What to make of ISIS/ISIL? [Archive]

View Full Version : What to make of ISIS/ISIL?

SocialismBeta

7th October 2015, 02:32

The first bone-fie socialist perspective I found on ISIS, was the socialistworld(.net) article "ISIS: Capitalist slighter in Iraq and Syria":

[I would post the link, but this website has an annoying restriction on that, I need to post 14 more posts to do that. So you will have to google it]

I do find this argument interesting and plausible. But I am on the fence about describing ISIS as a "corporation" or "capital" in the traditional sense of either word.

Guardia Rossa

7th October 2015, 02:53

I think it is (To put it shortly) a neo-eka/pseudo-fascist ultra-nationalist pan-islamic organization.

But, I'm a newbie. So whatever.

EDIT: Not pan-islamic.

Synergy

7th October 2015, 03:23

I think it is (To put it shortly) a neo-eka/pseudo-fascist ultra-nationalist pan-islamic organization.

That's quite a mouthful.

At the very least they're linked to capitalist interests since the U.S. supplies them with arms to keep the military industrial complex going.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

7th October 2015, 04:47

A CIA front, to judge by how angry the US is over Russia bombing ISIS.

ComradeAllende

7th October 2015, 05:32

Judging from general reporting (however inaccurate), ISIS appears to be an Islamic fundamentalist movement attempting to reestablish the old Umayyad Caliphate in the Middle East and North Africa (and possibly sub-Saharan Africa, given their "alliance" with Boko Haram). Many of its leaders seem to be former Ba'athists, and I did recall an article from Der Spiegel that claimed that ISIS was merely a front for former Ba'athists to retake control of Iraq. Either way, the movement itself is an extremely militant mutation of Wahhabi Sunni Islam and was formed by a merger of various fundamentalist Islamic groups (including an affiliate of al-Qaeda) in the political/social vacuum of the post-Hussein years. It has little to do with capitalism and more to do with Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism and the feudal mode of production (if anything).

A CIA front, to judge by how angry the US is over Russia bombing ISIS.

You sound just like my father; an embittered anti-imperialist who rightfully articulates the connection between the US and ISIS yet does so by invoking conspiracy theories. If ISIS was a CIA front, who the hell is this so-called coalition bombing? And why would the US (implicitly) side with Assad in fighting a CIA front? It's more plausible that the US is eager to replace the Iranian/Russian-backed dictator in Syria with an American regime (democratic or otherwise) and is angry at Russia meddling in what was perceived to be a quasi-NATO operation.

khad

7th October 2015, 11:57

A CIA front, to judge by how angry the US is over Russia bombing ISIS.
You know, of all the opposition actors and their international backers, ISIS has been pretty unique in that they aren't complaining about the Russian air strikes.

Many of its leaders seem to be former Ba'athists, and I did recall an article from Der Spiegel that claimed that ISIS was merely a front for former Ba'athists to retake control of Iraq. Either way, the movement itself is an extremely militant mutation of Wahhabi Sunni Islam and was formed by a merger of various fundamentalist Islamic groups (including an affiliate of al-Qaeda) in the political/social vacuum of the post-Hussein years. It has little to do with capitalism and more to do with Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism and the feudal mode of production (if anything).
Most of the old guard Ba'athists, including former vice president Izzat al-Douri, are in the Naqshbandi Army, an organization that had a brief tactical pact with ISIS during the Mosul takeover but has usually been on the receiving end of ISIS repression. From 6 months ago:

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/565091-isis-executes-baathist-officers

“A large number of ISIS members carried out the execution of a number of Naqshbandiyah Order commanders and members in eastern Mosul’s Sumer and Al-Nour neighborhoods,” a source in the Ninevah province told Iraq’s Sumaria News on Monday.

“ISIS carried out the executions after the Naqshbandiyah Order tried to plan attacks against the group,” the source added.

The official website of the Naqshbandiyah Order, also known by its acronym JRTN, makes no reference to the alleged executions, with its latest statement on March 26 praising the beginning of the Saudi-led military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen.

However, ISIS’s alleged Mosul executions are not the first instance of infighting between the militant group and its Baathist allies in Iraq.

In June 2014, fighting erupted between ISIS and JRTN in Kirkuk’s Hawija, amid contradictory reports over the cause of the clash.

A security source told AFP the fighting began after “JRTN fighters had refused an ISIS demand to give up their weapons and pledge allegiance to the jihadist force.”

A separate explanation was also provided by witnesses, who told the agency that the clashes had broken out after a dispute over who was allowed to impound fuel tankers in the area.The ISIS-as-Ba'athist narrative from the western media holds about as much water as the "moderate Al-Qaeda" hypothesis. The so-called Sunni marginalization narrative for Iraq is also a media-fabricated fantasy: https://medium.com/@IraqiSecurity/the-fantasy-of-sectarian-repression-in-iraq-ad8385e7586c

Indeed, when closely examining the Shia situation in Iraq, one quickly finds that it suffers at best in proportion, and at worst more, than non-Shia Iraq. The province with the least human development index in the country?—?a full 0.011 points less than Nineveh?—?is the Shia-majority province of Muthanna. How can one argue Iraq has a Shia government, or a Shia-led government, or a Shia-dominated government, if it is Shia that experience the least amount of development under it? Using the parallels to America, it is again similar to arguing that African-Americans have it better than everyone else, and using Obama being President as proof. It comes off as ridiculous when looked at from this perspective, and it is similarly ridiculous when viewed in the context of Iraq.

