4 ms·

"I don't understand why we shouldn't believe what's coming straight out of ISIS' mouth." Because they're proven masters at propaganda and messaging. To take pr

by criley2 11y ago

"I don't understand why we shouldn't believe what's coming straight out of ISIS' mouth." Because they're proven masters at propaganda and messaging. To take prop at face value is the definition of naive. "ISIS has said they're killing us because of their interpretation of a book written in the first millennia." That's their justification for their actions, not the reason. Come on. Recruiting for ISIS pays $5000 - $10000 per successful recruit. If their true motivation is purely religious, if religion is the INCENTIVE, then why incentivize people with lump sumps larger than yearly income from honest work? ISIS represents a way out of poverty, at least, that's how they sell it in recruiting. "When someone shoots up a Planned Parenthood, however, he doesn't even have to make a public statement and the same people are quick to blame Christian beliefs or rhetoric and immediately accept the ideological reason for the violence." We call that quid pro quo, and yes, it's intentional. If Islam itself is responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority, then it stands to reason that Christianity itself is responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority. So long as conservatives blame Islam in general for ISIS, we will blame Christianity in general for Westboro Baptist, for Clinic Terrorists, for Jehovah Witness child negligence murder, etc. "Why don't we say that gunmen attack Planned Parenthoods because of income inequality in the United States?" We do, often, we bemoan the war against education (ignorance as pride) and growing wealth inequality for social tension and violence both here in America and worldwide.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Ah. People are in poverty and to get out of poverty they blow themselves up in a public place such that they can murder a bunch of innocent civilians in the process. Got it. Good to know.
- criley2 11y ago
  If your country was destroyed, there was no jobs, you had no money, no food, your home was crumbling, your siblings starving, your parents helpless... and you were 17 and powerless, and someone offered you $10,000 to do it... would you? Would you do something terrible to ensure that your family got a huge payday that would put food on their table for potentially years?
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    No. No I would not murder dozens of innocent people. There's a lot of poverty in the world and the vast majority of the impoverished do not commit such atrocities.
    - criley2 11y ago
      "no I wouldn't" I guess it was too much to ask you to walk a mile in their shoes, because we internet dwelling rich folk literally cannot comprehend poverty on this level, of watching your family die before your eyes as a teenager. "vast majority of the impoverished do not commit such atrocities." The vast majority don't have a years pay untaxed offered, never have to make the choice. Easy to say they won't do something when they have no option to do it. Then again, with how INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL ISIS has been at recruiting perhaps you need to reevaluate your opinion of how the impoverished of the world behave when given opportunity. Many impoverished will loot during riots or engage in widespread gang violence in cities, they'll overthrow secular governments in favor of Islamic ones in the Arab Spring, they'll take the money and kill for ISIS. I think people need to be more honest and realize that true destitution means they don't have to play within the bounds of economic and moral systems. We're controlled by our jobs and our money, and if we have neither, we will do whatever is necessary to provide for ourselves and our families, including hurting people "from other tribes".
      - forrestthewoods 11y ago
        It is possible for me to walk two miles and still conclude that no I would not purposefully murder dozens of innocent civilians. It's possible I've even thought about this before. But it's cool that you think there's only one logical outcome and anyone who disagrees is just too unempathetic to see why your view is the only correct view.
        dang 11y ago
        Please don't use snark when the topic is already inflammatory.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  ISIS does a lot more than just suicide bombing. They aren't called the Islamic State just because. They have bureaucratic and governmental functions: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/the-isis-guide-to-building-an-islamic-state/372769/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/the... So, yes, they could be the way out of poverty for some people.
- pen2l 11y ago
  First, it's extremely complicated. Second, yeah, it's probably a mixed bag, some probably sincerely believe in their ideology and think that blowing themselves up is a good deed, others are in it for money or other reasons. What has been proven (pretty strongly at this point) is that it's the M.O. of many terrorist organizations to recruit men from poor households... and they tell them after they're dead from the suicide bombings, they'll sustain their families monetarily. To the would-be suicide bombers, this seems like a good rational choice within the reality of their situation: struggling families, living in desolate conditions with not much hope in sight. The matter of the fact is, a lot of these poor families that are approached by recruits would tell the recruiters to fuck off if they were not in such hopeless conditions.
jules 11y ago
No doubt that for some the motivation is financial, but do you think that the motivation for the 1000+ people who left from Europe to join IS in Syria the motivation is financial? Do you think that for the guy who drives a bomb truck in Syria the motivation is financial? This is not about putting blame anywhere, but about acknowledging an essential piece of the puzzle so that the problem can be solved. Note that I used to think as you do but a couple of months ago I started to do some research into what actually motivates terrorists and groups like ISIS and I came to the conclusion that a huge part of it is religious. That theory simply fits the facts much better than any other.
hsod 11y ago
> We call that quid pro quo, and yes, it's intentional. If Islam itself is responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority, then it stands to reason that Christianity itself is responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority. So long as conservatives blame Islam in general for ISIS, we will blame Christianity in general for Westboro Baptist, for Clinic Terrorists, for Jehovah Witness child negligence murder, etc. You are mimicking the rhetoric of the worst, most extreme segment of your opposition, which brings you (and this conversation) down to their level. Whoever fights with monsters...
- criley2 11y ago
  "You are mimicking the rhetoric of the worst, most extreme segment of your opposition," No, we're not mimicking the rhetoric of the "worst, most extreme". To suggest that is hyperbolic, and ironically itself represents the exact rhetoric you're trying to accuse me of engaging in. The worst and most extreme segment of the opposition says "lets use violence to terrorize those who disagree". This level of violent discourse is far worse and more extreme than the rhetoric we mimick. We're not engaging in that rhetoric, rather we're engaging in the mainstream popular rhetoric of people who don't agree with those extremists. "Whoever fights with monsters..." Honestly, the hypocrisy of you engaging in unfettered hyperbolic bullshit for the sole purpose of demonizing me as a monster is hard to overstate. Talk about monsterous, you should be teaching me how to distort words and demonize others, as you clearly are my superior in this area!

