ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

S

ShahryarHedayat

Junior Member
If you remember
many world leaders :confused:called these people , freedom-fighters , revolutionaries , moderates
World leaders seem to have a short memory:D

when you put your money and arms to create power vacuum (aka , freedom:D:D:D)
in a country like Syria (which is Multi-religious and Multi-racial)

then ,The most violent sect , defeat the remaining groups And it will dominate the rest
Because of this
FSA is so weak that it can't even save itself , let alone defeating THE EVIL AL-ASAD:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
P

PanAsian

Major
shen said:
This article has been much talked about lately.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

What about it has been much talked about?

No idea how accurate its description of the details of IS is, but the mention of the "option" at the end makes it sound like an infomercial to bolster the Saudi brand of extremism from which perhaps the IS came to be?
 
shen

shen

Senior Member
PanAsian said:
What about it has been much talked about?

No idea how accurate its description of the details of IS is, but the mention of the "option" at the end makes it sound like an infomercial to bolster the Saudi brand of extremism from which perhaps the IS came to be?
Click to expand...

After this article came out, many articles were quickly published in reaction to it. If you google "what ISIS want" you'll find many of them.

What most commenters object to is the idea that ISIS is not a "perversion" of Islam as many politicians like to call it, but rather reflect the morality and method of warfare from the early period of Islam. The author thinks it is incorrect to call ISIS "un-Islamic".
Personally I think it is understandable why politicians want to characterize ISIS as a "perversion" and "un-Islamic" as it is necessarily to draw the distinction between them and moderate Muslims and gain the support of Muslim countries.

As for the last part where the author point out that the so called "quietist" Salafists may be an ideological counter to ISIS. I think is an interesting point worthy of consideration.
here is an article on that subject.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
shen said:
After this article came out, many articles were quickly published in reaction to it. If you google "what ISIS want" you'll find many of them.

What most commenters object to is the idea that ISIS is not a "perversion" of Islam as many politicians like to call it, but rather reflect the morality and method of warfare from the early period of Islam. The author thinks it is incorrect to call ISIS "un-Islamic".
Personally I think it is understandable why politicians want to characterize ISIS as a "perversion" and "un-Islamic" as it is necessarily to draw the distinction between them and moderate Muslims and gain the support of Muslim countries.

As for the last part where the author point out that the so called "quietist" Salafists may be an ideological counter to ISIS. I think is an interesting point worthy of consideration.
here is an article on that subject.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

I agree with the article. To really confront and defeat ISIS we have to identify who they really are and their intentions and motivations. Since this is also an ideological war it is imperative to also identify and understand their ideologues.
Fundamentally ISIS is an Islamic group whether we like to admit it or not. Now, that is not to say they adhere to the same quranic teachings as 90% of Muslims other there because they don't. I also agree that many politicians especially Western ones who seemed to be too PC to call them what they are. Like in the article, most world leaders including Obama seem to prequalify any mention of ISIS by saying they not 'real' Muslims or they are not Islamic militants. In many way they are actually doing everyone a disfavor including the moderate Muslims of the world. I guarantee you if you ask an ISIS member what religion they are or if they are even Muslim, misguided they may be however they will be the first to acknowledge that they are probably the 'truest' of Muslims there are out there. The formation of the caliphate itself is uniquely an Islamic belief and not of any other religion.
Just like AQ, ISIS itself has it's roots from some of the more extreme contextual teachings of Wahhabism and Salafism originated primarily from Saudi.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
shen said:
What most commenters object to is the idea that ISIS is not a "perversion" of Islam as many politicians like to call it, but rather reflect the morality and method of warfare from the early period of Islam. The author thinks it is incorrect to call ISIS "un-Islamic".
Personally I think it is understandable why politicians want to characterize ISIS as a "perversion" and "un-Islamic" as it is necessarily to draw the distinction between them and moderate Muslims and gain the support of Muslim countries.
Click to expand...

And, as the article points out, that is counter-productive as it is an untenable argument. ISIS is as islamic as the crusaders were christian.

I found it fascinating that the article essentially characterized ISIS as a doomsday cult. If true, then ISIS is easily the most successful doomsday cult we've ever seen.
 
shen

shen

Senior Member
solarz said:
And, as the article points out, that is counter-productive as it is an untenable argument. ISIS is as islamic as the crusaders were christian.