Looking towards Iraq’s government under Maliki, Sunni politicians held just under 50% of the ministries, had significant power in all areas of the democratic process, and direct management of almost half of the different areas of the federal government. This is only focusing on the federal government, because if we look towards Sunni-majority provinces and focus on their local governments we almost always find a Sunni representative elected. Where do Shia come into play in this case? With this in mind, phrases like “Shia-dominated” or “Shia government” not only sounds absurd, but those who use such phrases are almost intentionally being misleading about the realities of the Iraqi government.

khad

7th October 2015, 12:21

Also, with regards to the OP's article, the CWI is mostly off-base when talking about the influence of moneyed Saudi elites - documents seized seem to suggest that the vast, vast majority of the Islamic State's operating funds come from local taxes and smuggling operations. Bear in mind that the Syrian government is still paying the salaries of government and related employees trapped behind enemy lines. Iraq just abandoned this practice last week.

However, they are correct that the Islamic State is a capitalist organization through and through. If you watch their documentary on the gold dinar, they have a typical neoclassical metallist view on the origin of money (there's a circular theological argument that this ties into, which for the sake of brevity I won't address here), and they borrow heavily from libertarian conspiracist literature. Ron Paul is even quoted at one point.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

7th October 2015, 13:59

You sound just like my father; an embittered anti-imperialist who rightfully articulates the connection between the US and ISIS yet does so by invoking conspiracy theories.
I was actually being a bit tongue in cheek there. I knew I should have used a smiley.

Guardia Rossa

7th October 2015, 16:02

That's quite a mouthful.

Considering it shares many traits with nazifascism, including the paradox of the ideological ideal of return to the "feudal" Islamic Caliphate, and at the same time being a active modernist project, the almost-confused pan-nationalism, the totalitarianism (Religious, and not ideological, in this case [Even if Islam takes the role of ideology in middle east, again in my view of the matter]) it makes sense to me. I, of course, await someone to actively criticize my analysis.

Emmett Till

7th October 2015, 19:52

Considering it shares many traits with nazifascism, including the paradox of the ideological ideal of return to the "feudal" Islamic Caliphate, and at the same time being a active modernist project, the almost-confused pan-nationalism, the totalitarianism (Religious, and not ideological, in this case [Even if Islam takes the role of ideology in middle east, again in my view of the matter]) it makes sense to me. I, of course, await someone to actively criticize my analysis.

Fascism is a modern capitalist phenomenon, the mobilization of the petty bourgeoisie to smash the working class in response usually to working class insurgency. Its ideology is nationalism, the basic capitalist ideology, pushed to extremes.

ISIS is a non-nationalist religious movement which ideologically seeks to go back to the glory days of Islam, the caliphates. An entirely different kettle of fish from fascism. As it exists in a capitalist era, naturally it tries to fund itself through capitalist methods, but it isn't any more capitalistic than anything else in the region.

As the working class unfortunately has been conspicuous by its absence as an active force in Iraq and Syria and the other places it has started popping up, seeing ISIS as in any way a fascist-style counterresponse to working class insurgency is simply wrong.

Its social base can probably be described as petty bourgeois, but that is true for pretty much all significant popular movements in that part of the world lately. ISIS is certainly totalitarian, but all religious movements are by nature totalitarian to one degree or another, whether you are talking about ISIS or the Mormons or, for that matter, America's Puritan New England forefathers, thoroughly totalitarian communities, albeit arguably a more benign totalitarianism than most.

Unless of course you were a Quaker, a Baptist or an alleged witch.

So what is ISIS? It's a ruthless revenge movement, seeking the bloodiest possible revenge for the oppression against Sunnis in Iraq and Syria committed by Assad, the Shi'ite US/Iranian puppet regime in Iraq and, of course, US imperialism. It is essentially a renaming of "Al Quaida in Iraq," the only component of the Sunni wing of the Iraq resistance movement to US imperialism that did not capitulate to US imperialism in the so-called "Awakening."

Comrade Jacob

11th October 2015, 19:24

SocialismBeta

12th October 2015, 08:00

It's so obviously backed by the US to topple the Assad regime. They don't want to destroy ISIS, they want to control them. They were "bombing" them for months and did nothing to them, Russia bombs them and after a week they are crumbling in Syria.

I personally am attracted to the theory that the US is actually really, really dumb... and it's leaders kept waging war in the middle east (with the working class as cannon fodder, of course) without any long-term foresight, picking "allies" as they go to.

...Anyway, I would appreciate at least some proof of what you say. Sure, the US has a track record of supporting militants like pawns, but ISIS is not exactly friendly to US capital or really any US interests. Keep in mind that ISIS would likely have the destruction of Israel on it's agenda (if it does not already).

The US seeks allies, allies that will weaken their enemies, like any rational hegemonic actor. It is not clear that ISIS is a good tool for this at all. At least Assad is a controllable entity, a rational actor in it's own self-interest. ISIS? An Apocalyptic cult. It would make more sense the other way around don't you think?

Of course it is more complex otherwise that would be the case... which is why I am not convinced by your story.

ZrianKobani

12th October 2015, 08:40

Atsumari

12th October 2015, 20:22

Hatshepsut

13th October 2015, 14:06

At the very least they're linked to capitalist interests since the U.S. supplies them [ISIS] with arms to keep the military industrial complex going.

Is there evidence of that? Because I doubt it's true. The USA cares about ISIS only insofar as it might threaten U.S. interests or saw off American heads; unlike al-Qaeda this has been largely a "stay-at-home" caliphate with consequent lack of top U.S. priority. We've launched quite a few airstrikes against it to show we're not on its side, but otherwise don't seem to care that much about them. A serious military commitment, with boots on the ground, will follow only if ISIS threatens the flow of oil or attempts terrorist attacks against Western soft targets. Although the Obama Administration is against Bashar Assad, we haven't done too much to unseat him—even when he crossed the "red line" with chemical weapons. We certainly won't back ISIS to do so. Thing is, Syria doesn't have oil, and it's not in position to attack Israel. Hence it could almost be on the moon.

