• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The ISIS Megathread

My beef isn't with Christians it's with Christianity.. It's a choke chain on civil liberty, shackles on equality - a cage on freedom. The indoctrination of the belief it is the infallible word of God serves as little more than a barrier to civil liberty and equal rights.

:p

I agree?

I've mentioned Christianity in previous posts. There are some differences though.. The bible is not the infallible word of God and well.. Christians main source of information from God is Jesus.. they tend to ignore the OT.
 
I won't give a citation right now but seeing as they consider themselves the caliphate ruled by the caliph, they consider themselves the Muslim world. They expect all Muslims to follow the caliph and be part of the caliphate. And Islam itself has a goal to bring the entire world under God- to Islam (peace is submission to God).

Their goal is world peace.

The Qur'an says when all are Muslims there will be peace, so if Islam is peace through submission to God why do countries in the middle east that have nearly 100% of the population following Islam not have peace? Honest question.
 
If you're asking me for an answer, I could offer that the Qur'an doesn't count on a schism taking place pretty soon after Muhammad died, and that Islam the religion is man-made.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone even say what the I.S. endgame actually is (citing proper sources)?

It's unreasonable to expect proper sources... We're talking international politics here, not scientific research. At best, what a military says publicly is only a partial image of what it is actually attempting to do. So then we are going off of inferences here, and the inference you can draw from the current situation is that the planned end game looks something like this:

--ISIS defeated
--Kurds strengthened, but special steps taken to quell Kurdish ambitions beyond Iraqi borders (at the insistence of Turkey). The most likely scenario would be that Kurds are given more control within Iraq but not allowed to gain independence as it is not what the US or Turkey wants.

What happens with Syria is less clear, but in Iraq, I think the most likely outcome seems to be the Kurds defeating ISIS, especially now that the Turks are giving the Kurds access into Turkey.
 
Last edited:
Are the Turks letting Kurds into Turkey, though? I understand that they've been detaining Kurds to the west of Kobani under suspicion that they may be YPG or PKK fighters. They've also been active in assaulting PKK positions, who were holding off Kobani from the IS. So far from what I understand, the Turkish government has been nothing but an impediment on the Kurdish resistance against the IS.
 
It's unreasonable to expect proper sources... We're talking international politics here, not scientific research. At best, what a military says publicly is only a partial image of what it is actually attempting to do. So then we are going off of inferences here, and the inference you can draw from the current situation is that the planned end game looks something like this:

--ISIS defeated
--Kurds strengthened, but special steps taken to quell Kurdish ambitions beyond Iraqi borders (at the insistence of Turkey). The most likely scenario would be that Kurds are given more control within Iraq but not allowed to gain independence as it is not what the US or Turkey wants.

What happens with Syria is less clear, but in Iraq, I think the most likely outcome seems to be the Kurds defeating ISIS, especially now that the Turks are giving the Kurds access into Turkey.

Seems my question isn't clear. What I meant is what is motivating the Islamic state. What is it that they want?
I only really know what news and the pollies say, so I don't really know. To me their actions make no strategic sense. Such violence is no way to either win over international nor gain local support. Mass executions, video decapitations and the like only serve to provoke the international reaction that they are getting.
 
I think its probably already been mentioned but I think they hope that they will be attacked so that more will flock to them.

Anyone see the news that Iraqi pilots are training IS to fly jets they captured?
 
Are the Turks letting Kurds into Turkey, though? I understand that they've been detaining Kurds to the west of Kobani under suspicion that they may be YPG or PKK fighters. They've also been active in assaulting PKK positions, who were holding off Kobani from the IS. So far from what I understand, the Turkish government has been nothing but an impediment on the Kurdish resistance against the IS.

There's definitely sumpathizers on both sides in Turkey... I haven't looked into it too much but I definitely saw this on the news today:

Gaziantep, Turkey (CNN) -- Turkey made a significant policy shift Monday when it announced it would allow Kurdish Peshmerga fighters from northern Iraq to travel through the Turkish territory to reinforce the besieged Kurdish town of Kobani in northern Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/world/meast/turkey-isis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 
21 October 2014, 2.33pm AEDT
Islamic State lacks key ingredient to make ‘caliphate’ work: eunuchs

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed Islamic State (IS) as a Muslim caliphate on June 29, 2014, with himself as caliph, a term reserved for a successor to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). His would be the newest caliphate in a line extending from the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), through the Umayyads (661-750), Abbasids (750-1517) and Ottomans (1453-1924). Each of these earlier caliphates, however, had a feature that IS lacks and which may not even be possible for the newly proclaimed “state”.

