"Joint Turkish-Russian strikes on ISIS" Topic

We've gone from Turkey shooting down Russian planes to Turkey and Russia flying joint missions.

yahoo.com/news/russia-turkey-stage-first-joint-air-strikes-against-145058706.html

Also it seems Turkey is patching it up with Iran as well.

Is it safe to assume that Turkey is increasingly a liability for NATO?

Are Americans gonna end up sharing Incirilik AB with the Russians soon?!?

Wow … if all true … this could be a little bit of a game changer. However, in the short run, if they are targeting and killing Daesh, that is a plus.

Turkey and the US had a spat because Erdogan thinks the CIA is complicit in the failed coup attempt last summer and the US refused to hand over Gulen, the former advisor-turned-dissident whom Erdogan blames for the coup attempt. Under Erdogan, Turkey had become increasingly islamist and the western liberalist world order led by the US has a clear preference for secular regimes. When Arab Spring brought Morsi to power in Egypt he was promptly deposed in a military coup with the tacit support of the US.

Russia, on the other hand, mended fences with Erdogan after the SU-24 incident. Sanctions on travel imposed by Russia in retaliation for the shoot-down have since been lifted and the two countries have found common ground in Syria. Russia has provided air support in Turkish operations against Daesh as well as Kurds near Turkey's borders while Turkey has accepted the status quo in Syria and abandoned its support of anti-Assad rebels.

The two countries, along with Iran, recently negotiated the end of the Syrian civil war without western involvement. Even after Russia's ambassador was recently assassinated at an art exhibit the two countries remained allies.

This is what happens when realpolitik overrides idealpolitik.

This is what happens when realpolitik overrides idealpolitik.

And this continues to be made abundantly clearer almost daily … Some are playing tournament level Chess, while some ideologues are playing a friendly game of Checkers …

western liberalist world order led by the US has a clear preference for secular regimes.

Except Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE!

Agree on all other points.

"Erdogan thinks the CIA is complicit in the failed coup attempt…"

They have been noted for their attempts.

Actually, the US leadership preferred the Muslim Brotherhood, and backed Morsi.

I suspect our generals, as well as most of the Egyptians were behind Sisi, who thankfully removed the terrorist group from power there.

In other news, ISIS is now expected to relocate from Libya to Western Egypt:

janes.com/article/67075/displacement-of-jihadists-from-libya-will-likely-lead-to-consolidation-of-the-islamic-state-in-egypt-s-western-desert

Egypt is also fighting other insurgents in the Sinai in the East.

I don't hold much hope for the future of Egypt. Place is infested with Islamists and with failure of Morsi "non-violent" option, I suspect they'll embrace violent jihad in greater numbers.

And it's getting worse to be a Coptic Christian – murder, bombings and beatings are increasing as is official persecution – maybe some population swaps with Europe/West are in order?

ISIS is now expected to relocate from Libya to Western Egypt

Well they can relocate all they want. But will remain to be targets, regardless. It may seem like a forever war going on. But as long as the US makes B-52, B-1, B-2, Cruise missile and drone strikes, like we saw in Libya and Syria recently. IMO is that is the only near time option. They can make all the jihadis they want. The US and it's allies have a lot of ordinance.

I suspect they'll embrace violent jihad in greater numbers.

As I have been saying. I think the West underestimates how many moslems are sympathetic or tacitly support the islamists, jihadi, terrorists. Or just turn a blind eye. After all, many it seems to believe that the West is full of infidels and non-believers. You see some gov'ts, e.g. Jordan and Egypt support the West's war on terrorism but what does the arab man on the street think in those moslem nations ?

Regardless what may happen in Western Egypt with Daesh relocating. Or any jihadis, etc., in Jordan. They won't go into Israel. The IDF has a very good record removing islamic/moslem, jihadi, terrorists from their lands.

And it's getting worse to be a Coptic Christian

I really wish the West gets as motivated to take Christians in from those regions. As it appears they do for moslem refugees. If this is going on, I see little information about. And don't forget about the Yazidis … are not they worth the West's help if their refugees want to get out of the Mid East, etc., ?

If we are supposed to "love" our fellow man. It seems that only happens if you are a moslem refugee. What is this … reverse discrimination ? Separate but equal is Not. If we are trying to curry favor with moslems and their gov'ts. To fight islamic terrorism. That seems to have not occurred or will anytime soon.

As I have been saying. I think the West underestimates how many moslems are sympathetic or tacitly support the islamists, jihadi, terrorists. Or just turn a blind eye. After all, many it seems to believe that the West is full of infidels and non-believers.

Nice to have an opinion but you got any hard information backing this amazing assessment?

I really wish the West gets as motivated to take Christians in from those regions. As it appears they do for moslem refugees. If this is going on, I see little information about. And don't forget about the Yazidis … are not they worth the West's help if their refugees want to get out of the Mid East, etc., ?

If we are supposed to "love" our fellow man. It seems that only happens if you are a moslem refugee. What is this … reverse discrimination ? Separate but equal is Not.

Wrong again, Ralph.
Apart from the concept we should practice equality & not use a person's religion in terms of deciding who to help, Near Eastern & African Christians get just as much help in immigration as anyone.

One example:

link

Turkey and the US had a spat because Erdogan thinks the CIA is complicit in the failed coup attempt last summer and the US refused to hand over Gulen, the former advisor-turned-dissident whom Erdogan blames for the coup attempt.