These things aside, the U.S. arms corporations don't need ISIS to keep business going. What we see instead is pure negligence: As we pulled out of Iraq, we just left a bunch of Humvees and other equipment behind in the sand. So the fighters picked them up.

TheEmancipator

13th October 2015, 22:44

Daesh is a gang, pure and simple. Their tactics are those of a gang, their organization is like that of a gang, and only gangs do to their own men what Daesh has done to theirs. There is no analysis to be made except for how to eliminate them in a manner beneficial to the region.

The debate over ISIS has at its heart the debate over anti-fascism/anti-racism and whether the working classes should collaborate with liberals, conservatives, soc dems , etc to eliminate an alien, non-class conscious movement. Alternatively, should the anticapitalist Left merely treat ISIS as a product of global capitalism, and denounce any intervention as merely illusion of anti-fascism in order to legitimise a world order that facilitates the rise of a movement such as ISIS.

There is a debate to be had, they've been having this debate since the Spanish Civil War. There are probably more people on this board in favour of non-intervention. Some members of the Maoist cults openly legitimise IS in the same way they did with Iran and Jucheist Korea, as ''bastions of anti-imperialism'' against ''Amerikkka''.

PolPot95

15th October 2015, 13:51

Isis was created and financed by the US, the Bankers, Israel....The Capitalists, to sell weapons, weaken the Middle east, and to put the bases of a 3rd World War.....War is a business....

Emmett Till

16th October 2015, 04:03

Isis was created and financed by the US, the Bankers, Israel....The Capitalists, to sell weapons, weaken the Middle east, and to put the bases of a 3rd World War.....War is a business....

Any evidence for that assertion?

Naturally, it is convenient for leftists to imagine that ISIS are CIA puppets, as otherwise if they support the Kurds (not even to speak of US bombs and drones) vs. ISIS they are in bed with US imperialism. But wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.

It is true that the US indiscriminately dumped US aid on any and all opposition to Assad a couple years ago, and quite a lot of the "moderate Muslims" who took the aid ended up with ISIS, taking presents from Uncle Sam with them. But that just shows that imperialists are not always as clever as they think they are.

And in Iraq, any notion that ISIS in Iraq ever got any support whatsoever from the US is just plain delusional. The rise of IS has been disastrous for US interests in Iraq, throwing the US puppet regime into the hands of first Iran and now Putin.

Hopefully the Syrian Kurds will cut their ties with the US and jump on the Putin bandwagon, if for no other reason than that Putin's star is on the rise in the Middle East and Obama's is falling. Opportunism has its uses sometimes.

Putin is a right wing capitalist nationalist, but Russia just isn't an imperial power, it exports raw materials and imports capital instead of exporting capital per the mode Lenin explained. So it has no reason for conquest really. That's because Russian capitalism arose on the basis of the collapse of the USSR, and is a bit different from that of other capitalist powers.

So spreading Russian influence in the Middle East is not a particularly good thing, but neither is it really a bad thing, and if it queers US imperial pursuits, I say mazeltov. Compared to the Islamic fundamentalists of various stripes dominating the region now, Putin is a feminist crusader for gay rights.

Aslan

16th October 2015, 04:29

ISIL has been proven to be funded by a few rouge Saudi princes and gulf emirs.

Soviet Aggression

16th October 2015, 05:50

Is there evidence of that? Because I doubt it's true. The USA cares about ISIS only insofar as it might threaten U.S. interests or saw off American heads; unlike al-Qaeda this has been largely a "stay-at-home" caliphate with consequent lack of top U.S. priority. We've launched quite a few airstrikes against it to show we're not on its side, but otherwise don't seem to care that much about them. A serious military commitment, with boots on the ground, will follow only if ISIS threatens the flow of oil or attempts terrorist attacks against Western soft targets. Although the Obama Administration is against Bashar Assad, we haven't done too much to unseat him—even when he crossed the "red line" with chemical weapons. We certainly won't back ISIS to do so. Thing is, Syria doesn't have oil, and it's not in position to attack Israel. Hence it could almost be on the moon.

These things aside, the U.S. arms corporations don't need ISIS to keep business going. What we see instead is pure negligence: As we pulled out of Iraq, we just left a bunch of Humvees and other equipment behind in the sand. So the fighters picked them up.

You'd be very hard pressed to get any solidified proof of the funding apparatus behind these pan-Islamic reactionary groups. It's there, though. No way these oxygen thieves can operate without an umbrella source of funding to keep them afloat. Now, the source of these funding operations I won't even begin to speculate on. Who the fuck knows, in that regard. Point is, scattered arms dropped by the Iraqi military can only get you so far.

Pure negligence is one thing I will agree that helped bolster this group in its armament supply. That, and the 'moderate' rebels who defected en masse after receiving their airdropped munitions. The area of operation in Syria is such a complex state of affairs. My sympathies lie with its people, and its people alone.

Antiochus

16th October 2015, 06:27

How can one argue Iraq has a Shia government, or a Shia-led government, or a Shia-dominated government, if it is Shia that experience the least amount of development under it? Using the parallels to America, it is again similar to arguing that African-Americans have it better than everyone else, and using Obama being President as proof. It comes off as ridiculous when looked at from this perspective, and it is similarly ridiculous when viewed in the context of Iraq.

A media fabricated story? You are fucking delusional lol. The Dawa is EXPLICITLY a Shia party. Your little analogy to Blacks and the Democrats might hold ground if the Democratic party were an explicitly "Black" party, dominated by African Americans and so forth, it is not. Not to mention its very explicit ties to Iran and its support for the theocracy there.