by criley2 11y ago

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Ah. People are in poverty and to get out of poverty they blow themselves up in a public place such that they can murder a bunch of innocent civilians in the process. Got it. Good to know.

criley2 11y ago
If your country was destroyed, there was no jobs, you had no money, no food, your home was crumbling, your siblings starving, your parents helpless... and you were 17 and powerless, and someone offered you $10,000 to do it... would you? Would you do something terrible to ensure that your family got a huge payday that would put food on their table for potentially years?
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  No. No I would not murder dozens of innocent people. There's a lot of poverty in the world and the vast majority of the impoverished do not commit such atrocities.
  - criley2 11y ago
    "no I wouldn't" I guess it was too much to ask you to walk a mile in their shoes, because we internet dwelling rich folk literally cannot comprehend poverty on this level, of watching your family die before your eyes as a teenager. "vast majority of the impoverished do not commit such atrocities." The vast majority don't have a years pay untaxed offered, never have to make the choice. Easy to say they won't do something when they have no option to do it. Then again, with how INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL ISIS has been at recruiting perhaps you need to reevaluate your opinion of how the impoverished of the world behave when given opportunity. Many impoverished will loot during riots or engage in widespread gang violence in cities, they'll overthrow secular governments in favor of Islamic ones in the Arab Spring, they'll take the money and kill for ISIS. I think people need to be more honest and realize that true destitution means they don't have to play within the bounds of economic and moral systems. We're controlled by our jobs and our money, and if we have neither, we will do whatever is necessary to provide for ourselves and our families, including hurting people "from other tribes".
    - forrestthewoods 11y ago
      It is possible for me to walk two miles and still conclude that no I would not purposefully murder dozens of innocent civilians. It's possible I've even thought about this before. But it's cool that you think there's only one logical outcome and anyone who disagrees is just too unempathetic to see why your view is the only correct view.
      - dang 11y ago
        Please don't use snark when the topic is already inflammatory.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
ISIS does a lot more than just suicide bombing. They aren't called the Islamic State just because. They have bureaucratic and governmental functions: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/the-isis-guide-to-building-an-islamic-state/372769/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/the... So, yes, they could be the way out of poverty for some people.
pen2l 11y ago
First, it's extremely complicated. Second, yeah, it's probably a mixed bag, some probably sincerely believe in their ideology and think that blowing themselves up is a good deed, others are in it for money or other reasons. What has been proven (pretty strongly at this point) is that it's the M.O. of many terrorist organizations to recruit men from poor households... and they tell them after they're dead from the suicide bombings, they'll sustain their families monetarily. To the would-be suicide bombers, this seems like a good rational choice within the reality of their situation: struggling families, living in desolate conditions with not much hope in sight. The matter of the fact is, a lot of these poor families that are approached by recruits would tell the recruiters to fuck off if they were not in such hopeless conditions.

jules 11y ago

No doubt that for some the motivation is financial, but do you think that the motivation for the 1000+ people who left from Europe to join IS in Syria the motivation is financial? Do you think that for the guy who drives a bomb truck in Syria the motivation is financial? This is not about putting blame anywhere, but about acknowledging an essential piece of the puzzle so that the problem can be solved. Note that I used to think as you do but a couple of months ago I started to do some research into what actually motivates terrorists and groups like ISIS and I came to the conclusion that a huge part of it is religious. That theory simply fits the facts much better than any other.

hsod 11y ago

> We call that quid pro quo, and yes, it's intentional. If Islam itself is responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority, then it stands to reason that Christianity itself is responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority. So long as conservatives blame Islam in general for ISIS, we will blame Christianity in general for Westboro Baptist, for Clinic Terrorists, for Jehovah Witness child negligence murder, etc. You are mimicking the rhetoric of the worst, most extreme segment of your opposition, which brings you (and this conversation) down to their level. Whoever fights with monsters...

criley2 11y ago
"You are mimicking the rhetoric of the worst, most extreme segment of your opposition," No, we're not mimicking the rhetoric of the "worst, most extreme". To suggest that is hyperbolic, and ironically itself represents the exact rhetoric you're trying to accuse me of engaging in. The worst and most extreme segment of the opposition says "lets use violence to terrorize those who disagree". This level of violent discourse is far worse and more extreme than the rhetoric we mimick. We're not engaging in that rhetoric, rather we're engaging in the mainstream popular rhetoric of people who don't agree with those extremists. "Whoever fights with monsters..." Honestly, the hypocrisy of you engaging in unfettered hyperbolic bullshit for the sole purpose of demonizing me as a monster is hard to overstate. Talk about monsterous, you should be teaching me how to distort words and demonize others, as you clearly are my superior in this area!