Come on now. You don't really think farce was an actual coup attempt do you? That was Erdogan increasing his power at the cost of political opponents.

There have been surveys in countries all over the globe, seems to range from about 20% – 50% think it is okay for Muslims to use force against others to promote their faith, and/or have their leaders adopt sharia law.

Lowest numbers are at about 10%, or so, and highest at about 80%..

IIRC, the survey was done a few years ago, and needless to say, with percentages like that, it is rather eye opening.

"Apart from the concept we should practice equality & not use a person's religion in terms of deciding who to help, Near Eastern & African Christians get just as much help in immigration as anyone".

Perhaps that is done in some cases, but in America, Christians and Yazidis from Syria, and/or Iraq seem to have been excluded from being allowed in as refugees to our country. Most news reports only identify Muslims as being eligible for that status, which caused a rather large outcry in some circles.

@ Mako

Yeah, I've read those "surveys" too…lies. damned lies & surveys.

Here's something far more believable.

link

You may want to read this & get your eyes open:

link

Personally, I'm against violent extremists. What religion they are isn't always a central fact.

seem to have been excluded

Well, have they or haven't they? It isn't good enough to be operating under "I reckon".

Nice to have an opinion but you got any hard information backing this amazing assessment?

Yes, that is MY opinion. Based on my reading, watching, understanding, etc. the situation. Like an intel estimate it may not be 100%. But it seems to Me, based on my study and training on insurgencies, history, etc. Insurgencies, guerilla warfare, etc., They don't/can't exist without outside support are well as local support.

Apart from the concept we should practice equality & not use a person's religion in terms of deciding who to help, Near Eastern & African Christians get just as much help in immigration as anyone.

Glad to hear that and I expected as much. However, what SJW, academic, intellectuals Do NOT seem to understand. It does not matter what religion the enemy practices … Moslem, Christian, Hebrew, Yazidi[if there are any left?] Hindu, Bahia, Wiccan, Satanists, etc., If they are the enemy … the enemy is "treated" differently than friendlies.

The current "enemy" is moslems/islamists/jihadi/terrorists, etc. They are a world wide "insurgency"/movement/threat. Like all insurgents they hide, move and in some cases are the locals, the populous … So one way to attempt to ID them is their religious beliefs. NOT all moslems are terrorists …

So I think it is very obvious. That the Western world is doing massive amounts to assist in saving moslems worldwide from their lunatic fringe brothers. And in some cases to the Western nations' peril. At least not just socially and culturally, but as important … economically.

It seems more than other moslems (Saudis, Oil Kingdoms, Iran, etc. ?) in the world may be doing ? And If I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me … as is you predilection. And yes, we know all the different factions, sects, tribes, etc. that are moslems. And all the hatred and distain many have for one another. As well as the infidels. That is the base line problem, and that seems pretty clear to most.

Like all insurgents they hide, move and in some cases are the locals, the populous

You LOST me here. Are they POPULOUS because there's lots of them, in densely populated areas? Do you mean "popular"? Or perhaps "populace"?

So I think it is very obvious.

I'm sure you DO. You say you read et al.A life time's STUDY (does that make you an intellectual BTW?). I have no "distain"(sic) for you personally but clearly you READ only SOURCES that lean your WAY.

that seems pretty clear to most.

NO. You tend to give YOUR self a MAJORITY stance but really there's NO support for THIS. Fuzzy thinking is fuzzy thinking no matter what the cronies say or think.

You LOST me here. Are they POPULOUS because there's lots of them, in densely populated areas? Do you mean "popular"? Or perhaps "populace"?

That was an auto-correct error. That happens often to me. And I didn't reread my post thoroughly … So sue me. I'll give you my Lawyer's e-mail, If you like.

Did YOU read THE link I attached? Christian, atheist, political & even BUDDHIST terrorists.

I was talking about terrorists committing acts against the US and Western Europe. But yes, and I mentioned this … it is a global problem too. As many other counties have been attacked by islamists. I guess I didn't make that clear … so again sue me.

And there may be a few Nut jobs Christians in the US that blown medical clinics, etc., But those are tiny.

As far as I was concerned I thought this thread had something to do with ISIS/Daesh. Not other terrorists ? I Don't think the Russians and Turks are going after Christian, atheist, political & even BUDDHIST terrorists. At least not now … Well maybe the Turks think some Kurds are political ? But with rival moslem groups it could go either way. Different tribe, mullah, etc., it seems as a good a reason as any for moslem killing moslem.

You say you read et al.A life time's STUDY (does that make you an intellectual BTW?). I have no "distain"(sic) for you personally but clearly you READ only SOURCES that lean your WAY.

No I don't only read, etc., sources that think like I do. But will generally agree with those "that lean my way". I'd think that may not be unique to just me ? I'm sorry I don't have a list of everything I've read so far in my life. For you to approve or disapprove …

And I've never said it was a lifetime study, where did you get that ? And everything I read or study does not make me an intellectual. Again, that should be abundantly clear.

And when I posted "that seems pretty clear to most." I was referring the Sunni vs. Shia situation/conflict in the Mid East and A'stan and only made worse by tribal, ethnic, etc., differences. That seems pretty clear to many … But I didn't say All … So that must have been not clear to you … fuzzy or not …

does not make me an intellectual. Again, that should be abundantly clear.

