The Islamic State Thread

How ISIS uses and abuses Islam

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/18/9755478/isis-islam

Of the many questions that people tend to ask about ISIS, before the attacks in Paris and now after, one of the most common is about the degree to which the group's bloodthirsty ideology is influenced by Islam. You hear this especially in much of the rhetoric against allowing Syrian refugees, or any non-Christian Syrian refugees, into the United States and Europe.

The question of whether the Islamic State really is "Islamic" is a complex one. But it's imperative to understand, so that people can make decisions based on facts rather than feelings, because this question is at the foundation of some of the most critical debates taking place right now — including how to defeat ISIS, whether or not to accept Syrian refugees, and how Muslims fit into the broader fabric of Western societies.

I called up William McCants, director of the Project on US Relations With the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution, a fellow in Brookings's Center for Middle East Policy, and one of the foremost experts on militant Islamist ideology, whose recent book The ISIS Apocalypse looks at these very questions.

ISIS, he said, "sees itself as more faithful to scripture than other Muslims, and they've got religious scholars in their ranks who are able to make finely crafted arguments to that end." Its commitment to what it sees as the correct interpretation of Islam isn't just cynical, he said, and in fact early on led it to some "very poor decisions on the battlefield." But that doesn't mean ISIS's interpretation of Islam is correct, of course, and sometimes when the group goes against widespread understandings of Islam, it's not out of ignorance — it's exactly the point.

What follows is a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity.
Click to expand...

Interesting read.
 
Isis: What is the story behind the Islamic State one-fingered salute?

abu-yusuf-al-britani.jpg
17-year-old Talha Asmal - also known as Talha Asmal - is believed to have become Britain's youngest suicide bomber in Iraq
Click to expand...

In the last photo taken before he blew himself up in a dusty battlefield in northern Iraq, 17-year-old Briton Talha Asmal sat in the front seat of a car with a single finger on his right hand pointing skywards.

The salute has become common in Islamic State (Isis) propaganda, both from the battlefield and in the final minutes before a shaheed – or martyr – embarks on a suicide bombing. But what does now ubiquitous hand signal mean?

The single raised index finger has so far escaped analysis, likely due to the fact that those making the gesture have often had a severed head in their other hand, but refers to the first half of the shahada, the affirmation of Muslim faith that his recited before every prayer.
Click to expand...

Full Article
 
Barack Obama plan to defeat Isil dismissed by US intelligence experts

President Barack Obama's attempts to destroy Isil have been derided by Western diplomats and his own former intelligence officials.

Mr Obama has insisted that the United States will not change the strategy that he said was already “containing” Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and would work eventually to “degrade and destroy” it.

But in a series of candid interviews with the Telegraph, Western diplomats and intelligence officials - current and former - have angrily dismissed the approach as a “smoke and mirrors” public relations exercise founded on little substantive or effective action.

“It’s smoke and mirrors and that is the dirty little secret,” said Derek Harvey, one of Mr Obama’s senior former intelligence officials, a Middle East specialist, who said he resigned from his job in frustration at the administration's handling of the conflict.

“The president’s plan never had a chance to work because he has never supported his own strategy.”

Many members of both the American and the European intelligence and diplomatic apparatus say the chaos in Iraq and Syria is caused by Mr Obama’s determination to press on with an “exit strategy” from the region, signalled by the withdrawal from Iraq.

The intelligence official said this had created a sense of apathy, with departments feeling they were being judged by how much they were focused on “detaching” from the Middle East, rather than on the success of the policies they were actually implementing there.

Experts in the region had also been withdrawn in case they concentrated on achieving results.

“Who is in charge?” Mr Harvey said. “Where is the intelligence community? It is totally broken on this.”

Two active intelligence sources told the Telegraph that there was a sense of disarray inside the various intelligence agencies.

Official policy is to defend the strategy of gradual disengagement and limited military action against Isil, saying that more direct options might have a “satisfying” immediate visible effect, but would prove damaging in the long run.

That policy depends on American “containing” Isil, as Mr Obama claimed shortly before the attacks in Paris, co-ordinated by Isil, which claimed 130 lives.

“Isil have expanded geographically to eight other countries, taking advantage of civil wars in Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan and so on,” the intelligence source, who served in Baghdad at the height of the post-invasion period, said. “They are taking advantage in places where there is lack of effective governance and highly tribalised societies.

“We have not done anything to really hurt them. Even in the areas they have been formerly pushed out of, they continue to operate covertly and they mostly control the largest Sunni Muslim cities outside of Baghdad.”
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ocial&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1448610161
 
Usual cycle of events, a la Vietnam. US goes to war with crazy fervour then the populace gets disillusioned with the cost and calls for it to end, while hawks want to perpetuate the cycle that hasn't really worked.
 
Chris said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ocial&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1448610161
Click to expand...

