60% of Syrian Rebels are extremists?

[Seattle Husker]

According to one British think-tank 60% of all Syrian rebels actually share views closer to ISIS' radical views than our own.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds

the report says: "While military efforts against ISIS are necessary, policy makers must recognize that its defeat will not end the threat of Salafi-jihadism unless it is accompanied by an intellectual and theological defeat of the pernicious ideology that drives it."

Simply taking out ISIS won't solve our Islamic extremist problem just like taking out Al Queda didn't.

 

[Musburger1]

According to one British think-tank 60% of all Syrian rebels actually share views closer to ISIS' radical views than our own.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds



Simply taking out ISIS won't solve our Islamic extremist problem just like taking out Al Queda didn't.

The report fails to estimate what percentage of the fighters are foreign. Many come from Iraq, Libya, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. It's much more than a Syrian civil war. It's also a regional proxy war of Suni vs Shia (Gulf States Israel,'and Turkey vs Iran if you prefer) as well as an indirect confrontation of the US/NATO vs Russia. Geopolitically, control of multi billions of gas sales are at stake. Islamic extremism and the emergence of ISIS just happens to be an unfortunate side effect as well as the flood of refugees into the West.

 

[Mr. Deez]

According to one British think-tank 60% of all Syrian rebels actually share views closer to ISIS' radical views than our own.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds



Simply taking out ISIS won't solve our Islamic extremist problem just like taking out Al Queda didn't.

Nope, it won't, because the problem is much bigger than ISIS and much bigger than Al Qaeda. I've wondered where this Islamic hostility for ISIS comes from. Many say that it's their "extremism," but I don't see that. For starters, I think most Westerners view ISIS as "extreme," because of what they believe - that non-Muslims should be persecuted, that women should be treated as personal property, that people who convert away from Islam should be executed, that homosexuals should get thrown off buildings, etc. However, polls have shown significant (and for some things, even majority) support among Muslims in other nations for many of the positions ISIS takes, and many Islamic countries follow similar policies. Ideologically, they just aren't that extreme in the Islamic world.

So what's the real source of their contempt for ISIS? I suspect that it's a handful of factors. First, they are expansionist. They reject the Western-drawn political boundaries in the Middle East and want more land, which makes them a threat to the entire area. Second, they're screwing with an Iranian ally (Assad), so that explains their hostility. Finally, they're claiming to be establishing a caliphate, which has religious as well as political implications. By claiming to be not only a political leader but a caliph, al-Baghdadi is claiming to be a religious successor to Muhammad. Other Muslims probably view him similarly to how Christians might view David Koresh - a phony claiming to be religiously significant to build power for himself.

The bottom line is that we can accept the help of rebels and other Muslims to beat back ISIS, but we shouldn't assume that they would be friendlier to the West or share values any closer to the West's.

 

[BevoBeef]

So what's the real source of their contempt for ISIS? I suspect that it's a handful of factors.

I agree with these factors that you mentioned are aggravating the situation. To me, the one factor that makes a big difference is that they (ISIS) are coming after us on our homeland. Once they are given credit for attacks cross the US border and start killing citizens that are on "our" territory, emotions of various sorts will cause the momentum to snowball. The latest episode in Paris was bad and may have caused some to begin more discussion. However, what happened in SB California proves that it can now happen to us (i.e., you and me). There have been other incidents since 9-11 but this last one in CA is the last nail that is coming off the coffin lid. What is in that coffin will start to affect more aspects of other things. ISIS has now stirred a sleeping giant in this country, and more hawks are beginning to circle and taking aim at prey on other foreign soils.

FEAR IS TURNING INTO ANGER WITH MANY CITIZENS IN THIS COUNTRY. NOW THAT ANGER WILL TURN INTO MORE ACTION.

 

[Musburger1]

The bottom line is that we can accept the help of rebels and other Muslims to beat back ISIS, but we shouldn't assume that they would be friendlier to the West or share values any closer to the West's.

