ISIS Atrocity Tipping Point

[Ten oz]

@ Tar, thank you for an excellent response. You highlighted how complicated these affairs are. Unfortunately for Syria and its people Assad may currently be the better of a variety of competing evils. What I do not know, not sure my government knows, is how or allies in the region honestly feel about Assad. What would the Saudias, Jordians, and so on like to see happen in Syria and is that answer acceptable to the West? I am not implying the West does nothing. Rather, they assist logistically and perhaps financially rather than militarily.

Rather than pushing in to fullfill an obligation for having encouraged uprising perhaps we should have not encouraged uprising? While it is without question many regimens in the Middle East are oppressive to their people direct government to government communication might be preferable to expensive underground moments to undermine? Capitalism has proven to be a strong and straight forward motivator in places like UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar. They are improving their human rights record by the year not to combat Arab springs but rather to attract tourism and grow their economies.

Democracy alone is not a cure. India is the largest democracy in the world and yet in large reigons they still battle with indentured servitude, mistreatment of women, incredible amounts of poverty, and etc. The fact that their government is mor acceptable to the west is little comfort to India's millions of impoverished. Which is one of the reasons many Indians leave home and move to kingdoms like Qatar and Bahrain looking for work. In effect giving up democracy for monarchy. While Democracy is philosophically a superior system of government to a monarchy it is not a basic human need. People need security, food, and homes first and foremost. In a region like the Middle East where security has been non existent, food scarce in many areas, and millions of home destroyed I think pushing for democracy is premature. If able to vote many would just elect to kill each other at this point.

 

Btw, I am a huge fan of India and wish my country had a boarder relationship with them. In no way was I disparaging India in my comments.

[overtone]

only told that physicists should create necessary weapon.

There are no necessary nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

 

The religious intolerance of the Middle East in general is a bit over stated in my opinion. There are more Christians living in the Middle East than there are Muslims living in all the Americas for example.

We are only counting the accepted, respected, as "tolerated" in this sense.

 

There are probably more respected, well treated Muslims living in America than respected, well treated Christians living in the Middle East.

 

There might be more freely worshipping, freely traveling, freely speaking Muslims living in America than there are in the Middle East. Subtract the women, in the ME, for starters.

 

 

 

 

People need security, food, and homes first and foremost.

These are not usually available via State level theocracy or monarchy. We know this by experience, as well as theory.

 

In a region like the Middle East where security has been non existent, food scarce in many areas, and millions of home destroyed I think pushing for democracy is premature.

Try pushing for local democracy - find the right scale. That's how it started in the US, and other large and more or less competent democracies. Edited February 7, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

 

 

We are only counting the accepted, respected, as "tolerated" in this sense.

 

There are probably more respected, well treated Muslims living in America than respected, well treated Christians living in the Middle East.

 

There might be more freely worshipping, freely traveling, freely speaking Muslims living in America than there are in the Middle East. Subtract the women, in the ME, for starters.

No doubt. I don't disagree with that. I did not mean to imply the criticism is without merit. However posters (not you) are going so far as to imply nuclear weapons should be used. To that I say all the many complaints are being overstated. The Middle East has problems but not to the point of justifying an unlimited response. It is not like a zombie movie where Muslims just wonder the streets in wait of any innocent Christian to kill and posthumously convert. The degree of general violence, hatred, and overall intolerance is comically exaggerated if it is believed to rise to the level of a nuclear response. Surely the millions of their lives that have been lost as collateral damage battling the radicals amongst them is much a tragedy as the thousands killed in the West by those same radicals? I am not willing to right off entire generation to be incinerated based in part on an over evaluation of their intolerance amongst other things.

[swansont]

 

The kind of forward observer I'm thinking of is one who recognizes facial features. We don't have drones that can spot "leaders" in a crowd. The only way to target leaders is by human intelligence on the ground. Best would be a MEMBER of the terrorists who knows who the leaders are or can tell the outside when the leaders will be somewhere.