I found it fascinating that the article essentially characterized ISIS as a doomsday cult. If true, then ISIS is easily the most successful doomsday cult we've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Technically of course it is true that ISIS is Muslim. Ok, so what, how does that definition help us to defeat them?
From a military operational and counter-terrorism POV, I think the more interesting point raised by the article is the difference between AQ and ISIS. Because ISIS has declare itself a caliphate, it needs to hold the ground, otherwise it lose the source of its legitimacy in the eyes of its supporters. Therefore ISIS have to develop the vast majority of its resources to defense and running of its state, rather than international terrorism. AQ branches such as AQAP on the other hand still concentrate on the "far enemy" and will still be main source of international terrorism, despite its diminished statue compare to ISIS. ISIS may be a major regional stability threat as well as a regional humanitarian threat, but AQ is still the bigger threat for countries not in the ME region.
On whether ISIS is a doomsday cult, I'm not sure I agree with authors conclusion. The author seems to base that mainly on the imagination of the one Australian convert he interviewed. Even if it is a doomsday cult, so what? How would the influence our operations to defeat it? The author briefly suggested the possibility of major land invasion to give ISIS the doomsday battle of prophecy, which ISIS will have to engage in conventional battle with its main force. Even if we take the military risk out of the equation, that option is clearly unlikely given the US foreign policy priority. If ISIS is weakened dramatically, Assad and Shia Iraq step in to fill the vacuum, FSA is too weak to take advantage of an ISIS defeat, Iran wins and well the US don't want that to happen.
 
Last edited:
Brumby

Brumby

Major
solarz said:
And, as the article points out, that is counter-productive as it is an untenable argument. ISIS is as islamic as the crusaders were christian.
Click to expand...

That is total BS for two reasons. Firstly, the crusaders might have used the excuse that it was in pursuance of Christianity, the acts themselves were anything resembling Christ's teachings. I don't believe you can make the same argument with ISIS and what is in their religious text. Also please don't bring up the Old testament texts. Show me New testament texts and what Jesus taught. I am sick of the equivocation and I have no problem debating them (if allowed).

Secondly, show me in the present day and age, any acts of Christians that parallel the work of these Islamic madmen from ISIS to Boko Haram . Please spare me the quote on the mad Norwegian shooter and Ku Klux clan. If that is all you have, then your rebuttal is pathetic and void of intellectual honesty.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Brumby said:
That is total BS for two reasons. Firstly, the crusaders might have used the excuse that it was in pursuance of Christianity, the acts themselves were anything resembling Christ's teachings. I don't believe you can make the same argument with ISIS and what is in their religious text. Also please don't bring up the Old testament texts. Show me New testament texts and what Jesus taught. I am sick of the equivocation and I have no problem debating them (if allowed).

Secondly, show me in the present day and age, any acts of Christians that parallel the work of these Islamic madmen from ISIS to Boko Haram . Please spare me the quote on the mad Norwegian shooter and Ku Klux clan. If that is all you have, then your rebuttal is pathetic and void of intellectual honesty.
Click to expand...

So I guess you don't think Richard the Lionheart, the Knights Templar and half-a-dozen Popes, from Urban II to Innocent III, were Christians?

It's fine if you don't, it doesn't matter to me, and I'm not interested in getting into a religious discussion.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
shen said:
Technically of course it is true that ISIS is Muslim. Ok, so what, how does that definition help us to defeat them?
From a military operational and counter-terrorism POV, I think the more interesting point raised by the article is the difference between AQ and ISIS. Because ISIS has declare itself a caliphate, it needs to hold the ground, otherwise it lose the source of its legitimacy in the eyes of its supporters. Therefore ISIS have to develop the vast majority of its resources to defense and running of its state, rather than international terrorism. AQ branches such as AQAP on the other hand still concentrate on the "far enemy" and will still be main source of international terrorism, despite its diminished statue compare to ISIS. ISIS may be a major regional stability threat as well as a regional humanitarian threat, but AQ is still the bigger threat for countries not in the ME region.
On whether ISIS is a doomsday cult, I'm not sure I agree with authors conclusion. The author seems to base that mainly on the imagination of the one Australian convert he interviewed. Even if it is a doomsday cult, so what? How would the influence our operations to defeat it? The author briefly suggested the possibility of major land invasion to give ISIS the doomsday battle of prophecy, which ISIS will have to engage in conventional battle with its main force. Even if we take the military risk out of the equation, that option is clearly unlikely given the US foreign policy priority. If ISIS is weakened dramatically, Assad and Shia Iraq step in to fill the vacuum, FSA is too weak to take advantage of an ISIS defeat, Iran wins and well the US don't want that to happen.
Click to expand...

The problem with a military defeat of ISIS is that no one knows what else will spring up in their place. Obama's surge decimated al-Qaida, but gave room for ISIS to grow. Destroy ISIS and maybe we'll just see yet another fundamentalist organization arise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top