ISIS

[calitennis127]

You do know that 80% of ISIS victims are actually Muslims right? Including SUNNI Muslims. ISIS don't discriminate in killing. They basically kill anyone who isn't them.

You do know that ISIS has immense admiration throughout the world from many Muslims, right? You do know that all Islamic militant groups, most notably al-Qaeda, have killed "other Muslims" at some point but yet they are still admired and beloved throughout the Arab world as heroes and martyrs?

How come so many recent converts to Islam in the U.S. and the UK are going to join the fight with ISIS if ISIS's "special kind of sh***y" has nothing to do with Islam?

This argument that these Islamic terrorist groups have killed other Muslims has been repeated ad nauseaum the last 15 years, most notably by Obama and Bush. The problem is that it is an utterly meaningless argument. These groups are still admired throughout the Arab world and the fact that other Muslims are part of the collateral damage of attacks or are even attacked directly does not mean that the attackers themselves do not have Islamic justification.

If somewhat secular Sunni Arab moderates are assaulted by ISIS, it is a logical fallcy to say that ISIS's actions have no connection to Islam. That is simply an illogical leap.

And if I may ask, why has the British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary expressed such public support for ISIS?

Of course, there's a crappy culture of Jihad within Islam. That much is undeniable. But if you think ISIS are just "imitating the prophet" then you didn't know much about Mohammed (show me where he ordered the beheadings of children or where he ordered mass genocide of Muslims...or any other sect for that matter), and you certainly don't know much about ISIS.

Muhammad's beheadings are right in Ibn Ishaq's biography, translated by Alfred Guillaume in the 1920's.

Now I am not saying that Muhammad's example is all bad by any means. Saying that would be a distortion. However, denying his assassinations, bloodlust, and warlord mentality is counter-factual and counterproductive. All too many Muslims and Islamic apologists do just that, and these issues with Islamic militant groups become worse by the minute because of it.

I think people who think there just another Qaeda are mistaken. They are far far worse. If you don't live in the Middle East, perhaps it is hard to grasp the reality of the threat posed by ISIS. The sectarian extermination they're set out on doing is beyond words.

ISIS and al-Qaeda (and CAIR) have the same vision for a global Caliphate. Disagreements over how to get there are simply tactical disagreements.

But yeah no, smart orthodox Christianity is the answer to everything.

What religion possesses more intellectual rigor and more connection to reality: Christianity or the secular religion of "democracy" and "equality"?

Thank you. Case closed.

And, btw, I do not define what's smart or good about the West strictly in Roman Catholic terms, because that would be a huge oversimplification. I would love it if more of our "leaders" had the mindset of, say, David Hume, but unfortunately they are stuck on the infantile level of believing in the vacuous notion of "democracy".

 

[brokenshoelace]

You do know that ISIS has immense admiration throughout the world from many Muslims, right? You do know that all Islamic militant groups, most notably al-Qaeda, have killed "other Muslims" at some point but yet they are still admired and beloved throughout the Arab world as heroes and martyrs?

No, they're really REALLY not. El Qaeda have a few supporters (minorities) pretty much everywhere (the same way ISIS have supporters in Australia, apparently) but al-Qaeda are not hailed as heroes and martyrs in the Arab world. What the hell are you talking about? I live in Lebanon about 4-5 months per year, and it's the country I hail from. I think I'm more informed about this than you. Al Qaeda are absolutely despised and combated in the Arab world. Unless you're mistaking Al-Qaeda for the Muslim Brotherhood. This really isn't up for debate.

How come so many recent converts to Islam in the U.S. and the UK are going to join the fight with ISIS if ISIS's "special kind of sh***y" has nothing to do with Islam?

ISIS have something to do with Islam. They are Muslim. That is a fact that can't be denied. What I said is what they're doing doesn't have much to do with their prophet and his practices. Yes he preached a culture of Jihad that I am categorically against, but torturing, killing children, sectarian extermination, etc...is not something he advocated. Mohammed's practices were far from perfect, but that level of brutality was not something he preached. Islam is actually quite clear about the treatment of war prisoners, for example.