 

There are basically 2 kinds of terrorists, the shepherds and the sheep. The sheep are helpless without guidance from the shepherds. The way to locate leaders is to get a spy inside who is good at playing the role of leader. After a year or so of trustworthy performance, they are given more security clearance, until they can tell the outside world when and where the next meeting of leaders will be, so you can take them all out with one bomb.

 

 

Just like how we got bin Laden and other leaders of al qaeda? Oh, wait, it isn't how we took them out, is it?

[Bill Angel]

ISIS has been getting away with a horrendous murder rampage across Syria and Iraq, but now they went too far burning the Jordanian pilot alive. Beheading is tame in comparison. Jordan is reacting saying they will revenge this murder.

 

That ISIS video showing the death by burning of a Jordanian fighter pilot could be considered an example of "sadistic pornography".

[CharonY]

All the trouble spots in the middle east are ruled by religious leaders or have a disproportionally large religious influence in their governance. Religion is open to interpretation by fanatics.

The problems will only stop when secularism and democratic processes are adopted, OR when they are shown that we have the resolve to protect what is important to us ( as Truman did ).

 

Remember when the pope was the effective ruler of the empires of Europe ? How many people were burned at the stake in the late middle ages ? How many were stoned to death ? You could be killed with impunity for looking at an aristocrat/prince/emperor the wrong way..

This is where a lot of the middle east is today.

 

You have qualified the statement with "a lot", however I would still be careful about this generalization. Religion in governance is an issue, but there are certain aspects that make it at the same time worse as well as potentially better than the Christian system (whose influence extended beyond the middle ages). The fact that Islam has no real centralized point authority means that many can usurp its powers, which in case of ISIS is a huge issue, but if headed and maintained by moderates can create counter-movements.

Also the various middle Eastern countries had, in their relatively short history as modern nations experienced quite a wide range of secularism, democratization. It is not that the areas are completely lawless, although many religious justifications are obviously nonsense. As such the term Middle-East as a general description (which I also used) is actually quite problematic. Take Lebanon, for instance, its foundation is a multi-confessional state in which certain state appointments are based on religion (e.g. President is always a Maronite Catholic, Prime Minister Sunni Muslim, Speaker and Deputy speaker Shi'a Muslim and orthodox Christian, respectively). Despite the weird influence of religion, it is, for the most part a democratic system. Yet there are other issues that threaten stability.

Likewise, Syria is secular (though current situation is uncertain at best), but lacks democracy. That is, each area has quite a different relationship to religion, secularism, democracy and human rights, and made various amount of progress and setbacks. If one advocates modernization in that region, one would have to take the unique aspects into consideration.

[Hans de Vries]

Not all of Middle East is the same but with an exception of Israel, every part of it is more religiously intolerant than any part of Europe.

 

The problem with a significant part of the ME population is that they mistake the cause of their plight for the solution. These people must realize that their main enemy is not America, Israel or Russia but their own beliefs - and that the only way to go ahead is to either reinterpret the Quran and hadiths in a way that is consistent with 21th century values, or if they can't be reinterpreted, reject them. They must realize that the world is not divided into the camp of belief (dar al Islam) and camp of disbelief (dar al kufr), but that mankind is one family and that every member of it deserves respect and equal treatment Besides these two, there is no solution. Last year's elections in Tunisia are a good sign. It shows that after just 3 years they got tired of Islamists and decided to elect a secular party instead.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[tar]

 

... Religion in governance is an issue, but there are certain aspects that make it at the same time worse as well as potentially better than the Christian system (whose influence extended beyond the middle ages). The fact that Islam has no real centralized point authority means that many can usurp its powers, which in case of ISIS is a huge issue, but if headed and maintained by moderates can create counter-movements.

CharonY,

 

As I understand it, Caliphates hold the distinction of being the law, the government, and the religion, all roled up in one. I suppose that is what allows for Mullahs to "run" a district, because as you say, where there is no central authority the total authority thusly accrues to the local Mullah.

