How to defeat political Islam

[Hans de Vries]

Saudi Arabia actually tried deprogramming terrorists. Even with their intricate understanding of Jihadi mindset, the program was a failure with ca. ~90% relapse rate.

[dimreepr]

ISIS doesn't post their beheadings online because they don't want western retaliation. Where is the line here between appeasement and a strong response?

 

 

Very good question, on the one hand you can’t just let them take/do what they like, but equally, history has shown that too much force will, most likely, create greater opposition. The people that have joined ISIS or just support them are so frustrated and angry at the west Then anything we do in retaliation will simply serve to strengthen those feelings.

 

The death of Abu Bakr al-Baghadi may provide the opportunity to start a dialog (it seems unlikely he would under any circumstance).

 

Destroying ISIS would just drive more people to feel frustrated and angry at the west and drive the remains of ISIS underground; the outcome of which may have an even more destructive outcome. Conversely, destroying ISIS may lead to the emergence of the type of man necessary to bring about a lasting peace; I think the current line is about right TBH, but the solution can only from communication.

[Ten oz]

Very good question, on the one hand you can’t just let them take/do what they like, but equally, history has shown that too much force will, most likely, create greater opposition. The people that have joined ISIS or just support them are so frustrated and angry at the west Then anything we do in retaliation will simply serve to strengthen those feelings.

 

The death of Abu Bakr al-Baghadi may provide the opportunity to start a dialog (it seems unlikely he would under any circumstance).

 

Destroying ISIS would just drive more people to feel frustrated and angry at the west and drive the remains of ISIS underground; the outcome of which may have an even more destructive outcome. Conversely, destroying ISIS may lead to the emergence of the type of man necessary to bring about a lasting peace; I think the current line is about right TBH, but the solution can only from communication.

 

What ISIS is doing is terrible but we shouldn't over react. Narco terrorism in Central and South America kills more people. Globally dirty drinking water and starvation kills more people. ISIS craves attention. The only reason why people outside Iraq and Syria even know who ISIS are muchless travel to join them is because we provide provide them the attention they seek. Western media can't shut about them. Yes ISIS are a threat but the average person living in my country (USA) is over a thousand times more likely to die in a car crash than at the hands of ISIS.

People can not best moved to peace through war. Radicalism in the Middle East is fostered by a multitude of conditions. Simple killing the current resident radicals does not remove those conditions. Worker rights issues in the affluent nations, Opium harvests, collateral lives lost during Russian and American wars, and many other issues must be addressed. We can't just kill away ISIS and expect democracy to flourish. We tried that with Al Quada and the Taliban already and it got us no place.

[swansont]

Better propaganda DOES equate to better argument. "Better propaganda" is truthful propaganda. If propaganda is truthful, it should win a debate over deceptive propaganda.

And yet the world is full of examples of this failing to be true. Otherwise we wouldn't have bigotry, or anti-vaxxers, or global warming denialists, or creationists, or … and the list goes on.

[CharonY]

An interesting take on the whole Muslims and enlightenment thing: Guardian.

The article provides a timeline of modernization events. An interesting comparison one could do, from the perspective of enlightenment as a constitutional viewpoint is to contrast the development of Muslim-majority countries with e.g. African Christian-majority countries. Especially Iran in early 20th and Ottoman empire in the late 19th century would be interesting comparisons to their contemporaries. Again, it would be very shortsighted to try to understand the current geopoltical situation without its broader historic context.

Unfortunately, that is not a format that is very conducive to internet (or other) fora of non-specialists. I do think it is important not to discuss a caricature of one's belief and take it as reality.

[imatfaal]

...snipped. Again, it would be very shortsighted to try to understand the current geopoltical situation without its broader historic context. ...

This is the crucial point - and something that is sorely lacking from our current (and recent) approach. I thought this absence of historical grounding was typified by the comments of Tony Blair on Channel 4 News way back in 2006 - when asked about the still important factor of Mossadeq, Blair had to admit he didnt know who Mossadeq was. Now most people my age might not know who Mohammad Mossadeq was - but someone contemplating armed force against Iran and actively asking why there was such hatred towards the UK/USA should be damn well ashamed of not knowing who Mossadeq was.

