What ISIS Really Wants

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
What ISIS Really Wants

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.


To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)

But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

[clip]

Without acknowledgment of these factors, no explanation of the rise of the Islamic State could be complete. But focusing on them to the exclusion of ideology reflects another kind of Western bias: that if religious ideology doesn’t matter much in Washington or Berlin, surely it must be equally irrelevant in Raqqa or Mosul. When a masked executioner says Allahu akbar while beheading an apostate, sometimes he’s doing so for religious reasons.

Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”

[clip]

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”



:snacks:


[I don't particularity care for The Atlantic but this was a Good Read .... ]
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
“embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion”


:killingme

I don't believe that. I believe every Muslim knows what their religion is about.
The Moderates are Fundamentalists in hiding until the time is right
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
yes, I was hoping you would read this and Chime in

Nothing to add. They were, are and will be fundamentalists supported by fundamentalists. Whom we act in the interest of, ie, Saudi. We have been wrong in how we've gone about this and have done nothing but play into their hands for 13 years now because we lack the will, or interest, in taking this for what it is.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Nothing to add. They were, are and will be fundamentalists supported by fundamentalists. Whom we act in the interest of, ie, Saudi. We have been wrong in how we've gone about this and have done nothing but play into their hands for 13 years now because we lack the will, or interest, in taking this for what it is.
Beyond "let them kill each other", what should we do FROM THIS POINT FORWARD? (Please note, I am specifically NOT asking what should have been done.)
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Beyond "let them kill each other", what should we do FROM THIS POINT FORWARD? (Please note, I am specifically NOT asking what should have been done.)

What the US should do right now is withdraw all US military personnel from the ME and A'stan. ALL of out people. I suppose we should announce it first. Declare that we are doing so over the next 30-60 days so that the locals can get over the cold shower of actually having to wipe their own asses and start girding their loins for their tasks to come.

We declare it in the US national interest to not be involved militarily in the affairs of Iraq and Iran and Saudi and Turkey and Jordan and Syria. Presuming they leave us the #### alone.

And make that stick.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
What the US should do right now is withdraw all US military personnel from the ME and A'stan. ALL of out people. I suppose we should announce it first. Declare that we are doing so over the next 30-60 days so that the locals can get over the cold shower of actually having to wipe their own asses and start girding their loins for their tasks to come.

We declare it in the US national interest to not be involved militarily in the affairs of Iraq and Iran and Saudi and Turkey and Jordan and Syria. Presuming they leave us the #### alone.

And make that stick.

Amen.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I wonder what would happen if the western countries just stopped buying Middle Eastern oil.

None: Not from the Saudis, the Iranians just none.

I guess I know the answer. Russia and China would keep buying.
But wipe out the funding and dry up their money and they would go back to killing each other and having sex with their goats pretty fast.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
What the US should do right now is withdraw all US military personnel from the ME and A'stan. ALL of out people. I suppose we should announce it first. Declare that we are doing so over the next 30-60 days so that the locals can get over the cold shower of actually having to wipe their own asses and start girding their loins for their tasks to come.

We declare it in the US national interest to not be involved militarily in the affairs of Iraq and Iran and Saudi and Turkey and Jordan and Syria. Presuming they leave us the #### alone.

And make that stick.
Two follow-up questions: what in the United States' 240 or so years of history makes you think that pulling our troops out of (but presumably maintaining our economic interests in) the Middle East will cause them to leave us the #### alone, and, with an announced strategy of maintaining a military disinterest (but, again, an economic interest) in the Middle East how do we "make that stick"?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I wonder what would happen if the western countries just stopped buying Middle Eastern oil.

None: Not from the Saudis, the Iranians just none.

I guess I know the answer. Russia and China would keep buying.
But wipe out the funding and dry up their money and they would go back to killing each other and having sex with their goats pretty fast.

We would have to open up some of our own lands for drilling that we refuse to do now. We'd have to control our own destiny.

I don't say that to be ironic or sarcastic. While I agree with the sentiment, there is a profound reason all the countries are so closely tied economically - it strongly discourages war. This is why the puissant little countries are at war with one another and us, and vice versa - and why we don't go to war with Egypt or the Saudis or others like that. It's why they won't really attack us, and why they were so shocked when Bush responded to being attacked.

We have a history of taking it lying down, and fighting back was not in their play book. It would take the Russians and Chinese together to defeat the United States - and even that is unlikely unless many of our "friends" also abstain or actually work against us. Putting our economic interests out of the area actually makes us more vulnerable to larger-scale attack, not less.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Two follow-up questions: what in the United States' 240 or so years of history makes you think that pulling our troops out of (but presumably maintaining our economic interests in) the Middle East will cause them to leave us the #### alone, and, with an announced strategy of maintaining a military disinterest (but, again, an economic interest) in the Middle East how do we "make that stick"?

Larry?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
He's out today filing his paperwork to get on the Nov '16 MD Presidential ballot.

:whistle: oh shoot....I promised him a $20 donation for his campaign but then went and spent it on beer last night instead. I hope he wasn't counting on that....
 

TheLibertonian

New Member
What they want is to justify their belief that the west and the middle east are locked in a holy war that can only end in the destruction of one group or the other. Engaging them on this basis strengthens their position.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Two follow-up questions: what in the United States' 240 or so years of history makes you think that pulling our troops out of (but presumably maintaining our economic interests in) the Middle East will cause them to leave us the #### alone, and, with an announced strategy of maintaining a military disinterest (but, again, an economic interest) in the Middle East how do we "make that stick"?

Is it accurate to assume, Larry, that your lack of response means you have no answers to these two questions?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Is it accurate to assume, Larry, that your lack of response means you have no answers to these two questions?

It would be more accurate to say I have a happy, busy life and don't spend as much time on here as I used to and I simply haven't gotten around to it. I'll get to it. :buddies:
 
Top