0
0
0
Radical Islam, Nihilist Rage
The New York Times has an article which put a few things into perspective
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/kenan-malik-the-nihilist-rage-of-radical-islam.html?ref=opinion
Radical Islam, Nihilist Rage
LONDON — FACED with a horror like the slaughter of 148 schoolchildren and school staff members by the Taliban in Pakistan, it is tempting to describe the act as “inhuman” or “medieval.” What made the massacre particularly chilling, though, is that it was neither. The killings were all too human and of our time.
The Peshawar massacre may have been particularly abhorrent, but the Taliban have attacked at least 1,000 schools over the past five years. They have butchered hundreds through suicide bombings of churches and mosques. And beyond Pakistan lies the brutality of groups like the Islamic State, Boko Haram and the Shabab.
What seems to bind these groups together is that they claim to act in the name of Islam. Why, many ask, do so many of today’s most vicious conflicts appear to involve Islamists? And why do Islamist groups seem so much more vicious, sadistic, even evil?
Muslims are not the only religious group involved in perpetrating horrors. From Christian militias in the Central African Republic reportedly eating their foes to Buddhist monks organizing anti-Muslim pogroms in Myanmar, there is cruelty aplenty in the world. Nor are religious believers alone in committing grotesque acts. Yet, critics argue, there appears to be something particularly potent about Islam in fomenting violence, terror and persecution.
These are explosive issues and need addressing carefully. The trouble is, this debate remains trapped between bigotry and fear. For many, ...
[EDITORIAL NOTE] - The NYTimes isn't all that generous on allowing re-linking so you might have to hunt for a bit (I only C&P in accordance with "Fair Use" practices.
The New York Times has an article which put a few things into perspective
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/kenan-malik-the-nihilist-rage-of-radical-islam.html?ref=opinion
Radical Islam, Nihilist Rage
LONDON — FACED with a horror like the slaughter of 148 schoolchildren and school staff members by the Taliban in Pakistan, it is tempting to describe the act as “inhuman” or “medieval.” What made the massacre particularly chilling, though, is that it was neither. The killings were all too human and of our time.
The Peshawar massacre may have been particularly abhorrent, but the Taliban have attacked at least 1,000 schools over the past five years. They have butchered hundreds through suicide bombings of churches and mosques. And beyond Pakistan lies the brutality of groups like the Islamic State, Boko Haram and the Shabab.
What seems to bind these groups together is that they claim to act in the name of Islam. Why, many ask, do so many of today’s most vicious conflicts appear to involve Islamists? And why do Islamist groups seem so much more vicious, sadistic, even evil?
Muslims are not the only religious group involved in perpetrating horrors. From Christian militias in the Central African Republic reportedly eating their foes to Buddhist monks organizing anti-Muslim pogroms in Myanmar, there is cruelty aplenty in the world. Nor are religious believers alone in committing grotesque acts. Yet, critics argue, there appears to be something particularly potent about Islam in fomenting violence, terror and persecution.
These are explosive issues and need addressing carefully. The trouble is, this debate remains trapped between bigotry and fear. For many, ...
[EDITORIAL NOTE] - The NYTimes isn't all that generous on allowing re-linking so you might have to hunt for a bit (I only C&P in accordance with "Fair Use" practices.
Islam
Terrorism
Middle East
Africa
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
I often say there are two types of organizations: Builders and Destroyers. ISIS, Taliban, and AQ was built to destroy what it comes in contact with. They rule by the primordial fears of mankind as they find many horrible ways to kill someone.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MAJ Ken Landgren - Major; You are correct.
However, if the "builders" aren't allowed to succeed, then the "destroyers" take over and if the first level of "destroyers" isn't allowed to succeed then an even more destroyerish "destroyer" comes into play, and if the second level of "destroyer" isn't allowed to succeed then an even more destroyerish "destroyer" comes into play and if the third level of ...
The only solution to the spiral is to get the "builders" to succeed and you can't do that if you don't identify the "builders" and separate them in your mind from the "destroyers".
