from the prior-tyranny-at-least-meant-stability dept.
Do you agree with this assessment from Rana Jawad via The Conversation?
The rapid rise of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) to global notoriety has taken observers of Middle East politics by surprise. All of a sudden, a new Islamist political movement has stunningly upstaged former global public enemy number one al-Qaeda and establishes an Islamic state, a caliphate encompassing lands in both Iraq and Syria.
ISIS sees itself and its newly declared caliphate as revoking the historic deals that were struck between European imperial powers after World War I, which gave us most of the Middle Eastern borders we know today.
Nothing symbolizes the sorry state of Arab politics more than the march of ISIS. The Arab world at large appears to be fast descending into a political quagmire, only a few years after the euphoria of the so-called Arab Spring. The unraveling of old dictatorships in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria has opened up a pandora's box of sectarian, ethnic and tribal divisions, old fault-lines that have persisted under the heavy hand of police states for the last century.
And the more chaotic the region becomes, the more desperate and frustrated the search for a meaningful explanation. From the perspective of many western governments and much of the western media, many Arab countries have never been able to govern themselves effectively. They lack structures for effective democratic governance and rule of law; they are bedeviled by corruption and are too influenced by Arab or Islamic traditions which favour paternalistic or patronage systems of rule.
The Conversation has also published an opposing viewpoint, found here.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 10 2014, @05:06AM
While I largely agree witht the opposing view point, that ISIS is not sustainable, I don't think it matters, and it certainly does nothing to topple the main points raised by Rana Jawad in the first article.
ISIS can be a flash in the pan, or it can persist for some years. That still does not change the main point:
This isn't a problem that arrived with western influence. It's been this way since forever. Even the last caliphate was not a peaceful state, there were always warring factions all over the place. It was only bribery and tribute that held things together then, and nothing has changed.
Basically I think it is the utter marginalization of women that leaves the entire society subject to the whims of uneducated young Arab men, who have no prospects in life what so ever. Combine that with a leadership of usurpers and dynasties and you have the perfect formula for continuous revolt and chaos.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @09:11AM
This.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:16AM
So if you're a muslim and know you've committed many sins but you can't even remember all of them and you want to get to Paradise (and avoid Hell) what are your options?
a) Do enough good and hope you make it, with a chance of committing even more sins and thus you going to hell instead...
b) Martyrdom
c) Die while on the Hajj or Umrah.
AFAIK neither a) nor c) gets you the 7 gifts one of which is "He will intercede on behalf of 70 members of his family.".
As long as people believe the above, the odds of peace are lower. After a while you will get someone (a charismatic sociopath perhaps, or a True Believer) who will convince young men to martyr themselves fighting infidels or rebels. Just look at the Shia and Sunni wars and conflicts - even without the western world interfering it won't take long before they start killing each other.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 10 2014, @02:23PM
So sounds like one extended family member every 3 generations or so should do it. Or do they like to reproduce like rabbits over there, too?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by AnythingGoes on Friday July 11 2014, @03:36AM
Well, each man is allowed to have (at least) 4 wives in that religion..As the prophet has 11 or so during his life on earth and he commanded that 4 be allowed for every man
Given that gender birth rates are about equal (close to 50/50 male/female ratio), every man has to find a way to ensure that his genes pass on, so risky behavior with great potential payoffs makes sense.
Then of course, the religion prohibits contraception like Catholicism, so making lots of babies is a good thing to them.
And for men who have no hope of getting a woman due to economics/social status etc, the guaranteed reward of 72 eternal virgins sounds really good, and all it takes is martyrdom..
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 10 2014, @03:47PM
This sort of ignores the fact that after WWI, the middle east was divided up between the western powers by creating a bunch of artificial states that intentionally mixed together disparate peoples intentionally ignoring all natural borders (not just rivers, but those spaces where the power of one group balances against the power of another). This allowed the Western powers to choose a group in that region, usually a substantial minority that could be supported/controlled, to wield power, and often brutally.
With respect to the brutality, people constantly say that those in the mideast are such savages and their rulers such horrid dictators. But perhaps, the only way to keep control in such artificial regions, _is_ brutality. Like trying to push a magnet together N to N or S to S -- it just isn't going to happen without continued application of force.
We in the west are invested in keeping the WWI borders because that benefits us, but if we really wanted peace in the region, we'd let what happened in Yugoslavia happen in Iraq. The sad part is that it would of course be bloody, but at least it would be like ripping off the bandaid. What we do now, is partially pull the bandaid slowly, then press it down, then partially pull slowly, then press it down ....
