Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
This may be a sideline to the discussion, but something to note is that Islamic radicals are far from monolithic. When we consider the threat, we must also consider the goals and the context for each group, and not consider them as a unified whole.
First, fwiw, I share Dalyn's concern over any state or would-be state with religious doctrine at its core.
Anyway, my point is that there are divides that are sectarian and political among this wider group that some of us would prefer to put in a big basket together. Nasrallah condemned the Paris attacks. Hezbollah hates the IS. The IS subsumed the Nusra front in Syria. al-Quaeda is jealous of the IS. Going back to what I said about religion being used as an opportunistic tool to acquire power where a vacuum exists—ISIL wants a Caliphate. Presumably, that's because whatever ****heel who has risen to the top of the heap wants to be the Caliph. OBL wanted to be the king-maker in the Gulf. Shia and Sunni resistance groups arose in Iraq because they wanted to run Iraq, and wrapping themselves in Islam was a means to an end. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Quadafi were two of the most irreligious guys around, both having come to power when secular pan-Arabism was the flavor of the times, but both of them pulled the religious card when the **** hit the fan.
In our own democratic and non-violent way, we see it play out in our country, too, when the opportunity arises. In the 2004 election cycle, there were tons of ballot initiatives aimed at banning gay marriage. Was that because there was a genuine desire on the part of the guys in the smoke-filled rooms to ban gay marriage, or because they wanted to increase voter participation in a certain demographic with the purpose of getting their guy elected?
Ultimately, as scary as it is to see lone-wolf operators who are radicalized by jihadist rhetoric, it's always worth keeping in mind that the problems of politics and statecraft are never far from the surface, and those considerations are always going to inform our actions.
First, fwiw, I share Dalyn's concern over any state or would-be state with religious doctrine at its core.
Anyway, my point is that there are divides that are sectarian and political among this wider group that some of us would prefer to put in a big basket together. Nasrallah condemned the Paris attacks. Hezbollah hates the IS. The IS subsumed the Nusra front in Syria. al-Quaeda is jealous of the IS. Going back to what I said about religion being used as an opportunistic tool to acquire power where a vacuum exists—ISIL wants a Caliphate. Presumably, that's because whatever ****heel who has risen to the top of the heap wants to be the Caliph. OBL wanted to be the king-maker in the Gulf. Shia and Sunni resistance groups arose in Iraq because they wanted to run Iraq, and wrapping themselves in Islam was a means to an end. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Quadafi were two of the most irreligious guys around, both having come to power when secular pan-Arabism was the flavor of the times, but both of them pulled the religious card when the **** hit the fan.
In our own democratic and non-violent way, we see it play out in our country, too, when the opportunity arises. In the 2004 election cycle, there were tons of ballot initiatives aimed at banning gay marriage. Was that because there was a genuine desire on the part of the guys in the smoke-filled rooms to ban gay marriage, or because they wanted to increase voter participation in a certain demographic with the purpose of getting their guy elected?
Ultimately, as scary as it is to see lone-wolf operators who are radicalized by jihadist rhetoric, it's always worth keeping in mind that the problems of politics and statecraft are never far from the surface, and those considerations are always going to inform our actions.
Or just more self-righteous, huh?