Ralph, I'm sure you didn't mean to write this so I won't comment. I think it's part of your habit to drop labels on everyone…..SJW or Terrorists et caetra. Convenient, maybe, but like most generalisations you run the risk of distortion & gross simplification. It's lazy thinking (or fuzzy, if you'd prefer).

Let me give you an example:

And all the hatred and distain(sic) many have for one another

Having followed the US elections & their aftermath I could write the same about Americans but I can see the danger of generalisation & simplistic labelling.

BTW apologies for correcting your expression, Ralph. Just trying to help. So I won't bother trying to decipher:

And there may be a few not job Christians in the US that blown medical clinics, etc., But those are tiny.

.So why haven't they got jobs & what, actually, is tiny…….nevermind.

That should read Nut jobs another auto-correct and my failure to reread. So again … sue me …

Having followed the US elections & their aftermath I could write the same about Americans but I can see the danger of generalisation & simplistic labelling.

I've been watching this intently all day. And I've been doing that for months. So you don't have to tell me about labelling, etc., … My nation is have a bloodless revolution(s)…

Ralph, I'm sure you didn't mean to write this so I won't comment.

Yes I did … I may be many things … but an intellectual or academic are not on that list. I don't make up "labels" for myself. I only say what I believe and/or I know is true … good or bad … I'm that way about many things …

Legion 4 wrote:

So one way to attempt to ID them is their religious beliefs. NOT all moslems are terrorists … … today … at least for now, AFAIK.

Legion 4:

That is a profoundly ill-informed statement and is really a clear example of bigotry and prejudice. If you make statements like this for all here to read you must expect some negative reaction. So, here it is. There are plenty of terrorists all around the globe who are not Muslims. Perhaps you should read more current affairs pieces than you try to write, at least until you have a clearer grasp of the realities beyond your neighbourhood. Claiming "AFAIK" is not a licence to write bigotry. You are responsible for the words you utter and write. Read about Buddhist terrorists killing Muslim Rohingya or Hindu terrorists killing Christians to better inform yourself before making such daft and prejudicial statements. If your knowledge of the world matched your anger towards it, you would be an intellectual force to be reckoned with. As it stands now, that is not the case. Read more and comment less until you are prepared to speak with some authority or you will draw criticism and rebuke for spreading such poison as quoted above. Where is Atticus Finch when you need him?

Rod Robertson.

The support for ISIS etc in the Muslim world is tiny, whatever fake news sites may say.

If it weren't then ISIS wouldn't be being eliminated by the Muslim governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. The Egyptians and Libyans don't seem to like them either.

The UK success against Jihaddis comes from the cooperation of our Muslim community.

Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. The ones who have caused my nation most trouble in the recent past were Christian and financed by Americans.

That should read Nut jobs

Oh, I was wondering about the "blown" bit….

This may correct your opinion on who commits acts of terror in the US:

link

sue me

I've never understood this American predilection for litigation. Civilised people resolve differences without the aegis of a court wherever possible.

I may be many things … but an intellectual are not on that list

Ralph, for some reason you use the term in a pejorative sense. I said I wouldn't correct your grammar again : so sue me……87)))) but it is actually a positive comment to be described as an intellectual.

Def: intellectual: possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity

If you want others to think you have no mental capacity or intellect so be it but I wouldn't recommend it (or believe it, Ralph)

That is a profoundly Illinformed statement and is really a clear example of bigotry and prejudice.

How am I a bigot ? I posted this … It does not matter what religion the enemy practices … Moslem, Christian, Hebrew, Yazidi[if there are any left?] Hindu, Bahia, Wiccan, Satanists, etc., If they are the enemy … the enemy is "treated" differently than friendlies. I don't think that is being a bigot ?

There are plenty of terrorists all around the globe who are not Muslims.

But as I said, I'm not talking about all terrorists but those that are threatening and killing Americans and our allies. In Iraq, Syria and A'stan, there are no other terrorists there other than Islamic, AFAIK …

. Read about Buddhist terrorists killing Muslim Rohingya or Hindu terrorists killing Christians

Again, I'm talking about terrorists that are attacking USA, Europe, etc. The US is not deploying to those locations where those terrorists are committing terrorists acts.

If your knowledge of the world matched your anger towards it, you would be an intellectual force to be reckoned with. As it stands now that is not the case.

What can I say ? I'm only one lab accident away from being a comic book super villain …

Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Legion 4:

link

Some facts are rather inconvenient, and problematical, ochoin, especially when they identify 20% – 80%+ of Muslims from some countries saying they support the use of force to further their religious expansion, and/or sharia law.

Of course, that doesn't mean ALL of those will take up arms, or even act in support of the cause, but it does provide a good indicator that they might consider it.

Also, not all terrorist are from ISIS, though they get the most press these days. There are also AQ, Taliban, Iranian, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many other Muslim terrorist organizations and supporters as well.

I tend to lump them all together, since the differentiation between them is a bit like the differences between the NFC, AFC, and Canadian league in football. They're essentially playing the same game, though in different regions, and perhaps, in some cases, with slightly different rules.

If even 5% – 10% of them do take up arms, that as a major concern for peace loving people living on the planet.

Thankfully, the number of Buddhists and Hindus conducting terrorist attacks in the USA, Canada, and Europe seems to be rather low.

Can't recall when the last one occurred.

Even by your own link provided, if 1% of the global population of Muslims go radical, that's 16 million of them.