Currently, IS is more of a marauding horde than functioning state. IS operates more like the Vandals or the Ostrogoths of European history rather than any historic caliphate. Its “citizens” are self-described warriors (jihadists) killing men, capturing women and grabbing booty as they go. Many of its fighters are foreigners from Europe, North America or other Middle Eastern countries, rather than locals who are the core citizenry for anything that can legitimately be called a state.

Beyond effective use of social media for recruitment, there appears to be little of the governance that makes this state a true state. IS’s goal is clear: “purifying” Islam through eliminating competing religious ideologies, whether they are held by other Muslims, such as the Shi'a, or practitioners of other religions, such as the Yazidi and Christians.

What is a state without a capital?

While al-Baghdadi has appeared in the Syrian provincial capital of Ar-Raqqah, IS has yet to establish a proper capital. A true state needs a central place to which taxes are paid and from which laws, regulations and other administrative functions descend. Thus far, funding for the IS seems to come largely from smuggling oil, extortion and bank robbery, and not from taxpaying citizens.

Creating a stable capital will be difficult. With the weaponry IS has acquired, it can fight a ground war. But previous caliphate capitals had walls to protect their seat of government from attack. Such defences would be ineffective now. As the recent air assault by the US and its allies shows, a Topkapi today would be fragile in the face of modern ballistics.

No above-ground capital would be safe for IS. To protect its control centre from bombardment, the caliphate would need to bury itself in tunnels, like termites (or al-Qaeda). But even a buried bastille would need to be some 60 metres down to be safe from bunker-busting munitions like the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

Should the IS manage to create a political state with a capital, how closely could it model its governance upon the historic caliphates it claims to emulate? In all preceding caliphates, power was demonstrated, in part, by the number of women the caliph controlled. Hundreds of women were impounded in the palace from which government decisions emanated. Most of the women were not for sexual pleasure, but simply to demonstrate dominance.

At the moment, IS’s systematic killing of men and taking of women performs as a predatory horde rewarding its warriors more than as an organisation developing the governance of a true caliphate. A core question is whether the new caliph will be able to maintain and control the women he acquires as well as his predecessors did. And who will handle the daily governance for the new caliphate to maintain cohesion in the state?

Caliphates relied on eunuchs

All previous caliphates relied on a special class of bureaucrats to provide stability and statesmanship. Those were eunuchs, who were unable to impregnate the women sequestered in the palace. Eunuchs were without family and dependent upon the caliph for support.

For four millennia and through many different Asian empires and caliphates, eunuchs proved themselves to be efficient governors. Their presence was, again, a sign of the power and authority of the ruler.

The number of women and eunuchs in the central palace during the various caliphates could be quite large. The Caliph al-Muqtadi (908-932) presided over a palace that contained 4000 women, 7000 eunuch guards and menial labourers, plus 4000 eunuch bureaucrats to administer the realm.

The Sultana Served by Her Eunuchs, 18th-century painting. Wikimedia Commons/Charles-Amédée-Philippe van Loo (1719-95)
When the Fatimid caliphate fell in 1171, the seat of government had 12,000 members. Only Caliph al-‘Adid and his immediate male relatives had intact testicles. The rest were women and eunuchs.

As long as IS persists in beheading rather than castrating the males it captures, it has little hope of resurrecting a historic caliphate. Granted IS is already acquiring women, but it has no-one to guard them for the caliph and no infertile functionaries to enact the authority of the state.

While it has been less than a century since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it is clear that a key concept for continuity with the great caliphates of the past has been lost. Simply stated, if the IS doesn’t build a deeply fortified city and start producing eunuch bureaucrats, it will never have the stability and endurance of historic caliphates. The best it can hope for is to be recognised as a 21st-century predatory horde.

It is an academic questions as to which is more barbaric: to behead (murder) or to castrate (mutilate). But of the two choices, if IS continues along its current path, it is likely to be remembered like the Vandals – that is, as murderous marauders who get brief mention in high school history classes.

There is no reason to believe that the state IS aims to develop will be less barbaric than its fighters' current “jihad”. But al-Baghdadi will have to change how his followers process prisoners if he is sincere about getting his caliphate up and running.
 
