Posted on 02/16/2015 2:38:01 PM PST by iowamark
Actually, it’s one of the most cogent articles on Islam and ISIS that I have read. Why don’t you try reading it.
If you are averse to fluff, keep your fingers in your ears—otherwise it may leak out.
Convert, Submit or Die.
Yes, but when will any editorialist adhere to both my High School and College training and state their hypothesis in the first paragraph, so we know what argument we will be getting?
Sheesh. Lexicographical diarrhea is off-putting.
ISIS wants what every follower of Islam is compelled to want, according to the Koran, complete submission of the world to Islam.
I should have read the comments first. More succinct as well.
“What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions?”
Sometimes I think they just want to be put out of their own misery.
“We do not even understand the idea.”
‘We’ who? It’s not like it’s complicated.
This was actually a very good article, because while it’s true that complete submission is what every follower of Islam wants, the author points out that the way of obtaining it is different in the minds of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
AQ attacks existing societies, attempting to get them to accept Islam and replace their existing societies with an Islamic one, while ISIS is territorial and depends on the physical possession of land (the caliphate) in order to assert its claims. Then, of course, it can expand its territory - but if it has no land, it has no credibility and no legitimacy, since it all depends on the caliphate, of which Al Baghdadi has proclaimed himself the caliph.
If you want to know the heart of the ISIS scourge, read this:
It is the Atlantic. Sheesh!
Read it. It’s still bumper sticker simple. Stuck in the 7th Century, again.
Kind of like a tribalist President I’ve heard too much about. The only positive outcome is his defeat.
Who woulda thunk the Atlantic would get anywhere near the truth? Will truth become trendy with the literary elite for any appreciable standard of time? That is the question. Calling E. Pyle.
AKA "a target-rich environmnet."
I read the article entirely and thought it was a good article.
I am an Infidel but have a Wahhabi take on Islam.
I also know what the Salafis believe, and I didn't see much difference between the two.
After reading this article I believe the difference is in strategy.
The Wahabbis want to kill us now, and the Salafis want to postpone that until they are better prepared. -Tom
Bravo.
Worldwide caliphate of right-thinking muslims. They all do.
Next quetion.
That was a good article. Thanks for posting it.
Throughout the article the author kept coming back to the fact that ISIS is indeed based entirely on Islamic text. This is not some rogue group of guys perverting Islam as our President is fond of saying. These guys are taking the literal interpretations of Islamic text and trying to bring them to the modern world.
Very interesting indeed. I wish more journalists could write so well.
The ISIS appeal is very simple. If you want to burn decent people alive, rape teenage (and pre-teen) girls (and boys), and fire really loud, destructive weapons, ISIS is for you. Pretty much it’s populated by thugs and attracting more thugs. That’s all we need to know about them, except where to find them so we can kill them all.
Inbred subhuman savages.
There are seldom any closeups of ISIS thugs. They tend to have misshapen faces, the product of generations of inbreeding. Then Islamic indoctrination turns them completely into mind-numbed zombies.
Killing them is the only solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.