Thankfully, according to your source, Europe only has to worry about 325,000 Muslims going radical. That should be easy to deal with [heavy sarcasm intended, in case you can't tell].

As for your other link, the data has just been cherry-picked, and/or downplayed, since the numbers are just wrong.

There have been far more than 33 deaths caused by Muslim radicals in the USA. Heck, I'll bet the number of honor killings in some states exceed that number, in some cases, even on an annual basis.

Fort Hood Terrorist Attack – at least 12 dead and 31 wounded – probably doesn't count in the data, since some claim it to be "workplace violence".

San Bernardino Terrorist Attack – 14 dead and 22 wounded.

Orlando Terrorist Attack – this one alone far exceeds the 33 number given for multiple years, with 49 people killed in one incident, and 53 wounded.

Of course, there are many, many others, in single digits too, where coworkers have beheaded, and/or attempted to behead others, knife attacks, shootings at other military bases and recruitment centers, running people down with cars and trucks, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Not to mention that our FBI and other law enforcement officials, and even untrained airline passengers, have done a very good job of thwarting and preventing multiple other attempts by radical jihadis here (Richard Reed, the underwear bomber who tried to set fire/blow up a jet full of people enroute to America). There are more than 100 ISIS supporters in jail currently, and our law enforcement people are supposedly monitoring 1,000+ more.

Sorry, for the inconvenient facts to dispel your false narrative, but it's available on-line, if you choose to bother to look it up.

Believe what you want, Mako.

Mako 11:

PDF link

and:

link

Rod Robertson.

Well based on Rod, Ochoin and even stu[my arch enemies !!!!]. I am a horrible bigot … so I suggest you all stifle my posts. So I No longer offend your liberal, enlightened, etc., sensibilities, etc., … However, my alleged bigotry is only directed at radical islam, their followers and supporters. As Mako's accurate list points out.

Also, not all terrorist are from ISIS, though they get the most press these days. There are also AQ, Taliban, Iranian, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many other Muslim terrorist organizations and supporters as well.

As it is often said, that radical islam is not islam. So moslems should have nothing to worry from the West. But about save for being killed by radical islamists, other moslems.

And yes, I know many "terrorist" type attacks in US are not committed by radical islam. One of the top hate crimes are against Americans who are of the Hebrew faith. And not by islamists. But as Mako noted and I agree …

Thankfully, the number of Buddhists and Hindus conducting terrorist attacks in the USA, Canada, and Europe seems to be rather low.

Can't recall when the last one occurred.

As I do have a tendency to agree with much of Mako's last posts. And when I go to the Y pool today. When I see the very nice muslem woman and her children I often talk to. I'll let them know … I'm a racist bigot. And they should not talk to me anymore. As I'm a Crusader beneath my swim trunks !

That says ISIS NOT Moslem …

If you want others to think you have no mental capacity or intellect so be it but I wouldn't recommend it (or believe it, Ralph)

And I'm we aware of the definition of what an intellectual is. And I'm pretty sure I should not be labeled as such. And yes I know it is [normally] not a negative. And frankly, I don't really care what some here think about me having no mental capacity or intellect.
I'm sure some think that already because I may "vehemently" disagree with what they believe. Even to them it is a logical and totally correct concept, etc. And I'm wrong, as you said "root & branch".

If it weren't then ISIS wouldn't be being eliminated by the Muslim governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. The Egyptians and Libyans don't seem to like them either.

Well … they seem to be taking a long time to do it ? Daesh and AQ kill more moslem than any non-moslems. But that may not seem to matter with all the bad blood between various sects, etc. of islam.

And with all the links that are posted here by some … How do I know they are Not "fake" news ? Many US and other news agencies, media, etc., have been clearly ID'd as being biased and inaccurate in their "facts" …

Legion 4 wrote:

Well based on Rod, Ochoin and even stu[my arch enemies !!!!]. I am a horrible bigot … so I suggest you all stifle my posts. So I No longer offend your liberal, enlightened, etc., sensibilities, etc., … However, my alleged bigotry is only directed at radical islam, their followers and supporters. As Mako's accurate list points out.

Stifling bigotry just allows it to go unchallenged. Prejudice and bigotry need to be challenged and exposed for what they are, vicious ignorance often with malign intent. So no stifling but rather exposure to the light of reason and learning to expose and burn away the sepsis of hate and fear of "the other".

The statement you made was not just directed at radical terrorists because by using religious beliefs as a litmus test to determine who is a threat and who is not, you drag all Muslims into your modern-day inquisition. Your claim that your alleged bigotry is only directed at radical Islam is false as you have no idea who the radicals are and therefore would collectively interrogate and thus cast suspicion on all Muslims just because they are Muslims.

As it is often said, that radical islam is not islam. So moslems should have nothing to worry from the West. But about save for being killed by radical islamists, other moslems.

In the last quarter century the West has killed more Muslims through aerial bombing, embargoes, invasions and war than all terrorists of any stripe have killed in the same time period. Now western states are putting Muslims under a cloud of suspicion and attacking their beliefs, cultures, dress codes and associations, just because they are Muslim. That is prejudice and bigotry, pure and simple. Muslims (moderate and traditional) have a great deal to fear from the West.