Most of the development problems Southern Iraq has are the result of the Saddam era. That doesn't change the fact that the security forces of Iraq were dominated by Shias and there are strong links between paramilitary Shia forces (like the Badr Brigade) with the army.

Hopefully the Syrian Kurds will cut their ties with the US and jump on the Putin bandwagon, if for no other reason than that Putin's star is on the rise in the Middle East and Obama's is falling. Opportunism has its uses sometimes.

Not likely to happen. Assad will not grant Kurds in Syria autonomy. Russia does not care about the little stretch of land the Kurds have, they care about Lataika and the strategic location of Syria in the wider ME.

TheEmancipator

16th October 2015, 07:40

Isis was created and financed by the US, the Bankers, Israel....The Capitalists, to sell weapons, weaken the Middle east, and to put the bases of a 3rd World War.....War is a business....

Well the selling of arms I can agree on, but to outright say that the US created ISIS when they had spent millions trying to get what are essentially the same people (Al-Baghdadi, the Ba'athists) out of government only to see ISIS and the Ba'athist remnants overrun Mosul is absurd. The factor in the massive amounts of money spent on 'nation building' in iraq, wrecked by ISIS. And the fact that the US's main 'new buddies' in the FSA have been totally usurped by ISIS.

Honestly, the US has no interest in seeing ISIS develop further.

ZrianKobani

17th October 2015, 09:58

The debate over ISIS has at its heart the debate over anti-fascism/anti-racism and whether the working classes should collaborate with liberals, conservatives, soc dems , etc to eliminate an alien, non-class conscious movement. Alternatively, should the anticapitalist Left merely treat ISIS as a product of global capitalism, and denounce any intervention as merely illusion of anti-fascism in order to legitimise a world order that facilitates the rise of a movement such as ISIS.

There is a debate to be had, they've been having this debate since the Spanish Civil War. There are probably more people on this board in favour of non-intervention. Some members of the Maoist cults openly legitimise IS in the same way they did with Iran and Jucheist Korea, as ''bastions of anti-imperialism'' against ''Amerikkka''.

I'm against certain intervention; I don't want foreign governments sending troops and trying to direct the war for personal gain. There are a plethora of ways one can go and do something personally for the war-effort against Daesh, all it takes is the courage. Thousands have already gone to volunteer from around the world and I encourage everyone here to seriously consider doing the same.

DOOM

17th October 2015, 10:32

Well certainly not what the Sparts made of them lol

It's so obviously backed by the US to topple the Assad regime. They don't want to destroy ISIS, they want to control them. They were "bombing" them for months and did nothing to them, Russia bombs them and after a week they are crumbling in Syria.

This is horribly simplified. Obama doesn't really care about Syria, except he doesn't want to lose his face in front of the international community. Bombing them unintensively isn't a sign for US/CIA/Rothschild involvement in backing ISIS (the gulf states are doing it just fine, even without the States' help), it shows that Obama agreed only reluctantly and under political pressure (exercised by both the international community and ironically ISIS) to bombing ISIS.

Dodo

17th October 2015, 11:16

They are radical Islamists combined with sociopaths who have identity problems.

Radical Islam is a revolutionary movement. All those people are potential revolutionaries. But as we'd say, they are under the influence of a very false conciousness. They see and feel that something is wrong in this world, but their expression of it is based on a different teaching, for us an obvious wrong teaching. Which relates them to fascist tendencies.

Radical Islamists have a clear world-vision. And if you spend enough time with them, you'd understand that the way they see the world is quiet similar to how many radical commies see and categorize the world.
They want to assert a new order, a "just" order. They have plans regarding future and they fight for it.

They are certainly not a mere conservative bunch. So yes, they are a result of capitalism's crises to an extend, but some of them have a radical world vision.
And the fact that their paradigm involves "it starts now and here" when it comes to creating an Islamic society, it gets a lot of people flowing over there. Many see it as the second rise of Islam after Muhammad's conquests.

khad

17th October 2015, 23:17

Most of the development problems Southern Iraq has are the result of the Saddam era. That doesn't change the fact that the security forces of Iraq were dominated by Shias and there are strong links between paramilitary Shia forces (like the Badr Brigade) with the army.

From the same article I quoted:

Other arguments try to suggest that the “Shia-led Maliki government” purged people out of Iraq’s military based on sect or ethnicity. Numbers don’t lie, however, with the figures (https://twitter.com/IAlsodani/status/599448705012506624) produced by Ismael al-Sodani — the former Iraq Military Attaché to the United States — indicate that of the 26 highest ranking positions within the Iraqi military, fifteen of them belonged to Sunnis and only eleven were being held by Shia. The Sunni figures include four positions held by Sunni Kurds. Some of the highest positions, including Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff, were and continue to be held by Sunnis. For context on Iraq’s ethnic make-up, at least 70% of Iraqis are Shia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq#Religions). With that in mind, it can be observed that almost 30% of Iraq have almost 50% representation within the Iraqi federal government, as well as 60% representation within Iraq’s security forces. Indeed, to argue that Sunnis as a demographic are underrepresented or kept away from either political or military circles is a myth with no basis in reality.

willowtooth

18th October 2015, 07:29

TheEmancipator

19th October 2015, 19:44

isis is anti-imperialist to its core, their methods are disgusting, but they haven't done anything worse than the US or russian governments, most of them are kids the rest are old guerilla generals who believe 40 year old wars are still going on. I pity them, I don't hate them

Depends on what we're talking about here. In ideological terms they are far worse than any US or Russian governments. They are a quasi-feudal islamist group that has engaged in ethnic cleansing and intend to implement a caliphate and a theocracy. Enough hegemony in the Arab or Muslim world and they could easily commit worse crimes than any US or Russian government.

