4 ms·

So, it seems that the only way to fight this was is to change their minds by asking assistance from the peaceful Muslim groups. We can discriminate Daesh and M

by kefka 11y ago

So, it seems that the only way to fight this was is to change their minds by asking assistance from the peaceful Muslim groups. We can discriminate Daesh and Muslims, and that only shows the monsters they say we are. We can bomb Daesh, which only encourages more to join their cause. Worst case, we can nuke the whole area of Iraq and Syria where Daesh has power, and that would only show every Muslim in the world that we are intolerant of Islam. This is a war of ideology, and that war cannot be fought with guns and bombs. It has to start from the ground, with 'militant moderate Muslims' willing to show people another way; one that does not involve in slavery, beheadings, suicide bombings, and crucifixion. Weaponry has its place to keep the borders of that state in its place, given that we know their religious orders are of limitless expansion and no regard for state boundaries.

varjag 11y ago
You underestimate the degree to which people of violence listen to the language of violence. The article suggests the military conquest is the key of Daesh attractiveness. But similarly, its military loss will be its demise. Lost territory and decimated ranks will make it a lot less exciting to the recruits. Harder wars have been fought and won before.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  I agree. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were routed in Afghanistan, and the only thing that saved them was a sympathetic government next door in Pakistan, allowing them to regroup and rearm. The Americans, had they stayed, could have protected the democratic government until it was strong enough to stand on its own, but war weariness and impatience caused them to withdraw prematurely. This was not a sign of jihadist strength and resilience, just good luck. Interviews with some of the fighters suggested actually that they were tired of war as well.
- maxharris 11y ago
  Daesh What do you think of this piece by Maajid Nawaz? Why Not Calling ISIS “Islamic” Hurts Muslim Reformers: http://jrbenjamin.com/2015/03/06/maajid-nawaz-why-not-calling-isis-islamic-hurts-muslim-reformers/ http://jrbenjamin.com/2015/03/06/maajid-nawaz-why-not-callin...
  - varjag 11y ago
    I couldn't care less about Islamic. I'm not calling it "state".
    - maxharris 11y ago
      Unfortunately it has courts, police, and a military. It has nearly 10 million citizens, and in articles about its territorial gains, it even appears on maps. It even collects taxes, repairs roads and runs electric utilities. The sad reality is that it is both quintessentially Islamic, and a state. If we refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation today, we have no chance of destroying it in the future.
      - varjag 11y ago
        It's court, police and military are not independent structures but the same bunch of armed militants. If controlling a territory with sword and fire is the criterion of statehood, we have a bunch of states right now on our hands, including Taliban State, Boko Haram State and 18th Street State. I concur it's advantageous they are positioning themselves as a state though. It immediately translates their military defeats into social and political ones.
hedgew 11y ago
I disagree. The last time we tried that went horribly wrong; we watched and negotiated and "waged the war of ideology" too patiently while Hitler grew in power, until ultimately the Nazis had to be fought and slaughtered and condemned without mercy. If history repeated itself, we would be wise to intervene faster instead of twiddling our thumbs on the sidelines. And we'd know that waging any kind of ideological war would be futile. It's almost certainly too late to solve the problem with anything other than military action.
- carlob 11y ago
  But how long did it take for the whole of Europe to mend the damage of WWII, both physical and political? Germany has been left effectively occupied and divided for 45 years after the end of the war. We're talking about an industrialized country, which shared a very similar culture for the most part with the occupying powers. How do you think the post-WWIII would go in the Middle East? Do you think Syria will meekly accept foreign occupation, write a new constitution and rebuild itself in just 45 years?
  - Margh 11y ago
    West Germany had a similar culture to their occupant, the east not so much. Germany also became the centrepiece for a US vs. Russia proxy war, Syria would likely become the same and is arguably already in that state. In any case it would depend on whether a post WWIII and independent(ish) Syria, much like the post WWII Germany, makes the prudent decision to outlaw and taboo the fanaticism that got it into that situation in the first place.
    - carlob 11y ago
      > West Germany had a similar culture to their occupant, the east not so much. Germany also became the centrepiece for a US vs. Russia proxy war, Syria would likely become the same and is arguably already in that state. That why I said mostly. However I still think Russia/East Germany is way closer than France or US/Syria or Iraq. Other than that Germany was not the only European power that kept suffering the consequences of WWII well into the '80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
gregjwild 11y ago
> It has to start from the ground, with 'militant moderate Muslims' willing to show people another way; one that does not involve in slavery, beheadings, suicide bombings, and crucifixion. Problem with this is that the most prominent moderate Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, was utterly smashed by the military counter-coup in Egypt. To many Islamists, it seemed to prove that a political route to power was untenable. Though I agree that we have to bridge the gap. The us vs. them rhetoric is toxic.
- kefka 11y ago
  > Though I agree that we have to bridge the gap. The us vs. them rhetoric is toxic. Indeed. However, it is "Western culture vs ISIS". The other part is that it's also "Other Muslims vs ISIS" along with "Muslim countries vs ISIS". ISIS dictates that they are indeed bent for world domination, as much absurd as that seems. But ISIS acts like Anonymous with a country. Yeah, you can nuke the land and kill millions of people. But they're still going to be in Europe, North America, Asia, and everywhere else... and the extreme tactics will only encourage more to join the cause.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Not totally true. They need training camps, and food for their army, they need money (what also implies oil), and they need some infrastructure for their propaganda.
macspoofing 11y ago
>We can bomb Daesh, which only encourages more to join their cause. I disagree. If they have a unfettered region to recruit from, they can and will recruit. For one thing, recruits have a place to go. More than that, they also have a place to trade and traffic weapons, drugs and oil from. They have a place to plan global attacks from. Taking away a safe heaven makes it harder for them to do business. Right?