[DimaMazin]

This is the crucial point - and something that is sorely lacking from our current (and recent) approach. I thought this absence of historical grounding was typified by the comments of Tony Blair on Channel 4 News way back in 2006 - when asked about the still important factor of Mossadeq, Blair had to admit he didnt know who Mossadeq was. Now most people my age might not know who Mohammad Mossadeq was - but someone contemplating armed force against Iran and actively asking why there was such hatred towards the UK/USA should be damn well ashamed of not knowing who Mossadeq was.

Do you think Mossadeq was knowing all about UK and USA ? We should more worry about real superiority.

[imatfaal]

Do you think Mossadeq was knowing all about UK and USA ? We should more worry about real superiority.

I am pretty sure he knew about them when the Secret Service and CIA engineering a coup against him.

[CharonY]

This is the crucial point - and something that is sorely lacking from our current (and recent) approach. I thought this absence of historical grounding was typified by the comments of Tony Blair on Channel 4 News way back in 2006 - when asked about the still important factor of Mossadeq, Blair had to admit he didnt know who Mossadeq was. Now most people my age might not know who Mohammad Mossadeq was - but someone contemplating armed force against Iran and actively asking why there was such hatred towards the UK/USA should be damn well ashamed of not knowing who Mossadeq was.

 

That is appalling for any country leader, and much worse for the (then) leader of the UK. That also means that his aides did not clue him in, which in turn makes me wonder what their intelligence platform for dealing with Iran or other countries in general is. Do they reset their intelligence after each election? Geez.

[DimaMazin]

I am pretty sure he knew about them when the Secret Service and CIA engineering a coup against him.

Yes. But he didn't worry about sufficient own superiority before that.

Blair did make more important thing than thing which worries you.

Edited February 26, 2015 by DimaMazin

[CharonY]

While we got into it, I would like to throw out that even before that Reza Shah introduced secularism into Iran in the 20s. At that time religious clothing, including hijabs were banned from public places. Also he was deposed by the British and the Soviets. Also in that light it is quite hypocritical to demand other countries to become secular democracies in a shorter time frame (but obviously only the right type of democracy that favors certain economies).

In Iran there was always the balance act between the modern, urbanized centers and the more conservative, religious rural areas (hence my mentioning of socioeconomic issues).

[DimaMazin]

While we got into it, I would like to throw out that even before that Reza Shah introduced secularism into Iran in the 20s. At that time religious clothing, including hijabs were banned from public places. Also he was deposed by the British and the Soviets. Also in that light it is quite hypocritical to demand other countries to become secular democracies in a shorter time frame (but obviously only the right type of democracy that favors certain economies).

In Iran there was always the balance act between the modern, urbanized centers and the more conservative, religious rural areas (hence my mentioning of socioeconomic issues).

Democracy shouldn't be temporary. Because it increases force of the country, then dictator can use the force against us. Reza Shah didn't create any democracy.

[Airbrush]

What ISIS is doing is terrible but we shouldn't over react. Narco terrorism in Central and South America kills more people. Globally dirty drinking water and starvation kills more people......

 

Yes ISIS are a threat but the average person living in my country (USA) is over a thousand times more likely to die in a car crash than at the hands of ISIS.

 

 

Narco terrorism does not aspire to destroying cities. Dirty drinking water and starvation don't conspire to mass murder.

 

When ISIS gets their hands on a nuke, it won't take long for them to exceed the national stats for car crashes or suicides.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

Narco terrorism does not aspire to destroying cities. Dirty drinking water and starvation don't conspire to mass murder.

 

When ISIS gets their hands on a nuke, it won't take long for them to exceed the national stats for car crashes or suicides.

The Narco Terror bombing of Avianca Flight 203 killed 110 innocent people. Narco groups like FARC activity lead guerilla military movements with armed forces numbering many as 10,000 in Columbia, Venezuela, and Ecuador aimed at displacing governments. Then of course you have countless officials who have been assassinated by Cartels. Many as 1.6 million people have been displayed by the Mexican drug war just since 2006.

 

"By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[77] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[78][79]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

 

 

So I think you are wrong in respects to the scope and aims of Narco Terrorism. The war on drugs and The United States need for a policing presence in Central and South America is old hat. It lacks the novelty of being new and a political wedge issue like radical Islamic terror. Politicians don't fall over themselves rushing to microphones to debate the nuances of calling FARC a narco terrorist group, a cartel, or guerrillas the way they get to with labeling Islamic Terror. When and how President Obama used the word Terror following Benghanzi was a key moment during a presidential debate meanwhile Mexico only came up in regards to immigration.

