Is Kelley Right in his article "The Face of Evil is ISIS"
Kelley substantially states the same arguments made by the neocons and standard conservatives, to wit: the Muslims hate us because of our culture. But, could this be wrong? Is there at least one other motive which drives the Muslims even more than that the standard answer? For example, about 90% of the “bad guys” have said the motivation is the Western World putting their noses under the Muslim Tents. So, if the West simply left them alone to live on dirt floors, would they withdraw with this fight against West go back to happily doing something else, like fighting among themselves? Ron Paul (and others) makes a good case for this position.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
When all but two of the FBI's top 100 terrorist groups is Islamic, I'm not going to ignore that. I'm not going to ignore the history that since its inception sometime around 800 AD, Islam has been a religious cult bent on enslavement of others. To think that this somehow is a result of the Western World is naive.
they live on dirt floors now, they have been living on dirt floors since their inception. you can't leave them alone at this moment in time because they have been fueled by us in the western world so they are trying to make us like them or just kill us. therefore, the best approach is to liquidate them, that is the purpose of atomic bombs. but the so called world leaders are a spineless lot and chose to do nothing other than talk! could it be that these so called world leaders are on the islamic payroll?
Your forgetting the very basic thing that determines the action of human like entities: Conscience...those that have and those that have not. Those that have not are not, essentially...Consciously Human, whether or not they chose to be or not. What prevents them from "Being"?... culture, education, politics, laws, religion and possibly...genetics or other sicknesses, physiologically or psychologically. In the case of islamic islamism...it's largely that religion...that religion teaches this sickness and is perpetuated in culture, politics and laws...but if we go back far enough, I think we'd see that it has it's genetic basis as well.
Then came The oil industry and Henry Kissinger, aside from a deal for these resources there was probably the thought that this might be a way to bring Arabs and Muslims into the 20th century...this deal in itself had little to do with today's situation except that they now would have economies that would allow for a push for the Caliphate.
But lets go back to the founding of our country...almost at the very same time, muslims started attacking French ships with American goods and the demand for Blackmail payments.
Later when Jefferson investigated it was found that the muslims were ideologically predisposed to hate America...and probably the rest of the world as well...hence our direct intervention.
Now I have looked at the Quran and it's 109 subversive commandments to do harm to each other and others, not to mention the fascist like insistence rhetoric to convert everyone...lost count after 500 versus.
Muslims...whom are Islamist by mysticism, by law and politics has NEVER been a ideology of peace and cooperation.
Now, had the world ignored them there is only a slight chance they would have been happy to fight among themselves in a pagan bicameral barbaric society.
I think that once one side or the other won and took hold...they would still set their sites upon the rest of the world according to their mysticism's.
That's my informed opinion and I'm sticking to it, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Is this the primary motivation of the leaders of ISIS, who instill it into their cadres? I think it is one motivation because ISIS is fundamentalist Islam, the ideological child of Islamic strains such as Wahabism, which dominates religion in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, throughout Arabic Islam, there is a fundamentalist upsurge. And religion, viewed fundamentally, is everywhere and always threatened by human success and happiness on this world.
What I ask myself, and so far it is a speculation, is what motivated the original, powerful, thrusting spread of Islam in the Seventh Century--you can't get more fundamentalist than that. Or can you? To accept all of the original tenets of Islam in the 21st Century implies a very different level of evasion than it did in the 7th Century. What motivated the Arab armies that charged across North Africa and into Iberia, sweeping all before it, was a conviction of spreading the truth and salvation. I do not discount that looting and sex slavery motivated the specific troops.
And yet, Wahabism and related variants of Islam have long existed in Arabia, arguably as fundamental as ISIS but without its central focus on attacking the West. If ISIS espouses the same variant of Islam as Wahabism, then what is different? Why are the cadres of ISIS mad dogs frothing with hatred for Western reason, material success and enjoyment, freedom of women and sexual enjoyment--in a word: the modern world of man at home on Earth?
I would suggest only that we consider the nature of terrorism as a tactic. Modern terrorism originated in the Middle East--indeed, British historian Paul Johnson identifies its beginning with the emerging Jewish state and its struggle to drive Britain out of Palestine.
Later, terrorism was manifested in the struggle in Algeria against the French presence. Today, it is rampant in Hamas, which kills more Palestinian
"collaborators" with Israel than the Israelis kill in suppressing rebellion.
A key is to understanding how "fundamentalists," "radicals," hardliners" use terrorism. The goal of terror tactics everywhere is to destroy the moderate leaders--murder or silence them, as does Hamas--and to radicalize the population, sway them toward radical opposition.
It is possible that the Islamic fundamentalists, radicals, of ISIS are acting on the logic of terrorism, which is to provoke the liberal, tolerant rulers of a country like France or Belgium into attacking, isolating, and alienating their moderate, peaceful Muslim citizens. In other words, to use horrific bombings to terrorize a population, forcing the state to repress all Muslims and so to convince them that their fundamentalists are their only recourse and represent their best interests.
This terrorist tactic is not inconsistent with the motivation of fundamental Islam to strike out at the worldly West. But the targeting at European states with large Muslim populations, and the specific tactic of terrorizing purely civilian populations, is so typical of the dynamics of terrorism that we cannot ignore that explanation.
The true hatred of the fundamentalist is directed at those of their own religion who live their lives in peace and enjoyment, aware of the "great cause" by unmoved by it. If Europe can be terrorized into disrupting that live of the Muslim moderates, then the cadres of the faithful, of ISIS, will grow.
I reject the premise that it's about religion. I think it's about reason vs lack of reason. Here is a good post on that: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
"if the West simply left them alone to live on dirt floors, would they withdraw with this fight"
Maybe, but I still think there were be unhinged mass murderers in the world, and occasionally they'll act in a way that affects a city you or I know. We want an extraordinary cause to attach to the extraordinary sorrow. We're tempted to blame it on guns, religion, or poverty, not the uncomfortable answer that mass murder is a human behavior that crops up. Maybe we'll find away to stop it. It's not as simple as blaming it on religion.
The Daily Show explained it this comical way:
John Oliver: When you’re a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you have left is the dick one.
Jon Stewart: When will these mother$#@&ers go away?
John Oliver: They probably won’t, there have always been mother$#@&ers, there will always be motherfuckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our mother$#@&ing lives.