I support foreign intervention there on anti-fascist (i.e allying with bourgeois elements to remove an alien non-class based, quasi-feudal movement), just by Arabs and not previous colonial powers with economic, geopolitical interests. The problem is that the Arab rulers are dictators and sometimes only slightly less worse than ISIS. I do think many Arabs see ISIS as an anti-imperialist actor rather than for what it is, so any popular uprising against ISIS is unliely, but IMO necessary.

Emmett Till

19th October 2015, 20:11

You'd be very hard pressed to get any solidified proof of the funding apparatus behind these pan-Islamic reactionary groups. It's there, though. No way these oxygen thieves can operate without an umbrella source of funding to keep them afloat. Now, the source of these funding operations I won't even begin to speculate on. Who the fuck knows, in that regard. Point is, scattered arms dropped by the Iraqi military can only get you so far.

Pure negligence is one thing I will agree that helped bolster this group in its armament supply. That, and the 'moderate' rebels who defected en masse after receiving their airdropped munitions. The area of operation in Syria is such a complex state of affairs. My sympathies lie with its people, and its people alone.

Actually, there is no mystery as to where they get their funds. It's simple.

They now occupy an area physically larger than some other Arab states, and probably with a larger population. They collect taxes.

Also they have some oil revenues, there were bank robberies, they got some bucks from the U.S. back when Obama was sending money & guns to every Islamic group fighting Assad, but their basic revenues come from tax collection, just like any other state.

One suspects that the Islamic State spends a lot more money on military stuff than social services.

Emmett Till

19th October 2015, 20:16

Depends on what we're talking about here. In ideological terms they are far worse than any US or Russian governments. They are a quasi-feudal islamist group that has engaged in ethnic cleansing and intend to implement a caliphate and a theocracy. Enough hegemony in the Arab or Muslim world and they could easily commit worse crimes than any US or Russian government.

I support foreign intervention there on anti-fascist (i.e allying with bourgeois elements to remove an alien non-class based, quasi-feudal movement), just by Arabs and not previous colonial powers with economic, geopolitical interests. The problem is that the Arab rulers are dictators and sometimes only slightly less worse than ISIS. I do think many Arabs see ISIS as an anti-imperialist actor rather than for what it is, so any popular uprising against ISIS is unliely, but IMO necessary.

It's be kinda tough for ISIS to commit more crimes than the US, given that the death toll from US intervention in the Middle East passed the million mark under Hillary's husband Bill Clinton, due to the starvation blockade of Iraq. And Bush Jr. and Obama are no slouches in the Middle East mass murder department either.

Actually, ISIS is only slightly worse than all the other Islamic fanatics ravaging the area. And has killed far fewer than the fairly secular Assad regime for that matter.

As long as US imperialism is ravaging the Middle East, driving out the US is task #1, and everything else has to be secondary. Insofar as ISIS is fighting the US, that's a good thing not a bad thing.

Emmett Till

19th October 2015, 20:28

....Not likely to happen. Assad will not grant Kurds in Syria autonomy. Russia does not care about the little stretch of land the Kurds have, they care about Lataika and the strategic location of Syria in the wider ME.

Quite true, but given the continual embarrassments and setback the US has been suffering in both Iraq and Syria, and Obama's continued support to the Turkish assault on their brothers across the border, the Syrian Kurds might decide it was wiser to align with Putin instead of Obama. I hope they do.

And as for Assad, until the Syrian Kurds decided to throw in their lot with Obama, you did in fact have a bloc between Assad and the Kurds. Assad pulled his forces out of the Kurdish areas, effectively giving the Kurds autonomy. Of course if Assad ever managed to completely defeat all the Islamic and other rebels the Kurds would be next on his agenda, but that may well never happen.

And if it did by then the Kurds would be very well entrenched in the Kobane areas, and would probably have "ethnic cleansed" enough Sunni refugees out of the area that they'd have an ethnic majority, far from being the case now.

willowtooth

19th October 2015, 23:57

Depends on what we're talking about here. In ideological terms they are far worse than any US or Russian governments. They are a quasi-feudal islamist group that has engaged in ethnic cleansing and intend to implement a caliphate and a theocracy. Enough hegemony in the Arab or Muslim world and they could easily commit worse crimes than any US or Russian government.

I support foreign intervention there on anti-fascist (i.e allying with bourgeois elements to remove an alien non-class based, quasi-feudal movement), just by Arabs and not previous colonial powers with economic, geopolitical interests. The problem is that the Arab rulers are dictators and sometimes only slightly less worse than ISIS. I do think many Arabs see ISIS as an anti-imperialist actor rather than for what it is, so any popular uprising against ISIS is unliely, but IMO necessary.

They are massacring innocent civilians, but america has done the same, NATO has killed millions of innocent men women and children already, but nobody accuses them of genocide or ethnic cleansing despite killing 1000x more people. We also already have theocracies in the area, Saudi arabia and jordan are both NATO allies and they are racist theocracies with horrible human rights records and they effect millions of more peoples lives.

In fact the islamic state is less racist then saudi arabia, while there maybe these small christian and yazidi groups being executed, there are many white members from eastern europe, black members from sub saharan africa and asian members from central asia and western china. So while there is discrimination being practiced towards religous minorites, racism is actually not an official policy of the islamic state. While the saudis believe strongly in arab racial supremacy and have an actual racist slave trade going on.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201362472519107286.html

Emmett Till

20th October 2015, 10:01

They are massacring innocent civilians, but america has done the same, NATO has killed millions of innocent men women and children already, but nobody accuses them of genocide or ethnic cleansing despite killing 1000x more people. We also already have theocracies in the area, Saudi arabia and jordan are both NATO allies and they are racist theocracies with horrible human rights records and they effect millions of more peoples lives.

