There may be a debate going on, but I am right in assuming noone is on ISIS's side in here, right?!
That type of question doesn't really require a response. We may believe in "fairytales", but it doesn't make us any less moral than you. In case you're still in doubt, just scroll back a couple of pages to gauge our response.
We're all in agreement that extremism (religious, political, etc) is not acceptable, and should not be acceptable, in any society. This thread specifically focuses on Islamic extremism within the Middle East (at least it should, but it tends to drift into discussions on the evils of Islam and religions or "here is another example of an unacceptable action by a Muslim person (or group); let's use it to tarnish the religion as a whole), and though we're not solely discussing ISIS (they're not the only extremist out there) they still fit within the umbrella. If we're all condeming the actions of extremist terroist groups (of which ISIS is one), then why are we "debating"? Well, if extremism is an outcome, we're differing on the "why" it evolved, and to a lesser degree, the "how" to resolve the crisis.
What I've been trying to present (right from my first post) is an argument that explains the occurrence of extremism and religious extremism (extremism under the banner of religion) as a result of several "perfect storms" within a short period of time that has aggravated the situation;
a)Decades peppered with wars against Muslim countries (wars that might have been directed against dictators, or "terrorists" but resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians) also categorised as "
external elements",
b)Oppressive rule within Muslim countries (preventing religious freedom, or the freedom to discuss various interpretations of the religion, and imposing a specific conservative interpretation of the religion) also categorised as "
internal elements",
c)A large generation of youngsters (also known as a "
youth bulge") that are fed up, disillusioned, fed constant diets of various forms of oppression, and are ruled by an older generation that is in constant fear of a rebellion,
d)
Power vacuums within the Middle East (and previously Afghanistan) that has resulted in old grudges being revisited and enabled extremist elements to grow unopposed and without fear of retribution (i.e from the likes of Saddam),
e)A form of
indoctrination of Islam (akin to the early spread of the Catholic faith) in a form of "the less you know, the more we can tell you" which various governments have used in order to further their power hold (and this isn't neccessarily from the conservative or ultraconservative side, the likes of Mubarak in Egypt tried to stifle the religious parties for his own gains). Over the course of a generation this indoctrination can result in a Muslim society that has a "basic" level of understanding of their religion, whereby "believers" are mostly following protocol as per their "culture" without distinguishing the difference between culture and religion.
All the above elements have to be in play to create what we're now seeing in the Middle East, and what we already saw in Afghanistan. It's why I place such an emphasis on the difference between
interpreting Quranic verses and hadeeths, and
misinterpreting them. It may seem like a trivial point to make a stand on, but it makes for a fundamental difference when we're discussing solutions for the current crisis.
Barbaric backwards scum should be the only ones put to death. "Believe these fairytales or we'll kill you" makes about as much sense as some dickhead jumping off a castle on a brush trying to play Quidditch.
I'm not saying terrorists shouldn't be punished for their actions, but you realise that they're on the other side of the fence saying the
exact same thing about those opposing them. We can't answer extremism with another form of extremism, that only serves to fuel
another potential terrorist group waiting in the wings.
Turkey has a history of democracy? Lets look at the history of military coups in Turkey - 1960, 1971, 1980, 1993, 1997.
Elections have been free and fair, and military in Turkey is the weakest it has ever been. Civil government in Turkey is the strongest it has even been. Many countries have religious parties and others which are secular, and they will win or lose depending on what people want. That needs to be accepted with Islamist governments. If elections throws up a result we dont like, we want to discredit it. Like we tried to do in Iran, repeatedly undermining the electoral process, till a moderate leader was elected and now the west is happy with it.
This intervention needs to stop, let the process go on. If Erdogan oversteps his mark, people will throw him out. The commitment has got to be to the political process, not to the result. Otherwise it leads to west supporting military coups across the region to suit its foreign policy and geopolitical interests, causing more anger and frustration.
That's an excellent post, and specifically the highlighted section. It's this form of impatience to see out a process (see Egypt!) that results in political parties going on extreme sides of a debate. A country will swing from an Islamic government, to a liberal monarchy, and right back to ultra conservatism (look at how Iran's political shifts over the past century have deeply impacted the way they "follow" and interpret their religion). I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure the average Muslim (from 1.6 billion!) is slap bang in the middle of a bell curve, as opposed to being liberal or conservative. But have a look at most Muslim countries and you'll see them either having conservative governments (limiting freedoms for different levels of interpretation, or various depths of following the religion e.g Saudi), or liberal governments (limited freedoms for conservative interpretations of their religion-e.g Bangladesh). Where are all the governments that allow you to live as a Muslim as per your choice of interpration or your desire to follow the religion deeply, and without facing subsequent governmental imposed punishments.
The more these political games are played within Muslim countries, the more likely the media (or Western governents in general) are going to make a stance and declare whom they consider are suitable candidates, and terrorist groups are going to make a stance and declare their suitable candidates, and the musical chairs start all over again.