 

I had a discussion with a Taxi Driver in Chicago once on a long trip from the airport to a conference location. He had come to America to escape Mullah controlled life in Pakistan. He explained to me that the Mullah had hencemen who would enforce the will of the Mullah. If you stood against the Mullah in word or deed it did not forster discussion, it resulted in the hencemen simply killing you.

Women were not allowed to be educated or independent. And it was to the benefit of Mullah, to keep his "followers" poor and stupid. (uneducated).

 

So, I do not think its the religion part of the Caliphate that is the problem, as much as it is the use of the Authority of Allah, usurped by Mohammed, and then usurped by the Caliph, or in my example the local Mullah, or in the case of Daesh, its leader.

 

From an objective, scientific viewpoint, this opens up all Kingships and Dictators to investigation of where exactly they figure their authority comes from. But as well the Pope, and the church's influence on the developement of law and rules of behavior, and subjegation to authority, is obvious in Western culture, and certainly figuroutable in a similar fashion in other religions, that proscribe obidience to the leaders, in one way or another.

 

So we have to talk about empires that have included Asia Minor and the ME. Alexander, Mohammed, Ghengis Chan, the British Empire, the Persians, the Ottamans. When is tieing together under one principle a positive thing, and when is it opressive in nature.

 

Not this discussion directly, but in kind, is the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the current attempt of Putin to reestablish Russian control in the Ukraine. Russia does not have a state religion, yet Putin has accrued authority somehow, and how this is accomplished in a non-religious way, is not obvious. Somewhere submission to the authority of the throne is understood/remembered by any cohesive populace.

 

In our discussion here, Daesh has exhibited behavior unbecoming of a governing body. It can conquer, it can rape, it can pillage and extort. But like the Monguls they can not govern. Not the way thinking people wish to be governed. The Romans governed in a reasonable, fair way. As did the British. But where dictators exhibit corruption and oppressive behavior, the governed, revolt.

 

My point being, CharonY, that you cannot take the background of religion that fosters obidience to the leader out of the equation, of what it takes to govern, without replacing it with something real and meaningful to people.

 

It is a strange position that us Atheists are in. We are only 16 percent of the place, and the place is primarily held together and built and maintained by people that ARE religious. There is therefore a workable substrate that religion forsters that can not be replaced by fluff and abstract nonsense of a different sort than religion offers. Sure one can build a humanist dogma, but once built into a workable, all encompassing rulebook, it would be, exactly, a religion.

 

Best I think to continue to fight it out, and have a clash of civilizations whenever and where ever required. In the end good will win, because human judgement is involved. But while respect for other's beliefs is absolutely required, as well it is of prime importance to fight evil wherever and whenever it pops up its head. In the case of Daesh, they are clearly evil, and need to be removed and replaced by people with more respect for the place, and each other.

 

Regards, TAR

Either that, or Daesh must reform and lose their bigotry through self searching.

 

But somehow I don't think a consciousness raising group is likely to form in this situation. Hitler did not seem open to that, Ghengis Chan neither. And most likely, not Daesh.

[Hans de Vries]

That would make a fascinate topic in itself - there is a huuuge difference between what the Papacy claimed and what the doctrine of Caliphate states.

 

The Papacy never claimed will to have absolute power over every area of the world or even Christian world. It only claimed the right to intervene in secular affairs if vital interests of the Church are in danger. And it did not claim that the pope has the sole legislative power or that there is some fixed legal system that must be followed by all people. Since Jesus was not a ruler or a judge - areas such as how to rule a government or what punishment should be prescribed for what offences - are left to us humans to decide about.

 

Caliphate is something totally different. First, Caliph is not merely an overseer of affairs in this world. he is meant to be an absolute ruler of every part of the world. Second, in a Caliphate nobody has the right to legislate, not even Caliphs. The role of Caliphate is solely to uphold Sharia law - a strict legal system derived from the Quran and Sunnah (words and deeds of the Islamic prophet) that covers all areas of life.

