Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hordini wrote:
Moderate people, by the nature of being moderate, don't tend to do extreme things like travel to foreign countries to take up arms against a violent extremist group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


The majority of Muslims in those countries don't support ISIS either.

And they are not doing anything about it, either. Either the people or the governments.

That doesn't mean they support it. Two years ago we weren't doing anything about it either. Was the US supporting ISIS for the last two years?

1. Agreed. Moderates tend to not do that.
2. Well there is dispute in liberal circles about that...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In the Islamic world as a whole, they are the minority. There are people living in IS territory who aren't pro-ISIS but don't have the capability of fighting back.

There are secular and more moderate militias in Syria who have fought against ISIS, to say nothing of Syrian government forces.

ISIS is in no way the dominant leader of the Islamic world. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and a quickly growing one at that, but there are several actual countries that have a lot more influence than ISIS.

I think you are missing the point,

If ISIS was such a small part of the islamic community, it wouldnt have the huge footprint it does.

the fact that it can dominate the region, with no one other islamic group powerful enough to actually challenge them, let alone oust them from power,

does in fact make them the most powerful group.

if these other countries you speak of have so much influence, why have they not used it?

if ISIS isnt the strongest group in the region, then why are they in power at all? why have these "moderate majority muslim" groups not ousted them if they are such a majority?

that is the very thesis of power, the most powerful group, is in power, ISIS in in power, ergo the most powerful group.

yes there are islamic groups opposing them, the lack of sucess in opposing them means they are less powerfull/numerous, not more powerful/numerous as you assert.

Indeed.

While the majority of Muslims definitely don't share their radical beliefs, the majority at the very least don't oppose their radical beliefs enough to stop them. Which is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as if they did. And it allows them to propagate their beliefs among the impressionable youth of the various nations, meaning they are growing in numbers.

Until I see a picture of you counter protesting the WBC I should consider you responsible and a supporter?

Is the WBC slaughtering innocent people and committing acts of terrorism?

They bring pain and suffering to the people fighting terrorism.

And since you have not done your part to stop them by your logic I must assume that you support them.

I support their right to voice their opinions, which is all they are doing. Can you say the same?

 Hordini wrote:
What good would it do to antagonize the majority of Muslims who aren't extremists?

I will try to address this the best I can. There are tons of people in “Islamic” countries for which Islam is not the start-all end-all of their identity. But by constantly referring to them as Muslims, and making this to be their defining characteristic, and refusing to say Islam can be bad, we are doing them no good, and actually strengthen the more religious and the Islamists than want to demonize any and all criticism of Islam, and make Islam into the start-all end-all identity of Arabs/people in their countries. That is why I think actually going out of our way to not criticize Islam is a very bad thing that sends a very bad message.

 Hordini wrote:
Moderate people, by the nature of being moderate, don't tend to do extreme things like travel to foreign countries to take up arms against a violent extremist group.

I think you are confusing moderates with something else,


moderate does not mean "I believe women are our equals, you believe they should be honour killed, I wont do anything to stop you honour killing women"

moderate is describing, secularly of course as our moderate is their radical and vise versa, the "belief" itself, not the enforcment of these beleifs...

IE moderates have moderate beliefs, this does not necessitate them having no actual will to enforce/spread/support those beliefs. after all, our "moderate" beleifs are "RADICAL" to groups like ISIS.



regardless, this is getting beyond the scope of the actual issue.



in the areas ISIS controls, can you at least agree ISIS is dominant?

so talking specifically about ISIS controlled areas now,

if in these areas, MMM's were the dominant force, then how did ISIS take control?

again, being "moderate" does not mean "unwilling to fight for your beliefs"

ISIS got so worked up about how disconnected reality was from their beleif system, why is it that MMM's dont feel such a disconnect between reality and their belief system that they should take action to affect that reality?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
What good would it do to antagonize the majority of Muslims who aren't extremists?

I will try to address this the best I can. There are tons of people in “Islamic” countries for which Islam is not the start-all end-all of their identity. But by constantly referring to them as Muslims, and making this to be their defining characteristic, and refusing to say Islam can be bad, we are doing them no good, and actually strengthen the more religious and the Islamists than want to demonize any and all criticism of Islam, and make Islam into the start-all end-all identity of Arabs/people in their countries. That is why I think actually going out of our way to not criticize Islam is a very bad thing that sends a very bad message.

One can criticize extremists and their activities without criticizing their faith. We do that all the time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I support their right to voice their opinions, which is all they are doing. Can you say the same?

According to your statements you support their message.