[CharonY]

A long but very interesting read on Arab secularism in the 20th century.

[iNow]

Not generally a fan of bumping old threads, especially of the political variety, but found this graphic and the related commentary informative and want to share with folks here without creating dedicated thread to do so:

 

 

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-2

TERRORIST attacks are fiendishly hard to prevent. Anyone can rent or steal a lorry and drive it at a crowd. Especially in America, it is all too easy to buy high-powered semi-automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in moments. Neither great planning nor great intelligence is required to carry out such attacks. Thus it seems likely that much of Europe and America will have to get used to acts of Islamist-inspired terrorism becoming, if not routine, at least fairly regular occurrences.

 

But even though the number of deaths from attacks is rising, the West has experienced this level of terror before. As a result of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the actions of ETA, a Basque separatist group, terrorism was consistently deadlier in the 1970s and 1980s than it has been since.

 

Yet the chance of being murdered was small. During the 30 years of the Troubles, the annual risk for civilians of being killed in Ulster was about one in 25,000. Even in 2001, the likelihood of an American in the United States being killed in a terrorist attack was less than one in 100,000; in the decade up to 2013 that fell to one in 56m. The chance of being the victim in 2013 of an ordinary homicide in the United States was one in 20,000. Barack Obama was correct when he said earlier this year that the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than that of being killed by terrorists. Baths are a one-in-a-million risk. Even if the terrorism deaths in San Bernardino and Orlando were doubled to give an annual death toll, the risk would still be about one in 2.5m.

[Ten oz]

The murder rate in the U.S. was over 10 per 100k in 1980. Today it is 4.5 per 100k. Lowest levels in over 50yrs yet politicians campaign on the notion that everything is worse. Out inner cities are out of control like never born. The number of police shot and killed each year is at a hundred year low (highest being during prohibition) yet we are told that police are under attack like never before and don't even know day to day if they'll make it home. Fear is a power tool of manipulation. Whether its Joseph McCarthy claiming numerous people were secret communist to Trump claiming immigrants are raping and killing fear in our politics in nothing new.

 

Fear of what might happen tommorrow is more powerful that comfort in the knowledge of the past. There has always been and will always continue to be, for the rest of our lifetime, some middle eastern terror group to fear. Just in the last 20yrs its been Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS; sure they have killed more muslims than anything else but telling American mall shoppers to be afraid helps win politicians election. Helps justify huge spending and development of domestic spying. One can't dismiss the threat without being viewed as complacent, weak, pr naive while at the same time it is hard to address it without overreacting and making matters worse.

[tar]

Thread,

 

I think the way to defeat dangerous ideologies is to fight them to the death.

 

That being said, in regards to the U.S. being the great Satan, and Daesh being the epitome of evil and repression, the most important strategy, is to come up with a good story, that can be ascribed to, by everybody.

 

It is my understanding, that Daesh is run by the residue of Saddam's guard, and has great power because they allow their minions to benefit from the use of their criminal power. That is, if you steal a bunch of stuff and give it to the cause, you get credit toward buying some of it back. 16 to 25 year old males are very attracted to power and sex and control of their lives. The leadership of Daesh has arrived at a good formula to deliver these things. However there is a kind of pyramid scheme thing going on, where the leadership thrives and the minions die...we need to go after the leadership to defeat the thing, not smuggle in DVDs. We can not offer riches and power and wives to the minions as is currently arranged by the leadership.

 

Except in maybe promoting the economies that will provide riches and mates and good lives for everybody. Stories like the American dream for instance.

 

But I think it wrong to impose any beliefs on others, or to pretend toward some kind of moral authority which makes you right and the other person wrong. If you can not come up with a story that includes a situation where the majority can aspire to the role of the hero, then there are going to be problems. Such a plan, doom to failure, is to convert all people of faith to people of fact. This makes you right, if you are a person of fact and the rest of the world wrong, if they are people of faith.

 

What makes sense to me, is to promote the idea that it is more important to take care of each other now, here, on this Earth, than to focus on a life after death, that is liable to exist only in one's imagination. If the sacrifice of one's life, is for others, to live, then good. If the taking of other's lives is to make yourself right in the eyes of your imagination, then it is not good.