 

Sharia law is structurally similar to English common law, with Quran being the supreme (and the only) statue and words/deed of Muhammad constituting legal precedents. But sharia has a weakness that will ultimately cause it's downfall - precedents established by Muhammad cannot be overruled by anyone except Muhammad and Allah. Muhammad is dead and Allah does not seem to be willing to change sharia.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[Airbrush]

What the Arab world needs is a Santa Claus. The theory of Santa Claus in the USA is you teach your children that Santa Claus exists, up until about the age of 5 or 6 then you reveal to the children that Santa Claus is merely "a spirit that lives in our hearts" as my Mom told me as a child. In other words there is NO literal Santa Claus, in the usual sense. Then I immediately began to question the existence of God, since God is like Santa Claus, a good lie about a good spirit that lives in your heart. But I was not through with God yet. I learned in my religious upbringing in the Catholic church, by devout Catholic parents, that God listens to your prayers and I was led to believe that if your prayers are sincere enough, God would answer your prayers. I was a very devout Catholic child and decided that I would pray to God to allow me to fly. I dedicated myself to saying prayers to God humbly asking for the power to fly. After hours of prayers, Hail Marys and Our Fathers, I decided to test God's power. But God did not answer my prayers and I tried but could NOT FLY. Then I really began to doubt the literal existence of God.

 

There is no truer demonstration of faith than to blow yourself up believing you will go to heaven for it. These believers who are the extremists that blow themselves up, need a healthy dose of DOUBT about religion. Fine to be religious but dont take it so seriously. Keep a healthy agnostic overall view. Moderate Muslims, like moderate Christians, don't believe TOO much.

 

Just like how we got bin Laden and other leaders of al qaeda? Oh, wait, it isn't how we took them out, is it?

 

Bin Laden and Zarqawi were killed because of human intelligence on the ground, from "foward observers" or spies. Technology cannot see through the head scarfs both leaders and followers wear. The shepherds and sheep all look alike to drones.

 

"Zarqawi was killed in a targeted killing by a Joint US force on June 7, 2006, while attending a meeting in an isolated safehouse approximately 8 km (5.0 mi) north of Baqubah. One United States Air Force F-16C jet dropped two 500-pound (230 kg) guided bombs on the safehouse...."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

 

This is how you do it, you target meetings of leaders. That is hard to know unless you have someone on the ground, in harms way, telling us who is where and when.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

Not all of Middle East is the same but with an exception of Israel, every part of it is more religiously intolerant than any part of Europe.

 

The problem with a significant part of the ME population is that they mistake the cause of their plight for the solution. These people must realize that their main enemy is not America, Israel or Russia but their own beliefs - and that the only way to go ahead is to either reinterpret the Quran and hadiths in a way that is consistent with 21th century values, or if they can't be reinterpreted, reject them. They must realize that the world is not divided into the camp of belief (dar al Islam) and camp of disbelief (dar al kufr), but that mankind is one family and that every member of it deserves respect and equal treatment Besides these two, there is no solution. Last year's elections in Tunisia are a good sign. It shows that after just 3 years they got tired of Islamists and decided to elect a secular party instead.

Considering the history and their access to information understanding that America, Israel, and Russia are not the enemy is very difficult. Millions of civilians have died at the hands of Russia and the United States in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq over the last 30 or so years. Tens of millions have been displaced and moved to Pakistan, Iran, and Syria as refugees fleeing those conflicts. in Europe and North America civilian deaths are less than 10,000 and we are condemning the whole region. Imagine how they feel when ten of millions have had civilian family members killed, seen their homes destroyed, and have been forced to hike whats left into some other country for shelter. These people aren't waking up and comfortably drinking coffee while reading the Wall Street Journal or New York Time. Many don't understand why the Russians were killing or why America was dropping bombs. In Afghanistan 60% of the population doesn't even have electricity. Here in the United States where I live we enjoy an Internet usage of 84 people per one hundred. In Afghanistan it is 5 people per 100, Iraq is 9 people per 100, in Pakistan it 10 per 100, and etc, etc, etc. Many simple have no access to information. Mix that with seeing death and destruction their whole lives. There politics/religious beliefs should not be surprising. In many ways it is the classic cyclical case of the abused growing up to be the abuser.

