European views on ISIL

I'm testy at the moment I think. I've read back through my posts again and I see I'm testy, so I feel I should apologise at least for that.

I see - being in a testy state of mind - when I saw you drawing the conclusion I had initially made some kind of size or significance estimation of women fighters I was bemused to begin with, and I admit it did not help that I pursued the size and significance thing at all. In retrospect I should have asked instead why you thought estimations of size and significance (exaggerated or not) had any relevance to what I was saying.

I said: "Prefer direct contact - so less risk of 'collateral damage'.  Give the girls more firepower to do the job themselves. Hopefully cameras too so they can post pictures of triumphant female victors with the dead rabid dogs they've put down. Name every male killed by a female and post their photos I say."

I suppose, if thousands of women were enlisted and trained, given tanks, jets, bombers and a heap of other armaments, they could have a larger role than more poorly armed men, but I don't see how that statement was anything but a tongue-in-cheek expression of 'wouldn't it be great if that happened?' A total hypothetical with some black humour included. And I thought, an obvious hypothetical and clearly not a serious proposition. Even then, I don't see how this becomes anything to do with me having an exaggerated view or over estimation of the role of women fighters. That I would like to understand even now! As I said above, I should not have responded to your reply the way I did, but instead tried to find out why you made your assumption in the first place. Oh well.    

Btw the following is a mis-respresentation of what I'm saying. "So how about explaining how it relates to your original point, instead of writing another mini-essay complaining about how no one understands you?" Hopefully the above mini-essays explain my original point. {{{Mini-essays? From the mini-essay king? That's a bit rich! }}}

Anyhow, I withdraw all complaints and propose a truce, Eldo.

Eldorion wrote:If you're truly "not against debates", that would seem to be the best way to engage in one if there was a mis-communication.

Debates are formal affairs where the bottom line is not 'enlightenment' but 'winning'. That's my opinion. Debates are an entertaining thing - but deciding on truths are not very often the true goal in my opinion. I think they are more about displaying intellectual skill and prowess and possibly hubris as well. But I'm not against them per se, because they can be entertaining, and ideas can be presented.

 je suis confused

Maybe it is me. If I see it as folk often misunderstanding the thrust of my posts, it must be the way I put things.

I understand you. Ozzies are all upside down so you just approach things from an oblique angle sideways on, its an artform.

And there's me thinking I am guided by my long life of experiences - both practical and research-wise - not Art! Well, not Art alone! And I guess none of the foregoing necessarily translates to me becoming Wise with age and experience!  {{{Except perhaps in my development as a Wise Guy, of course, which also comes from being brought up in Oz, I'd hazard.   }}}

I think I understand what you meant now, Orwell (or at least, more than I did before ). A truce is good.

{{{And you're right about the "mini-essay king" part too. }}}

It's the kissing and making up part that makes it all worthwhile.

That's my favorite part of our relationship.

It was confused enough without you bringing in Jewish High Priests, Bungo!

it must be confusing being a pineapple. They aint an apple. they look like a spiny anteater gone veggie.

Mrs Figg wrote:they look like a spiny anteater gone veggie.

Thing is.. the pangolin does really look like a pineapple.

hey! my post gone walkies whats up with that.

Its the incredibly secret society of Pineapples Mrs Figg SO secret, each other doesnt know the other is a member

either that or its Orwell.

Did I steal it?

Not me! Eldo?????

Here's the best analysis I've seen. Pack a lunch, it's not exactly pithy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

wow that's long. interesting but long. if there was an abstract I would read it.

Abstract:  ISIL is very definitely Islamic, but based on things Muslims have conveniently ignored for centuries.  They're not cherry-picking, they are going back to historical fundamentals.  One proof of this is that Christians who live under their control are left alone so long as they pay the sort of 'infidel' tax and accept the rule of the caliphate.  This was what Mohammed did, so this is what ISIL does.  But those who are seen as fighting against Islam get no mercy.  Those who are seen as Muslim but have retreated to a modern form of it get no mercy.  This is law.

Part of this fundamental theory is that once a Muslim of the proper family credentials achieves a certain amount of power, he is obligated to declare a Caliphate.  If al-Baghdidi did not, those surrounding him (who had already been muttering for months it was time) may likely have killed him.  It then becomes his mandate to expand territory, and not to negotiate with anyone.  Eventually this action will lead to the Muslim apocalypse (with the final battle led by Jesus no less) and the final plan will be complete.

They are not making up something new, they are just following an ancient playbook.  The reporter did his homework and got the same consistent story everywhere, from Australia to Britain.  This is ISIL's power, how they attract recruits.  Pure Islam is being re-established.

While I agree that ISIS is Islamic and trying to deny that they are rubs me the wrong way, the implicit notion from a lot of Western observers that ISIS' interpretation of Islam is correct and that of moderates is not is appallingly hypocritical. All of the Abrahamic faiths have branches that try to strict to the old school rules and branches that have decided not to pay so much attention to them. Usually these moderate branches try to downplay the extent to which they have deviated from traditional forms of their religion. Look at mainline Protestants in the US. How many non-fundie preachers could you find who would be willing to say that Gandhi is burning in hell without a lot of hemming and hawing. And Protestants are the branch that used to emphasize "by faith alone" more than anyone.

This is not to imply a moral equivalence between ISIS and fundamentalist Christians (with the exception of those Christians who are murdering people in the name of their religion, which at this point in history is rather few). But it's always weird when you see people who dislike a religion arguing with religious people in defense of the most extreme interpretations possible. You see this a lot with atheists and Christians too.

Oh, if the Jews actually followed everything in the Bible it would be a wacky world, no doubt....often enough it is even in modern variants.

And Christianity is all over the map: if not for being adopted by Constantine we'd have all sorts of variants still around - instead they stamped a lot of the 'heresy' out rather ruthlessly at times.

I think Islam benefits by having an actual historical figure as the founder (I've bought into Carrier's argument that Christ was a myth), so has a much clearer interpretation of the early days. All other religions get chaos if they try to reconstruct their origins.

thanks for the abstract Halfy.

if you will pardon my ignorance on the subject, hundreds of years ago in Muslim Spain when people supposedly lived in peace and tolerance, was just an aberration and wasn't true Islam? I don't remember reading of mass throat cuttings and of burying children alive, or murdering of Coptic peoples. But maybe the Muslims of al Andalus weren't true Muslims