 

However, religion is a standard that people hold themselves up to. It is in essence the sum total of the hopes and dreams and judgement of the society to which you belong. The stories by which you go.

 

We need to solve the economic and the resource issues, without imposing our personal values on everybody else. But at the same time we have to, we HAVE TO fight against destructive, criminal organizations like Daesh as surely as we have to fight against the Mafia, or the KKK or urban drug gangs, or Hitler.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 8, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

@ Tar, after 9/11 we fought many to death Afghanistan and Iraq. Hundreds of thousand dead and what followed; ISIS. How many must we fight to death before we understand that doing so doesn't work?

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Neither does not fighting them work. If you let the KKK alone it would grow. If you let criminal drug gangs alone they would take over the streets of our cities. If you let the Nazis alone they would take over Europe. If you let ISIS alone they would take over large parts of Iraq and Syria, and portions of a score of other countries.

 

We have learned that regime change is dangerous if you don't stick around to fill the vacuum. But fighting evil does work. We have squelched a number of strongmen and dictators.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

Neither does not fighting them work. If you let the KKK alone it would grow. If you let criminal drug gangs alone they would take over the streets of our cities. If you let the Nazis alone they would take over Europe. If you let ISIS alone they would take over large parts of Iraq and Syria, and portions of a score of other countries.

 

We have learned that regime change is dangerous if you don't stick around to fill the vacuum. But fighting evil does work. We have squelched a number of strongmen and dictators.

 

Regards, TAR

The Klan espouse an ideology. An opinion or thought cannot be beaten by force. In order for the Klan to grown people must embrace the ideology. Martin Luther King was against violence and probably did more damage to the Klan that anyone in its history.

 

"Criminal drug gangs" get their power from money. They are billion dollar organizations. That money comes from people willfully choosing to buy and use drugs. If we battle all current drug dealers to death other would pop up because there is a demand for drugs and as such there will always be people willing to supply it for profit. The way to beat criminal drug gangs is to do a better job managing drug use within our society.

 

Do you remember the playing cards with different terrorist leaders. Every week we killed someone said to be a jacck, queen, King, or Ace. Top level leader aftertop level leader dead and yet we are still fighting. Situation still not improved. Imagine if we had invested the trillions we have spent in technology to help communities dealing with draught in Northern Iraq and Syria rather than spent it destorying the enemy?

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I get the snake pit analogy. I remember using it back when we were searching for Bin Laden. You cut the head off one snake, and another just takes its place.

 

But this thread is about how to defeat political Islam, not how to coexist with it. There is money behind the power that ISIS wields, from certain rich folk in other Arab states and oil and loot . As there is money behind the drug lord's power. You have to cut off the funds, and kill or capture the leaders.

But

Perhaps I did not carefully think about the thread title. It did not ask how to defeat ISIL. It asked how to defeat political Islam and that is perhaps a battle between civilizations type question we should parse out before attempting an answer. That is, Islam has ALWAYS had both the spiritual and the political side. The Caliph was the head of both operations. We here in America are for separation of church and state, to let each follow their own god as they follow the civil laws of the land. In Islam they have towers from which you are called to prayer 3 times a day. Is this the political Islam we are asked by the thread to find a way to defeat? If so, Sharia law is the evil we are asked to defeat, and by that, the teachings of Muhammed and the verses in the Koran, and the evolution of Islamic religion. And since the Koran is thought to be the literal words of Allah, we are, by the thread title, asked to go against Allah...which is not going to go over well in the hearts and minds of the 1/3 of the population of the planet who follow the religion (along with its political component.)

 

So, are we asking Muslims to take on an American type view of their religion, and follow it only in spirit, only in their hearts and let the political side of things, the waking world, be taken care of in a more democratic way?

 

What exactly is going to be on these DVDs we are smuggling in to the fighters?

 

I read the Koran after 9/11. Twice, once for the gist and once for comprehension. I wanted to know why I was the great Satan and why someone adhering to that book, would find it required to take down my towers with the people in them. On 9/11 I had stood on the banks of the Hudson, at Port Imperial, waiting for my wife to escape the city, looking across the river, at an immense pillar of black smoke rising from where the towers once stood, going up and off toward the NE. At the time, I did not know who or why someone had flown planes full of people into towers full of people, I just knew there was evil in the world, that I had to defeat.