Have you seen the latest macdonalds commercial?

Multiculturalism in action!
 
you have imagined that sharia is anything different than the institutional inequality inherent in our own social systems. you have also mistaken the difference between sharia and application of sharia (and the varieties, therein). you have ignored any context around gender inequality comparisons between systems (whether it be overt or covert).

Such as? I'm aware there are gender inequality issues within our own system.. I never stated otherwise.

I've mistaken the difference between Sharia and application of Sharia? How so?

the broad generalisations you have used are always falsifiable, by definition. there are always exceptions to the norm, and this means both tend to be mistaken for the other.

I'm well aware of there are exceptions from the norm but it's the norm that the problem.. you seem to be missing the point behind what I'm saying..

What broad generalisations have I made? I've stated that predominantly muslim countries who have mixed theology with politics are the worst countries for gender inequality (and provided sources that state so).. You can't say this has nothing to do with Islam because it is very much to do with Islam and the application of it.

lastly, overt inequality is better than covert. just because something is hidden, it doesn't make it less prevalent. it just looks that way.

What? By overt inequality do you mean the inequality we know is there and by covert inequality you mean the inequality you assume is there?

Either way.. the inequality between the sexes, country by country etc etc is more prevalent and more severe in predominantly muslim countries.. unless you have secret information you're with holding from the world?

me said:
I agree?

I've mentioned Christianity in previous posts. There are some differences though.. The bible is not the infallible word of God and well.. Christians main source of information from God is Jesus.. they tend to ignore the OT.

I shall add that christianity is still being used to oppress homosexuals and women's rights. It's not on the same level but it's still wrong and still pisses me off.

NSFW:

I'm not some right wing fascist islamaphobe, ya know.. I'm against fascism and inequality between sexes, races, sexualities, etc etc.. Which is why I take this stance..

I have a feeling peoples far left view , strong wants for liberalism are acting against them on certain topics.. Calling out a belief that happens to be shared, for the most part, by a certain people as fascist is somehow seen as fascism itself..

I'm against Islam because it is all too often, and all too easy to be used to promote fascist ideals.
 
Last edited:
Either way.. the inequality between the sexes, country by country etc etc is more prevalent and more severe in predominantly muslim countries.. unless you have secret information you're with holding from the world?

While there are certainly a disproportionate number of "Muslim" countries at the bottom of the UN Gender Inequality Index, a full third of those in the bottom ten rankings are predominantly Christian nations - it could argued that a far better causative correlation for factors in gender inequality is the lack of development and the predominating cultural norms. For instance, can you really make the case that the same cultural norms resulting in gender inequality between, say, Afghanistan and Nigeria is the the commonality of religion? Could you compare gender inequality BEFORE Islam took hold in either of those vastly disparate regions and say it got worse under Islam? Niger is predominantly Muslim, while neighbouring CAF is predominantly Christian. Niger ranks HIGHER on the GII than the CAR. Can you reasonably argue that Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia - both of which rank higher than both Niger and the CAF - have more commonality with Niger than the CAF when it comes to the factors driving gender inequality?

I would argue that you are drawing a very long bow and that gender inequality is vastly more complex than the simple reductionist argument of "Islam is bad" that you are making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
 
Last edited:
It could even be argued that poverty and theology doesn't bode well for equality? :p (see africa-christianity links)

How does lack of development theory work when you consider Saudi Arabia is one of the worst places for inequality? While poorer than other muslim countries on the list are more equal? I'm in no way denying that lack of education and development isn't partly or even majorly to blame but *read below*

As for the cultural norms.. what is it that has been a key component / dictator of cultural norms for these regions? *You can't deny strong beliefs in certain theologies have either caused this, encouraged it or hindered progression from it.

I accept that gender equality is vastly more complex than "islam is bad" and i don't mean to imply it isn't.. but strong beliefs in the Quran being the infallible word of God isn't helping.. not by any means.

(I linked what the introduction of Christianity has caused in Africa in a previous post.. it's causing just as much shit there http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...g-fundamental-sexism-2014520172250423649.html with a bit of http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/homosexuality-africamuseveniugandanigeriaethiopia.html)

I'm not sure what you mean by rank HIGHER either, the higher the GII rank the worse it is.. Niger, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (and Yemen) are the 4 worst places for gender inequality according to that scale.. All of them are predominantly muslim while not necessarily the poorest places. I guess from a quick glance yes.. Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia have Islam as a commonality with Niger that the CAF doesn't share.