This argument that these Islamic terrorist groups have killed other Muslims has been repeated ad nauseaum the last 15 years, most notably by Obama and Bush. The problem is that it is an utterly meaningless argument. These groups are still admired throughout the Arab world and the fact that other Muslims are part of the collateral damage of attacks or are even attacked directly does not mean that the attackers themselves do not have Islamic justification.

Wait, ISIS are loved in the Arab world? Dude, we are shitting our pants because of ISIS. Just last week they beheaded a Lebanese soldier and the entire country are crapping itself over what ISIS will do. Yes, they have a few supporters (everywhere), but the Arab world is its huge majority firmly against them. What the fuck are you talking about?

Again, the idea that they kill Muslims is NOT irrelevant. That's mainly why the Arab world hates ISIS. Because people are scared for themselves and their lives. If ISIS manages to invade Lebanon, they will massacre its people, the same way they did in Syria. Yeah, some people are morons and are joining them, but if you think ISIS are actually loved throughout the Arab world then think a little more, because then they would have overtaken it in its entirety. In case you haven't noticed, they're not exactly peaceful. Their supporters would have overtaken every country by force, the same way ISIS did in Iraq.

If somewhat secular Sunni Arab moderates are assaulted by ISIS, it is a logical fallcy to say that ISIS's actions have no connection to Islam. That is simply an illogical leap.

It has connection. But it's also false to think "this is what Islam is all about" since ISIS, whether you like it or not, IS a minority, and there is NOTHING in Islam that says "kill other Muslims." Islam might have a shitty Jihad culture, but not against itself. The moment you can point out to me where the Quran encouraged the killing of innocent Muslims, or Mohammed and his followers ordered Sunnis to kill other Sunnis, you'll convince me that what ISIS is doing is simply an application of their religion.

They CLAIM it is, and automatically, this means they are connected to Islam. But connected to Islam and an application of Islam are two different things.

Now I am not saying that Muhammad's example is all bad by any means. Saying that would be a distortion. However, denying his assassinations, bloodlust, and warlord mentality is counter-factual and counterproductive. All too many Muslims and Islamic apologists do just that, and these issues with Islamic militant groups become worse by the minute because of it.

Of course he did. What many Muslims don't realize is times have evolved. It's an unfortunate reality. In fact, a mistake made by all religious people (of all religions) who still take their book as something that is still applicable today.

What religion possesses more intellectual rigor and more connection to reality: Christianity or the secular religion of "democracy" and "equality"?

Neither, actually. But no of course, Christianity is perfect. The church just didn't apply it properly. What a misfortune.

Ah, the joys of not believing in any religion. Life is much simpler that way.

 

[Kieran]

Broken, what are the Arab world proposing to do about ISIS? Let's move beyond rekligious arguments, which can go deep, and deal with the situation as Murat outlined it: what are Muslims/Arabs proposing to do about ISIS?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken, what are the Arab world proposing to do about ISIS? Let's move beyond rekligious arguments, which can go deep, and deal with the situation as Murat outlined it: what are Muslims/Arabs proposing to do about ISIS?

It's a true clusterf*ck. For instance, a significant portion of Iraq has fallen under ISIS' command, and ISIS' psychological warfare has rendered the Iraqi army scared shitless (can't blame them). In Syria, Bashar el Assad has actually shied away to an extent from directly engaging ISIS for the time being, because ISIS is also combating the Free Syrian Army (the party that started the whole rebellion). Not quite the enemy of the enemy is my friend, but ironically, ISIS might have saved Assad's backside in Syria by weakening the Free Syrian Army. In Lebanon, the Lebanese army have been collaborating with Hezbollah to fight ISIS (keep in mind Hezbollah is represents the Shia...arguably ISIS' biggest enemy).

In general, the Arab world has been extremely in favor of the US airstrikes against ISIS. Even the biggest American detractors have showed support or at the very least, stayed quiet on the topic (when they would usually jump all over the US for interfering).

 

[shawnbm]

James Dorsey had a piece printed in today's Huffington Post wherein he argues that Assad, Iran and Russia share significant responsibility in the rising up and spead of ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State. It is worth a read.