(Score: 3, Funny) by Darth Turbogeek on Thursday July 10 2014, @05:19AM
Sorry, I just cant take anything called ISIS seriously anymore.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday July 10 2014, @12:49PM
When I first heard the ISIS report I honestly thought it was an epic troll. I sat there laughing thinking some clever bastard fabricated a report, released obscure execution photos and slipped the name ISIS in there for a good laugh.
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday July 10 2014, @01:20PM
DECnet first tried to popularize ISIS. many routing companies implemented it but the trend seems to be clear: people want OSPF instead of ISIS.
honestly, I don't know what the big fuss is. either one is far better than RIP and IGRP is too single-vendor to be worth anything in today's world.
why this is making news - I just don't get it. this is more pseudo-news than a pseudo-node.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @04:43PM
I believe the prior art belongs to the Egyptians, by a few millenia margin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @03:54PM
> Sorry, I just cant take anything called ISIS seriously anymore.
In the Philippines, the largest group of rebels are the MILFs. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:01AM
How is Sharia law not ideology?
And these two warring factions, the Sunni and the Shiite, are killing each other because they believe in the same religion and the same values.
They just differ in their interpretation.
You know, while true enough, that second sentence sounds so nonsensical, they literally murder each other over minor differences. You would think they were Catholics and Protestants.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:28AM
Sharia law is what ever the highest ranking local (self anointed) muslim cleric says it is. There is no universal Sharia law.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:34AM
Which makes it even more insane as it becomes one mans personal ideology forced upon others.
But it's ok, God/Allah/Thor/Cthulhu said so.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday July 10 2014, @02:02PM
I have to disagree with the "self-anointed" part of that:
- A Shiite ayatollah typically has roughly 15 years of study at a seminary, and is granted the title by the ayatollahs who taught him. Think of him as someone with a doctorate degree in religious studies.
- A Sunni imam, the guy you'd be likely to find running a local mosque, typically has closer to the equivalent of a master's degree, again, granted to him by a seminary of some kind.
They're less self-anointed than your typical non-denominational Protestant minister (who in many cases has no degree and just declared themselves the pastor). Also, a religious leader that says something wildly at odds with the community is going to be simply ignored.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday July 10 2014, @03:11PM
Interesting post. A minor correction, you said "non-denominational protestant minister" which is kind of a mixed phrase.
Protestant - a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches
Non-denominational is a term that indicates that a person or organization is not restricted to any particular or specific religious denomination.
I get what you were saying. In the US we certainly have too many "Pastors" that claim all this knowledge about a specific religion (Christianity), but in truth just know how to sell used cars to suckers. They carry with them little deep knowledge of the Bible, the historical lineage of their religion, or various interpretations of religious writings. They are good and fleecing people of money, inciting them to do bad acts, and basically do and say stupid things in the name of God they really don't understand or believe in. They are not non-denominational protestant ministers, they are charlatans.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 10 2014, @03:44PM
Most of the independent churches, at least here in the US, are basically Calvinist, with some Millerite thinking thrown in, which leaves them firmly grounded in Protestant religion. Hence the designation "non-denominational Protestant": They are definitely Protestant, and undoubtedly not Catholic, even though they aren't specifically affiliated with a larger denomination like Methodist / Anglican / Presbyterian / Pentacostal / Baptist churches are.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Thursday July 10 2014, @04:19PM
I don't know, non-denominational used in conjunction with these groups still gives too much weight to what these entities are, Money Collectors. These Mega-Churches use the "Christian" theology because, in this country, it is the most prominent. They use the Bible, because it is the most popular. They are no more Calvinistic then a radical Mosque is Islamic. Left unchecked these organizations will churn out the next religious warrior sect shouting their version of Allahu Akbar.
The worst thing we can do is grant places like New Spring the status of even non-denominational. They only represent the "Faith" and "religion" of the Leader, not of a Theology. They are entertainment based, not Faith based, and the worst is they used the basic goodness of people to warp them into doing not good things.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @05:18PM
Not if they have a big enough goon squad to enforce their decrees, they won't. See mutawa [wikipedia.org], for reference. Also, in many protestant protestant churches, both non-denominational and otherwise, the pastor is called by the congregation and can be dismissed just as easily. In fact, it happens quite frequently.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 10 2014, @10:35PM
Actually I think you will find there are no requirements to being an Imam.
Fiqh as Sunnah Volume 2, Page 56:
The one who should be imam is the one who is the most versed in the Qur'an
If two or more are equal in this, then it is the one who has the most knowledge of the sunnah. If they are equal in that, then it is the one who performed the migration first. If they are equal in that, then it should be the eldest.
But basically, unless there is someone who wants to challenge them, whoever gets there first, or organizes his little store front operation, is the defacto Imam.
