SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Pakistani attorney and author Rafia Zakaria wrote an op-ed in Al Jazeera America about the Islamic extremists' war on fun, including sports, music, even dining in a fine restaurant. Zakaria points out that this apparent obsession predates the existence of ISIS by several decades (at least); he suspects this is a big reason why the attackers chose Paris, renowned worldwide for its brilliant culture and joie de vivre.
Terrorism’s targeting of the merry is universal and indiscriminate, a division of the world between those who wish to live and laugh and hope and those who kill and destroy. The latter are deadly and relentless, and they have already squeezed out the mirth from too many of the world’s cities, from Karachi, Kabul and Baghdad to Nairobi and Beirut.
Zakaria experienced this aspect of terror firsthand. A high school friend had just passed a big exam, and was out celebrating with his family at a restaurant in Karachi, Pakistan, when terrorists struck.
Al Jazeera America provides a separate analysis warning that military action alone cannot defeat ISIS (aka ISIL), which of course is not a "nation" in the traditional sense, but more of a guerilla outfit like Al Qaeda, that opportunistically seized a stronghold in chaotic regions of Syria and Iraq. The piece's author, political scientist Rami G. Khouri, recommends that both the West and Muslim nations of the Middle East spend more resources on addressing economic and political problems facing impoverished youths who are potentially attracted by the ISIS' recruiting pitch:
If the underlying threats to ordinary citizens’ lives in autocratic Arab-Islamic societies remain unaddressed — from jobs, water and health insurance, to free elections, a credible justice system and corruption — the flow of recruits to movements like ISIL or something even worse will persist and even accelerate.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Monday November 16 2015, @02:37PM
"Extremists" in this sense have always been with us, and they have never been stopped. So why do we constantly try to stop them? The far better solution is to embrace them, then show them that modernity is a better way to live than extremism. This will not work for the most radical, but it will do one thing: It will defund them. Most of their followers will lose their fervor in exchange for an iPad and comfortable apartment. This will leave the very few true extremists without followers or their money. It worked with the Soviets, the Monarchists, the Papacy, and many other monolithic organizations bent on world domination. Just keep living a free, open, successful, scientific life and accept that occasionally extremists are going to kill, maim, or blow themselves up to protest your way of life. Now from time to time we've had to blow up bad guys (Nazis in particular, but also the aforementioned Monarchists) but usually this is not necessary. One need look only to Canada to see what would have happened if the US hadn't decided not to take it any more. I just wish France would stop dropping bombs (and the US and the rest, too) and start dropping Starbucks and Nike and iPhone and school and medical care instead. Probably less expensive in the long run, and far more likely to soften the resolve, and the wallet, of most of the Jihadis.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @02:51PM
Hell, the main reason ISIS has any support at all in northern iraq is because the new shia government in Baghdad just kept shitting over the sunnis in the north. Once ISIS showed up a lot of people were of the mind "damned if you, damned if you don't." Stuck with two shitty choices its hard to get up the kind public support needed for mass resistance.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 16 2015, @03:02PM
Extremists who want to overthrow the government have been around as long as there have been people to write stuff down (see "The Old Testament, Book 2" for more information)
Exodus is a long book. Did you have a more specific reference?
And if you're referring to the Israelites themselves, Moses' intent was not to overthrow the Pharaoh.
"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 Covalent on Monday November 16 2015, @03:50PM
Exodus 14:27 -
And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
And Exodus 32:33-34
The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”
Maybe it was not Moses' intent to overthrow the Egyptian government, but it certainly seem's to be the LORD'S intention. :)
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 16 2015, @05:00PM
Yeah, after Moses et al. tried to leave peacefully. It's not like they staged a rebellion to depose the Pharaoh; they just up and left.
Note "when the time comes," which begs the interpretation "after they die and are judged." Note God says nothing about smiting/killing them specifically. Maybe one could make the argument "the Angel of Death will go before you as you leave town, striking down anyone who gets in your way," but usually when they're talking about angels smiting people the wording is very unambiguous.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 16 2015, @10:48PM
"Extremists" in this sense have always been with us, and they have never been stopped. So why do we constantly try to stop them?
Because stopping them often works, contrary to your assertion.