What's the right World Islam policy/strategy?

[TranaGreg]

For what it's worth ...

7 Things I Learned Reading Every Issue Of ISIS's Magazine

Sun Tzu, generally considered a reliable source on Good War Ideas, said something along the lines of, "You've got to know your enemy in order to beat him, because some dudes hate being kicked in the junk and others seem to enjoy it." The difficulty we've had defeating ISIS suggests that, maybe, we don't really understand who and what the fuck they are. Everything we hear is filtered through politicians and pundits, each with their own agenda ("You know what ISIS is afraid of? Me, Donald Goddamned Trump!"). Fortunately, it turns out that finding out what ISIS wants is like finding out what a vegan eats: They'll tell you. Which is to say that ISIS has a magazine.

No, really. It's an actual glossy, full-color magazine called Dabiq, complete with feature articles and photo spreads. So, in the interest of understanding just what makes these violent lunatics tick, I read through 700-plus pages of this oddly well-put-together propaganda and learned ...

But the most surprising thing I learned about ISIS during my reading is that the primary target of their hatred is not the United States. It's not France or Russia, either. The one "enemy" they devote more time to ranting against than anyone else is the "apostate Muslim." The vast majority of people ISIS kills are Muslims. ...

Jeez, it's almost like the scope of the problem ISIS represents is far too complex to boil down to a Facebook status. Go figure.

[baldgriff]

Which I guess means you've already decided that there's no tactical value to avoiding unnecessary offense of individuals of Islamic belief. I guess we disagree there.

I think the GOP's attack on the President's use of "radical Jihad" instead of "radical Islam" is just a political line of bull primarily used to derive political advantage from xenophobia, and that there's no practical, tactical value to choosing a phrase more likely to offend moderate Muslims.

B-Fly -
How many more mass terror attacks, either here or abroad, do we need to hear "the assailants were screaming Allahu Ahkbar" while carrying out the attack will be enough for us or our leaders stand up and say "Enough" and that Radical Islam is a problem? This is not a traditional war where we are fighting a specific country. This at its core is a war of ideology - Western thought of Freedom and Liberty vs. the sharia.

Some of the greatest atheistic philosophers of our time (Hitchens, Dawkins to name a couple) have stated that Islam is the biggest enemy to Western civilization and it should not be ignored. However, in this world where people are to afraid to offend someone we cant even get an honest conversation about it without someone stepping in and saying that one holding that thought is racist or a bigot.

From wiki here is a list of Islamic Terror attacks from 1983. The list from 2014 forward is as long if not longer than the 20 years prior. At some point we have to be able to put aside the fear of offending and call it what it is. Its not fearmongering - its just the truth.

When the Islamic state says they want Sharia for everyone - they mean it. Its not some whimsy thought in their mind.

[Hornsby]

B-Fly -
How many more mass terror attacks, either here or abroad, do we need to hear "the assailants were screaming Allahu Ahkbar" while carrying out the attack will be enough for us or our leaders stand up and say "Enough" and that Radical Islam is a problem? This is not a traditional war where we are fighting a specific country. This at its core is a war of ideology - Western thought of Freedom and Liberty vs. the sharia.

Some of the greatest atheistic philosophers of our time (Hitchens, Dawkins to name a couple) have stated that Islam is the biggest enemy to Western civilization and it should not be ignored. However, in this world where people are to afraid to offend someone we cant even get an honest conversation about it without someone stepping in and saying that one holding that thought is racist or a bigot.

From wiki here is a list of Islamic Terror attacks from 1983. The list from 2014 forward is as long if not longer than the 20 years prior. At some point we have to be able to put aside the fear of offending and call it what it is. Its not fearmongering - its just the truth.

When the Islamic state says they want Sharia for everyone - they mean it. Its not some whimsy thought in their mind.

The "Islamic State" is an extremely small offshoot of the religion of islam, just as the KKK is a small offshoot of Christianity. Neither is representative of the goals of the religions as a whole, and I would assume that Christians would take great offense if we were to call it "Radical Christianity". There's simply no reason to do so, in either case. Radical Jihad makes the case much clearer without painting an entire religion, the vast majority of it's adherents normal and peaceful.

We know who our enemies are, it's no secret...why try to turn the peaceful Islamic people into enemies by painting them with the same broad brush? It just makes no sense.

And none of this is new BTW, whenever a religion or a population has been oppressed throughout history, they tried to rebel with whatever weapons they had at their disposal...it's just that today's weapons are so much more destructive, so the toll taken is much higher. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

[onejayhawk]

That is not a radical attitude. All it requires is a belief that sharia is incompatible with the oath of citizenship. You're a lawyer. Is it?

