4 ms·

He has a point, you know. His claims are: 1) IS is not a terrorist organization, it is an army. 2) IS is better, or at least not worse, than existing middle e

by tormeh 12y ago

He has a point, you know. His claims are: 1) IS is not a terrorist organization, it is an army. 2) IS is better, or at least not worse, than existing middle east governments. 1 seems pretty obvious to me. Sure, they are terrorizing the local population, but lots of governments do that without being labeled terrorists. 2 is more difficult to swallow. Many ME governments are pure garbage, but IS looks a lot worse.

grandalf 12y ago
Exactly. His point is well stated too, and ironically the grandparent in this thread fell victim to the mode of thought the author of the linked comment cautions against.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Armies do not melt into the civilian population at the first sign of trouble.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Presumably because tanks are hard to hide, not because they don't want to. Guerrilla warfare warfare is not a middle eastern thing; a strategic manual we were encouraged to read in the Norwegian army told us we should source food and supplies from the local population and fill sugar on the gas tanks of the enemy. Assuming you've lost tanks and airspace first, of course. From what I've heard IS has all kinds of heavy weaponry and hold territory. Seems like hiding would be hard.
  - SixSigma 12y ago
    They most certainly do.
chimeracoder 12y ago
> Sure, they are terrorizing the local population, but lots of governments do that without being labeled terrorists. ...including the US government, let's not forget. Drone strikes aren't "local" to the US, but they are conducted against US citizens in countries that the US is not at war with[0]. Moreover, if any middle eastern country did to the US what the US does in Pakistan, you'd bet the US would call it "terrorism"! The word "terrorism" is inherently subjective; there is no way to define it consistently in a way that doesn't hinge either on race or on political affiliation[1]. I won't defend ISIS, but calling them "terrorists" doesn't mean anything. The word "terrorist" has basically become the government equivalent of playground name-calling. It's a way of saying "we don't agree with the way that that group is using violence, so we're going to use a different word to de-legitimize it"[2] To borrow an example from another thread, look at the way the label "communist" was used during the McCarthy era. Oftentimes it was just used as a general term for "subversive actor", and in fact the targets were actually being accused of completely different ideologies altogether, many of them completely incompatible with Communism! But the literal meaning of the word itself doesn't matter; what it really represented was a rhetorical way to other a group of people considered dangerous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki [1] Notice that many media outlets were hesitant to label the Boston bombings "terrorism" until after the culprits had been identified (with some even going so far as to say things like, "It's unknown if this was an act of terrorism or not"!) [2] Whether or not they are correct to delegitimize it is a separate issue; the point is simply that the word "terrorist" is itself a political statement.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  The Oklahoma City bombing was considered terrorism.
  - chom_noamsky 12y ago
    That bombing may also be considered an "inside job". The demolition was due to bombs inside the building. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk - http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport [Bomb Damage Analysis of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by Brigadier Gen. Bentin K. Partin, USAF (Ret.)] And the meaning of terrorism, as it will always be for lapdogs of the bully with the most power, is violence and intimidation which hurts either them or the bully they toady to. The collective of terrorists is always many powers of ten smaller in operational capability than the power they oppose. If the collective is of proportionate size and capacity, we no longer call them terrorists, although we may still describe their actions as terroristic or supportive of terrorist groups. It's not that hard to figure out; we already know it. Terrorists are the cowardly, evil people who bomb us; but we ourselves never do terrorism. That is how the word has been used, and probably always will be used, even though there will always be objective thinkers who notice semantic hypocrisy or contradiction in definition/usage of the term. People getting the inside luxury benefits of living under empire call the outsiders who use violence and fear "terrorist"; the leaders of the empire absolutely encourage this usage. Self-serving hypocrisy allows many people to actually believe that there is something terribly wrong with those who take terrorist actions, but on the other hand many people also suspect or fully realize that the outsider terrorists aren't "terribly wrong" in the head or the morals; many of the same people who live as imperial insiders would actually feel like, and even be moved to act, as the outsiders do if they themselves were outsiders.
    - greedo 12y ago
      Sad. I didn't know the truthers were now targeting the OKC bombing. Oh well, at least they make it easy to spot when they include 911 in URLs.
Pxtl 12y ago
Reports from experts in the region indicate that, as crazy as it sounds, (2) is correct. ISIS has built up an excellent reputation for stamping out corruption and running efficient social services and police forces within poor communities. Their horrifying acts of murder and collective punishment are often unrelated to the simple business of day-to-day-life. Think about living in a poor town with ongoing struggles with organized crime and local tribal warlords. Assume you're already Muslim like everyone else you know. A new military comes in, swiftly takes power, and cleans out the criminals, ousts the corrupt autocracy, efficiently runs services and healthcare, vaccinates your kids... suddenly life gets better for everyone you know and care about. Sure, if you look under the carpet you find all the dead bodies, but if you plug your ears and look at the modest improvement in your crappy life? ISIS looks pretty good.
- larryfreeman 12y ago
  Hitler probably seemed better at first than the group he replaced. I worry that with ISIS we have the same situation.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    My grandmother used to say the streets were safer under the ww2 occupation.
- ansible 12y ago
  ... and cleans out the criminals, ousts the corrupt autocracy, efficiently runs services and healthcare, vaccinates your kids... Yeah, it might be good for a while. Not sure. In the long run, I don't think they're going to be any more effective than what they replaced. When the body politic (i.e. nearly everyone) supports the rule of law with a transparent governing process (which includes publishing budgets, new laws, etc. and may also include relatively free and fair elections), that will reduce corruption in the long term. Otherwise, I think it is inevitable that those currently in power will A) try hard to stay in power, and B) use the perks of office to benefit themselves. Not that I expect many people in ISIS territory to be having these kinds of discussions... they're all concerned about shorter term issues (like not getting killed).