And it's not a full third :p 3 out of 10 is less that one third ;)

It'd be interesting to see past the worst 10 but unfortunately you have to log in to the source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report

Another ranking of gender in/equality.. The pattern continues..
 
Last edited:
21 October 2014, 2.33pm AEDT
Islamic State lacks key ingredient to make ‘caliphate’ work: eunuchs

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed Islamic State (IS) as a Muslim caliphate on June 29, 2014, with himself as caliph, a term reserved for a successor to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). His would be the newest caliphate in a line extending from the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), through the Umayyads (661-750), Abbasids (750-1517) and Ottomans (1453-1924). Each of these earlier caliphates, however, had a feature that IS lacks and which may not even be possible for the newly proclaimed “state”.

Currently, IS is more of a marauding horde than functioning state. IS operates more like the Vandals or the Ostrogoths of European history rather than any historic caliphate. Its “citizens” are self-described warriors (jihadists) killing men, capturing women and grabbing booty as they go. Many of its fighters are foreigners from Europe, North America or other Middle Eastern countries, rather than locals who are the core citizenry for anything that can legitimately be called a state.

Beyond effective use of social media for recruitment, there appears to be little of the governance that makes this state a true state. IS’s goal is clear: “purifying” Islam through eliminating competing religious ideologies, whether they are held by other Muslims, such as the Shi'a, or practitioners of other religions, such as the Yazidi and Christians.

What is a state without a capital?

While al-Baghdadi has appeared in the Syrian provincial capital of Ar-Raqqah, IS has yet to establish a proper capital. A true state needs a central place to which taxes are paid and from which laws, regulations and other administrative functions descend. Thus far, funding for the IS seems to come largely from smuggling oil, extortion and bank robbery, and not from taxpaying citizens.

Creating a stable capital will be difficult. With the weaponry IS has acquired, it can fight a ground war. But previous caliphate capitals had walls to protect their seat of government from attack. Such defences would be ineffective now. As the recent air assault by the US and its allies shows, a Topkapi today would be fragile in the face of modern ballistics.

No above-ground capital would be safe for IS. To protect its control centre from bombardment, the caliphate would need to bury itself in tunnels, like termites (or al-Qaeda). But even a buried bastille would need to be some 60 metres down to be safe from bunker-busting munitions like the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

Should the IS manage to create a political state with a capital, how closely could it model its governance upon the historic caliphates it claims to emulate? In all preceding caliphates, power was demonstrated, in part, by the number of women the caliph controlled. Hundreds of women were impounded in the palace from which government decisions emanated. Most of the women were not for sexual pleasure, but simply to demonstrate dominance.

At the moment, IS’s systematic killing of men and taking of women performs as a predatory horde rewarding its warriors more than as an organisation developing the governance of a true caliphate. A core question is whether the new caliph will be able to maintain and control the women he acquires as well as his predecessors did. And who will handle the daily governance for the new caliphate to maintain cohesion in the state?

Caliphates relied on eunuchs

All previous caliphates relied on a special class of bureaucrats to provide stability and statesmanship. Those were eunuchs, who were unable to impregnate the women sequestered in the palace. Eunuchs were without family and dependent upon the caliph for support.

For four millennia and through many different Asian empires and caliphates, eunuchs proved themselves to be efficient governors. Their presence was, again, a sign of the power and authority of the ruler.

The number of women and eunuchs in the central palace during the various caliphates could be quite large. The Caliph al-Muqtadi (908-932) presided over a palace that contained 4000 women, 7000 eunuch guards and menial labourers, plus 4000 eunuch bureaucrats to administer the realm.

The Sultana Served by Her Eunuchs, 18th-century painting. Wikimedia Commons/Charles-Amédée-Philippe van Loo (1719-95)
When the Fatimid caliphate fell in 1171, the seat of government had 12,000 members. Only Caliph al-‘Adid and his immediate male relatives had intact testicles. The rest were women and eunuchs.

As long as IS persists in beheading rather than castrating the males it captures, it has little hope of resurrecting a historic caliphate. Granted IS is already acquiring women, but it has no-one to guard them for the caliph and no infertile functionaries to enact the authority of the state.

