I would not. The Charlie Hebdo attacks were other beer. Plotting an attack on a isolated continent is much harder than in country in which you have 10% of the population willing to at least listen to you.
To organize attack on US soil you need to traffic people trough the border, make them get supplies inside US and deal with the generally more aggressive corp sec in US than in EU.
>> To organize attack on US soil you need to traffic people trough the border, make them get supplies inside US and deal with the generally more aggressive corp sec in US than in EU.
This is an old threat that Twitter staff are aware of. Buzzfeed and the sites that link to them are doing Isis' jobs for them by broadcasting the command.
You're absolutely correct. News source uses ISIS uses news source...: the former spreads propaganda, the latter finds new stuff to fill the holes between commercials.
We also know that many people have joined ISIS because of such stories of bravado. theverge should know better.
That is called media echo-chamber. It is hard work to verify and validate the story and the sources, but its too easy to just refer the other guy in small font and link.
Their institution takes Quran literalism to a whole new level, yet ISIS is very hypocritical. Any food, clothes, house, weapon, computer they use/consume is made by their enemy. They're spoiled children who play their worst instincts off as a deeper belief.
In all likelihood, they use russian weapons, chinese computers, indian clothes and local food.
Are you expressing the inaccurate belief that everything in the world is made in your country?
What Daesh does is not wrong because of the Quran. Saying it is implicitly allows what they do if they weren't religious fundamentalists.
The biggest victims of Daesh are the countless members of the local population. This ordeal is not about America, and so it does not make Daesh hypocritical; just brutal, gruesome and totalitarian.
"Are you expressing the inaccurate belief that everything in the world is made in your country?"
This is a little passive aggressive, don't you think? ISIS' enemy is anyone that embraces western culture. I don't think Red_Tarsius was referring to any single country.
With or without Belief, their actions are wrong. Although, it is odd to see Alcoholics Anonymous going against the wine industry by drinking wine.
I'm not American (yet), their enemy is simply any country that does not accept the original Word of God, mine included. They have been making threats against Rome as well.
>Are you expressing the inaccurate belief that everything in the world is made in your country? //
They didn't mention a country. The enemies of Islam, as expressed in the Koran, are those who don't follow Mohammed's religion.
Unless all the workers creating those goods are muslims then the GP post seems accurate in that point.
I don't recall anything proscribing use of an enemies technology against them from what I've read in the Koran and Hadith however. Indeed it seems that the approach is more along the lines of anything goes provided it benefits Mohammed and his followers.
I just cant imagine what sort of upbringing could lead to a mass of people who think that murder and war are the first and best options. This is a religious war but their religion isnt islam, its violence.
Hardly even. Scholars across many schools of thought have condemned ISIS. Even the university that the leader is believed to be from has condemned him.
The religion started in the atmosphere of war. That vibe leaks out into the minds of Muslims of all kinds from moderate to the extremist even if it's indirect.
I recall being taught about the victories of Islamic conquests through the ages starting with the Muslim-Quraysh wars. In Islam, war is seen as a reality of human existence, and as a valid means to deal with perceived injustice, oppression, etc. Finally, martyrdom in Islam guarantees one into paradise...
The problem with Islam is that it's extremely malleable. You can pick and choose your sources, scholars and books and have an Islam of your own. Each one has their side, and accuses the other of taking things out of context, or having an incorrect understanding. Some Muslims make heavy use of the No true Scotsman fallacy.
The former allows one Muslim to basically slide on the scale, from a nominal Muslim to an member of ISIS. You just need someone convincing enough to show you a few prophetic traditions, sound charismatic enough and revive your faith in the religion.
>The problem with Islam is that it's extremely malleable. You can pick and choose your sources, scholars and books and have an Islam of your own. Each one has their side, and accuses the other of taking things out of context, or having an incorrect understanding. Some Muslims make heavy use of the No true Scotsman fallacy.
What religions don't have this issue? Using the most popular religion in the US, Christianity has hundreds, if not thousands, of branches that all say they have the "right" version of things, and everyone else is at least slightly wrong.
I'd say it's an argument against any/all religion, really. They can all be devolved into a message of hate and violence.
with the small print that according to their respective writings, muslim apostates or non-muslims are to be killed, while christian apostates are to be met with love and kindness (bless thy enemies, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, etc)
If you actually believe you've got instructions from and knowledge of God (in the Western sense, at least) fanatical and extreme behavior (violent or otherwise) is practically inevitable.
Like so many other things the concepts of "belief" and "faith" are watered down in common usage, but some reflection on how one might reasonably behave given (i.e. taken axiomatically) knowledge of God's nature, God's will, and eternity reveals such a state to be an awe-inspiring, terrifying thing. I find true faith to stretch the bounds of understanding, so powerful and alien it is.
It is fortunate that the majority of believers in the Western tradition so thoroughly de-claw their religions, excising or conveniently ignoring the parts that may require of them great daring or enormous sacrifice, or don't consider what true faith in matters of an eternal nature implies, or we may expect to be inundated with pauper-hermits, wild-eyed street preachers, and suicide bombers.