by tormeh 12y ago

grandalf 12y ago

Exactly. His point is well stated too, and ironically the grandparent in this thread fell victim to the mode of thought the author of the linked comment cautions against.

happyscrappy 12y ago
Armies do not melt into the civilian population at the first sign of trouble.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Presumably because tanks are hard to hide, not because they don't want to. Guerrilla warfare warfare is not a middle eastern thing; a strategic manual we were encouraged to read in the Norwegian army told us we should source food and supplies from the local population and fill sugar on the gas tanks of the enemy. Assuming you've lost tanks and airspace first, of course. From what I've heard IS has all kinds of heavy weaponry and hold territory. Seems like hiding would be hard.
- SixSigma 12y ago
  They most certainly do.

chimeracoder 12y ago

> Sure, they are terrorizing the local population, but lots of governments do that without being labeled terrorists. ...including the US government, let's not forget. Drone strikes aren't "local" to the US, but they are conducted against US citizens in countries that the US is not at war with[0]. Moreover, if any middle eastern country did to the US what the US does in Pakistan, you'd bet the US would call it "terrorism"! The word "terrorism" is inherently subjective; there is no way to define it consistently in a way that doesn't hinge either on race or on political affiliation[1]. I won't defend ISIS, but calling them "terrorists" doesn't mean anything. The word "terrorist" has basically become the government equivalent of playground name-calling. It's a way of saying "we don't agree with the way that that group is using violence, so we're going to use a different word to de-legitimize it"[2] To borrow an example from another thread, look at the way the label "communist" was used during the McCarthy era. Oftentimes it was just used as a general term for "subversive actor", and in fact the targets were actually being accused of completely different ideologies altogether, many of them completely incompatible with Communism! But the literal meaning of the word itself doesn't matter; what it really represented was a rhetorical way to other a group of people considered dangerous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki [1] Notice that many media outlets were hesitant to label the Boston bombings "terrorism" until after the culprits had been identified (with some even going so far as to say things like, "It's unknown if this was an act of terrorism or not"!) [2] Whether or not they are correct to delegitimize it is a separate issue; the point is simply that the word "terrorist" is itself a political statement.

happyscrappy 12y ago
The Oklahoma City bombing was considered terrorism.
- chom_noamsky 12y ago
  That bombing may also be considered an "inside job". The demolition was due to bombs inside the building. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk - http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport [Bomb Damage Analysis of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by Brigadier Gen. Bentin K. Partin, USAF (Ret.)] And the meaning of terrorism, as it will always be for lapdogs of the bully with the most power, is violence and intimidation which hurts either them or the bully they toady to. The collective of terrorists is always many powers of ten smaller in operational capability than the power they oppose. If the collective is of proportionate size and capacity, we no longer call them terrorists, although we may still describe their actions as terroristic or supportive of terrorist groups. It's not that hard to figure out; we already know it. Terrorists are the cowardly, evil people who bomb us; but we ourselves never do terrorism. That is how the word has been used, and probably always will be used, even though there will always be objective thinkers who notice semantic hypocrisy or contradiction in definition/usage of the term. People getting the inside luxury benefits of living under empire call the outsiders who use violence and fear "terrorist"; the leaders of the empire absolutely encourage this usage. Self-serving hypocrisy allows many people to actually believe that there is something terribly wrong with those who take terrorist actions, but on the other hand many people also suspect or fully realize that the outsider terrorists aren't "terribly wrong" in the head or the morals; many of the same people who live as imperial insiders would actually feel like, and even be moved to act, as the outsiders do if they themselves were outsiders.
  - greedo 12y ago
    Sad. I didn't know the truthers were now targeting the OKC bombing. Oh well, at least they make it easy to spot when they include 911 in URLs.

Pxtl 12y ago

Reports from experts in the region indicate that, as crazy as it sounds, (2) is correct. ISIS has built up an excellent reputation for stamping out corruption and running efficient social services and police forces within poor communities. Their horrifying acts of murder and collective punishment are often unrelated to the simple business of day-to-day-life. Think about living in a poor town with ongoing struggles with organized crime and local tribal warlords. Assume you're already Muslim like everyone else you know. A new military comes in, swiftly takes power, and cleans out the criminals, ousts the corrupt autocracy, efficiently runs services and healthcare, vaccinates your kids... suddenly life gets better for everyone you know and care about. Sure, if you look under the carpet you find all the dead bodies, but if you plug your ears and look at the modest improvement in your crappy life? ISIS looks pretty good.

larryfreeman 12y ago
Hitler probably seemed better at first than the group he replaced. I worry that with ISIS we have the same situation.
- tormeh 12y ago
  My grandmother used to say the streets were safer under the ww2 occupation.
ansible 12y ago
... and cleans out the criminals, ousts the corrupt autocracy, efficiently runs services and healthcare, vaccinates your kids... Yeah, it might be good for a while. Not sure. In the long run, I don't think they're going to be any more effective than what they replaced. When the body politic (i.e. nearly everyone) supports the rule of law with a transparent governing process (which includes publishing budgets, new laws, etc. and may also include relatively free and fair elections), that will reduce corruption in the long term. Otherwise, I think it is inevitable that those currently in power will A) try hard to stay in power, and B) use the perks of office to benefit themselves. Not that I expect many people in ISIS territory to be having these kinds of discussions... they're all concerned about shorter term issues (like not getting killed).