12 ms·

The article is a nuanced view of the present situation, but doesn't go into the historical perspective. Contemporary radical Islam is a response to Western mode

The article is a nuanced view of the present situation, but doesn't go into the historical perspective. Contemporary radical Islam is a response to Western modernity and perceived decadence and has been brewing for decades if not centuries. It is an outgrowth of Salafi Islam, a severely literal interpretation of the Koran that has become widespread over the past 70 years thanks to trillions of petrodollars that fund thousands of fundamentalist madrassas and other cultural dissemination centers all over the world, including in the United States and Western Europe. It's important to note that ISIS, al Qaeda, al nusra etc. are Sunni movements and are bitterly opposed to Shi'ism. The rise of Shi'a political power, led by Iran since 1980, poses a huge ideological threat. What we're seeing today is a tiny group of very clever, highly motivated people, patiently watching for opportunities to sow chaos because they believe it will tip the scales eventually toward a Caliphate. They are hugely aided by technology and by the West's earnest desire to integrate the East. However, I believe the ISIS is doomed to failure. There are only so many young people willing to sacrifice everything for fanatic dreams of afterlife fulfillment as payment for promises of improving the here-now. Most youth, in other words, aren't that stupid. ISIS is siphoning off a certain kind of malcontents who make good fodder for the cannons, but history has shown that this approach is not sustainable. The Muslim world is already showing signs of backlash against the constant images of extreme violence, and reformists continue to call for tolerance and dialogue as the only true solution to territorial and ideological differences. Whether the Levant succumbs to unending civil war for the next few decades, or is ultimately dominated by a set of secular dictatorships that suppress the jihadists, or can they achieve peaceful multiplayer democracy--these are questions to which no one has the answers.