What you say as being the Typical hardly matters in a religion so disjoint and fragmented and full of disagreement as Islam.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @05:15AM
Your argument is nonsensical.
You claim that anyone with very little qualification can call themselves an imam but at the same time only the most knowledgeable can be an imam. The only way that works is for very small populations which is inherently self-limiting. The larger the group, the more knowledgeable the most knowledgeable person will be.
That sort of circular reasoning is very common among those criticizing islam. It's more about the critic than it is about the religion. You should also try to avoid googling for quotes in religious texts. That kind of context-free over-simplification is seductive but invariably leads to misunderstanding because of the "unknown unknowns" that any non-expert in any field invariably runs afoul of. It's like thinking you understand how a microprocessor works because you googled and found V=IxR.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:29AM
> And these two warring factions, the Sunni and the Shiite, are killing each other because they believe in the same religion and the same values.
Religion is just a uniform that the soldiers wear. The fight is about resources and power, all human conflicts are about resources and power.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:39AM
Certainly. But when one gets control of the resource, they still choose to kill each other because of their religions differences. So there is still the insanity of hating each other over small differences in point of view. Hell, ISIS executed some of their own fighters for not being devout enough.
That is some high grade distilled madness there.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @03:59PM
> But when one gets control of the resource, they still choose to kill each other because of their religions differences.
Uh, no. Name one example. Whatever you can come up with, you'll find that a closer look reveals the actual cause is conflict over resources and power. Surely you don't think that what is going now with ISIS is about religion do you?
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:57PM
Considering the history of the region (and religion in general) I believe it is short sighted to think that religion plays no role. It is the motivator that empowers and emboldens these people to visit atrocities on their fellows in the name of (God, Allah, FSM, Cthulhu, Odin, Mr Bill).
And as far as citing examples of Sunni and Shiite killing each other over their religions, even a casual search turns up millions of examples. Yes as with all searches it's 99% crap, But examples are easy to find. Several thousand years of religious oppression to choose from. And yes, many wars started over religious differences over the centuries. If you think war is only fought over resources, that is short sighted. Yes the winner gets the resources of the loser, but many times history war has begun as an ideological disagreement.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @05:20AM
> it is short sighted to think that religion plays no role.
That is an exaggeration of my claims. I said it is the uniform, not that it has no role. My point is that the role is minor. That tribes of humans fight with other tribes of humans for resources. Ideology can motivate individuals, but you don't get organized conflict unless the people organizing it expect to get something tangible as a result.
> many times history war has begun as an ideological disagreement.
You have been requested to provide a citation once already. I am confident that any citation you do provide will be easily dismantled. I suspect you know that too which is why you stick to hand-waving rather than concrete examples.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday July 12 2014, @07:57AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#Wars_of_Religion [wikipedia.org]
Yes, I misread your statement as no role. My error, it was not a deliberate exaggeration of your statement, merely a misinterpretation.
The thing is, this is more a philosophical debate as anything. I simply feel ideological differences play a larger role than you do.
(After all, the cold was was definitely over ideology, thankfully, much preferred over a hot war.)
I would of replied sooner, but the beach an bar-b-q beckoned. Summer!
Now where's the Margarita mix?
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by bootsy on Thursday July 10 2014, @09:08AM
The split is older than Catholic and Protestant. More like Roman Catholic and Orthodox. That was the "One Iota" or "not a jot" difference in one word being written down.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 10 2014, @10:08AM
Oh yes, I was very much aware of that. It was however, the only other one I could think of off the top of my head that matched 'two religious groups of the same basic faith killing each other over minor variances in dogma.'
I have an aunt that fled Ireland in the early 70's after her house was burned down. So I am aware as well that it went much deeper than just C vs P.
Of course her opinion was "A bunch of religious do-gooders trying to out do-good God by turning the country into a burnt offering." (As well as I can remember, many, many years past)
And I remember when that got nearly as much coverage as the ME does now.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bootsy on Thursday July 10 2014, @12:55PM
Yes the Ireland parallel is very apt. I wonder if another parallel is there as well, in Northern Island there has been a lot of criminal activity or organised crime that has ridden under the umbrella of both sides of the troubles. The troubles have flared up again with the economy of Ireland ( both Eire and Northern Island ) not doing as well. I do wonder if the same thing is happening with these groups in the Middle East.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @04:12PM
> I do wonder if the same thing is happening with these groups in the Middle East.
ISIS was indirectly created by the Iraqi government. Maliki had been marginalizing the shit out of the sunni tribes for years because they are a minority in Iraq and he thought he could get away with it, also because Saddam had favored them so there were few people ready to stand up for them. But you push people too hard and sooner or later they push back. If Maliki had honored the principles of democracy instead of pulling the same old tribal bullshit ISIS would never have amounted to a hill of beans.