You can either bring your own statements to the logical conclusion that you support the WBC and are responsible for the pain of a family that is burying a veteran while the WBC is standing there mocking them and celebrating the death of their loved one, or we can stop this stupid train of thought and admit that holding majority members of a population responsible for the actions of an extreme minority is pretty damn stupid.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I support their right to voice their opinions, which is all they are doing. Can you say the same?

According to your statements you support their message.

You can either bring your own statements to the logical conclusion that you support the WBC and are responsible for the pain of a family that is burying a veteran while the WBC is standing there mocking them and celebrating the death of their loved one, or we can stop this stupid train of thought and admit that holding majority members of a population responsible for the actions of an extreme minority is pretty damn stupid.

I am responsible for letting them exercise their rights to do what they do. And you are too for supporting a Constitution that gives us the freedom of speech. This is not morally reprehensible. Its a necessary evil(and a small one) for having our freedoms.

I never said "moderates who do nothing support ISIS", I simply said they were responsible for letting them run about unchecked. Responsibility =/= support. It is morally reprehensible of them to tolerate a terrorist organization.

The WBC isn't a terrorist organization. ISIS is.

Man, 911 has really changed the US. What happened to kill people first, blame it on terrorists later? Now it's just talk, talk, kill.

lliu wrote:
Man, 911 has really changed the US. What happened to kill people first, blame it on terrorists later? Now it's just talk, talk, kill.

I wouldn't look at it like that, since the talking never really stops.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I support their right to voice their opinions, which is all they are doing. Can you say the same?

According to your statements you support their message.

You can either bring your own statements to the logical conclusion that you support the WBC and are responsible for the pain of a family that is burying a veteran while the WBC is standing there mocking them and celebrating the death of their loved one, or we can stop this stupid train of thought and admit that holding majority members of a population responsible for the actions of an extreme minority is pretty damn stupid.

you mean like how ISIS holds US citizens responsable for the actions of a few elected officials?

in fact, ISIS holds us citizens so responsable that they are beheading them for such.

the whole WBC comparison is a farce, its one church that really does represent a fringe group. If ISIS was just picketing us, I dont think anyone would mind quite so much.

WBC is voicing a rediculous, hateful and wrong opinion within the confines of democratic law. 99% of churches have disowned/and/or activly disowned this church, and it certainly doesnt have the martial support to over throw large areas of land and start eradicating the gays and so on.

ISIS is killing people, taking over countries, has enough people willing to fight and die for it that it is more powerfull then the local governments. If ISIS was as fringe to islam, as WBC is to christianity, we wouldnt have this problem in the first place.

see the slight difference there?

ISIS is now a country, that does represent enough of the people in that region (not that faith) to be the dominant power.



you keep insisting that ISIS is made up of a minority of people, yet facts clearly indicate otherwise.

if they are such a minority, why do they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

The reality is there is far more support for ISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST then you are willing to admit.

 Frazzled wrote:
One can criticize extremists and their activities without criticizing their faith. We do that all the time.

“Do not do this. The Quran is awesome and noone should be able to criticize it and what you are doing is written as mandatory in the Quran, but do not do it”
.
(Not speaking about Isis specifically here. Stuff like inheritance rules are very explicit in the Quran, and very sexists, for instance.)
Basically, no, you cannot at the same time refuse to criticize some faith and yet criticize those that apply the tenets of such faith. At least not efficiently, and not without looking like a total hypocrite and an idiot.

 easysauce wrote:

you keep insisting that ISIS is made up of a minority of people, yet facts clearly indicate otherwise.

if they are such a minority, why do they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

The reality is there is far more support for ISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST then you are willing to admit.

Go to the top of your browser.

Open a new tab.

Learn history, especially the many many many many many many instances of minority rule in many many many many countries during many many many many instances of our history.

Because the majority of people in South Africa must have been white, because if they were such a minority why did they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If somebody said "Westborough Baptist Church is not The Church" would we be having this conversation?

I was one of these guys.

Way to not answer the question.

It was pretty good if I say so myself.

But, your point does stand.

I'm not sure what to do really...

What I do want, is clear/concise plan of action with defined exit strategy.

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

you keep insisting that ISIS is made up of a minority of people, yet facts clearly indicate otherwise.

if they are such a minority, why do they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

The reality is there is far more support for ISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST then you are willing to admit.

Go to the top of your browser.

Open a new tab.

Learn history, especially the many many many many many many instances of minority rule in many many many many countries during many many many many instances of our history.

Because the majority of people in South Africa must have been white, because if they were such a minority why did they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

So you are telling me that white people in general dont get blamed for the actions of the miniority?