thewarrior 11y ago
Isn't it funny that Wahabbists hate being called that ? They get really agitated and say we're not Wahabbis we're just true muslims. One interesting theory I read is that 19th Century Islam was forced to confront the reality that they had declined while Europe had soared. In the ensuing conflict of ideas the one that won out was the thesis that the Islamic world had declined because they had gotten out of touch with the true values of Islam as practised by those at the time of the prophet. Hence Salafism - Literally a return to the time of the prophet. Francis Fukuyama was laughed at for claiming the end of history a few years ago as he believed Western Democracy had achieved an eternal triumph. What are we then to make of these people who believe that the end of history happened more than a thousand years ago ?
- kaz1 11y ago
  If one says "keeping up the articles of Magna Carta, rather than resort to catastrophic violence on the part of the powerful outlawed states, would likely help lessen some of the chaos in today's world", does it imply that one is physically calling to go back to the thirteenth century? Similarly, Americans calling to restore the fourth amendment may not mean taking the clock back to the nineteenth century. Salafism in essence doesn't mean any different within the relevant conceptual framework. In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? How/why does it matter in the long run whether or not a bunch of Amoeba get transformed into more complicated organisms, or hot elementary particles end up forming heavy atoms and structures, or killing and chaos spreads among the humans a la world war II? From a materialistic/nihilistic standpoint, everything -- or nothing, for that matter -- can be viewed as triumph or end of some (part of) history (or not). Islam in the 19th century was no more and no less than what it was before, but the Muslims were (and still are) trying to come to terms with the colonial destructions and ensuing effects.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so yes.
    - kaz1 11y ago
      Though Fukuyama reportedly distanced himself from this later, I appreciate your answer. But don't you think it's redundantly tautological and circular/self-referential to approach it like "Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so it is the supreme progress/triumph (end of history?) to have that". Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions; that is, from a materialistic viewpoint (which I presume is Fukuyama's and many of the fellows' here), how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after (or any other event, such as a massacre by some of the humans, in the universe, for that matter).
RobertoG 11y ago
I find your comment very relevant and I agree with all of it but I miss some references to the influence of not Levant nations in all this mess. To your comments I would like to add: the Russians invading Afghanistan, the CIA arming and training of all kind of "rebels", the invasion of Irak, the protection of the House of Saud by the EUA, the interest of Israel in being the only strong nation in the area, the support of dictatorial regimens (and their removal) by the "western powers", etc.. It's almost impossible to solve a problem without understanding it. And this is not a simple problem.
- mi3law 11y ago
  Thank you for mentioning this. I'm very disappointed that many in the HN crowd seem ignorant of these very relevant events (from the comments).
- mi3law 11y ago
  Thank you for mentioning this. I'm very disappointed that many in the HN crowd seem ignorant of these very relevant events (from the comments).
- rdtsc 11y ago
  Also the funding of the Syrian rebels by Obama and other Western nations. ISIS was just one of the groups in the Syrian civil war, a bunch brutal and crazy idiots, that would have never amounted to anything. At the same time CIA wanted to destabilize the region, to kick the currently Russia-friendly government out (and as a consequence kick Russia out of its pretty much only naval base in the region). So they kept funneling funds, training and weapons to the "moderate" rebels. Of course all those weapons (along with many left behind in Iraq), and all those "moderate" rebels switched to ISIS. Now you can either say CIA is stupid or malicious. Stupid because despite the $100B in funding, they couldn't foresee it and it was a surprise, or it was pretty much the plan. One can say, at the end of the day what are they (and many other military and intelligence) branches will do if is there is no new threat to worry about. "No drones or SIGINT targets, no promotions and paychecks". Both for military industrial complex and the government employees alike. Either way I find it interesting how this was spun as a surprise to the media: "We had no idea why ISIS grew so fast, and managed to occupy so much territory. Not really sure how they got those modern tank killer missiles they keep making videos with...".
largesse 11y ago
Michel Houellebecq alludes to an interesting idea in his novel Soumission - in the hierarchy that the West is using for identity politics, race and religion are less touchable than women’s rights and gender equality. The West will not criticize muslim culture with its implicit patriarchy and unequal treatment because they are the underdogs. Everything I see indicates that this is true especially in the UK. The question is how far accepts and lack of criticism will go before rights that we consider sacrosanct in the West are eroded by demographics in Europe.
scotty79 11y ago
> Contemporary radical Islam is a response to Western modernity and perceived decadence and has been brewing for decades if not centuries. Contemporary radical Islam is brewing just for one (young) generation and is result of applying western individual freedom and reason to principles of Islam. http://lesswrong.com/lw/18b/reason_as_memetic_immune_disorder/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/18b/reason_as_memetic_immune_disorde...
