SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Related to the earlier discussion about where ISIS gets its weapons, I wanted to share this great in-depth article from The Atlantic about the motivations of ISIS. Then In order to provide a more nuanced view of ISIS, here is criticism of that Atlantic article from thinkprogress.org.
From the Atlantic:
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.
We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.
The thinkprogress.org criticism by one of the primary sources cited in the Atlantic article:
One of the oft-mentioned criticisms of The Atlantic piece is that it echoed the inaccurate belief that since ISIS’s theology draws upon Islamic texts to justify its horrendous practices, it is an inevitable product of Islam. Haykel didn’t say whether or not he thought Wood’s article says as much, but when ThinkProgress asked him directly whether Islamic texts and theology necessitate the creation of groups like ISIS, he was unequivocal.
“No,” he said. “I think that ISIS is a product of very contingent, contextual, historical factors. There is nothing predetermined in Islam that would lead to ISIS.”
He was similarly unambiguous when responding to the related critique that Muslims who disavow ISIS are somehow deluded or not “real” Muslims.
“I consider people … who have criticized ISIS to be fully within the Islamic tradition, and in no way ‘less Muslim’ than ISIS,” he said. “I mean, that’s absurd.”
(Score: 1, Disagree) by pTamok on Thursday April 30 2015, @09:52AM
...USA has never been in a real war...
How about the war of 1812, when the USA's enemies sacked Washington D.C., setting fire to the White House? They were repulsed at Baltimore. That seems to fit the bill of war on the USA's home territory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:00AM
Nope. In the world according to gaymers, there are only two wars: World War II and the War On Terror. No other war has ever happened.
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:04AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 [wikipedia.org]
That's not even the same thing...
UK was divided in that war, u did not have the entire fleet of a country or several countries coming for you...
When you have so many wars in more recent times, how can you take such a lame example?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday April 30 2015, @12:05PM
How about the war of 1812, when the USA's enemies sacked Washington D.C., setting fire to the White House?
You mean the little side show in the Napoleonic war, where America's enemies were more occupied much closer to home with the Iberian campaign and could only afford to devote token military resources to it before suing for peace to focus their efforts completely on the country that was a real threat?
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Thursday April 30 2015, @02:49PM
Yes, that's the one.
I chose it, as it's the only was I'm aware of where citizens of the USA were threatened on their own territory. I think the Mexican-American war of 1846-8 was fought entirely on what was Mexican territory, although I am not 100% sure.
You could count the Pacific campaign of WWII, given what happened at Pearl Harbor, but as far as I know, the continental USA was never threatened, even though the war in the Pacific was bloody.