by kefka 11y ago

varjag 11y ago

You underestimate the degree to which people of violence listen to the language of violence. The article suggests the military conquest is the key of Daesh attractiveness. But similarly, its military loss will be its demise. Lost territory and decimated ranks will make it a lot less exciting to the recruits. Harder wars have been fought and won before.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
I agree. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were routed in Afghanistan, and the only thing that saved them was a sympathetic government next door in Pakistan, allowing them to regroup and rearm. The Americans, had they stayed, could have protected the democratic government until it was strong enough to stand on its own, but war weariness and impatience caused them to withdraw prematurely. This was not a sign of jihadist strength and resilience, just good luck. Interviews with some of the fighters suggested actually that they were tired of war as well.
maxharris 11y ago
Daesh What do you think of this piece by Maajid Nawaz? Why Not Calling ISIS “Islamic” Hurts Muslim Reformers: http://jrbenjamin.com/2015/03/06/maajid-nawaz-why-not-calling-isis-islamic-hurts-muslim-reformers/ http://jrbenjamin.com/2015/03/06/maajid-nawaz-why-not-callin...
- varjag 11y ago
  I couldn't care less about Islamic. I'm not calling it "state".
  - maxharris 11y ago
    Unfortunately it has courts, police, and a military. It has nearly 10 million citizens, and in articles about its territorial gains, it even appears on maps. It even collects taxes, repairs roads and runs electric utilities. The sad reality is that it is both quintessentially Islamic, and a state. If we refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation today, we have no chance of destroying it in the future.
    - varjag 11y ago
      It's court, police and military are not independent structures but the same bunch of armed militants. If controlling a territory with sword and fire is the criterion of statehood, we have a bunch of states right now on our hands, including Taliban State, Boko Haram State and 18th Street State. I concur it's advantageous they are positioning themselves as a state though. It immediately translates their military defeats into social and political ones.

hedgew 11y ago

I disagree. The last time we tried that went horribly wrong; we watched and negotiated and "waged the war of ideology" too patiently while Hitler grew in power, until ultimately the Nazis had to be fought and slaughtered and condemned without mercy. If history repeated itself, we would be wise to intervene faster instead of twiddling our thumbs on the sidelines. And we'd know that waging any kind of ideological war would be futile. It's almost certainly too late to solve the problem with anything other than military action.

carlob 11y ago
But how long did it take for the whole of Europe to mend the damage of WWII, both physical and political? Germany has been left effectively occupied and divided for 45 years after the end of the war. We're talking about an industrialized country, which shared a very similar culture for the most part with the occupying powers. How do you think the post-WWIII would go in the Middle East? Do you think Syria will meekly accept foreign occupation, write a new constitution and rebuild itself in just 45 years?
- Margh 11y ago
  West Germany had a similar culture to their occupant, the east not so much. Germany also became the centrepiece for a US vs. Russia proxy war, Syria would likely become the same and is arguably already in that state. In any case it would depend on whether a post WWIII and independent(ish) Syria, much like the post WWII Germany, makes the prudent decision to outlaw and taboo the fanaticism that got it into that situation in the first place.
  - carlob 11y ago
    > West Germany had a similar culture to their occupant, the east not so much. Germany also became the centrepiece for a US vs. Russia proxy war, Syria would likely become the same and is arguably already in that state. That why I said mostly. However I still think Russia/East Germany is way closer than France or US/Syria or Iraq. Other than that Germany was not the only European power that kept suffering the consequences of WWII well into the '80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

gregjwild 11y ago

> It has to start from the ground, with 'militant moderate Muslims' willing to show people another way; one that does not involve in slavery, beheadings, suicide bombings, and crucifixion. Problem with this is that the most prominent moderate Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, was utterly smashed by the military counter-coup in Egypt. To many Islamists, it seemed to prove that a political route to power was untenable. Though I agree that we have to bridge the gap. The us vs. them rhetoric is toxic.

kefka 11y ago
> Though I agree that we have to bridge the gap. The us vs. them rhetoric is toxic. Indeed. However, it is "Western culture vs ISIS". The other part is that it's also "Other Muslims vs ISIS" along with "Muslim countries vs ISIS". ISIS dictates that they are indeed bent for world domination, as much absurd as that seems. But ISIS acts like Anonymous with a country. Yeah, you can nuke the land and kill millions of people. But they're still going to be in Europe, North America, Asia, and everywhere else... and the extreme tactics will only encourage more to join the cause.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Not totally true. They need training camps, and food for their army, they need money (what also implies oil), and they need some infrastructure for their propaganda.

macspoofing 11y ago

>We can bomb Daesh, which only encourages more to join their cause. I disagree. If they have a unfettered region to recruit from, they can and will recruit. For one thing, recruits have a place to go. More than that, they also have a place to trade and traffic weapons, drugs and oil from. They have a place to plan global attacks from. Taking away a safe heaven makes it harder for them to do business. Right?