You characterise three posters here as your enemies just because they disagree with you. We are not your enemies. We simply disagree with you and are calling you out on what you have written here. You also have said that your enemies must be ruthlessly destroyed by any and all means necessary. Does that apply to us? How far up the food-chain of enemies are you willing to go to get your way? Who is fair-game in the bloody crusade you envision (see your picture posted above) against radical Islam? Terrorists? Alleged terrorists? Possible terrorist suspects? The families and neighbours of terrorists? Supporters of terrorists? Would-be-supporters of terrorists? All traditional Muslims? All Muslims of any degree? Arrogant and deluded academic intellectuals who incorrectly defend the rights of Muslims and thwart your great cleansing? Individuals and media who challenge your world view and alleged prejudices/bigotry with their fake/ersatz facts and inconvenient truths? All humanity? Where will your suspicion, alleged bigotry and hate stop? Who is safe from the Crusaders and Sword Brothers of the modern era as you march with your God to burn and purify the heathen wilderness?

Look into the mirror Legion and you may see Fennris or worse staring, hollow-eyed and soul-dead, back at you; the blood of nations and others' creeds spattered across the relection's inhumane visage, the very human destroyer of worlds. Perhaps your ilk is, like the violent terrorists you hate, the other true enemy of humanity?

Rod Robertson.

A lot of posters here ignore the rise of conservative/fundamentalist Islam across the world since the 1970s.

Very obvious examples of this including not only the growth of females covering themselves in countries where they formerly didn't but also electoral successes of fundamentalists in Egypt and Turkey.

Even former POTUS Barrack Obama commented on the radicalising of formerly secular Indonesia in an article in the Atlantic (indeed look at events surrounding Jakarta governor and blasphemy charges).

Areas of Africa and countries like Bangladesh which were known for low violent extremism (even if nominally fundamentalist) are now turning into bastions of extreme Islamism.

And the more fundamentalist Muslims you have, the more they:

a.) Are likely to produce terrorists (the spear tip of extremism just like Communist terrorism were the fringe of European lefties in the 1970s)
b.) Are more likely to be anti-Western.
c.) Are more likely to feel some sense of solidarity with jihadists.
d.) Are more likely to engage in violent oppression of non-Muslims, homosexuals, women etc (as prescribed by both Koran and Haddiths).
e.) Are unlikely to integrate effectively in Western societies due to completely different and incompatible value systems (which in turn creates what the Germans refer to as parallel societies whereby sharia is actually practised in the West).
f.)Terrorism is a side effect of increasing fundamentalism in the Islamic world.

Anything else is just shoving one's head in the ground and ignoring world events since fall of Shah and fundamentalist attack on Mecca in 1979.

-------

I also hate the notion that Muslims (and other non-Westerners) are passive victims of the West

Indeed a few posters here display these attitudes.

Let's resummarise:

Muslims and other non-Westerners have agency and act accordingly. They are humans and not mindless sheep

Assuming Muslims and non-Muslims are incapable of independent action is racist – it implies they're too stupid to act on their own and thus their lives are solely based on actions of Westerners.

This view is endemic in the West on all accounts.

The world does not revolve around the West. The Muslim world has its own complicated social, political and cultural interactions and most are not driven by Washington or Paris.

Thus idiot Westerners are surprised when these people act on their own accord be it Arab Spring, rise of Boko Haram or Iraq chumming it up with old enemy Iran.

It's also why we are surprised when the Chinese build and militarises islands in SCS and why we were surprised Russia would not tolerate eternal expansion of NATO into former parts of their empire.

This same thinking led us to believe Afghans and Iraqis would soon become Americans. That worked out so well.

I hear this kind of thinking all the time, be it here, in the media or general population. They think culture is just preferring curry or pasta over meat pies, as opposed to completely different ways of thinking about life.

Deadles:

I may be misreading you but I think you are confusing traditional Islam (conservatism) with fundamentalism in Islam.

To better distinguish between these two currents here is an old Daniel Pipes piece from the mid 1980's which clearly contrasts and differentiates the two.

link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod … everything you just posted you have said before to me in one way or another. And see … I have not changed my "evil bigoted" ways at all. As I said to you and my other " Archenemies" recently … I'm one lab accident away from being a comic book super villain. Based on your and other comments I'm Heath Leader's Joker. But even Jack Nicholson's version was very good and "evil" too … So you better turn on the Bat Signal. Cause I'm at large and have no intention to stop my "evil bigoted" ways … < MWAHAHAHAHAA !>

Perhaps your ilk is, like the violent terrorists you hate, the other true enemy of humanity?

A bit dramatic, even grandiose, don't you think ? I may be a very "bad man" in your and other's eyes here. But you certainly over estimate my ability to be the best mad ruthless villain I can be. BUT All Humanity … really ?!?!?

Agree with much you say Deales. Which is not too rare. It seems you may see things many times as I do … pragmatic and realistic.

I may be misreading you but I think you are confusing traditional Islam (conservatism) with fundamentalism in Islam.

That article doesn't really reveal much insight into difference between fundamentalism and conservativism.

And it was written at a time when Western experience with Islam was limited and before decades of Saudi and Iranian influence and destruction of socialism and secular nationalism with fall of USSR.

Conservative Islam of 2017 is not the conservative Islam of 1817 or even 1917.

It has changed and its primary "intellectual" drivers are driven by fundamentalist dogmas of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Look at their Islamic Declaration of Human Rights made in Cairo in 1990 – it's basically an affirmation of all the worst bits of Sharia.