Open up your browser, and search dakka for all your posts regarding white privilidge and so on then, educate yourself on yourself.


either way,

ISIS is not fringe, is not the miniority (in the middle east areas they control, not the world, as apparently this needs clarifying)

the argument isnt who is responsable for opposing/not opposing ISIS,

its that ISIS is not fringe, not the miniorty it once was, not some rogue group, not some under dog, its the biggest dog in that area right now.

you seem to be in denial over how much support they have, again, IN THE AREA THEY NOW CONTROL>

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

you keep insisting that ISIS is made up of a minority of people, yet facts clearly indicate otherwise.

if they are such a minority, why do they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

The reality is there is far more support for ISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST then you are willing to admit.

Go to the top of your browser.

Open a new tab.

Learn history, especially the many many many many many many instances of minority rule in many many many many countries during many many many many instances of our history.

Because the majority of people in South Africa must have been white, because if they were such a minority why did they command the majority of power? land? manpower? support? and so on.

So you are telling me that white people in general dont get blamed for the actions of the miniority?

Open up your browser, and search dakka for all your posts regarding white privilidge and so on then, educate yourself on yourself.


either way,

ISIS is not fringe, is not the miniority (in the middle east areas they control, not the world, as apparently this needs clarifying)

the argument isnt who is responsable for opposing/not opposing ISIS,

its that ISIS is not fringe, not the miniorty it once was, not some rogue group, not some under dog, its the biggest dog in that area right now.

you seem to be in denial over how much support they have, again, IN THE AREA THEY NOW CONTROL>

well of course they arent the minority in the area's they control, they just kill everyone who isnt with them. Well kill or some other horrible actions.

Jebus......thread getting jumpy

Edit: gonna keep the OT talk out of this thread.

ISIS is not fringe, is not the miniority (in the middle east areas they control, not the world, as apparently this needs clarifying)

the argument isnt who is responsable for opposing/not opposing ISIS,

its that ISIS is not fringe, not the miniorty it once was, not some rogue group, not some under dog, its the biggest dog in that area right now.

you seem to be in denial over how much support they have, again, IN THE AREA THEY NOW CONTROL>

Did whites in South Africa have full support IN THE AREA THEY ONCE CONTROLLED?

Because if "they control it' is your only argument then you just show your ignorance of the vast history of minority rule all across history and all across the world, especially if the minority rulers use violence.

 easysauce wrote:


So you are telling me that white people in general dont get blamed for the actions of the miniority?

Open up your browser, and search dakka for all your posts regarding white privilidge and so on then, educate yourself on yourself.


either way,

ISIS is not fringe, is not the miniority (in the middle east areas they control, not the world, as apparently this needs clarifying)

the argument isnt who is responsable for opposing/not opposing ISIS,

its that ISIS is not fringe, not the miniorty it once was, not some rogue group, not some under dog, its the biggest dog in that area right now.

you seem to be in denial over how much support they have, again, IN THE AREA THEY NOW CONTROL>

Okay, let's back this up and add in some demographics and history.

If you're not already aware, ISIS controls the least populated parts of Iraq, which also happen to be the Sunni majority areas. The al-Maliki government has been systematically oppressing the Sunni minority in Iraq, and has been doing so even more aggressively after the withdrawal of American forces.

So these fine folk, who by and large just want to lives their own lives, have a choice between active oppression by the current government of Iraq, or an unknown in the form of ISIS. In their own personal interest these Sunni Iraqis didn't oppose ISIS when they invaded because they didn't have anything to lose because they were going to be ruled by Sunnis again. But even though ISIS does have control over large swathes of land, it's not a popular revolution, they're still a fringe group.

There is no widespread support for the invaders in Iraq. The last estimate I saw for ISIS numbers in Iraq was between 50,000-70,000, and the Anbar province alone has a population of 1.5 million. The only reason they are still in Iraq is that they haven't pissed off the Sunni tribesman off enough yet, despite all their extremist shenanigans.

they dont have to be a majority of the population, the population is more groups then just ISIS/not ISIS.

they are the largest/most powerful single group in the region right now.


that they are in "thinly populated areas" doesnt matter, as even the densely populated areas cannot do anything about them either.


ISIS and their supporters are much more predominant and powerful then you are giving them credit for.

to quote Iamthewalrus
"The only reason they are still in Iraq is that they haven't pissed off the Sunni tribesman off enough yet, despite all their extremist shenanigans. "


right, that is part of my my point, that despite all the horrible things they are doing, the sunni dont give a feth, wont stop them, and stand to benefit from doing nothing/supporting them. If ISIS hasnt yet crossed the line to piss off the sunni yet, then the line the sunni have drawn does not appear to land them in the "moderate" category to me.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.