In fact the islamic state is less racist then saudi arabia, while there maybe these small christian and yazidi groups being executed, there are many white members from eastern europe, black members from sub saharan africa and asian members from central asia and western china. So while there is discrimination being practiced towards religous minorites, racism is actually not an official policy of the islamic state. While the saudis believe strongly in arab racial supremacy and have an actual racist slave trade going on.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201362472519107286.html

It's true, ISIS is after all back-to-seventh-century ultrafundamentalist Muslims, and Mohamed, whatever his other failings, was certainly no racist. But they also have seventh century attitudes towards women, and ISIS does enslave and sell Yazidi women--unsurprising as the Yazidi are, technically, Lucifer worshippers, according to their theology Satan repented of his sins and is now the Son of the Morning Star again. And Mohamed had no problem with killing male infidels and enslaving female.

It's rather amusing seeing fundamentalist Christians defending the Yazidis, thorough theological opportunism. And by the way, all you Islamophobes out there had best remember that compared to Byzantine orthodox Christianity, Mohamed was an apostle of religious toleration and humanism, which is why Islam spread like lightning. Even the most utterly fundamentalist Muslims, ISIS included, have always maintained that infidels, at least non-Lucifer-worshipping infidels, could be tolerated as long as they paid the special infidel tax originated by Mohamed himself, a merchant's son, way back when.

Whereas the Christian answer to infidelity and heresy was physical extermination, for a thousand years. Didn't really change till after the bloody religious wars of the 16th and 17th century left people sick and tired of mass murder. Especially with capitalism on the rise, bad for business you know.

willowtooth

21st October 2015, 10:24

It's true, ISIS is after all back-to-seventh-century ultrafundamentalist Muslims, and Mohamed, whatever his other failings, was certainly no racist. But they also have seventh century attitudes towards women, and ISIS does enslave and sell Yazidi women--unsurprising as the Yazidi are, technically, Lucifer worshippers, according to their theology Satan repented of his sins and is now the Son of the Morning Star again. And Mohamed had no problem with killing male infidels and enslaving female.

It's rather amusing seeing fundamentalist Christians defending the Yazidis, thorough theological opportunism. And by the way, all you Islamophobes out there had best remember that compared to Byzantine orthodox Christianity, Mohamed was an apostle of religious toleration and humanism, which is why Islam spread like lightning. Even the most utterly fundamentalist Muslims, ISIS included, have always maintained that infidels, at least non-Lucifer-worshipping infidels, could be tolerated as long as they paid the special infidel tax originated by Mohamed himself, a merchant's son, way back when.

Whereas the Christian answer to infidelity and heresy was physical extermination, for a thousand years. Didn't really change till after the bloody religious wars of the 16th and 17th century left people sick and tired of mass murder. Especially with capitalism on the rise, bad for business you know.

While its true the yazidis are devil worshipers, they're not evil, they just have a different interpretation of "the devil" they think hes a harmless peacock, but they themselves are not all innocent they are racist, they severely outlaw marriage outside the religion, and they practice honor killings on women. The most famous recently was the honor killing of Du'a Khalil Aswad which led to riots and reprisal attacks, and eventually led to the worst car bombing in the history of the war. So obviously this isn't ethnic cleansing, its a civil war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Du%27a_Khalil_Aswad

There is also no need to get upset, if the islamic state becomes a real country (if its not one right now) it wont be all that different from the other monarchies in the region that currently exist.

Lord Testicles

21st October 2015, 15:27

We also already have theocracies in the area, Saudi arabia and jordan are both NATO allies and they are racist theocracies with horrible human rights records and they effect millions of more peoples lives.

Neither Jordan or Saudi Arabia are theocracies, they are kingdoms.

khad

21st October 2015, 16:42

While its true the yazidis are devil worshipers, they're not evil, they just have a different interpretation of "the devil" they think hes a harmless peacock, but they themselves are not all innocent they are racist, they severely outlaw marriage outside the religion, and they practice honor killings on women. The most famous recently was the honor killing of Du'a Khalil Aswad which led to riots and reprisal attacks, and eventually led to the worst car bombing in the history of the war. So obviously this isn't ethnic cleansing, its a civil war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Du%27a_Khalil_Aswad
Yeah, I remember that. FGM in Iraq is also practiced almost exclusively in the Kurdistan region - something like 80% of women in Suleymaniya Governate have been cut. (For more info, visit http://www.stopfgmkurdistan.org ) Backward motherfuckers will be backward.

None of this is defensible in any way, but I don't think I'm being controversial when I say that being kidnapped en masse, enslaved and raped en masse, and being executed en masse constitute a more pressing and immediate concern. Some social problems can be reformed away through education; the Islamic State's enslave/kill policy cannot.

Trap Queen Voxxy

21st October 2015, 17:11

khad

21st October 2015, 19:21

Emmett Till

22nd October 2015, 10:15

While its true the yazidis are devil worshipers, they're not evil, they just have a different interpretation of "the devil" they think hes a harmless peacock, but they themselves are not all innocent they are racist, they severely outlaw marriage outside the religion, and they practice honor killings on women. The most famous recently was the honor killing of Du'a Khalil Aswad which led to riots and reprisal attacks, and eventually led to the worst car bombing in the history of the war. So obviously this isn't ethnic cleansing, its a civil war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Du%27a_Khalil_Aswad

There is also no need to get upset, if the islamic state becomes a real country (if its not one right now) it wont be all that different from the other monarchies in the region that currently exist.