Influence of Saudi money on general populations
"Aid" is Saudi Arabia's great weapon as it impacts directly on people on the ground.

Schools, hospitals, mosques and other facilities show benevolence of Sunni Saudis and have a direct impact on people's lives (unlike their corrupt and often secular governments).

Saudis fund these things in the West as well as wealthier non-fundamentalist states ala Indonesia.

(Obama admitted this Saudi link too in the article I referred to previously)

The impact is to reinforce fundamentalist values at grass roots level. Conservative values are reinforced and they result in disdain for modern Western concepts.

Look at mob lynchings of "heretics" and "blasphemers" in nominally democratic countries ala Pakistan and Afghanistan (and now Bangladesh).

Look at the inability of Jordan to pass "anti-honour killing laws."

The power of Imams is far more powerful than the power of governments.

So killing a Christian blasphemer or a dishonourable harlot, may be bad in the eyes of the law, it's perfectly acceptable practice in a lot of Islamic communities.

Furthermore even prior to current events, conservative Islamic practices in a lot of countries were barbaric even by early 20th century Western standards

- Honour killings
- Extremely young child brides
- Slavery
- Murder of homosexuals and atheists
- Female genital mutilation.

Some of these aren't in the Koran but are in the Haddiths or are tacit practice (just like Christmas Trees and palm fronds on Palm Sunday aren't in the Bible but are tacit Christian practices)

The Saudis and Iranians promote these hardcore Islamic values with their charities and preachers.

So yes, conservative Islam = fundamentalist Islam

Agree with much you say Deales. Which is not too rare. It seems you may see things many times as I do … pragmatic and realistic.

Yeah there's not enough of that going around these days.

And finally ISIS does represent a segment of Islamic thought – in fact it's a kind of Protestant Reformation

It goes back to the origins of Islam and attempts to recreate Mohhamad's time and life. The man went from merchant to a murderous warlord. This isn't Jesus or Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

Anyone in denial of connections between ISIS and Islam has little understanding of Islam's origins.

And ISIS is in the end just a more chaotic version of Saudi Arabia where girls are flogged for revealing their faces in public.

Deadles:

link

Cheers
Rod Robertson.

L4 – "Agree with much you say Deales. Which is not too rare. It seems you may see things many times as I do … pragmatic and realistic."

Deales – Yeah there's not enough of that going around these days.

And again, I agree very much with your most recent post Deales …

It seems some are seeing the fact that being pragmatic and realistic is a much better route than being an Ideologue. With pie-in-the sky beliefs, too many Rose colored glasses, Unicorns, "I'm OK … You're OK" etc., types …
But as you said. Very little pragmatism and realism is around it appears … sadly …

Rod,

All fine and dandy except the West is not going to do squat to create a moderate Islam.

This fits in with the "we Westerners will fix all your problems" manifesto that keeps on failing.

People forget that the Protestant Reformation was going back to a more zealous version of Christianity as opposed to the "decadent, earthly power obsessed Catholic church of the day.

That sound familiar? It should as Sunni and Shia fundamentalism are the same kind of thing – a revolt against "decadent, earthly power obsessed national, secular governments."

And the Protestant Reformation was marked by spilling of copious amounts of blood on both sides. In some places this blood spilling continued right on into the 20th century.

And Catholics and Protestant relations were strained even in many Western cultures ala Australia until 1960s!

Protestant development of human rights, individualism etc came much later.

And again you pick an article that is 13 years old – much has changed since then in case you haven't noticed.

Agree again Deadles …

Deadles:

Forum rules about discussing religions prevent me from directly responding to your points but this article sums up my position approximately.

link

and his book:

link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

youtu.be/UVNHcob3oJg

How many of you gentlemen have met a Muslim in real life?

Me ? A number primarily at my old Gym and now the Y. And some at the US ARMY Infantry Schools going thru the same training with US ARMY Officers.

Always found most of them very nice and even enjoyable to talk to. I already mentioned the nice moslem woman and her children who is very nice and we talk about all that is going on. I was impressed, she swims in full head scarf and clothing, etc., covering her completely. She moves thru the water doing laps as good as others in bathing suits.

There were 3 Brothers that were Doctors or in training to be. Had some very nice exchanges with them. Was glad to see them come in. We both learned a bit from each other.

Another gentleman was surprised about my general knowledge about the Mid East, etc., He and I had some good conversations.

The daughter of a Pakistani Cleric[IIRC], was always very nice and had a very good sense of humor, etc.

Another gent from Egypt, he didn't speak very good English, but always had a smile on his face. And we exchanged pleasantries, all the time.

Two Lebanese Americans who travelled back to Lebanon often. One was there during the 2006 conflict, IIRC. And the other was trying to be a interpreter for the FBI. We always had a good time talking about everything. Even if we always didn't agree on Israel, etc., …

Those are off the top of my head.

Where I live moslems are few. Many in the medical field. Only one or two mosques in town, IIRC. And there has never been any anti-Islamic crimes committed. My city is part of the economically failed Rust Belt. Still recovering economically … There are more important issues to work on.

Where I live, all that matters is if you a willing to go to work. However, we do have some crime in the inter-city … But that is the norm for many towns and cities. And all my LEO friends have had No problems with moslems … More like gangbangers and drug dealers.