 

It is said that a Muslim must memorize the verses of the Koran, and must travel to Mecca at least once in their lives and circle the stone, reciting the verses. I am not a Muslim. I don't have to do this thing. I look at the operation as sort of a self hypnosis type of thing, and reject its power and meaning that might be felt by an adherent. I do not want to be under this religion's political hold. I do not want to pray 5 times a day facing Mecca and touching my head to the ground. I do not want to stone adulterers and throw gays off of buildings. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam I am.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 9, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

I think the way to defeat dangerous ideologies is to fight them to the death.

 

 

The only way to kill an idea is to understand it and show how it's wrong.

Using a bullet, rather than food, caring and understanding, only reinforces the idea and creates more who believe.

We should defend ourselves when physically attacked, but terrorism demands we defend ourselves when our imaginations are attacked; when the bomb goes off, defense is futile.

The Lernaean Hydra demonstrates just how futile aggression is when faced with indifference, unless you think Sisyphus had a plan.

[Ten oz]

@Tar, we already "coexist" with Islam. The issue is how to do it better than we are. Ideology cannot be killed away via military force. We have already tried. You referenced that ISIS has funding and we should take that funding away and kill those who provide it. That would mean killing impportant business and govt leaders Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and etc. Basically destablizing what few regions aren't already in total chaos. That would only create more enemies.

 

I understand that force is often needed like against the Nazis but that we defensive. If nothing was done millions more would have died. Germany was not a potential threat they were an active threat. Our actions in the middle east since 9/11 have primarily been about potential risks. We are attempting to proactively use force defensively. It doesn't work.

 

Education is what defeats ignorance. Knowledge is what changes opinions. Rather than trying to predict who the radicals are and kill them we should invest in education. Try to practively prevent people from become radicalized through education rather than the working end of a gun.

[tar]

dimreeper and Ten oz,

 

I am always for the talk it out, before the punch. Except on one occasion I did punch a guy in the nose...but that was rationalizable (sort of, plus I was drunk).

 

But, when a guy in a mask, has your guy bound on his knees, about to slice his head off, the time for talk has past. It is time for special forces to arrive and kill the SOB.

 

Regards, TAR

education has already played a role, but somebody other than me put some strange ideas in the SOBs head

 

How do you arrange to teach other people's children, without first taking over their schools, by force?

that is, objectively speaking, why are your ideas better than the

 

"The Marja is a label used by the Shia community, meaning source to follow.

The most respected of the Marjas are entitled Allamah. This Persian name for Teacher is also used by some Sunnis to denote a teacher of extraordinary respect.

Ulema/Ulama is the title that indicates that the teacher has come to awareness of the consensus, the ijma, of the Umma. Umma is the universal community of all the followers of God as understood by the Muslim community (cf. Sangha, Ecclesia)

Mufti is a someone who interprets or expounds Islamic law (Sharia and fiqh)

Muhaddith is someone who has profound knowledge of the Haddith, and teaches by Narration, or storytelling.

Mullah is often the title of the teachers at the Madrasahs, Islamic schools. Mullah is a teacher in regard of being respected as a vicar and guardian of Qur'an and the Islamic traditions.

The Shia believe that an Imam can lead mankind in all aspects of life. The Imam is appointed by God. Muhammad informed that the number of Caliphs after him will be 12. The majority of the Muslim world are awaiting the 12th Imam: The Mahdi, either as a first time appearance or as a reappearance after a long occultation. The Mahdi is the greatest teacher, the Messiah of the Islamic World, and the Maitreya of Buddhism.

Mawlawi is a Persian word for teacher meaning Master.

Sheikh is sheikh is an Arabic honorific term that literally means Elder. It is a long historic debate in many cultures whether the elder in itself denotes the role and status of a teacher.

Ayatollah is a high ranking title given to Shi'a clerics.

Mujaddid is someone is sent by God to aid the Umma and revive Islam at the beginning of every century .

Marabout is a spiritual teacher of Islam as it is taught in the West Africa and Maghreb, The word comes from the Berber concept of Saint. The "marabout" is known as "Sayyed" (سيد) to the Arabic speaking Maghribians

teachers of Islam teach scholars"

Edited September 9, 2016 by tar