However, if the "builders" aren't allowed to succeed, then the "destroyers" take over and if the first level of "destroyers" isn't allowed to succeed then an even more destroyerish "destroyer" comes into play, and if the second level of "destroyer" isn't allowed to succeed then an even more destroyerish "destroyer" comes into play and if the third level of ...
The only solution to the spiral is to get the "builders" to succeed and you can't do that if you don't identify the "builders" and separate them in your mind from the "destroyers".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Ted Mc . I am not sure what his point is exactly. The commentary is a rambling attempt at equivocation and explaining and rationalizing the unexplainable and irrational.
The title is misleading at a minimum: Radical Islam, Nihilistic Rage, honestly. If you use a contemporary definition of nihilism such as: The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. Islamist's do nothing of the sort. They believe the epitomize the only true interpretation of the Koran and are leading Islam to it's rightful place, a global Islamic caliphate. they will torture, imprison, enslave and murder in the most heinous ways anyone they need to in order to meet that goal. Their rage is anything but nihilistic. It is rooted in their version of islam.
The article begins on slippery ground with the title then meanders into the disingenuous.
"FACED with a horror like the slaughter of 148 schoolchildren and school staff members by the Taliban in Pakistan, it is tempting to describe the act as “inhuman” or “medieval.” What made the massacre particularly chilling, though, is that it was neither. The killings were all too human and of our time".
The type of acts (this article was written before Hebdo and the latest Paris attacks) in the first paragraph are not "too human" in the western world. They are far too common in parts of the middle east and Africa certainly. To attempt to act as though these are happening everywhere and regularly is sophistry. There are not people of historically western descent committing acts like this in western democracies.
This commentary is another three-card Monte type scam of words to attempt to beguile the mark, namely most in the western world.
The title is misleading at a minimum: Radical Islam, Nihilistic Rage, honestly. If you use a contemporary definition of nihilism such as: The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. Islamist's do nothing of the sort. They believe the epitomize the only true interpretation of the Koran and are leading Islam to it's rightful place, a global Islamic caliphate. they will torture, imprison, enslave and murder in the most heinous ways anyone they need to in order to meet that goal. Their rage is anything but nihilistic. It is rooted in their version of islam.
The article begins on slippery ground with the title then meanders into the disingenuous.
"FACED with a horror like the slaughter of 148 schoolchildren and school staff members by the Taliban in Pakistan, it is tempting to describe the act as “inhuman” or “medieval.” What made the massacre particularly chilling, though, is that it was neither. The killings were all too human and of our time".
The type of acts (this article was written before Hebdo and the latest Paris attacks) in the first paragraph are not "too human" in the western world. They are far too common in parts of the middle east and Africa certainly. To attempt to act as though these are happening everywhere and regularly is sophistry. There are not people of historically western descent committing acts like this in western democracies.
This commentary is another three-card Monte type scam of words to attempt to beguile the mark, namely most in the western world.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc . So Ted, if their behavior is completely explainable and rationale why isn't the rest of the muslim world up in arms against the west and doing the sorts of things ISIS does?
A postulate suggests or assumes the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief etc. I do not need to understand the postulates of an apostate faith that operates like a death cult to know it is abhorrent and wrong (and therefore has no valid explanation). Even more moderate muslims will deny any validity to their action. Are you suggesting the moderates may not understand the origin and postulates of ISIS?
A postulate suggests or assumes the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief etc. I do not need to understand the postulates of an apostate faith that operates like a death cult to know it is abhorrent and wrong (and therefore has no valid explanation). Even more moderate muslims will deny any validity to their action. Are you suggesting the moderates may not understand the origin and postulates of ISIS?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; The "rest of the Muslim world" isn't "up in arms and doing the sorts of things ISIS does" because they are Muslims and ARE NOT "ISISites"
You may not "need to understand the postulates" but you DO have to know what they are there and that some people are operating on the basis of them. If you completely disregard the postulates upon which people are acting then you will never understand what they are capable of doing.