So what is your point Weasel ? As I have said, All moslems are Not terrorists. And Daesh & AQ, etc., are not real moslems/follow the Koran, etc. according to every report I've heard or read. And those moslems that I have spoken to/interacted with directly proves that as well. They are not [or don't appear to be] terrorists, jihadis, etc., … I'm sure if I lived in a city with a larger moslem population. My observations would generally be the same.

How many moslems do you know ? Is it a contest ? What do I win ?

I am tired of reading lots of misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islam. I am a westerner, but I have studied other cultures for decades and I dislike reading absurdities and inaccuracies about them. It is the typical western approach to other cultures: biased and narrow-minded.

Have you ever heard of the World Islamic Conference in Grozny (2016)?

I'll make a brief summary:

Sunni Islam only accepts four schools of thought: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali. This is important and definitive, because there is no other possibility of understanding Sunni Islam outside these four schools.

Firstly, the main ideas of Wahhabism/Salafism (conservative Islam) are not accepted by those four schools. So, Wahhabism/Salafism is basically heretical. It is a small heretical minority financed by a small Saudi elite. It is not authentic Sunni Islam.

Secondly, ISIS rejects those four schools of thought and it does not admit them. ISIS voluntarily separates from Sunni Islam. So, ISIS is not a segment of Islamic thought. The World Islamic Conference has been clear in its conclusions: ISIS is not Sunni Islam. And, obviously, ISIS is not Shia Islam. So, ISIS is not Islam.

By the way, ‘Islamic State' is a strange concept to Islam. In fact, there is not a word in Arabic language which means such an idea. Nobody in the real Islamic community believes in that self-proclaimed caliphate. The caliphate is a sacred authority that should not be usurped by a lunatic.

And, who are those ‘Iranians'? Another absurd western concept. Do you think that Shia Islam is just a type of conservative religion? It is a nonsense that reveals a complete lack of knowledge. Shia Islam comprises many different sects and ways of thinking, including some of the deepest philosophical and spiritual doctrines ever developed. So, please, avoid simplistic comments. I recommend you reading some of the classical works by Henry Corbin about Shia Islam.

Your comment about ‘modern western concepts' is a typical example of ethnocentrism. Why should other civilizations accept those modern western concepts? They have their own culture and their own concepts. Do you think that those modern western concepts are universal patterns? Do you think that those other civilizations are barbaric and primitive? The typical colonialist thought from the XIX Century. Again, it reveals a complete lack of knowledge about other cultures, and a total lack of critical thinking as well.

Western countries are champions of hypocrisy. Maybe you prefer to call it pragmatism and realism. Do you think that western countries respect Human Rights? It depends on the convenience or the circumstances. Western countries' policies include: every kind of imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism, support to dictators, support to coups, support to criminal companies and corporations, and so on. Yes, you may consider those procedures as pragmatic and realistic policies. I prefer to call them hypocritical immoralities.

Western companies and corporations use slave workers in poor countries in order to produce cheaper goods. Pragmatism and realism, of course, because you need to buy those magnificent Nike shoes.

Western companies and corporations destroy Central Africa with the intention of extracting the minerals needed for electronic devices. Pragmatism and realism, of course, because we need to use our mobile phones and computers.

By the way, the reasons and the causes of the war in Syria are strictly economical, not religious. Major Powers use the religious matters as an instrument among others. Do you think that western countries and Russia (and others) are fighting for freedom and democracy? No, they are fighting for the strategic and economic control of that area. Please, let's be serious.

Regarding your opinions about Muhammad, the Koran and Haddiths, again we can see the same absurd ethnocentrism and the same lack of real knowledge. You must analyse other cultures without your typical western prejudices and misconceptions. Furthermore, you need to study and to read more, and to use better sources. Please, avoid the obsolete works by ignorant western pseudo-historians, plenty of ethnological and Christian prejudices.

Firstly, you should not read literally the Koran and Haddiths, using inaccurate translations. You should have knowledge about the characteristics of Arabic language and culture, and about Islamic religious symbolism. Or you have to take advice from experts and to use the adequate bibliography. Secondly, remember that other cultures have a different definition of religion, history, time, and so on. Religion is not the same thing for all cultures.

Please, avoid those childish comparisons between Muhammad, Jesus or Gandhi. It is absolutely useless. You simply do not understand the spiritual dimension of Muhammad. You erroneously use the typical western procedure of using a few disconnected historical data. If you want to understand the true nature of Muhammad in the Islamic context, you have to discover the authentic spiritual essence in Muhammad from an Islamic and Arabic point of view, without outdated western prejudices. One of the best ways to achieve this goal is reading good books on this matter, by reputed authors: Fritjof Schuon, Martin Lings, Adb-al-Haqq Bewley, Abdelmumin Aya and many others.

So, if you want to talk seriously about Islam, you have to do a lot of homework.

Wow, now I know how little I really know. The thing is, I am not so much interested in understanding Islam so much as understanding how it affects me. Can you tell me, if ISIS isn't Sunni what religious groups their support and recruits are coming from? Or are they not religious groups at all? You say "…the reasons and the causes of the war in Syria are strictly economical, not religious", what are they? What economic goals are the various groups fighting there attempting to achieve? As I understand it Islam is a decentralized religion where there isn't a single authority like the Pope. Is that wrong and the World Islamic Conference speaks for all Islam, or is the conference more an expression of desire and not fact?