EDIT--Here it is (if I did this correctly). I think there is more to it than he states, but it is an interesting piece to read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dorsey/the-rise-of-the-islamic-s_b_5871208.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[calitennis127]

Broken, what are the Arab world proposing to do about ISIS? Let's move beyond rekligious arguments, which can go deep, and deal with the situation as Murat outlined it: what are Muslims/Arabs proposing to do about ISIS?

Well, if you are talking about the two-faced Wahhabist-Sunni Saudi regime, the Arab power elites are simultaneously funding and arming ISIS to win a Sunni-Shia war while also clamoring for the U.S. to make sure they don't spread too far.

 

[calitennis127]

James Dorsey had a piece printed in today's Huffington Post wherein he argues that Assad, Iran and Russia share significant responsibility in the rising up and spead of ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State. It is worth a read.

EDIT--Here it is (if I did this correctly). I think there is more to it than he states, but it is an interesting piece to read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dorsey/the-rise-of-the-islamic-s_b_5871208.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I think that the thesis of that article as it pertains to Iran and Russia is utterly preposterous. Assad may have tried to draw in international support to fight ISIS, but the U.S. never should have been working to subvert him anyway.

The U.S. leaders of both parties are very foolish for not making an ally out of Assad.

 

[Billie]

It seems this whole situation is a mess and nobody knows how to deal with it, at the end: bomb 'em!!

The mess also happens when big powers act inconsistently, so they attack them in one country but help them in another. Vicious cycle.uzzled

If anybody is interested what the situation is in some Muslim states, like Bosnia and Kosovo, where extremists have recruited big numbers for their cause:

http://serbianna.com/blogs/bozinovich/archives/1977

http://serbianna.com/blogs/bozinovich/archives/1996

In the light of what has happened so far, I don't see how anybody can still think that it was OK to mess up Iraq, Libya, Syria...because we all see what we have now.:cry

 

[calitennis127]

It seems this whole situation is a mess and nobody knows how to deal with it, at the end: bomb 'em!!

The mess also happens when big powers act inconsistently, so they attack them in one country but help them in another. Vicious cycle.uzzled

If anybody is interested what the situation is in some Muslim states, like Bosnia and Kosovo, where extremists have recruited big numbers for their cause:

http://serbianna.com/blogs/bozinovich/archives/1977

http://serbianna.com/blogs/bozinovich/archives/1996

In the light of what has happened so far, I don't see how anybody can still think that it was OK to mess up Iraq, Libya, Syria...because we all see what we have now.:cry

I'm glad that you brought up the unnecessary and destructive Kosovo intervention, and I hope that Kieran takes note.

 

[calitennis127]

No, they're really REALLY not. El Qaeda have a few supporters (minorities) pretty much everywhere (the same way ISIS have supporters in Australia, apparently) but al-Qaeda are not hailed as heroes and martyrs in the Arab world. What the hell are you talking about? I live in Lebanon about 4-5 months per year, and it's the country I hail from. I think I'm more informed about this than you. Al Qaeda are absolutely despised and combated in the Arab world. Unless you're mistaking Al-Qaeda for the Muslim Brotherhood. This really isn't up for debate.

If I am not mistaken, Lebanon is a country with large numbers of Christians, a 50-50 Sunni-Shia split, and a culture that is notoriously modern, particularly by Middle Eastern standards. I do not think that the view of Al Qaeda in Lebanon is in any way representative of the Middle East as a whole.

Let's take some major Sunni Muslim countries: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Bin Laden undoubtedly has a favorable view in all three. The House of Saud so thoroughly feared Osama after the Gulf War that they banned him from the kingdom. This was because Osama very openly expressed his outrage that the Saudis had allowed infidel soldiers on to the Muslim holy land to fight Saddam, and at the same time he was immensely popular in the kingdom. It was entirely legitimate for the House of Saud to think that Osama may pull off an overthrow given his popularity among the Saudi population.