J

[baldgriff]

Meanwhile, another one of the right wing radical Christians (maybe me saying that will make them all go away....) calls for testing all Muslims in the country to see whether they want to implement sharia law - which is just like so many radical Christians want to implement, except with a different religion. Bummer for the religious zealouts that we have this pesky Constitution getting in the way of their psychotic ideas, eh?

Peaceful Christians, plz refudiate. Why won't the moderate Christians ever speak out against radical Christianity? /s

Eld -
I dont think it is just "right wing radical Christians" that are concerned about the issue of Muslims and the desire to implement sharia or the compatibility of those following/wanting sharia and Constitutional thinking. I admit that I struggle with this one. I am an American first and believe in religious freedom. I honestly dont care if you are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Druid, agnostic, atheist, as long as you are willing to abide and not infringe on my Constitutionally granted rights I will honor yours.

The concern comes in some minds when you hear from some Muslims (NOT ALL) that they want to spread the sharia and believe that it should be implemented world wide or in this country. This topic is already playing out in Europe and now some of the European countries are thinking about not taking more refugees. Why is it that Europe and the US have to be the ones to take all of the refugees? Why arent the other "Muslim" countries taking in these refugees? Acccording to Canadian Immigration countries like Qatar, UAE and the Saudis have taken none.
(http://www.immigration.ca/en/quebeci...-refugees.html)

In my opinion, people concerned with the ability to retain their freedoms are interested in at least making sure that in our tolerance for other cultures we dont give away the farm.

[baldgriff]

Frankly, I don't believe you.

I respect that - but full disclosure - I have not stepped into a church service for probably 5 years - other than Easter when visiting my in-laws. Just so you have some context.

Whether you believe if I care about the various religious backgrounds of any person - my statement still stands that there are any number of non-religious right that are just as concerned about this specific topic. Hitchens was vary attune and outspoken about his concerns regarding Islam and Western thought. Dawkins has been discussing it. Murray is having multiple discussions in England regarding the impact of the Muslim influx and how it is affecting the country. Harris and Maher both are taking hits for their stances.


Notice I am not selecting radical righties here - these are voices from the Left and have the same concern, because it is possible that the basis of that faith is not compatible with western free thought and Constitutional freedoms.

[Pogues]

Is this a religious war or is this a war between the west and the middle east? If it's a religious war, let's call it radical Islam.

But it's not, so a more focused reference to our enemy makes much more sense.

[B-Fly]

Is this a religious war or is this a war between the west and the middle east? If it's a religious war, let's call it radical Islam.

But it's not, so a more focused reference to our enemy makes much more sense.

I'd say its closer to a religious war than a geographical one, actually. But more specifically, I think even "war" is such a blurry term, because there's no clear end game with respect to territory, there will never be "terms of surrender" for the losing side, etc.

There is a strain within global Islam, with its epicenter in the Middle East and North Africa, but with cells and support around the world, that is using Islam to support and promote terrorism and violence against pretty much everyone and anyone in the world who isn't them -- whether other Muslims, the West, etc. That violent pro-terror strain within global Islam is not clearly tied to or supported by any recognized national government and tends to grow and thrive most where there are power vacuums within the Middle East and North Africa. Ultimately I view it as pretty silly to waste all of our time fighting over whether to call it "Radical Islam" or "Radical Jihaddism" or "Global Terrorism" -- that's politics, although I do believe there are tactical advantages to trying to use language and tone that doesn't help ISIS recruiting. But it is a battle against a violent, pro-terror spin on Islam. What's the strategy for minimizing that threat?

[Mithrandir]

I'd say its closer to a religious war than a geographical one, actually. But more specifically, I think even "war" is such a blurry term, because there's no clear end game with respect to territory, there will never be "terms of surrender" for the losing side, etc.

There is a strain within global Islam, with its epicenter in the Middle East and North Africa, but with cells and support around the world, that is using Islam to support and promote terrorism and violence against pretty much everyone and anyone in the world who isn't them -- whether other Muslims, the West, etc. That violent pro-terror strain within global Islam is not clearly tied to or supported by any recognized national government and tends to grow and thrive most where there are power vacuums within the Middle East and North Africa. Ultimately I view it as pretty silly to waste all of our time fighting over whether to call it "Radical Islam" or "Radical Jihaddism" or "Global Terrorism" -- that's politics, although I do believe there are tactical advantages to trying to use language and tone that doesn't help ISIS recruiting. But it is a battle against a violent, pro-terror spin on Islam. What's the strategy for minimizing that threat?

I'm not very knowledgable about all of this terrorism. If there is to be a strategy for minimizing the threat, then don't we have to know why they are committing these acts of terror? Why are they? What's their purpose?

[TranaGreg]

I'm not very knowledgable about all of this terrorism. If there is to be a strategy for minimizing the threat, then don't we have to know why they are committing these acts of terror? Why are they? What's their purpose?

from the article I linked to previously ...