return0 11y ago
These terrorist groups are becoming a recurring thing though, a failed one is replaced by another. They are aided by technology that allows inflicting powerful hits and of course by money from their patrons. The question is if there is something more than just extremism here, what is the failure of the western secularity to become attractive and engulf immigrants and whether this is phenomenon can spring up on its own or its dependent on someone funding it. Hitting them with bombs can only achieve so much and should be just one step in many to understand this phenomenon. I do think that this attack in particular has seen so universal condemnation, (largely because France is not regarded as a major invading force like the US or NATO are), that it's actually going to hurt ISIS reputation, probably fatally. OTOH destroying them doesn't seem to be the end of the story...
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  "Universal condemnation" is precisely what they're seeking. The more notoriety, the better. Hence, pushing gay men off of buildings and drowning men in cages (with underwater cameras filming). They are seeking street cred, a rep, a mystique of fear. Condemnation doesn't work. What does work is a combination of excellent police work in routing out cells of recruiters and operators, and precise, devastating bombing raids followed by boots on the ground to protect and empower the civilians, most of whom would never support these psychopaths by choice.
  - woah 11y ago
    Bombing? Boots on the ground? You think these things work? Have you been asleep for the last 15 years?
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      In comparison to the state of things in Iraq now, they did work. The problem is that the American public(rightly so) were tired of the decade+ long wars and wanted the troops home, so we pulled out. As we saw, the Iraqi military still wasn't able to stand on its own legs against a relatively organized and well-equipped guerilla force. If Iraq had a fully capable military(instead of the partially capable one they have now), ISIS would never have spread into the country. For all the problems the US and its allies created in Iraq, the country was comparatively much more stable, and for the most part people got on with their lives.
seiji 11y ago
There are only so many young people willing to sacrifice everything for fanatic dreams of afterlife fulfillment as payment for promises of improving the here-now. Most youth, in other words, aren't that stupid. Startups seem to be pretty good at convincing a never-ending stream of youth to surrender 500% productivity now in exchange for (usually lies about) riches in the future. "Yeah, it's linkedfacebox, you know, a super cool startup and everybody there just works through the night because we're all so dedicated to the cause. Gotta keep crushing it so the founders can get a few billion dollars richer otherwise they won't let me cash out my 0.0001% for $3 million." humans have limited psychological reactions to things. The "believe in a cause" bucket uses the same manipulation tools no matter if you're a startup, a cult, a thousand year old religion, or a radicalized intentional hate group with a persecution complex. You set up an enemy ("the others" / "the adversary", "disruption"), you rally your troops to beat the enemy at all costs (sacrifice yourself/your time/your health for the greater good and you will be rewarded), then perpetuate cycles of wins/losses to reinforce belief and dedication to externalized, and personally abdicated, leadership.
- seren 11y ago
  Last night, I was reflecting on the common point between people flocking to SV or to Syria to support Isis. I know this is pretty far fetched, but at the end, I feel both have the same kind of appeal : Stay where you are and remain an anonymous cog in the machine, or move to a place, where you will endure hardship, but where in the end you can change the world and you will create a legacy. And in both case, the reality is less rosy. This is a kind of an archetypal "Call to Adventure", but it might have another name.
  - pm90 11y ago
    I would argue that ts the experience and not the result (I'm talking about SV of course, those that go to Syria are probably going to be dead so their experiences won't count for much).
- chongli 11y ago
  I'd like to think there's a key difference between losing sleep all night making the latest social media fad and raping helpless women and girls after beheading their husbands, fathers, and brothers. Between siphoning off another million with a tweak to your high-frequency-trading algorithm and shooting dozens of people to death in a concert hall.
bresc 11y ago
Radical Islam is not solely a response to western influence. It sure is also that, but it is also due to the ideology of the islam itself and the failure to modernise it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity
- RobertoG 11y ago
  I agree with this. We shouldn't forget that Muhammad was basically a military leader. Anyway, we are in danger that this narrative and others similar becomes the only explanation in the mainstream media, instead of only a factor that probably is not very relevant. After all, the majority of Muslims don't believe that they should go to war with other countries.
  - bresc 11y ago
    I believe it is relevant. The West is sticking it's nose into many places around this world. But the response is not always the killing of civilians. Take South America for example. Their answer is much smarter, because their approach is different. I think the middle east approach is tainted by some parts of the islamic ideology. This is not to say, that I agree with what the west is doing. I think "what goes around, comes around" applies here very well...
    - RobertoG 11y ago
      You know what? Never though about the South America example before. You have convinced me that religion is important here. I will think about it. Did you convinced somebody before about anything in an Internet forum? ;-)