While it has been less than a century since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it is clear that a key concept for continuity with the great caliphates of the past has been lost. Simply stated, if the IS doesn’t build a deeply fortified city and start producing eunuch bureaucrats, it will never have the stability and endurance of historic caliphates. The best it can hope for is to be recognised as a 21st-century predatory horde.

It is an academic questions as to which is more barbaric: to behead (murder) or to castrate (mutilate). But of the two choices, if IS continues along its current path, it is likely to be remembered like the Vandals – that is, as murderous marauders who get brief mention in high school history classes.

There is no reason to believe that the state IS aims to develop will be less barbaric than its fighters' current “jihad”. But al-Baghdadi will have to change how his followers process prisoners if he is sincere about getting his caliphate up and running.

Great post.

Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show, makes fun of this in one of his segments. For anyone who is a fan of his show you have probably seen this:

Watch starting at 6:05 about ISIS wanting their own state.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/jon-stewart-isis_n_5727702.html

Funny stuff :p
 
Such as? I'm aware there are gender inequality issues within our own system.. I never stated otherwise.

I've mistaken the difference between Sharia and application of Sharia? How so?
The majority, the actual NORM, do NOT apply sharia law to mean kill everyone else.


I'm well aware of there are exceptions from the norm but it's the norm that the problem.. you seem to be missing the point behind what I'm saying..
what you are saying is clear and misguided. you are MISTAKING a minority for a majority. it is not a norm to which you refer, besides in terms of news reporting. it's the norm to report on violence and crime, it is not the norm to report about peaceful people.

What broad generalisations have I made? I've stated that predominantly muslim countries who have mixed theology with politics are the worst countries for gender inequality (and provided sources that state so).. You can't say this has nothing to do with Islam because it is very much to do with Islam and the application of it.
ugh. you are connecting the dots yourself, through your own filtered views.


What? By overt inequality do you mean the inequality we know is there and by covert inequality you mean the inequality you assume is there?
there's no assumptions about it. it is hidden and very much apparent if you care to notice.
"I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil." - Malcolm X

Either way.. the inequality between the sexes, country by country etc etc is more prevalent and more severe in predominantly muslim countries.. unless you have secret information you're with holding from the world?
there nothing secret. your statement is gross oversimplification.

I shall add that christianity is still being used to oppress homosexuals and women's rights. It's not on the same level but it's still wrong and still pisses me off.
you have no idea about "levels".
NSFW:

I'm not some right wing fascist islamaphobe, ya know.. I'm against fascism and inequality between sexes, races, sexualities, etc etc.. Which is why I take this stance..

I have a feeling peoples far left view , strong wants for liberalism are acting against them on certain topics.. Calling out a belief that happens to be shared, for the most part, by a certain people as fascist is somehow seen as fascism itself..

I'm against Islam because it is all too often, and all too easy to be used to promote fascist ideals.
NSFW:
I sympathise but you're going the wrong way about it. There is no threat of fascism, except that which we generate ourselves. Focus on individuals who take it too far, and you'll minimilise the alienation and disenfranchisement of those who are innocently in your current sites.




p.s. how about that weather today, it's finally clearing and warming up! .... multiculturalism in action!
 
first of all that isn't Mcdonalds, secondly i think you might want to try to get your PTSD treated by a different doctor.

Do you know what PTSD is? Its nothing to joke about either. If you knew anything about it, I dont think you would be using it so freely.
 
The majority, the actual NORM, do NOT apply sharia law to mean kill everyone else.



what you are saying is clear and misguided. you are MISTAKING a minority for a majority. it is not a norm to which you refer, besides in terms of news reporting. it's the norm to report on violence and crime, it is not the norm to report about peaceful people.


ugh. you are connecting the dots yourself, through your own filtered views.



there's no assumptions about it. it is hidden and very much apparent if you care to notice.
"I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil." - Malcolm X

there nothing secret. your statement is gross oversimplification.


you have no idea about "levels".

NSFW:
I sympathise but you're going the wrong way about it. There is no threat of fascism, except that which we generate ourselves. Focus on individuals who take it too far, and you'll minimilise the alienation and disenfranchisement of those who are innocently in your current sites.




p.s. how about that weather today, it's finally clearing and warming up! .... multiculturalism in action!

As much as I disagree with rick here most of the time, I am in agreement with what he is saying about sharia. He also backs up what he is saying with sources while you just seem to be making statements about how he is generalizing it and condemning the majority over what you say a few individuals are doing. Do you have sources for what you say he is mistaken about?
 
Top