Pakistan is notorious for its radical madrassas that are the progeny of Saudi Wahhabism and the Saudi funding of Wahhabist promotion inside Pakistan in the 1980s. Pakistan is a country highly sympathetic to Bin Laden, which is why he so often found shelter there. The ISI was undoubtedly favorable to him (as were the people of Pakistan).

Afghanistan is, well, Afghanistan. Maybe the Taliban can sponsor a new tennis event in Kabul called the "Middle East Open", in which they play on sand. Think Nishikori could win a major there?

I should also mention Sudan. Bin Laden operated there for a few years and was treated as royalty.

So there you go - four countries where Bin Laden and his movement are viewed very favorably. Bringing up a rare modern Arab country (Lebanon) or hostile Shi'ites who are a small and resented minority in the Islamic world (Iran and southern Iraq) does not at all invalidate the argument that Bin Laden is popular in the Arab world.

 

[Kieran]

It seems this whole situation is a mess and nobody knows how to deal with it, at the end: bomb 'em!!

The mess also happens when big powers act inconsistently, so they attack them in one country but help them in another. Vicious cycle.uzzled

If anybody is interested what the situation is in some Muslim states, like Bosnia and Kosovo, where extremists have recruited big numbers for their cause:

http://serbianna.com/blogs/bozinovich/archives/1977

http://serbianna.com/blogs/bozinovich/archives/1996

In the light of what has happened so far, I don't see how anybody can still think that it was OK to mess up Iraq, Libya, Syria...because we all see what we have now.:cry

I'm glad that you brought up the unnecessary and destructive Kosovo intervention, and I hope that Kieran takes note.

Why do you hope that I take note? :angel:

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali , you need some perspective regarding ISIS and how it is different from the rest and a new breed of evil.

I am from Turkey, a country built from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. Mostly Muslim. Ottoman Empire got the Caliphate at the beginning of the 16th century when Yavuz Sultan Selim invaded Egypt and ended the Memluk rule there. Of course the Empire was Muslim to begin with but Caliphate , as symbolic as it was, was important for an Empire that size. On paper, the Turks kept the caliphate till 1924.

So all that time , with the power of the empire and the caliphate, with most of Eastern Europe under their rule, most of Northern Africa under their rule and of course Asia Minor, the current Turkey, The Ottoman Empire ruled the region for over 500 years.

So from 1453, when Constantinople became Istanbul until 1850 or so, all of Christian Eastern Europe all the way to Austria, was occupied and lived under the rule of a Muslim Empire. Yet he Greek clergy had enormous benefits and were paid by the Ottoman state. The Patriarch was literally the head of all of the Orthodox Christians and had a position like that of the Vizier. His authority was huge and bishops (for the first time) were funded from Imperial sources as they acted as leaders of the Christian citizens of the empire and were responsible for their behavior. They paid extra taxes to be exempt from military service.

I have been to Bulgaria, Romania, Greece...I saw a vast majority of Christians and hundreds of centuries old churches intact and open for worship...

My point? With all the power of a huge empire and a caliphate to booth, if Ottoman Empire acted like ISIS, there would not be ONE Christian left and ONE church intact in Eastern Europe today. They did not.

The centre of all Greek Orthodox Church and the , the senior patriarchate of the Greek Orthodox Church the spiritual leader of the world's Eastern Orthodox Christians is STILL in Istanbul TODAY.

ISIS is a different animal. Not all Muslims are created equal.

 

[britbox]

Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA) is a good read/listen. Very pragmatic guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixt6F_lGCg

 

[calitennis127]

Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA) is a good read/listen. Very pragmatic guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixt6F_lGCg

Great recommendation Britbox. I have been heavily influenced by Scheuer. I have read numerous of his articles over the years, I own a book of his, and I have watched scores of his interviews on YouTube.

Here is his latest column on the recent intervention (first from the top). He has an excellent blog:

http://www.non-intervention.com/

 

[Billie]

Wow Murat, your explanation of the Ottoman Empire sounds so wonderful. I guess that is what they taught you in school. Although if you were a Turk or a converted Turk, you would approve of it. On the other hand if you were a Christian living under that empire, you would feel differently.

