notorious bum]

I disagree. I think the articles does more harm than whatever sense it tries to make out of ISIS, especially discounting the history of Saudi Arabia's role. It is definitely not counterproductive to call ISIS un-Islamic, it is basic fact. They are carrying out the same atrocities that occurred centuries ago, laying waste to objects and peoples who don't subscribe to their murderous conquests, despite how holy or devoted they are to Islam. Kareem's basic premise is perfectly fine, there is no difference between one flavor of religious extremists hiding behind a flawed, antiquated text and another. Is ISIS Islamic? Is the Lord's Resistance Army Christian? Was the Rwandan Genocide Catholic? All very good useless questions.

[Kuya]

The article actually mentions Wahabism and Saudia Arabia's role. Again, you should read the entire thing.

Is ISIS islamic? Yes. Is Lord's Resistance Army christian? Yes. Is Rwandan Genocide catholic? I dunno, were the genociders catholic? Then it was probably catholic.

Is Westboro church christian? Yes. Is the atheist who killed the 3 muslims an atheist? Yes.

This isn't complicated.

[Kuya]

And you're right. Those are useless questions, which is precisely why the article isn't centered around them. The only people who seem to want to make the article about that question is people who are concerned with insisting that ISIS not be referred to as islamic. So if you think the question is useless, why impose it upon Wood's article as if it were its central theme?

[notorious bum]

Well, the legitimizing of religious extremists as groups who are, in fact, practicing their religion does make for a great recruitment tool. I'll give the author credit for that.

Here's an article on ISIS and the history with Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia that doesn't attempt to dumb things down for Westerners. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alasta...b_5717157.html

[Kuya]

Well, the legitimizing of religious extremists as groups who are, in fact, practicing their religion does make for a great recruitment tool. I'll give the author credit for that.

Here's an article on ISIS and the history with Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia that doesn't attempt to dumb things down for Westerners. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alasta...b_5717157.html

You might as well ask if the author supports terrorists.

I think it's intellectually dishonest and insulting to try to tell people ISIS isn't islamic and that its followers aren't muslim. And it's pretty pathetic to argue you shouldn't call ISIS islamic or else you'll support them.

It seems that if the pc left can't win by claiming hurt feelings, they'll scare you into submission by claiming you're helping terrorists.

[notorious bum]

No need to go that deep into my view on religious extremism or what the root cause and motivation of ISIS really is, I don't don't identify with pc liberals, neoliberals, or whatever outraged group on the left that would make those accusations.

All I have left to say on this matter is that I don't think it's a coincidence that Atlantic article is praised by war hawks and the neocon community, they seem to agree with more than just the technicalities of ISIS (they never were big on that anyways). I'mma stick with Kareem, though.

[Kuya]

It's a bit shallow to try at guilt by association.

War hawks and neocons like the Wood article because it paints a picture of an uncompromising barbaric horde. A neocons favorite foil.

Other people like me like the Wood article because it shows that there is nuance even among literal interpretations of holy scripture.

For example, i had always felt that salafists are just one trigger away from terrorism but what the article made me see was that Firas was right and i was wrong.

[Andalusian girls]

the Iraqis have launched a major offensive, their biggest since the collapse--but against Saddam's former hometown of Tikrit not against Mosul.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/wo...krit-isis.html

progress is good and the Iraqi + Kurdish alliance continues to squeeze ISIS's territory into a diminishing block. it ain't pretty with the lawless Shiia militias murdering Sunni civilians when they feel the urge and Iran's spymaster + killer of many Americans Qassim Suleimani reportedly organizing the forces on the ground, but all strategic momentum is now with the Iraqis and the Kurds.

[Andalusian girls]

the counteroffensive for Tikrit is over and the Iraqis have won, though their victory was marred by a rash of looting and arson against ISIS collaborators. at this point it appears a question of when ISIS shall be defeated in Iraq not of can they be defeated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/wo...ni-shiite.html

though to countertrend the good news one gentleman very familiar with the region states that Daesh is not the biggest threat to Iraqi national prospects in the long-term.

In fact, I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran.

These militia returned to the streets of Iraq in response to a fatwa by Shia leader Grand Ayatollah Sistani at a moment of extreme danger. And they prevented the Islamic State from continuing its offensive into Baghdad. Nonetheless, they have, in some cases, cleared not only Sunni extremists but also Sunni civilians and committed atrocities against them. Thus, they have, to a degree, been both part of Iraq's salvation but also the most serious threat to the all-important effort of once again getting the Sunni Arab population in Iraq to feel that it has a stake in the success of Iraq rather than a stake in its failure. Longer term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...oblem-in-iraq/