This is a guy steeped in liberal teachings of the west being the source all that's wrong in the world and only bringing death and disaster when interfering in others affairs. On the other hand there are narrow political considerations that must be taken into account that one cant be seen to sit on ones hands while an apocalyptic death cults spreads like wildfire slaughtering thousands and then taking the women and children as sex slaves.

The result is what we see now. Token air strikes that do little or nothing to influence what's happening on the ground but unfortunately just enough, according to his logic anyway, to recruit more terrorists.

OrbitalDawn said:
Usual cycle of events, a la Vietnam. US goes to war with crazy fervour then the populace gets disillusioned with the cost and calls for it to end, while hawks want to perpetuate the cycle that hasn't really worked.
Click to expand...

For many democrats yes. Support going to war, undermine war for political expediency and finally abandon that country to their fate. Just like Vietnam
 
Last edited:
i'm guessing this sniveling islamist was very brave when killing woman and children - not so much now

[video=youtube;qJBYpMkY9CI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJBYpMkY9CI[/video]
 
Iraq Demands End of Turkish ‘Invasion’ Near Mosul

Iraq is demanding the immediate withdrawal of Turkish troops that are reportedly on a training mission near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Iraq is demanding the immediate withdrawal of Turkish troops that are reportedly on a training mission near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, which is occupied by Islamic State (ISIL) radicals (known as Daesh in the Arab world).

"Turkish armed forces located near Mosul have invaded the country without permission and they must leave immediately," a statement from the press service of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi, obtained by RIA Novosti, says.

Abadi said on Twitter that the "unauthorized presence of Turkish troops in Mosul province is a serious breach of Iraqi sovereignty."

Mosul was captured by Daesh militants in June, 2014. At the time, the city had a population of over 2 million. It is still controlled by the radicals.

Daesh, a radical Sunni group, has ceased vast areas in Iraq, as well as Syria. A US-led international coalition, which includes Turkey, has been conducting airstrikes against Daesh targets in Iraq and Syria since September 2014.

Peshmerga forces in Iraq have been fighting against Daesh on the ground.
Click to expand...

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151205/1031279993/iraq-demands-end-turkish-invasion.html
 
If Iraq does not control the area, how can they complain about Turkish Forces on a training mission ?

Area seems to belong to IS. Until someone throws them out.
 
Jola said:
If Iraq does not control the area, how can they complain about Turkish Forces on a training mission ?

Area seems to belong to IS. Until someone throws them out.
Click to expand...

It's still Iraqi land and they are the only ones who can legitimately authorise others to use it. It's the same with Syria. Only Assad, while he is recognised as head can legitimately give permission for other states to fly over his territory. So far he's only given that permission to Iran and Russia and everybody else is breaking international law and setting an ugly precedent in flying and bombing in Syria.
 
Space_Chief said:
It's still Iraqi land and they are the only ones who can legitimately authorise others to use it. It's the same with Syria. Only Assad, while he is recognised as head can legitimately give permission for other states to fly over his territory. So far he's only given that permission to Iran and Russia and everybody else is breaking international law and setting an ugly precedent in flying and bombing in Syria.
Click to expand...

OK, so why does Iraq and Syria not just tell IS to get out ? They have International Law on their side, after all.
 
Jola said:
OK, so why does Iraq and Syria not just tell IS to get out ? They have International Law on their side, after all.
Click to expand...

There is an obvious difference, Jola, between a force of aggression or an enemy which does not follow international law and law abiding states who did not declare war on you. :)
 
Jola said:
OK, so why does Iraq and Syria not just tell IS to get out ? They have International Law on their side, after all.
Click to expand...

You are heading right under a bridge with that rather poor attempt...

Or are really, really naive.
 
Space_Chief said:
There is an obvious difference, Jola, between a force of aggression or an enemy which does not follow international law and law abiding states who did not declare war on you. :)
Click to expand...

All that I'm trying to say is that Modern (ie post WWII) International Law means nothing in that area.

They seem to apply the old Right of Conquest there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

... this right acknowledges the status quo, and that denial of the right is meaningless unless one is able and willing to use military force to deny it. Further, the right was traditionally accepted because the conquering force, being by definition stronger than any lawfully entitled governance which it may have replaced, was therefore more likely to secure peace and stability for the people, and so the Right of Conquest legitimises the conqueror towards that end.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jola said:
All that I'm trying to say is that Modern (ie post WWII) International Law means nothing in that area.

They seem to apply the old Right of Conquest there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest
Click to expand...
No, that's not how it works.

Wikipedia said:
The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle of international law that has gradually given way in modern times until its proscription after the Second World War when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally, in 1974, as a United Nations resolution 3314.[1]
Click to expand...
In other words, all nation-states that are members of the United Nations are legally bound to reject the notion of Right of Conquest as far as territorial acquisition is concerned. So as far as other members of the UN are concerned, they are legally obligated to treat the governments of Syria and Iraq as the legitimate authority over the land contained within the national borders of those two states respectively, along with all the other legal consequences that follow naturally from this legal obligation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X