Here is one of the articles of the Ottoman rule in the Bosnian region, the sufferings of Christians under their rule were too many and too painful. I am afraid that it is just your myth that Turks didn't convert or destroy churches, kill innocent and force them to convert to Islam. After all, Hagia Sophia, one of the most recognized mosques in the world, was built as an Orthodox church and converted to a mosque, right? The article is lengthy but it does provide a little bit of insight into the connection and brutality of some forms of Islam on the oppressed subjects, from centuries ago.

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/014.shtml

Some of the methods used today might be a little different, but these old ones were brutal nevertheless. Of all oppressing rules that Ottoman Turks had, I think this one was the worst:

Crucial for the Islamicization of Bosnia was the peculiar and venal Turkish Muslim institution of the boy-tribute, or Adzami-Oglan (devsirme, ìcollectingî). This was the Muslim custom and practice, the tribute of blood, whereby Christian families had to give to the Muslim Ottoman Empire their best male offspring to be brought up as Muslim protectors of the Turkish Empire. Many became janizaries (from Turkish yenicheri, new troops) or soldiers in the Turkish Sultanís Guard, which was originally made up of foreign slaves and which was established in the 14th century by Murat I and abolished in 1826. Every five years special Muslim commissioners were sent out from Constantinople (Istanbul) know as the telosnici, from telos, the name of this tax. The commissioners went from village to village. Every Christian family was required to declare the exact number of children in the household. The commissioner then decided how many children to take of those that were the healthiest and the best-looking. Three years after the Muslim Turkish conquest and occupation of Bosnia in 1463, the first telosnik appeared to collect the Christian children. This practice continued until the 17th century. Andric stated that the "abducted children soon forgot, as we said, their paternal hearth and faith and turned into fanatic 'Turks'." This was how a Muslim and Turkish population was engineered in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

So what did people do to prevent this from happening to their child? They would deliberately mildly mutilate them as that would ensure that the child would not be perfect and would be skipped and remained with his family.

 

[britbox]

Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA) is a good read/listen. Very pragmatic guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixt6F_lGCg

Great recommendation Britbox. I have been heavily influenced by Scheuer. I have read numerous of his articles over the years, I own a book of his, and I have watched scores of his interviews on YouTube.

Here is his latest column on the recent intervention (first from the top). He has an excellent blog:

http://www.non-intervention.com/

What I like about Scheur is that he isn't selling anything. He's dealing on the basis of hardnosed pragmatism and doesn't bother sugar coating anything or basing things on a foolish left of centre PC agenda. He's actually looking at things from a perspective of what is the best way to play the long game in the interests of the United States.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Billie, I am aware everyone reads and studies history differently and everyone has their own version. I am fully aware of the sins of the Ottoman Empire. My point was comparing them with ISIS.

Can you or anyone tell me if the Ottoman Empire was like ISIS , there would be one church left standing? How come those countries in eastern Europe are predominantly Christian today despite Muslim rule for centuries?

Everyone has their sins, Muslims Jews, Christians...There is a reason (or million) I am an atheist. My only point was ISIS is pretty different from most religious fanatics I know.

 

[Billie]

Billie, I am aware everyone reads and studies history differently and everyone has their own version. I am fully aware of the sins of the Ottoman Empire. My point was comparing them with ISIS.

Can you or anyone tell me if the Ottoman Empire was like ISIS , there would be one church left standing? How come those countries in eastern Europe are predominantly Christian today despite Muslim rule for centuries?

Everyone has their sins, Muslims Jews, Christians...There is a reason (or million) I am an atheist. My only point was ISIS is pretty different from most religious fanatics I know.

I am not sure if you understand me. It wasn't me who brought up the Ottoman Empire but it was you. And I thought that you didn't represent them fully, that you omitted evil that came with them, to the Christians, I thought. And those are not my opinions, those are the facts of Ottoman rule in Bosnia. You are welcome to search for more un-biased information or if you thought that my article was over the top. It is what happened, plain and simple.