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
      I believe Tupac Amaru and Shining Path would like a word with you from prison, also the entire 1970s in Argentina and Uruguay
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
at-fates-hands 11y ago
>> for opportunities to sow chaos because they believe it will tip the scales eventually toward a Caliphate. From what I've been told and read, they've already established a Caliphate. The primary driver of having a Caliphate is that ISIS must control territory, without controlling territory, there is no Caliphate - correct? This was one of the best explanations I've read about why ISIS is doing what it is doing: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.
notahacker 11y ago
It's also worth pointing out that even Salafi jihadism isn't a homogenous whole, with many of the other jihadist movements actively fighting ISIS A key difference between al Qaeda, which could broadly be defined as trying to "tip the scales eventually toward a Caliphate" whilst battling for certain populist causes and ISIS is that the latter considers itself to be a Caliphate, and is actively pushing for the Islamic equivalent of Armageddon. That means it isn't going to calm down, but it also means that its claims to legitimacy based on fulfilment of prophecies about unification of territories are more readily defeated by military means than other jihadists' claims to be defending the Muslim world from infidels. Edit: see also this user's point and linked article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10581489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10581489
- Thriptic 11y ago
  > That means it isn't going to calm down, but it also means that its claims to legitimacy based on fulfilment of prophecies about unification of territories are more readily defeated by military means than other jihadists' claims to be defending the Muslim world from infidels. I agree. The fact that ISIS effectively seeks to become a nation state makes fighting them a lot more straight forward. It's very difficult to fight an insurgency or terrorist group which is not interested in holding territory and blends in with the population. It's pretty straight forward to bomb, lay siege to, or generally bleed a group which needs to have government buildings, infrastructure, police, logistics etc. The fact that their legitimacy is primarily based on continuous expansion is also great, as defeat creates a highly negative feedback loop for them making recruitment more difficult.
graycat 11y ago
Of course there are answers: ISIS just attacked NATO -- definitely Darwin award material. NATO can "wipe the desert clean" in less than an hour anytime NATO is willing to do what ISIS does -- create civilian casualties. By clean, in the ISIS areas, no more buildings, oil infrastructure, vehicles, tents, flocks, camels, or people. None. Then, the end of ISIS and whatever beliefs, determination, goals, history, etc. Dead people don't attack NATO, and NATO can convert ISIS and everyone in the ISIS areas to dead people in an hour. The only question is, when will NATO do that.
- lhc- 11y ago
  When will NATO destroy an entire nation, civilians and all? How is that a remotely reasonable response? That's like suggesting that Pakistan would be justified in nuking Washington DC because American drone strikes have killed civilians there. There's no world where its justifiable to murder a nation of civilians, ever.
  - tremon 11y ago
    While I agree with the point you're making, how many civilians are left in ISIS controlled territory though? I don't have any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if 50% has fled and another 40% has been killed by ISIS. So how many people are there, not including the people that chose to join ISIS? I've seen some footage from Sinjar after it was retaken by the Kurds: not a single building was left standing. It's hard to imagine anyone still living there.
  - graycat 11y ago
    > There's no world where its justifiable to murder a nation of civilians, ever. Yup, and that's just what ISIS is trying to do -- everyone in the world, convert to radical Sunni Islam and follow ISIS or die. To heck with the details: The US, France, Germany, England, all of NATO has a right to defend themselves. With the ISIS ideology, they will be trying to kill everyone else, infidels, as long as there is just one ISIS person left. At this point it is not enough to stop the ISIS killings. Instead, we must stop the ability of ISIS to do harm outside of their area. Sure, taking the desert area of ISIS and wiping it clean is not reasonable, but neither is ISIS. I don't want to kill them. I especially don't want to hurt the girls and young women, especially the ones they have made into sex slaves. I don't even want to hurt their flocks and camels. But I want to stop ISIS now and forever in the future. I don't want to spend even one drop of NATO blood. I don't want to spend even one US penny more than necessary. But I want ISIS stopped. We are not obligated to put up with their wacko nonsense. It is our responsibility that they be stopped. If they had any responsibility or deserved any from us, then they would long since have stopped their wacko, medieval nonsense. Since they have not stopped and have no sense of responsibility, we need just to stop them. Stop them from the air. Take out their leaders and their oil infrastructure. Occupy their oil areas and take the oil. For the rest of the area, we might for a while try to send them back to tents, flocks, and camels cooking their food with camel dung. I I suspect it won't work, that all they have is what their radical clerics tell them, and those clerics will stop only when dead. Basically they have a wacko, violent, ugly, stupid medieval culture enabled by oil money and nothing else, are 1000 years out of date, with no hope of moving ahead the needed several hundred years. No hope. And their nuke threat is real. Time to stop them.

