Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 11:45 PM Jul 2014

The logic of violence in the Islamic State’s war

---

What should we make out of all this? I would like to stress three points. First, violence is not a transparent process and we should be careful about drawing easy conclusions from what transpires from the fog of the civil war battlefield. Second, there is nothing particularly Islamic or jihadi about the organization’s violence. The practices described above have been used by a variety of insurgent (and also incumbent) actors in civil wars across time and space. Therefore, easy cultural interpretations should be challenged. Third, if the Islamic State ought to be characterized, it would be as a revolutionary (or radical) insurgent actor. These groups project a goal of radical political and social change; they are composed of a highly motivated core, recruit using ideological messages (although not all their recruits or collaborators are ideologically motivated – far from it) and tend to invest heavily in the indoctrination of their followers. They tend to prevail over their less effectively organized insurgent rivals (see the examples of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka), but their Achilles heel lies in their radical proclivities which often turn local populations against them if the opportunity arises, as happened in Iraq with al-Qaeda in Iraq. Revolutionary groups can appropriate a variety of other causes (nationalism, ethnic or sectarian identities), but their revolutionary identity is central and helps make sense of much of their activity. In that respect, we have much to learn from revisiting the action and strategy of the last generation of insurgent revolutionary actors, those of the Cold War.

In short, analyzing the Islamic State as a revolutionary actor that happens to be Islamist is a much more promising avenue of interpretation than seeing it as either simply an Islamist actor or a sectarian one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/07/the-logic-of-violence-in-islamic-states-war/

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The logic of violence in the Islamic State’s war (Original Post) bemildred Jul 2014 OP
An alternate name for them should be adopted ASAP. Loudly Jul 2014 #1
Seems unlikely to work to me. bemildred Jul 2014 #2
Have you ever referred to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers? Loudly Jul 2014 #3
An excellent point discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2014 #6
I hold myself in higher esteem. If we don't have standards, who will? nt bemildred Jul 2014 #7
Why is there violence on the soil of Sacred Islamic Holy Lands? Unca Adverse Jul 2014 #4
Wow. So many statements. So incredibly many of them false... ConservativeDemocrat Jul 2014 #5
Wow. To Dubya's deputy . . . Unca Adverse Jul 2014 #8
A dire need to know . . . Unca Adverse Jul 2014 #9
 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
1. An alternate name for them should be adopted ASAP.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:06 AM
Jul 2014

No way should their hubris be acceded to.

Refer to them in some other manner which can become recognizable as refusal to accept and protest of their impudent hijacking.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
2. Seems unlikely to work to me.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:12 AM
Jul 2014

a.) They don't care what we think. The more we rage, the better they will like it.

b.) It would be confusing if everybody did not agree, and it seems unlikely that we can agree on something other than what they chose for themselves. And we are confused enough already.

c.) It's juvenile. We need to act better than them, not get down to their level.

 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
3. Have you ever referred to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers?
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:31 AM
Jul 2014

Do you hold ISIS in higher or lower esteem?

Unca Adverse

(29 posts)
4. Why is there violence on the soil of Sacred Islamic Holy Lands?
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 01:02 AM
Jul 2014

During the nine year Soviet War in Afghanistan brave Muslims from many lands flocked there to aid in defending this
Islamic Holy Land from its infidel invaders, and they were hailed by the western world as true freedom fighters.
America and its allies gave them billions of dollars, military training, equipment and weapons.

Nowadays, due to a perverse figment of the imagination created by the war criminal Dubya and his vile conspirators,
they have falsely been dubbed "Terrorists", supposedly participating in a so-called "War on Terror" (Dubya, 09/20/2001).

This is a false terminology contrived by them to hide their greedy capitalist attempts to steal oil by instigating illegal wars
of aggression against the oil-rich Middle Eastern lands and their many innocent men, women, and children.
They have even gone so far as to illegally intervene in "The War in Afghanistan", for not one Afghan (nor Iraqi, for that matter) ever attacked America, nor even dreamed of doing so . . .

To be sure they have managed to form up whole armies of Muslim fighters and have trained, drilled, and equipped them
with billions of dollars worth of modern weapons . . . yet they have failed miserably to win their hearts and minds, for there are scant apostates in such awesome ranks. Even now they gladly hand over their weapons and join their Muslim brethren!

The world shall soon witness the last infidel soldier being driven from the soil of Sacred Islamic Holy Lands; and there
again shall Sharia Law yet prevail.

For permission was so given . . .
"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they have been wronged; - and verily,
Allah is most powerful for their aid." - (Al Qu'ran 22:39)

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
5. Wow. So many statements. So incredibly many of them false...
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 02:31 AM
Jul 2014

1. Afghanistan is not "Islamic Holy Land". That would be Mecca. Also Jerusalem. And a couple of other places.

2. The Jihadists weren't "falsely" dubbed Terrorists. They actually did start engaging in terrorism. 9/11. Look it up.

3. The whole "steal oil" business out of "Afghanistan" is false. There are no oil fields in Afghanistan.

4. The claim that "not one Afghan attacked America" is false. Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban, was buried up to his eyeballs in the 9/11 plot.

5. The "failure to win hearts and minds" of murderous misogynistic thugs who are hiding in Pakistan isn't particularly up for dispute. However, for Afghanistan, there has been a peaceful election that the Taliban tried to stop - with a greater participation rate than the U.S., proving that the Afghanis, nearly all of whom are Muslim, are sick to death of these people.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Unca Adverse

(29 posts)
8. Wow. To Dubya's deputy . . .
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 05:05 PM
Jul 2014

1. Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic. Is it not surprising that some use a Judeo-Christian interpretation
of the term "Holy Land"? Although "Holy Land" is used in the Qu'ran only once, yet there are many people/beliefs
who have a holy land. Islamists have used such terminology for hundreds of years . . . so have Popes.
"How this monstrosity came to be imposed on such a holy land of Islam is a story that needs to be told in detail."
- the previous being a quote from Osama bin Laden

2. Osama bin Laden, founder of the extremist militant organization al-Qaeda, whom some deign to designate
a "terrorist", was highly incensed that during the height of the 1991 Gulf War some 550,000 American and coalition
troops were based in the Saudi desert. In 1998 he and other militant leaders issued a fatwa against the United States
and its citizens.
http://worldnews.about.com/od/terrorism/qt/Osama-Bin-Ladens-1998-Fatwa.htm

3. Although Afghanistan is strategically located, its production of oil is miniscule. I have never stated otherwise . . .

4. Mullah Omar never participated in the 911 Twin Towers attack, nor was he even a signatory to Osama bin Laden's
1998 fatwa. Be that aside, ANY Afghan leaders, good, bad, or indifferent, are no longer relative; for the innocent,
peace loving peoples of Afghanistan have only to wait a year or two, and there country will be restored to them!

5. The terminology of your final repost identifies one who is an avowed enemy of all the many billions of peace loving
Muslims the whole world over.

An addendum: Please purchase a copy of the Qu'ran and study it as attentively as I have . . .

Unca Adverse

(29 posts)
9. A dire need to know . . .
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:48 PM
Jul 2014

The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. Fifteen of the nineteen
were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.
None of them came from countries on the State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism list",
and not one single Afghan or Iraqi was a participant.
How abysmally ignorant it is for someone to be so totally unaware of salient factors such as these . . .

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The logic of violence in ...