Also I am very well aware and understand that today's Turkey is very different than the Ottoman Empire. But it seems to me that you failed to recognise that from my post. Just so that we understand each other, not all people are the same. I am also not comparing ISIS with any other Muslim country.

All I am saying is that I see a lot of similarity between old Ottoman Empire and today's extremists: no freedoms for other religions (or very conditional), public killings in order to intimidate and threaten others, harsh laws for infidels, forced religion conversions. There is no purpose in killing everybody, who will be left working for ISIS then?

Ottoman Empire was eventually defeated and contained back into 1 country but not before they committed terrible crimes. If they were able to conquer the whole Europe, who knows what the world would look like today.

Extremism is very dangerous, in all aspects of life, but it is the worst when it comes to religions.

 

[shawnbm]

Murat and Billie seem to alluding to different sides of the same historical Muslim coin, during the Ottoman Empire age. They retained and attempted to transform Christian buildings, statues and culture, whilst often times using ruthless killing and oppression to control large swaths of territory. That came with the territory, in terms of ruling a kingdom of different nation-states of various ethnicity and religions. Turkish atrocities during the Ottoman period are well known and I don't recall a citation to the Armenians, but it may be in one of the attachments I did not read. The modern extremists we see in the Taliban and now ISIS are like a leap back to a more brutal and reckless time. Their mindset is almost pre-medieval--killing and barbarity are cheered and coldly meted out; time honored structures like Hagia Sophia and not to be remade into a new mosque to the glory of Allah, but to be destroyed down to the foundation. They wish to erase entire populations and any trace of them. Sharia law is back--in the strictest sense as well--and is methodically and systematically enforced. It is a cancer that has been permitted to grow and fester by well-meaning, but inept, governments around the world.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Billie, I am aware everyone reads and studies history differently and everyone has their own version. I am fully aware of the sins of the Ottoman Empire. My point was comparing them with ISIS.

Can you or anyone tell me if the Ottoman Empire was like ISIS , there would be one church left standing? How come those countries in eastern Europe are predominantly Christian today despite Muslim rule for centuries?

Everyone has their sins, Muslims Jews, Christians...There is a reason (or million) I am an atheist. My only point was ISIS is pretty different from most religious fanatics I know.

I am not sure if you understand me. It wasn't me who brought up the Ottoman Empire but it was you. And I thought that you didn't represent them fully, that you omitted evil that came with them, to the Christians, I thought. And those are not my opinions, those are the facts of Ottoman rule in Bosnia. You are welcome to search for more un-biased information or if you thought that my article was over the top. It is what happened, plain and simple.

Also I am very well aware and understand that today's Turkey is very different than the Ottoman Empire. But it seems to me that you failed to recognise that from my post. Just so that we understand each other, not all people are the same. I am also not comparing ISIS with any other Muslim country.

All I am saying is that I see a lot of similarity between old Ottoman Empire and today's extremists: no freedoms for other religions (or very conditional), public killings in order to intimidate and threaten others, harsh laws for infidels, forced religion conversions. There is no purpose in killing everybody, who will be left working for ISIS then?

Ottoman Empire was eventually defeated and contained back into 1 country but not before they committed terrible crimes. If they were able to conquer the whole Europe, who knows what the world would look like today.

Extremism is very dangerous, in all aspects of life, but it is the worst when it comes to religions.

As far as I know, there is no un biased info when it comes to history. There are stories from sides where everyone is sure their side is representing the facts.

My bringing up the Ottoman Empire was because ISIS claims to represent the caliphate now, which nobody buys, but the OE HAD the caliphate for centuries, and occupied most of Eastern Europe for hundreds of years, yet despite their sins, those countries are still Christian , their churches are still standing. I just made a simple point. What I or you think about Ottoman Empire at this point was not the issue. The issue is had ISIS had the chance, with their mentality, there would not be a Christian Eastern Europe. After centuries of Ottoman rule, there is. In fact, a very important part was and is still based in Istanbul, the Greek Orthodox Church.

Maybe someone should try to establish a Christian church in ISIS controlled areas today and see how far they go...THAT'S my point , nothing else. I just wanted to make a comparison. Maybe it was not the best one, but the point remains.