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: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:32PM
You fail to explain the massive influx of money to ISIS. Just because your Muslim friends haven't run off to reestablish the caliphate doesn't mean they aren't sending money.
There isn't enough marketable things in northern Iraq and Syria to explain the sheer amount of cash these guys have. Its not all captured Humvees you know.
Also, while you seem quick to write off 200,000 combat volunteers, which is a number that even the US and supporting countries [turner.com] were never able to put on the ground in Iraq, even during the height of the invasion. Far less than half of the Iraqi invasion forces consisted of combat troops.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:50PM
> You fail to explain the massive influx of money to ISIS
You fail to prove the existence of a massive influx of money to ISIS. They are a wholly self-sufficient criminal syndicate. [businessinsider.com]
> Also, while you seem quick to write off 200,000 combat volunteers
They are not volunteers. They are paid 2x-4x what local armies pay their troops. [buzzfeed.com]
The only question of interest now is will frojack learn from his mistakes or stubbornly cling to the false narratives that tell him his hate is justified?