To be precise, it would look a hell of a lot like Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, which has beheaded far more people than ISIS. Latest Saudi atrocity is of all things ... a crucifixion?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/saudi-arabia-beheading-crucifixion-nimr/407221/

As for the Yazidis, that's exactly what drives Islamics, and used to drive Christians and Jews, nuts about them. They say Satan/Shaitan/the peacock was a good guy, and by your usual Abrahamic standards, live fairly blameless lives. Racism, honor killings, that's all good oldtime Christian/Jewish/Islamic stuff.

So they're the ultimate dangerous heretics. Your Aleister Crowley Satanists, who say yeah Satan is evil, evil is cool, are harmless from their POV, as few people are actually into being evil and proud of it.

Emmett Till

22nd October 2015, 10:19

Neither Jordan or Saudi Arabia are theocracies, they are kingdoms.

That's about like saying Israel isn't a theocracy, it's a democracy. Only true technically, at least with respect to Saudi Arabia.

Emmett Till

22nd October 2015, 10:28

Emmett Till

22nd October 2015, 10:31

Abu Azrael, the most popular militiaman in Iraq, takes a tour of Beiji today after a hard-fought victory. Don't be so quick to accept the persistence of the Islamic State.

QiBBbBz_7yc
F51iFvjvaZ8

"Beiji the Unbreakable," or so the IS propaganda said.

In a devastated country, the combination of US bombs and drones with dedicated formerly leftist fighters is a powerful one. Allying with the Syrian Kurds is the only intelligent thing the US government has done lately in Syria, from the perspective of US imperialism that is.

Lord Testicles

22nd October 2015, 13:33

That's about like saying Israel isn't a theocracy, it's a democracy. Only true technically, at least with respect to Saudi Arabia.

Israel isn't a theocracy, it's a republic. A theocracy is a particular form of government not something you don't like with strong religious overtones.

Emmett Till

22nd October 2015, 18:26

Israel isn't a theocracy, it's a republic. A theocracy is a particular form of government not something you don't like with strong religious overtones.

Picky, picky.

Well, actually you're right, for whatever difference that makes.

Rafiq

22nd October 2015, 19:00

Fascism is a modern capitalist phenomenon, the mobilization of the petty bourgeoisie to smash the working class in response usually to working class insurgency. Its ideology is nationalism, the basic capitalist ideology, pushed to extremes.

ISIS is a non-nationalist religious movement which ideologically seeks to go back to the glory days of Islam, the caliphates. An entirely different kettle of fish from fascism. As it exists in a capitalist era, naturally it tries to fund itself through capitalist methods, but it isn't any more capitalistic than anything else in the region

This is pure western orientalism. In fact, not to attack you personally - but this narrative is the greatest intellectual crime.

Westerners have a tendency to try and de-sensitize the horror of something eventful by attempting to link it back to some ancient historic tendency. We see this for example, in how people understand modern Iranian politics in terms of Darius III. It is ridiculous and completely reactionary. The appearance of something and its essential function do not coincide.

ISIS no more seeks to go back to the "glory days of Islam" than Mussolini wanted to go back to the glory days of the Roman Empire, or the Germans to the time of the visigoths, and the list goes on. History does not work like this - pretenses to the "caliphate" is nothing more than capitalist mythology, there is absolutely no historical similarity or correlation between ISIS and ANY caliphate, including the "fundamentalist" almohad caliphate. Why? Because these historic formations existed in entirely different contexts - no caliphate was a reaction to capitalist globalization and modernization.

In order to truly understand the extent of the horror of this phenomena, we need to understand it as a modern one. Islamism is absolutely a modern phenomena, and yes - it is comparable to Fascism, if not a "kind" of fascism. ISIS certainly mobilizes a disgruntled petite-bourgeoisie, but more shockingly, it mobilizes those dispossessed elements of the "informal" sector - the precariat. What pre-modern Islamism existed, mind you? And I'm not talking about making unscientific abstractions that "appear" similar. During the ages of the Caliphate there was no distinction between religion and politics - if you were going to be anything politically, this would have religious implications, and this is true for the whole pre-modern world. This is a barbarism unseen before in the world, these are demons that have been unleashed from the thresher of world capitalism and the social antagonisms of the Near east (it is the same kind of madness you see in, for example, Liberia). These are demons that are present in all societies of world capitalism, any attempt to understand this in terms of "Muslim history" is so painfully stupid - so deprived of any critical thought. It trivializes the reality of the situation.

Caliphates existed in a specific historical context, had their own affirmative part in the weltgiest and were not "reactions" to modern capitalism. This alone qualifies them as entirely different, in that they belonged to an entirely different totality. So ISIS might have the same laws as previous caliphates, but in doing so, they qualify themselves as entirely different becuase these laws are enacted in a new world totality. A modern, secular federation of states in the Middle East would more inherit the spiritual legacy of the caliphates because they would be affirmative historic phenomena (in the same vein that Kemal Pasha, the secular modernizer was compared to Saladin, a religious figure, Stalin to Nevsky, Mao who destroyed old traditional chinese values to previous Chinese emperors, revolutionary France to Rome, and whatever). Spirit survives in its own constant negation in the midst of change.

ISIS is absolutely, absolutely a modern capitalist phenomena that can only be understood in terms of modern world capitalism. It's not like magical historical "energies" happen to manifest themselves here or there, like "Oh, those Muslims, going back to their caliphate again". Islamism as a whole - it is a sophisticated, modern ideology, not some result of tribal or feudal ignorance. And I know this personally - conservative Muslims of the pre-Islamist era were not Islamists. Conservative Muslims were tied to pre-modern social formations but were unable to engage in mass-mobilizations in any way - there was no fundamental difference between the Muslim clerics and conservative Muslims of the 19th and 20th centuries and the conservative clerics of any other "oriental" region of the world, including the Orthodox clergies of various parts of Europe.