I don't suggest that "the moderates" may not understand the origins and postulates of ISIS. In fact "the moderates" certainly understand the postulates MUCH better than all of those who are (without actually using the specific words) calling for "The Final Solution To The Muslim Problem". "The moderates" understand AND REJECT the postulates of the "ISISites".
As far as the origin of ISIS, that is historical fact and equally known and understood by anyone who cares to look into it - regardless of which religion their background is rooted in.
PS - Please do not confuse "understand" with "approve of" - the two are totally separate and it is just as possible to "understand" something when you don't "approve of" it as it is to "approve of" something when you don't "understand" it. That one can "understand" something and also "approve of" it goes without saying as does the fact that it is possible not to "approve of" something while not "understanding" it.
You may not "need to understand the postulates" but you DO have to know what they are there and that some people are operating on the basis of them. If you completely disregard the postulates upon which people are acting then you will never understand what they are capable of doing.
I don't suggest that "the moderates" may not understand the origins and postulates of ISIS. In fact "the moderates" certainly understand the postulates MUCH better than all of those who are (without actually using the specific words) calling for "The Final Solution To The Muslim Problem". "The moderates" understand AND REJECT the postulates of the "ISISites".
As far as the origin of ISIS, that is historical fact and equally known and understood by anyone who cares to look into it - regardless of which religion their background is rooted in.
PS - Please do not confuse "understand" with "approve of" - the two are totally separate and it is just as possible to "understand" something when you don't "approve of" it as it is to "approve of" something when you don't "understand" it. That one can "understand" something and also "approve of" it goes without saying as does the fact that it is possible not to "approve of" something while not "understanding" it.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc Perhaps some of this is an argument around semantics. I guess at the heart of the matter for me is that is "moderate muslims" will tell you that ISIS/AQ/Taliban (and others) are not practicing true islam. They will tell you that "true islam" is a religion of peace (and other positive attributes). They will tell you that ISIS et al are essentially practicing a warped/untrue interpretation of the Koran. If that is indeed the case then their is no understanding of their practice. It is completely open to them and can change on a dime. It has no real fundamental/core beliefs except what the current leaders say.
I guess you could say that you understand it is completely arbitrary and capricious and can change and redefine itself at any turn, as it's leaders see fit. I don't think it is possible to truly understand something as loosely defined and as able to morph or change as you are. It's lack of reason and human decency and it's allowance of situational ethics and destruction of innocence make it not understandable to me. I only understand it is evil and needs to be destroyed as quickly as possible.
I am using the transitive verb of understand, perhaps you are leaning more toward the intransitive verb of understand.
I guess you could say that you understand it is completely arbitrary and capricious and can change and redefine itself at any turn, as it's leaders see fit. I don't think it is possible to truly understand something as loosely defined and as able to morph or change as you are. It's lack of reason and human decency and it's allowance of situational ethics and destruction of innocence make it not understandable to me. I only understand it is evil and needs to be destroyed as quickly as possible.
I am using the transitive verb of understand, perhaps you are leaning more toward the intransitive verb of understand.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; While I agree with the first part, I cannot agree that ISISism is capricious and/or arbitrary. The ISISites have a fixed system of belief and it IS possible both to know and to understand that system of belief.
There is no "lack of reason" to the ISISite belief system. They believe that they have the sole ownership of "The One True Way" and that a part of "The One True Way" is an injunction to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Since the ISISites believe that they are "Doing God's Work" then there is no need to introduce "human decency" into the equation because they are doing "What "God Wants" them to do and to do less would be blasphemous at a minimum. Obviously, when you are "Doing God's Work" you cannot possibly "destroy innocence" because what you are doing is "What God Wants" and that is higher than any mere human thoughts.
Now when you say "I only understand it is evil and needs to be destroyed as quickly as possible." you have to remember two things:
[1] the ISISites believe the complete opposite;
and
[2] 95+% of the world agrees with you (even if some of them are too afraid to say so).