thewarrior 11y ago

Isn't it funny that Wahabbists hate being called that ? They get really agitated and say we're not Wahabbis we're just true muslims. One interesting theory I read is that 19th Century Islam was forced to confront the reality that they had declined while Europe had soared. In the ensuing conflict of ideas the one that won out was the thesis that the Islamic world had declined because they had gotten out of touch with the true values of Islam as practised by those at the time of the prophet. Hence Salafism - Literally a return to the time of the prophet. Francis Fukuyama was laughed at for claiming the end of history a few years ago as he believed Western Democracy had achieved an eternal triumph. What are we then to make of these people who believe that the end of history happened more than a thousand years ago ?

kaz1 11y ago
If one says "keeping up the articles of Magna Carta, rather than resort to catastrophic violence on the part of the powerful outlawed states, would likely help lessen some of the chaos in today's world", does it imply that one is physically calling to go back to the thirteenth century? Similarly, Americans calling to restore the fourth amendment may not mean taking the clock back to the nineteenth century. Salafism in essence doesn't mean any different within the relevant conceptual framework. In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? How/why does it matter in the long run whether or not a bunch of Amoeba get transformed into more complicated organisms, or hot elementary particles end up forming heavy atoms and structures, or killing and chaos spreads among the humans a la world war II? From a materialistic/nihilistic standpoint, everything -- or nothing, for that matter -- can be viewed as triumph or end of some (part of) history (or not). Islam in the 19th century was no more and no less than what it was before, but the Muslims were (and still are) trying to come to terms with the colonial destructions and ensuing effects.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so yes.
  - kaz1 11y ago
    Though Fukuyama reportedly distanced himself from this later, I appreciate your answer. But don't you think it's redundantly tautological and circular/self-referential to approach it like "Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so it is the supreme progress/triumph (end of history?) to have that". Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions; that is, from a materialistic viewpoint (which I presume is Fukuyama's and many of the fellows' here), how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after (or any other event, such as a massacre by some of the humans, in the universe, for that matter).

RobertoG 11y ago

I find your comment very relevant and I agree with all of it but I miss some references to the influence of not Levant nations in all this mess. To your comments I would like to add: the Russians invading Afghanistan, the CIA arming and training of all kind of "rebels", the invasion of Irak, the protection of the House of Saud by the EUA, the interest of Israel in being the only strong nation in the area, the support of dictatorial regimens (and their removal) by the "western powers", etc.. It's almost impossible to solve a problem without understanding it. And this is not a simple problem.

mi3law 11y ago
Thank you for mentioning this. I'm very disappointed that many in the HN crowd seem ignorant of these very relevant events (from the comments).
mi3law 11y ago
Thank you for mentioning this. I'm very disappointed that many in the HN crowd seem ignorant of these very relevant events (from the comments).
rdtsc 11y ago
Also the funding of the Syrian rebels by Obama and other Western nations. ISIS was just one of the groups in the Syrian civil war, a bunch brutal and crazy idiots, that would have never amounted to anything. At the same time CIA wanted to destabilize the region, to kick the currently Russia-friendly government out (and as a consequence kick Russia out of its pretty much only naval base in the region). So they kept funneling funds, training and weapons to the "moderate" rebels. Of course all those weapons (along with many left behind in Iraq), and all those "moderate" rebels switched to ISIS. Now you can either say CIA is stupid or malicious. Stupid because despite the $100B in funding, they couldn't foresee it and it was a surprise, or it was pretty much the plan. One can say, at the end of the day what are they (and many other military and intelligence) branches will do if is there is no new threat to worry about. "No drones or SIGINT targets, no promotions and paychecks". Both for military industrial complex and the government employees alike. Either way I find it interesting how this was spun as a surprise to the media: "We had no idea why ISIS grew so fast, and managed to occupy so much territory. Not really sure how they got those modern tank killer missiles they keep making videos with...".

largesse 11y ago

Michel Houellebecq alludes to an interesting idea in his novel Soumission - in the hierarchy that the West is using for identity politics, race and religion are less touchable than women’s rights and gender equality. The West will not criticize muslim culture with its implicit patriarchy and unequal treatment because they are the underdogs. Everything I see indicates that this is true especially in the UK. The question is how far accepts and lack of criticism will go before rights that we consider sacrosanct in the West are eroded by demographics in Europe.

scotty79 11y ago

> Contemporary radical Islam is a response to Western modernity and perceived decadence and has been brewing for decades if not centuries. Contemporary radical Islam is brewing just for one (young) generation and is result of applying western individual freedom and reason to principles of Islam. http://lesswrong.com/lw/18b/reason_as_memetic_immune_disorder/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/18b/reason_as_memetic_immune_disorde...

return0 11y ago

These terrorist groups are becoming a recurring thing though, a failed one is replaced by another. They are aided by technology that allows inflicting powerful hits and of course by money from their patrons. The question is if there is something more than just extremism here, what is the failure of the western secularity to become attractive and engulf immigrants and whether this is phenomenon can spring up on its own or its dependent on someone funding it. Hitting them with bombs can only achieve so much and should be just one step in many to understand this phenomenon. I do think that this attack in particular has seen so universal condemnation, (largely because France is not regarded as a major invading force like the US or NATO are), that it's actually going to hurt ISIS reputation, probably fatally. OTOH destroying them doesn't seem to be the end of the story...