I agree with these factors that you mentioned are aggravating the situation. To me, the one factor that makes a big difference is that they (ISIS) are coming after us on our homeland. Once they are given credit for attacks cross the US border and start killing citizens that are on "our" territory, emotions of various sorts will cause the momentum to snowball. The latest episode in Paris was bad and may have caused some to begin more discussion. However, what happened in SB California proves that it can now happen to us. There have been other incidents since 9-11 but this last one in CA is the last nail that is coming off the coffin lid. What is in that coffin will start to affect more aspects of other things. ISIS has now stirred a sleeping giant in this country, and more hawks are beginning to circle and taking aim at prey on other foreign soils.

After the 9-11 attacks, the Hawks (neocons) took control and declared war on terrorism. We intervened in multiple sovereign countries, killed tens of thousands of radicalized Muslims, and displaced secular dictators under the pretext that democracy would flourish. The results yielding from our policy have been disastrous. The Bush invasion of Iraq split the country and resulted in Al Qeda setting up shop as The Sunis in that region radicalized and hopped on board. Then Obama's NATO led revolution in Libya destroyed order there and allowed Libya to become a terror training ground and provided ISIS with the weaponry to expand operations south into Africa and north into Syria.

So now the floodgates have opened and Muslims pour into Europe and make plans to strike America. More war will only make the situation worse. The only action that makes sense, at least from where I sit, is to find a way to neuter the funding which primarily comes from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. That is where the ideology finds its source as well as the funding of weaponry. Turkey is a facilitator as well. The US should end our multi-billion dollar weapon sales to these evil allies. Anyway, that is where you need to begin.

 

[NJlonghorn]

More war will only make the situation worse.

This is the key to the entire discussion. Every time we kill a radical Muslim (not to mention the non-radicals who are collateral damage), we inspire multiple other Muslims to become radicals. We need to stop throwing fuel on the fire.

 

[Seattle Husker]

This is the key to the entire discussion. Every time we kill a radical Muslim (not to mention the non-radicals who are collateral damage), we inspire multiple other Muslims to become radicals. We need to stop throwing fuel on the fire.

I don't think killing radicals begets radicals. It's the collateral damage and misfires that begets more radicals. What every politician not named Donald Trump and Ted Cruz understands is that we can't make this a battle against Islam.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I don't think killing radicals begets radicals. It's the collateral damage and misfires that begets more radicals.

Fair point. I'd be all for killing all of the radicals if we could do so without killing anybody else. But there is no way to do that.

What every politician not named Donald Trump and Ted Cruz understands is that we can't make this a battle against Islam.

I agree, but I think the problem is bigger than this. Every politician other than Trump and Cruz seems to be engaged in a battle over who can talk toughest against radical Islam in general and ISIS in particular. If the tough talk translates into expanded military action, it will make the problem worse, not better.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This is the key to the entire discussion. Every time we kill a radical Muslim (not to mention the non-radicals who are collateral damage), we inspire multiple other Muslims to become radicals. We need to stop throwing fuel on the fire.

So we can't use force against them because it will induce others to radicalize. Is there a limit on this before we reexamine using force, or can they kill Westerners without fear of military action until they get bored with it?

Note that I'm not suggesting we just start haphazardly killing Muslims Trump-style, but it seems just as absurd to take military action entirely off the table. There should a place for sensible and calculated action.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I agree, but I think the problem is bigger than this. Every politician other than Trump and Cruz seems to be engaged in a battle over who can talk toughest against radical Islam in general and ISIS in particular. If the tough talk translates into expanded military action, it will make the problem worse, not better.

Once you get past the talk tough approach that all Republican candidates not named Rand Paul must espouse to be relevant in their primary, you'll find that their strategy isn't much different than Obama's, aside from Cruz' "carpet bomb" them strategy. Nobody wants boots on the ground. They all are saying stick with the air campaign. Rubio differentiates himself with Obama with platitudes like "unshackle the targeting process", whatever that means.

Seriously, outside of Syrian/Muslim immigrant handling, there is no difference in how they'd handle ISIS. The terms like "radical islam" are used but that's for show and soundbites. The strategies themselves display minimal difference.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That debate was nauseating. Watching a bunch of politicians argue over who's tougher without showing any nuance or reasoning was just pathetic and embarrassing. It was like watching guys doing dueling "your momma's so fat" jokes and had about that level of sophistication and intelligence.