It would be a very strange world where your typical believer placed as little value on the things of this life as their Books suggest they should, and where matters of conversion of non-believers, proper thought and action, and obedience to God truly resonate across eternity in their minds. It's the kind of thing that can make mass-murder of the already damned entirely reasonable if it saves or protects the eternal souls of even a handful of others.
And to be clear, I don't intend to demean meeker forms of religious expression, but I think it's selling the power of religion entirely short to say that extreme, even violent behavior is somehow other and doesn't count as legitimately religious, which some seem to insist on doing (e.g. "they're not real Muslims", "they've twisted the faith", et c"). To take it a step farther I would say your average ISIS member is likely much more authentically religious—or at the very least so much more dedicated that they're almost in a different category entirely—than your average Sundays-and-Christmas Christian, for example, to the extent that comparing authenticity-peens is even valid—though if it's not then how can anyone say ISIS' expression of Islam is illegitimate?
25 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 63.4 ms ] threadTo organize attack on US soil you need to traffic people trough the border, make them get supplies inside US and deal with the generally more aggressive corp sec in US than in EU.
It's been done before.
Is "other beer" an expression in some language?
We also know that many people have joined ISIS because of such stories of bravado. theverge should know better.
Are you expressing the inaccurate belief that everything in the world is made in your country?
What Daesh does is not wrong because of the Quran. Saying it is implicitly allows what they do if they weren't religious fundamentalists.
The biggest victims of Daesh are the countless members of the local population. This ordeal is not about America, and so it does not make Daesh hypocritical; just brutal, gruesome and totalitarian.
[1] http://www.quora.com/Why-are-ISIS-militants-driving-Texas-ma...
This is a little passive aggressive, don't you think? ISIS' enemy is anyone that embraces western culture. I don't think Red_Tarsius was referring to any single country.
russians, chinese, indians, and even muslims are all tagged as IS enemies if they don't subscribe to their particular view of the world
I'm not American (yet), their enemy is simply any country that does not accept the original Word of God, mine included. They have been making threats against Rome as well.
They didn't mention a country. The enemies of Islam, as expressed in the Koran, are those who don't follow Mohammed's religion.
Unless all the workers creating those goods are muslims then the GP post seems accurate in that point.
I don't recall anything proscribing use of an enemies technology against them from what I've read in the Koran and Hadith however. Indeed it seems that the approach is more along the lines of anything goes provided it benefits Mohammed and his followers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5717157
http://wartard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-idea-of-isis-histo...
http://wartard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-west-v-isis-air-st...
You will also find the new adam curtis film, Bitter Lake, informative.
TL;DR its not just to do with religion, its to do with history, and a lot of stuff.
I recall being taught about the victories of Islamic conquests through the ages starting with the Muslim-Quraysh wars. In Islam, war is seen as a reality of human existence, and as a valid means to deal with perceived injustice, oppression, etc. Finally, martyrdom in Islam guarantees one into paradise...
The problem with Islam is that it's extremely malleable. You can pick and choose your sources, scholars and books and have an Islam of your own. Each one has their side, and accuses the other of taking things out of context, or having an incorrect understanding. Some Muslims make heavy use of the No true Scotsman fallacy.
The former allows one Muslim to basically slide on the scale, from a nominal Muslim to an member of ISIS. You just need someone convincing enough to show you a few prophetic traditions, sound charismatic enough and revive your faith in the religion.
What religions don't have this issue? Using the most popular religion in the US, Christianity has hundreds, if not thousands, of branches that all say they have the "right" version of things, and everyone else is at least slightly wrong.
I'd say it's an argument against any/all religion, really. They can all be devolved into a message of hate and violence.
Like so many other things the concepts of "belief" and "faith" are watered down in common usage, but some reflection on how one might reasonably behave given (i.e. taken axiomatically) knowledge of God's nature, God's will, and eternity reveals such a state to be an awe-inspiring, terrifying thing. I find true faith to stretch the bounds of understanding, so powerful and alien it is.
It is fortunate that the majority of believers in the Western tradition so thoroughly de-claw their religions, excising or conveniently ignoring the parts that may require of them great daring or enormous sacrifice, or don't consider what true faith in matters of an eternal nature implies, or we may expect to be inundated with pauper-hermits, wild-eyed street preachers, and suicide bombers.
It would be a very strange world where your typical believer placed as little value on the things of this life as their Books suggest they should, and where matters of conversion of non-believers, proper thought and action, and obedience to God truly resonate across eternity in their minds. It's the kind of thing that can make mass-murder of the already damned entirely reasonable if it saves or protects the eternal souls of even a handful of others.
[EDIT] See also Kierkegaard's Knight of the Faith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_of_faith
And to be clear, I don't intend to demean meeker forms of religious expression, but I think it's selling the power of religion entirely short to say that extreme, even violent behavior is somehow other and doesn't count as legitimately religious, which some seem to insist on doing (e.g. "they're not real Muslims", "they've twisted the faith", et c"). To take it a step farther I would say your average ISIS member is likely much more authentically religious—or at the very least so much more dedicated that they're almost in a different category entirely—than your average Sundays-and-Christmas Christian, for example, to the extent that comparing authenticity-peens is even valid—though if it's not then how can anyone say ISIS' expression of Islam is illegitimate?