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
"Universal condemnation" is precisely what they're seeking. The more notoriety, the better. Hence, pushing gay men off of buildings and drowning men in cages (with underwater cameras filming). They are seeking street cred, a rep, a mystique of fear. Condemnation doesn't work. What does work is a combination of excellent police work in routing out cells of recruiters and operators, and precise, devastating bombing raids followed by boots on the ground to protect and empower the civilians, most of whom would never support these psychopaths by choice.
- woah 11y ago
  Bombing? Boots on the ground? You think these things work? Have you been asleep for the last 15 years?
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    In comparison to the state of things in Iraq now, they did work. The problem is that the American public(rightly so) were tired of the decade+ long wars and wanted the troops home, so we pulled out. As we saw, the Iraqi military still wasn't able to stand on its own legs against a relatively organized and well-equipped guerilla force. If Iraq had a fully capable military(instead of the partially capable one they have now), ISIS would never have spread into the country. For all the problems the US and its allies created in Iraq, the country was comparatively much more stable, and for the most part people got on with their lives.

seiji 11y ago

There are only so many young people willing to sacrifice everything for fanatic dreams of afterlife fulfillment as payment for promises of improving the here-now. Most youth, in other words, aren't that stupid. Startups seem to be pretty good at convincing a never-ending stream of youth to surrender 500% productivity now in exchange for (usually lies about) riches in the future. "Yeah, it's linkedfacebox, you know, a super cool startup and everybody there just works through the night because we're all so dedicated to the cause. Gotta keep crushing it so the founders can get a few billion dollars richer otherwise they won't let me cash out my 0.0001% for $3 million." humans have limited psychological reactions to things. The "believe in a cause" bucket uses the same manipulation tools no matter if you're a startup, a cult, a thousand year old religion, or a radicalized intentional hate group with a persecution complex. You set up an enemy ("the others" / "the adversary", "disruption"), you rally your troops to beat the enemy at all costs (sacrifice yourself/your time/your health for the greater good and you will be rewarded), then perpetuate cycles of wins/losses to reinforce belief and dedication to externalized, and personally abdicated, leadership.

seren 11y ago
Last night, I was reflecting on the common point between people flocking to SV or to Syria to support Isis. I know this is pretty far fetched, but at the end, I feel both have the same kind of appeal : Stay where you are and remain an anonymous cog in the machine, or move to a place, where you will endure hardship, but where in the end you can change the world and you will create a legacy. And in both case, the reality is less rosy. This is a kind of an archetypal "Call to Adventure", but it might have another name.
- pm90 11y ago
  I would argue that ts the experience and not the result (I'm talking about SV of course, those that go to Syria are probably going to be dead so their experiences won't count for much).
chongli 11y ago
I'd like to think there's a key difference between losing sleep all night making the latest social media fad and raping helpless women and girls after beheading their husbands, fathers, and brothers. Between siphoning off another million with a tweak to your high-frequency-trading algorithm and shooting dozens of people to death in a concert hall.

bresc 11y ago

Radical Islam is not solely a response to western influence. It sure is also that, but it is also due to the ideology of the islam itself and the failure to modernise it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity

RobertoG 11y ago
I agree with this. We shouldn't forget that Muhammad was basically a military leader. Anyway, we are in danger that this narrative and others similar becomes the only explanation in the mainstream media, instead of only a factor that probably is not very relevant. After all, the majority of Muslims don't believe that they should go to war with other countries.
- bresc 11y ago
  I believe it is relevant. The West is sticking it's nose into many places around this world. But the response is not always the killing of civilians. Take South America for example. Their answer is much smarter, because their approach is different. I think the middle east approach is tainted by some parts of the islamic ideology. This is not to say, that I agree with what the west is doing. I think "what goes around, comes around" applies here very well...
  - RobertoG 11y ago
    You know what? Never though about the South America example before. You have convinced me that religion is important here. I will think about it. Did you convinced somebody before about anything in an Internet forum? ;-)
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    I believe Tupac Amaru and Shining Path would like a word with you from prison, also the entire 1970s in Argentina and Uruguay

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

at-fates-hands 11y ago

>> for opportunities to sow chaos because they believe it will tip the scales eventually toward a Caliphate. From what I've been told and read, they've already established a Caliphate. The primary driver of having a Caliphate is that ISIS must control territory, without controlling territory, there is no Caliphate - correct? This was one of the best explanations I've read about why ISIS is doing what it is doing: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.

