4 ms·

> To say the problem with ISIS is anything other than Islamic extremism is a red herring. This assertion seems obviously false. ISIS isn't suddenly "better" be

> To say the problem with ISIS is anything other than Islamic extremism is a red herring. This assertion seems obviously false. ISIS isn't suddenly "better" because they are killing in the name of something other than "Islamic extremism." There are also plenty of extreme right-wing muslims who don't kill people, which also suggests that a generic diagnosis of "islamic extremism" is not enough to explain ISIS. If you /really/ believe ISIS is powered by a fervent belief in fundamentalist Islam and nothing else, then there are no remedies other than killing every member of the group as their rhetoric inescapably leads to the conclusion they should kill everyone who disagrees with them. Of course, to believe that, you also have to believe previous groups that espoused philosophies with similar conclusions (Al' Qaeda, etc) were lying - as we haven't kill all of their members and their terrorist & militant activities have fallen off. If all muslim extremists are driven solely by personal belief in islamic extremism, we would never expect them to change their behavior. But people do change! All the time. So, even if you believe that all extremely right-wing muslims want to kill everyone all the time (a preposition I find hard to believe myself), you should also see that some (most I would say) muslim extremists choose not to kill most of the people most of the time. If we want to save as many lives as possible we should, while we push back against the intellectual garbage of extreme Islam, should also work to understand the factors that cause some extremists to kill and others to live in relative harmony.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Of course, to believe that, you also have to believe previous groups that espoused philosophies with similar conclusions (Al' Qaeda, etc) were lying - as we haven't kill all of their members and their terrorist & militant activities have fallen off. Well, to be fair, for part of the time al-Qaeda was dominant in the threat list, the group now calling itself "the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" was calling itself "al-Qaeda in Iraq".
- aeturnum 11y ago
  Sure - and al'qaeda "central" kicked them out because they believed ISIS was too extreme and violent. Since then they have worked with groups as diverse as the FBI[0] to oppose the goals of ISIS. The whole interaction makes believe all the more that 'Islamic Extremism' is far too general a term. When dealing with groups that self-identify as islamic extremists, it's vital to understand what they mean by that, but it's insufficient to understand the entire picture. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/18/-sp-the-race-to-save-peter-kassig http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/18/-sp-the-race-to-...

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Of course, to believe that, you also have to believe previous groups that espoused philosophies with similar conclusions (Al' Qaeda, etc) were lying - as we haven't kill all of their members and their terrorist & militant activities have fallen off. Well, to be fair, for part of the time al-Qaeda was dominant in the threat list, the group now calling itself "the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" was calling itself "al-Qaeda in Iraq".

aeturnum 11y ago
Sure - and al'qaeda "central" kicked them out because they believed ISIS was too extreme and violent. Since then they have worked with groups as diverse as the FBI[0] to oppose the goals of ISIS. The whole interaction makes believe all the more that 'Islamic Extremism' is far too general a term. When dealing with groups that self-identify as islamic extremists, it's vital to understand what they mean by that, but it's insufficient to understand the entire picture. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/18/-sp-the-race-to-save-peter-kassig http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/18/-sp-the-race-to-...