[Airbrush]

Anyone else out there watch a lot of CNN everyday, as I do? ISIS is always much discussed there all day.

 

Latest discussion of Fareed Zakaria ZPG is that ISIS is shooting itself in the foot, with their latest strategy. They are all set to collapse from within. Let's hope that we don't hear about them much longer, as they fade on the world stage into trivial obscurity.

[swansont]

Bin Laden and Zarqawi were killed because of human intelligence on the ground, from "foward observers" or spies.

 

But your claim went further than that. You demanded INFILTRATION, not just observation from human intelligence. Plus, you keep implying that this is not in place, which is just a naive guess on your part. If you had actual knowledge of this, you would be violating a boatload of security rules in divulging this. Since I assume you aren't a traitor to your country, then the obvious conclusion is you're just guessing.

[dimreepr]

When I consider this issue through the lens of history (given that all empires/superpowers ultimately fade/decline and contract) perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the end of western civilisation or perhaps the ultimate contraction of the empire spawned by the industrial revolution?

[Airbrush]

 

But your claim went further than that. You demanded INFILTRATION, not just observation from human intelligence. Plus, you keep implying that this is not in place, which is just a naive guess on your part. If you had actual knowledge of this, you would be violating a boatload of security rules in divulging this. Since I assume you aren't a traitor to your country, then the obvious conclusion is you're just guessing.

 

Observation is a kind of infiltration. The spies watching Bin Laden's compound posed as locals renting an apartment near Bin Ladens. True I propose going further, to pose as leaders of ISIS, which takes time building your credibility within the cult. That is why I say it will take time to implode ISIS. Operatives need time to gather a reputation and following.

 

You seem to agree with me that infiltrations are probably taking place now. How likely is it that ISIS leaders are basing their decisions on what they read on this forum? Would it be a bad thing for ISIS leaders to become more distrustful of recruits? And by "recruits" I mean recruits to leadership positions in the organization, not recruiting more sheep to be slaughtered in battle.

 

Think of Stalin's great purge of military commanders when he became distrustful of them to the point of paranoia.

Does anyone know what proportion of ISIS leaders are actually Saddam Hussein's Baathist henchmen that went into hiding during the Iraq war?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Airbrush

[Hans de Vries]

A lot. ISIS second in command was actually a lieutenant colonel in Iraqi intelligence prior to 2003. Governors of Tikrit and Mosul are also ex-Saddam officers and the entire Sunni insurgency is literally stuffled with ex-Saddam officers of both military and intelligence background, including ca. 15 generals.

 

There is a hypothesis (on the verge of conspiracy theory) saying that the entire ISIS is actually an attempt of Ba'ath party men to seize power from Shias in Iraq and that all the talk about Islam and caliphate is just a cover up.

 

Of course the true nature of their relationship is unknown.

[tar]

Airbrush,

 

I had not considered what happened to Saddam's team. It certainly explains why and how they could have made such tremendous gains so quickly. Its their country. They know the place and the people, the power structure and the economic structure. They did not pop into existence out of nowhere. Much more solid a powerbase than I had been led to believe.

 

My ideological arguments are probably not very useful here. Its like trying to defeat the drug dealers in Paterson. That is their livelyhood and they are in their home. They are all somebody's son or cousin or friend or highschool team mate.

 

Perhaps it is something like that with Daesh. Perhaps to understand the situation better, one should imagine their home state being overun by a foreign power, who then leaves and old power structures regain control.

 

Perhaps I have overstated the evilness of Daesh. Perhaps they just want to control their own lives and not be treated like misbehaving children by the world. Perhaps this situation is even more complicated than already suggested, and it is not so black and white as I have been trying to paint it.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Once the parallel between ISIS and the Ku Klux Klan is noticed, their behavior is easier for Americans to understand.

 

As well as the nature of the likely and recommended approaches to dealing with them.