Pragmatism and realism

When I use those words. I'm talking about "dealing" with radical islamic terrorism. And generally as I try to say, but some don't seem to get it. I don't care who those that are trying to do harm or kill me, my family, friends, comrades, etc., pray to. If they want to kill those like me because we believe differently than they do. I don't care if they pray to Mickey Mouse. They are deemed as my/the "enemy". I know … lack of critical thinking … (?)

I know that may be too simplistic [or just plain dumb, lack of critical thinking ] for some intellectual academic ideologues, etc. … I'd think to those Western Military personnel who were/are being shot at by some form of islamists. When that occurs, I'm sure they don't care what sect of islam they are being targeted by. Or if they are islam at all. Means 0 in a firefight, I'm pretty sure.

And, who are those ‘Iranians'?

Besides knowing they are primarily members of a number of Shia sects. That the Sunni moslems have been basically in conflict with for sometime. And it seems to be based on the two major forms of islam, the Sunni and Shia, having a different concept of same religion. And seems they will wantonly kill each other off if given the opportunity.

What more do we need to know ?

And I agree with Murvihill and Deadles posts. Two highlights, IMO :

I am not so much interested in understanding Islam so much as understanding how it affects me.

And this is the 21st century.

What Legion is getting at, if I understand him correctly, is Teddy Roosevelt's policy of "speak softly and carry a big stick." It's a carrot-and-stick approach that simply says if you leave us alone and don't cause any trouble we'll get along just fine, but if you want to poke the bear you do so at your own peril.

Thank you Sir !

Ruchel:

I will try to take an historical and sociological approach here to avoid discussing religion per se. I hope this does not stray too far into the realm of religion.

Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab were both jurists of the Hanbali madhab (tradition) and modern Islamic fundamentalism of the ISIL strain traces its roots, via Saudi influence, back to the Wahhabi and thus the Hanbali madhab. More respectable Hanbali jurists may repudiate these past excesses but on the other hand these past Hanbali jurists inspire violent fundamentalists to some extent and thus so does the Hanbali tradition. It is hard to argue that Wahhabism did not revitalise a moribund and waning Hanbali tradition between the late 18th Century and the present day. That's a matter of history.

On to sociology. What is lacking is a more widespread criticism of violence and a more widespread repudiation of juridical literalism in Islam. Qur'anic law, Haddith scholarship and morally sound Ijtihad must all function if Islam is to remain a religion of peace and progress. What could promote this is the development of a people's Ijtihad (reasoning) rather than blind reliance on the jurisprudence of scholars and jurists, some of whom have proved to be profoundly anti social zealots. A people's fiqh (jurisprudence/common sense) must arise to challenge the irresponsible ideologues among Dar al Islam's jurists and scholars. That is the challenge for modern Islam. Just as the faithful must submit to God, so the faith must submit to peace and responsible coexistence with neighbours. This is necessary if Islam is to flourish and indeed survive in a modern world where hostile forces contemplate holy war, kulturkampf and ultimately genocide/deicide as a reactionary expression of radical secularism. This will not appeal to the radicals but could divorce them from any legitimacy and thus further marginalise them, making them sociopathic mad men rather than allowing them to claim legitimacy as jurists of any caliber.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Murvihill,

Russian economic and strategic interests are clear, Syria will become Russia's puppet, including the total control of Syrian ports. Turkey, Gulf countries, Iran, Russia, and the respective allies, the western major powers, are fighting for the complete economical control of that area (oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and many other resources). And the war is a good busyness: Russia, USA, France, UK, China, are selling tons of weapons. Israel follows the classical policy: ‘divide et impera' or ‘divide et vinces', that is, divide and rule. Then, everyone put the blame on ‘religious groups' and on ‘fanatical religions', and you have the perfect plot.

But it is not a theory of conspiracy. It is the typical colonialist and imperialist procedure, the same old song, nothing new under the sun. The major powers are playing a chess game, and the different religious and ethnical groups are like chess pieces. Great Britain, France, Spain and others did the same in the past in America using the native tribes, and US as well. Great Britain did the same in India, using and promoting rivalries and conflicts between religious and ethnical groups. In Africa the western major powers followed, and follow, the same policy. So, it is not a theory of conspiracy. Sadly, it is the crude reality: pragmatism and realism.

ISIS is not Islam. What do you prefer? Do you prefer to believe in those well-financed opportunists or in the most reputed religious authorities in Islam? If I say that I am a superhero like Superman, it is unlikely that you believe me, right?

Yes, Islam is not a centralised religion. There is no established hierarchy. The Koran and Tradition (Haddiths and other sources) are the supreme authority and the nucleus of Islam. The correct interpretation is granted and secured by a long chain of wise men (Ulama, Sheikh), from the past until the present. And nowadays those wise men do exist. They participated in that World Conference, and their words are the words of Islam.

ISIS is a perversion of Islam and many muslims disavow their strict interpretation and brutal enforcement of sharia, but for a time at least they were effective in recruiting martyrs for their twisted cause and radicalizing receptive muslims abroad and inspiring them to conduct lone wolf terrorist attacks that are hard to anticipate and prevent.

This has understandably caused much Islamophobia in the western world which helped fuel the nationalist, anti-immigration tendencies we've seen with Brexit and the election of a populist American president.

Since we can't dial back the clock to 2003 and prevent the invasion of Iraq which engendered ISIS, we can only clean up the mess by destroying them utterly and completely even if we have to cooperate with unsavory allies such as Russia and Turkey.

Debugged now so-to-speak.