You can see this fact in that shia religious leaders in Iraq have been calling for Maliki to cut that shit out. [theguardian.com] If this were a religious conflict they wouldn't be looking for compromise. They still want ISIS gone because they are extremists who are even more tribal than Maliki, but they are only a few thousand. Sistani is looking to cut off their support from the local population which means the government has to stop treating them so badly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Subsentient on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:23AM
"they are bedeviled by corruption and are too influenced by Arab or Islamic traditions which favour paternalistic or patronage systems of rule. "
Seems like there is some problem with ideology here after all, yes?
I am no atheist, but I do consider Islam to be a very destructive religion. Sorry.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday July 10 2014, @06:20PM
Don't confuse the crazy mixture of Islam, old traditional religious beliefs and longstanding cultural beliefs as the proper religion.
Talk to a Muslim who grew up in a Western culture and you'll see quite a difference. If you want to hear something really crazy, listen to one of the serpent handling, poison drinking AM radio preachers from America's heartland calling for the extermination of homosexuals and/or non-whites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:09PM
What's keeping you superstitious? Adults of normal or better intelligence who are intellectually honest understand that the supernaturalists have no evidence at all to support their childish beliefs.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:03PM
Islam is actually not inherently any more destructive than is Christianity. The problem is that just as they were putting together a relatively civilized religion (back while the Christians were burning witches and each other) there was a Mongol invasion that tore it apart, and the only survivors were the insane militarists. So what we have today is their descendants.
OTOH, Christianity at least pretends to be a peaceful religion. The Muslim religion idolizes hierarchy and slavery. (If you attend a Syrian Catholic Church a time or two, you'll see that they came by that attitude honestly. It's the Christians that have changed. Probably because for awhile in Rome being a Christian was almost the same as being a slave. The Muslims never underwent such a period of subjugation. Destruction, yes, but that's not at all the same. Also note that once the Christians gained power in Rome they happily threw the Pagans to the lions. What they say isn't what they do.)
Culture seems to trump ideology in these matters. When two cultures come into conflict, and neither is dominant, then over time they create freedom to choose (along the various axis where the cultures differed). So the Roman and the German cultures came into conflict. Some Roman values persisted, some Germanic values persisted, and there were places where the freedom to act was widened. (Note that even though the Germans conquered the Romans, they [the ones that stayed in Italy] were so in awe of the works of Roman engineering, that they were never truly dominant, except in the narrow military sense. Also note that this isn't true of the ones that invaded Spain and Northern Africa [e.g., the Vandals].) But also note that this took centuries to work itself out. Europe had it's own experience with the Mongols, and while it wasn't as devastating as the early Muslim experience, it *was* quite destructive.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by zafiro17 on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:05AM
I spent three years researching and writing "The Dictator's Handbook: a practical manual for the aspiring tyrant", and I spent a lot of time and energy looking into the political forces shaping the current state of governments in the Middle East. I frankly think the point being made here is a bit too social-scientist wankery for my liking. This isn't something as ethereal as ideology vs. policy: it's hamfisted politics and very clever use of a fabricated interpretation of Islam to further wordly, financial, political goals. Foreign Policy magazine has a good analysis of the situation at present and concurs with what I've just written.
If this subject is your cup of tea, you should read the Dictator's Handbook. I'll make it easy on you by offering free copies (epub/mobi/pdf) for any Soylentil. Write to the email address at http://dictatorshandbook.net/ [dictatorshandbook.net] . No DRM: pass it on to your friends when you're done. DRM sucks as much as Middle Eastern politicians do. See? Suddenly reading this site instead of the green one comes with privileges other than your wordly edification!
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @03:50PM
So ISIS has taken half a country in a flash, got its hands on chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, lots of US military equipment, has a 2B USD war chest and they just came out of nowhere? Now Iranians backed off from fighting them, Russians are sending planes to Iraq to help fight them and Israel pretends to bomb ISIS (which they could decimate if they wanted to but instead they target Assad in Syria and let ISIS pick up the pieces). They also threaten to blow up Grand Central station and use their WMDs on America. Perfect! Perfect for globalist elite, Blackwater, "defense" industry and bankers that is.
No, these guys were funded and trained. They also had plenty of drone-collected intelligence to help them maneuver.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-09/isis-has-seized-88-pounds-uranium-northern-iraq [zerohedge.com]
The referenced article is crap and here is why: http://streetdogs.co.za/stdgarticle.asp?readID=2202 [streetdogs.co.za]