 

[Musburger1]

I read an opinion piece today that weighs in on the radicalization of Muslims. Here's the link if you care to read it. (Link). Basically, oil money has provided the Wahabi Islamists the ability to spread their extremism around the globe. I'll give a short synopsis of the article below.

1. Centralization of Religion - When a religion is decentralized, it tends to adapt to the local mores and culture. For example, let's say several independent congregations of churches are established 100 years ago throughout a locality. There is little to no direct communication with a centralized authority (for example, no interaction from the Pope or hierarchical authorities). Pastors come and go, local customs change, fashions change, etc. Maybe alcohol, dancing, and shorts are initially regarded as evil, but over time standards change and so does the practiced religion. This is a social evolution of religion.

Conversely, when religion is centralized (for example the Pope for Catholics, or the Saudi clerics for Islam), religious practices do not change with the local culture unless the centralized authority sanctions the amendments. 100 years pass here but nothing evolves are changes.

Prior to the explosion of oil profits in the 70s and 80s, Islam was in effect decentralized for most practitioners. Outside of the Wahabi strains in Saudi Arabia and the immediate vicinity, most Muslims had adopted more universally accepted practices unlike the "kill the infidels" mentality of the Saudis. But once the money poured in, the Wahabi strain of Islam was exported from Saudi Arabia worldwide.

2. Wahabism Offers opportunity - With the billions of dollars of oil money, the Saudis began to set up madrassahs (Islamic schools). Quoting from the article:

The phenomena of religious extremism and jihadism all over the Islamic world is directly linked to the Wahhabi-Salafi madrassahs which are generously funded by the Saudi and Gulf’s petro-dollars. These madrassahs attract children from the most impoverished backgrounds in the Third World Islamic countries because they offer the kind of incentives and facilities which even the government-sponsored public schools cannot provide: such as, free boarding and lodging, no tuition fee at all, and free of cost books and stationery.​

3. Technology (Not in the article) - The internet facilitates the dissemination of the theology in a way not possible until the past few decades.

 

[huisache]

I am trying to recall what 'western values' means re the middle east: the right to carve the place up as you please? To inflict 'collateral damage' as you please?

The right to bribe local leaders to secure oil concessions for us and military aid to them so they might perpetuate their minority rule? I guess it could be a lot of things. One thing I learned when I had a Saudi dorm mate fifty years ago is that things look a lot different depending on where you are standing in a room and sometimes the guys on one side don't even try to guess what the result is going to be of their actions.

The west, largely the stinking Brits for the longest time, have fowled the nest in the mideast to such an extent that it is going to be a very long time before any actions there are going to be viewed with any empathy by the recipients of our largesse.

And none of these Ivy League snots who run our empire right now have marched with Caesar's Army or are capable of getting a realistic grip on anything of substance.

Letting the Russians bear the white man's burden makes sense to me right now and disengagement seems the wisest course for us. And when the hammer comes down on the the Saudi "royal family" I hope our open borders enthusiasts are ready to tell them to go to Africa or some other place rather than planting their corrupt, stupid, arrogant roots here.

 

[Clean]

Musberger is right. The Saudis have been using their oil money to spread Wahhabism for decades, which is at the root of much of the Islamic intolerance of other people and religions. It's as if some billionaire had continued to promote/teach Neo-Nazism throughout the West after WWII and everyone turned a blind eye to it.

I don't think there was anything we could have done about it, but with the Saudi oil weapon hanging over the West's heads, we weren't about to try. If the Saudi's creation comes back to destroy them, it will serve them right.

Now the question is what can/will we do as it begins to spread in America. I suspect we will chalk it up to freedom of religion. Anyone who opposes it will be labeled a bigot and a Islamophobe by the Left.

I saw an interesting link a week ago. It showed interviews with American Muslims in Minneapolis about Sharia law. All the young men interviewed preferred Sharia to our justice system. One youth explained that under Sharia, a thief's hand would be cut off, but under the American system, the thief would receive little punishment. He claimed that because a thief's hand would be cut off, no one would steal and shop keepers didn't even have to lock their doors at night.

Trouble times ahead for our country.