#4. Violent Reprisals Are Exactly What They Want

Every issue of Dabiq begins with the same quote: "The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify -- by Allah's permission -- until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq." And here's where the magazine gets its name.

Dabiq is an area in Northern Syria where, according to prophecy, Allah will do the whole "pillar of salt" thing on the armies of the West. For that to happen, we need to actually put our armies in Dabiq first. One thing reading 11 issues of Dabiq makes very clear is that ISIS considers a future U.S.-led invasion to be inevitable. They view the regional powers around them as destined to fall and, when that happens, in rides Uncle Sam and out pops the apocalypse.

[B-Fly]

I'm not very knowledgable about all of this terrorism. If there is to be a strategy for minimizing the threat, then don't we have to know why they are committing these acts of terror? Why are they? What's their purpose?

What's the purpose of the leaders or of the followers? I think the purpose of the leaders is power/glory/chaos. I think the purpose of the followers is anger/belonging/meaning/Heavenly rewards. Ultimately I think minimizing the threat is a lot more like intel/police work/special forces than it is like "war" in the traditional military sense. With ISIS's focus on inspiring individual lone wolves to kill as many people as they can wherever they can and however they can, as distinguished from highly-organized and elaborately planned operations like 9/11, I'm ultimately not sure how much we can do, other than rounding up all of the Muslims into internment camps. How do you prevent an attack like the one in Nice? So are we willing to act so drastically and at what cost to our own constitutional and moral principles?

[B-Fly]

from the article I linked to previously ...

I agree that a global faith war is what ISIS would love to spark. It was at the bottom of the initial list of policy possibilities I proposed. But the more we start crossing off our other options as ineffectual, the closer we get to being in a political place within the US and Europe where we ultimately say to ISIS, "You're on". I really hope it doesn't come to that, though, because as horrifying as Orlando and San Bernardino and Paris and Nice and Istanbul and Medina were, it's nothing compared to the loss of life and of quality of life that a global faith war would impose on all of us. Right now, at least, even with the risk of these lone wolf attacks increasing in frequency within the US, the risk of dying from a terror attack is of course far smaller than most other risks out there. How many resources can we/do we pour into efforts to prevent it if such efforts have a limited likelihood of success?

[In the Corn]

I agree that a global faith war is what ISIS would love to spark. It was at the bottom of the initial list of policy possibilities I proposed. But the more we start crossing off our other options as ineffectual, the closer we get to being in a political place within the US and Europe where we ultimately say to ISIS, "You're on". I really hope it doesn't come to that, though, because as horrifying as Orlando and San Bernardino and Paris and Nice and Istanbul and Medina were, it's nothing compared to the loss of life and of quality of life that a global faith war would impose on all of us. Right now, at least, even with the risk of these lone wolf attacks increasing in frequency within the US, the risk of dying from a terror attack is of course far smaller than most other risks out there. How many resources can we/do we pour into efforts to prevent it if such efforts have a limited likelihood of success?

I believe the new reality we live in is the expectation of one-off mass casualty terror events. You're point of the chance of being involved in one of these events is pretty small. Of course, that brings no peace to those who have and will deal with the loss of loved ones from these attacks, but I do not think there is a way to totally eradicate these attacks. We have to change or frame of reference. As much as the abortion clinic bombings that fundmentalist Christians (wrong-minded) have undertaken in the past, we need to view the terror events of ISIS and it's followers, as nothing different.

I agree thatmore special operations, police-like and covert operations are the strategic way to handle the leaders of ISIS. One way that The West needs improve is jamming and stopping the numerous internet sites that ISIS uses to recruit. We need to be tougher on domestic recruiters, as well. While, I am sure that some of the happens (the censoring of websites and picking recruiters off the street). It needs to be stepped up.

[MagSeven]

I really hope it doesn't come to that, though, because as horrifying as Orlando and San Bernardino and Paris and Nice and Istanbul and Medina were, it's nothing compared to the loss of life and of quality of life that a global faith war would impose on all of us.

If it ever gets to this point, we would be 'playing' with one hand tied behind our back as we (the West) go out of our way to avoid injuring/killing civilians not involved in the fight. The terrorists, on the other hand, seem to prefer taking out the soft targets with civilians.

[MagSeven]

Here's an unpopular solution: instead of committing to war and death, which seems very clearly to create an environment in which extremism flourishes, let's support the populations economically to whatever extent possible and create an environment in which people do not need to cling to a desperate ideology in order to survive or flourish. That strategy applies equally domestically as it does internationally, imo.

I agree with this to a point; we've tried to support the populations in Afghanistan and Iraq by fixing their local infrastructure. I don't know how successful that has been. At what point do we decide we don't have the resources to continue to help? Face it, we get bombarded now by Americans upset that we freely give out money to help others and not helping out the vets (but that is another story) and our own citizens.