[DimaMazin]

we are seeing the beginning of the end of western civilisation

Yes. Because you are choosing the way.

[CharonY]

Not all of Middle East is the same but with an exception of Israel, every part of it is more religiously intolerant than any part of Europe.

 

 

 

That statement is not quite correct, in that form. At least according to the Pew study on Religion and Public life (2012 data), the governmental restrictions on religion. Most countries in the middle eastern region scored high (score 4.5-6.5) to very high (6.6 and higher) on the restrictions, i.e. indicating less religious freedom. This includes Israel, which, from what I understand, does not appear to allow interfaith marriages within the country, for example. Although it has to be added that some restrictions are placed against non-Muslims, whereas others are directed against non-Jews (after a quick perusal I did not find anything related to Christians, but there may be something there, too). This is, without doubt due to the unique history of that area.

 

However there are also some European countries on the high bracket including Greece, Belgium and Moldova (Russia scores very high). Lebanon has, maybe surprisingly, a better score (close to Iceland and Denmark). So one would have to state that most (or overwhelming majority, if you prefer) of the Middle East has less religious freedom than most of Europe.

 

It is also important to note that despite the democratic nature of Israel, which makes it seem like many other Westernized countries, religion has a weird influence on society. This includes the presence of religious courts (Jewish as well as non-Jewish), for example. And according to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor the government implements some policies based on Orthodox Jewish interpretations of religious law.

 

This, again is an example that one cannot discuss in any meaningful way politics in that region using one simplified image of the Middle East. It is clear that religion is an important aspect, but how it manifest itself is vastly different from country to country and, in several of them, has seen significant changes in the recent modern history.

Edited February 9, 2015 by CharonY

[tar]

Overtone,

 

The KKK has been mostly abandoned in the U.S. I have for instance been taught, since I was a child in the 1950s to look at the KKK as the intolerant, criminal bigots, that they were. There are however holdouts that you run into every once in a while that hold on to racial or religious purity, as a guideline.

 

I remember for instance, seeing one of the first movies ever made...forget its name...but it involves a guy falling in love with his hired maid from another country. The hooded people portrayed in the movie where the grocers and lawyers and workers of the town. They were the moral police, the conscience of the place. The deciders of right and wrong behavior. They frowned upon lies and decieption and infidelity and murder and theft.

 

In the Daesh situation, they decide who the apostates are. They probably figure they are right. They probably figure they are fighting the good fight. They may well believe they are living as Mohammed lived. They might be simply fighting Mohammed's fight, until all the world is for Allah.

 

They, however, fail to see that all the world is already for Allah and every person on the planet has already noticed their association with the universe.

 

Overtone, I think your advice to see Daesh as KKK is good advice. Also probably good to watch that old movie and understand that common morals are a facet of society, and understanding the rules by which your group is going is a base human operational characteristic.

 

Which gets me back to an earlier suggestion. We have to come up with a common story, that everyone can live by. (other than Mohammed's example alone.)

 

Regards, TAR

[StringJunky]

Tar

 

Birth of a Nation.

[swansont]

The KKK has been mostly abandoned in the U.S. I have for instance been taught, since I was a child in the 1950s to look at the KKK as the intolerant, criminal bigots, that they were. There are however holdouts that you run into every once in a while that hold on to racial or religious purity, as a guideline.

 

 

They're still around, along with a bunch of other extremist groups with similar attitudes.

http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism

 

"Currently, there are 939 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others."

[Hans de Vries]

Comparing ISIS to KKK is off IMHO. All of these hate groups in USA are either nationalist, racist or some mix of both. Religion plays a secondary or even tertiary role in their ideologies (and they don't claim otherwise)

[swansont]

Comparing ISIS to KKK is off IMHO. All of these hate groups in USA are either nationalist, racist or some mix of both. Religion plays a secondary or even tertiary role in their ideologies (and they don't claim otherwise)

 

So? They're different sources of ideology, but they are ideology-driven, making them analogous. Also, the KKK has a streak of religious purity in their actions.