You could argue that if a country has portions of its land being held by a hostile force it no longer has jurisdiction over that area. If you can't hold it, its no longer yours. It belongs to whoever is holding it.

Great! Now you have finally found proper Russian way of thinking

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the legality of bombing countries without their permission also comes to mind...

not sure why obama rejected syrias offer to help either, seems like getting the country where your attacks would land on the same page as you would be a good idea.

Nothing will ever be solved until we have marines drop podding in within minutes from low orbit every time someone sounds the "freedoooooooom" signal.

You could argue that if a country has portions of its land being held by a hostile force it no longer has jurisdiction over that area. If you can't hold it, its no longer yours. It belongs to whoever is holding it.

Great! Now you have finally found proper Russian way of thinking

Keep it in the Ukraine thread there Iron

 easysauce wrote:
they dont have to be a majority of the population, the population is more groups then just ISIS/not ISIS.

they are the largest/most powerful single group in the region right now.


that they are in "thinly populated areas" doesnt matter, as even the densely populated areas cannot do anything about them either.

You're arguing that they're the single most powerful group in the region, and no one can do anything about it, but that's just plainly not true. At one point they were approximately 30km from Baghdad, but were turned back by government forces and Shi'a militia. They are the most powerful, non-governmental force in the area, sure.

The population density and demographics are absolutely relevant to the conversation. They have a lot of land, sure, but most of it is strategically unimportant, and their inability to continue to expand outside of their current holdings points to the absolute limits of their power.

right, that is part of my my point, that despite all the horrible things they are doing, the sunni dont give a feth, wont stop them, and stand to benefit from doing nothing/supporting them. If ISIS hasnt yet crossed the line to piss off the sunni yet, then the line the sunni have drawn does not appear to land them in the "moderate" category to me.

You're taking it out of historical context. Sunni tolerance for this Salafi extremism exists because of the abuses of the al-Maliki government, and there is a definitive line between the current inaction of the Sunnis living in ISIS controlled territory, and active support. These people were allied with an earlier incarnation of ISIS, back when it was Al-Qaeda in Iraq and controlled by al-Zarqawi, because it benefited them at the time, but when a more moderate approach presented itself in the form of an alliance with American forces, they were more than happy to oblige.

What do you think the endgame for the majority, moderate Sunnis is? They can do nothing and generally not be bothered by ISIS, or they can shed the blood it would take them to oust ISIS, only to be brought back into the fold and oppressed by the Shi'a majority.

meh... again, what's the plan and what's the exit strategy?

Or isn't this going to be Obama waging a pre-emptive war in Iraq again?

I've been thinking about this all day... isn't it presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam?? So... if a group of Muslims say they're part of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria... then, how the feth do non-muslim take it??

Anyways... for as much as I bash the Prez... I'd like to express my gratitude for Obama for giving the greenlight for SealTeam6 to get OBL. I say this without snark... I'm grateful for Obama over this decision.

Kerry saying we're not at war with ISIS?......

Edit

Disregard

Resurrection of "Police Action"

This is relevant as we busily rubber stamp our way towards MORE involvement in the world's cat box.

I've been thinking about this all day... isn't it presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam?? So... if a group of Muslims say they're part of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria... then, how the feth do non-muslim take it??

Is North Korea a democracy and a republic just because the name of the country is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

Sometimes a name doesn't actually mean very much when it comes to describing the actual belief of a group.

The difference here being that governments seem to be validating the group's claims by calling them ISIS. They don't call North Korea the DPRK....

Meanwhile in my local news...

""Like all of us, Halima has been horrified to learn of the slaughter and oppression at the hands of the people controlling ISIS," - This idiot's defense attorney

He goes on to say she didn't want to play any part of it... which is why she was heading to Turkey, planning to marry an alleged ISIS fighter and told investigators A. that she intended to join ISIS and B. that she intended to wage jihad against the United States. Clearly she's just aghast at the acts of terror ISIS/ISIL commits on a daily basis. Never mind their no gak enslavement of thousands of minority women.

I admit, I did some boneheaded crap at 19. We all do. It's a good age to be stupid, but this? This skips some levels. Personally I say fly her to Turkey, revoke her passport and citizenship and wish her the best of luck in hadjistan.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/justice/colorado-jihadist-guilty-plea/index.html

I say we let her join isis