There is no "lack of reason" to the ISISite belief system. They believe that they have the sole ownership of "The One True Way" and that a part of "The One True Way" is an injunction to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Since the ISISites believe that they are "Doing God's Work" then there is no need to introduce "human decency" into the equation because they are doing "What "God Wants" them to do and to do less would be blasphemous at a minimum. Obviously, when you are "Doing God's Work" you cannot possibly "destroy innocence" because what you are doing is "What God Wants" and that is higher than any mere human thoughts.
Now when you say "I only understand it is evil and needs to be destroyed as quickly as possible." you have to remember two things:
[1] the ISISites believe the complete opposite;
and
[2] 95+% of the world agrees with you (even if some of them are too afraid to say so).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Washington Times has this article about the Paris murders
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/claude-salhani-france-weighs-cost-of-terrorist-app/
France weighs the tragic cost of appeasement
The attack on the offices and staff of the French satirical paper, Charlie Hebdo, by three heavily armed men shouting out the name of God in Arabic is nothing less than a declaration of war by hordes of heathen barbarians against the civilized world. They would want us to think that they are acting in the name of God. They shouted the words “Allahu akbar,” God is great, every time they murdered one of their victims. Then, before getting into a getaway car, they were reported to have shouted, “The prophet is avenged.”
Do not be fooled — they are as distanced from Islam as can possibly be. There is a stark reality in the saying that truth is the first casualty of war. Indeed it is.
The gunmen may have believed they were acting in the name of God by slaughtering 10 members of the paper’s staff and two policemen, one of who was Muslim, but let us not fall into the same trap. The aim of the killings at Charlie Hebdo likely had nothing to do with avenging the prophet or seeking revenge for having poked fun at the prophet. Those who ordered the Paris attack very possibly could care less about what a French satirical weekly rag has to say. Indeed, their aims could be far more ambitious and devious: to trigger a vast knee-jerk reaction from the French authorities and public that would generate a huge wave of ant-Muslim sentiment. This, in turn, would justify in the eyes of these extremists greater acts of terror.
What we saw happen in the French capital on Wednesday is only the beginning of ...
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It looks like the "lone wolves" are starting to give the __[insert name of dog breed here]__ a bad name.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/claude-salhani-france-weighs-cost-of-terrorist-app/
France weighs the tragic cost of appeasement
The attack on the offices and staff of the French satirical paper, Charlie Hebdo, by three heavily armed men shouting out the name of God in Arabic is nothing less than a declaration of war by hordes of heathen barbarians against the civilized world. They would want us to think that they are acting in the name of God. They shouted the words “Allahu akbar,” God is great, every time they murdered one of their victims. Then, before getting into a getaway car, they were reported to have shouted, “The prophet is avenged.”
Do not be fooled — they are as distanced from Islam as can possibly be. There is a stark reality in the saying that truth is the first casualty of war. Indeed it is.
The gunmen may have believed they were acting in the name of God by slaughtering 10 members of the paper’s staff and two policemen, one of who was Muslim, but let us not fall into the same trap. The aim of the killings at Charlie Hebdo likely had nothing to do with avenging the prophet or seeking revenge for having poked fun at the prophet. Those who ordered the Paris attack very possibly could care less about what a French satirical weekly rag has to say. Indeed, their aims could be far more ambitious and devious: to trigger a vast knee-jerk reaction from the French authorities and public that would generate a huge wave of ant-Muslim sentiment. This, in turn, would justify in the eyes of these extremists greater acts of terror.
What we saw happen in the French capital on Wednesday is only the beginning of ...
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It looks like the "lone wolves" are starting to give the __[insert name of dog breed here]__ a bad name.
CLAUDE SALHANI: France weighs cost of terrorist appeasement following Charlie Hebdo attack
The attack on the offices and staff of the French satirical paper, Charlie Hebdo, by three heavily armed men shouting out the name of God in Arabic is nothing less than a declaration of war by hordes of heathen barbarians against the civilized world. They would want us to think that they are acting in the name of God.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google