notahacker 11y ago

It's also worth pointing out that even Salafi jihadism isn't a homogenous whole, with many of the other jihadist movements actively fighting ISIS A key difference between al Qaeda, which could broadly be defined as trying to "tip the scales eventually toward a Caliphate" whilst battling for certain populist causes and ISIS is that the latter considers itself to be a Caliphate, and is actively pushing for the Islamic equivalent of Armageddon. That means it isn't going to calm down, but it also means that its claims to legitimacy based on fulfilment of prophecies about unification of territories are more readily defeated by military means than other jihadists' claims to be defending the Muslim world from infidels. Edit: see also this user's point and linked article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10581489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10581489

Thriptic 11y ago
> That means it isn't going to calm down, but it also means that its claims to legitimacy based on fulfilment of prophecies about unification of territories are more readily defeated by military means than other jihadists' claims to be defending the Muslim world from infidels. I agree. The fact that ISIS effectively seeks to become a nation state makes fighting them a lot more straight forward. It's very difficult to fight an insurgency or terrorist group which is not interested in holding territory and blends in with the population. It's pretty straight forward to bomb, lay siege to, or generally bleed a group which needs to have government buildings, infrastructure, police, logistics etc. The fact that their legitimacy is primarily based on continuous expansion is also great, as defeat creates a highly negative feedback loop for them making recruitment more difficult.

graycat 11y ago

Of course there are answers: ISIS just attacked NATO -- definitely Darwin award material. NATO can "wipe the desert clean" in less than an hour anytime NATO is willing to do what ISIS does -- create civilian casualties. By clean, in the ISIS areas, no more buildings, oil infrastructure, vehicles, tents, flocks, camels, or people. None. Then, the end of ISIS and whatever beliefs, determination, goals, history, etc. Dead people don't attack NATO, and NATO can convert ISIS and everyone in the ISIS areas to dead people in an hour. The only question is, when will NATO do that.

lhc- 11y ago
When will NATO destroy an entire nation, civilians and all? How is that a remotely reasonable response? That's like suggesting that Pakistan would be justified in nuking Washington DC because American drone strikes have killed civilians there. There's no world where its justifiable to murder a nation of civilians, ever.
- tremon 11y ago
  While I agree with the point you're making, how many civilians are left in ISIS controlled territory though? I don't have any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if 50% has fled and another 40% has been killed by ISIS. So how many people are there, not including the people that chose to join ISIS? I've seen some footage from Sinjar after it was retaken by the Kurds: not a single building was left standing. It's hard to imagine anyone still living there.
- graycat 11y ago
  > There's no world where its justifiable to murder a nation of civilians, ever. Yup, and that's just what ISIS is trying to do -- everyone in the world, convert to radical Sunni Islam and follow ISIS or die. To heck with the details: The US, France, Germany, England, all of NATO has a right to defend themselves. With the ISIS ideology, they will be trying to kill everyone else, infidels, as long as there is just one ISIS person left. At this point it is not enough to stop the ISIS killings. Instead, we must stop the ability of ISIS to do harm outside of their area. Sure, taking the desert area of ISIS and wiping it clean is not reasonable, but neither is ISIS. I don't want to kill them. I especially don't want to hurt the girls and young women, especially the ones they have made into sex slaves. I don't even want to hurt their flocks and camels. But I want to stop ISIS now and forever in the future. I don't want to spend even one drop of NATO blood. I don't want to spend even one US penny more than necessary. But I want ISIS stopped. We are not obligated to put up with their wacko nonsense. It is our responsibility that they be stopped. If they had any responsibility or deserved any from us, then they would long since have stopped their wacko, medieval nonsense. Since they have not stopped and have no sense of responsibility, we need just to stop them. Stop them from the air. Take out their leaders and their oil infrastructure. Occupy their oil areas and take the oil. For the rest of the area, we might for a while try to send them back to tents, flocks, and camels cooking their food with camel dung. I I suspect it won't work, that all they have is what their radical clerics tell them, and those clerics will stop only when dead. Basically they have a wacko, violent, ugly, stupid medieval culture enabled by oil money and nothing else, are 1000 years out of date, with no hope of moving ahead the needed several hundred years. No hope. And their nuke threat is real. Time to stop them.