It is shameful and criminal to say that the ISIS is the continuation of some ancient caliphate. It is not. There are no caliphates in the world today - this is purely an aesthetic, a myth. It is exactly how in the United States, in the "bible belt" evangelical Christianity is purely a modern phenomena. The "religious revival" is not even a religious one in the traditional sense, it is just as much a part of the degenerate spectacle that they themselves are reacting to. Religion is dead and has been dead for quite some time - what we are seeing here is something entirely different. The only real religion today is the religion of capital, it is the only sanctified idol, it is the only recognized idol, whether we're talking about Muslims or Christians. "Religious people" today are all the same, the only differences between them are ones that can be understood in terms of culture. Beyond this, there is absolutely no difference as far as the spiritual substance of their beliefs go - they are all identical.

Rafiq

22nd October 2015, 19:09

I would go very far here: I would go as far as saying that on a theological level, very little distinguishes Richard Dawkins from the Ayatollah of Iran. I mean this.

Anyone who has studied religion and understands religion knows it extends far beyond customs and apparent rituals. All religion in 2015 (and bourgeois "atheism", a pure abstraction) has the same spiritual substance, there are different ways and forms in which capital is worshiped, of course, depending on political or cultural considerations, but at the end of the day all religions speak the same language to each other. When Muslims go to Mecca yearly and run around their Kaaba, it is the idol of capital they are worshiping, enclosed and surrounded by fantastical, extravagant architecture financed by Saudi money irrevocably linked to world finance, they are not worshiping any ancient Arabian deity.

Antiochus

22nd October 2015, 19:12

Rafiq

22nd October 2015, 19:22

Antiochus

22nd October 2015, 19:36

Even here in the US, I don't think there is a real religious dimension to the Trump phenomena.

Yeah, you're right, there isn't. Trump has gone on record in the past championing abortion and other sacred cows of the 'evangelicals', but it doesn't seem to matter to them.

Trap Queen Voxxy

22nd October 2015, 23:58

The only Christian church with a worse historical record than the Byzantine is their country cousins the Russian Orthodox, infamous for corruption, subservience to Czarism, and murderous anti-Semitism. The church that generated the infamous Beilis trial, with Jews convicted of killing and draining the blood from Christian babies to flavor matzoh balls or something.

You want an example of carnage worse than ISIS, Rwanda and Bosnia all vcombined? Check out what US imperialism has done to Iraq.

What a bunch of hooey. The ROC specifically didn't have anything to do with any of that, nor took any formal position on any of that either. All religions have been coopted or corrupted and so on and last time I checked, the US military wasn't selling women and children (both boys and girls) into sexual slavery or crucifixtions, and other elaborate and horrific shit like that. Yeah the US military is a rabid dog guilty of war crimes, it's still no ISIS. Just like Franco was ALMOST as bad as Hitler but objectively, Hitler was worse. Or, yeah, taking too much Tylenol can be bad but cyanide potassium.

willowtooth

23rd October 2015, 01:21

Neither Jordan or Saudi Arabia are theocracies, they are kingdoms.

fuck that Great Britain is a theocracy

Lord Testicles

23rd October 2015, 01:39

Picky, picky.

Well, actually you're right, for whatever difference that makes.

Well, it probably doesn't make any difference, but when we have some users of this forum basically arguing "ISIS isn't so bad, look at Jordan, what about Jordan!" I think we should point out that Jordan isn't ISIS.

fuck that Great Britain is a theocracy

No it's not. Let's remember that "theocracy" means rule of god, now I don't know about you but I don't equate either the Queen or David Hameron with "divinity."

willowtooth

23rd October 2015, 02:03

No it's not. Let's remember that "theocracy" means rule of god, now I don't know about you but I don't equate either the Queen or David Hameron with "divinity."

Somebody equates with them divinity otherwise they wouldn't exist. The queen is the "supreme governor" of the Church of England isn't she?

Lord Testicles

23rd October 2015, 02:13

Somebody equates with them divinity otherwise they wouldn't exist. The queen is the "supreme governor" of the Church of England isn't she?

Yes she is, I still don't think that qualifies it as a theocracy, but let's take your position and assume that it does. She is still only the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, (England being the only country in Britain that still has an established church) does that mean that England is a theocracy but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not?

willowtooth

23rd October 2015, 02:25

They're barbaric savages committing crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide; trained, funded, and armed by Anglo-American imperialists. It's a sad state of affairs when Putin, of all people, is doing something right. The leader or patriarch of my Church, HH Patriarch Kirill, as well as the whole ROC and ROCOR have declared struggles against ISIS a "holy battle." I am unfortunately ignorant of the socio-economic, and political aspects but I can say that. I have been doing a lot of charity work with raising funds for direct aid to refugees and things like that. I don't think the world has seen such carnage since Rwanda or Bosnia; but this worse. Absolutely horrific and awful. I will also say, within the Orthodox community this has been a very serious and very largely discussed topic for awhile. Nearly every DL it's mentioned and prayers are offered for the captives. I just wish I could do more.

the rwandan genocide killed a million people alone then triggered the congo civil war which has killed countless millions more, they say atleast 5 million all in the time between 2003 and 2008 and most people don't even know about it because Iraq got all the news coverage, there are wars in the CAR and other countries right now that get no attention because some christian asshole gets his head cut off in a super scary video

bosnian war left around 100,000 dead still 5x worse than ISIS body count which stands around 20,000 and for some reason the western media thinks these 20,000 are more important than the millions dying in conflicts all around the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/islamic-state-pentagon/73840116/

Look im not saying the people in the region shouldn't fight back, but if you live on the other side of the planet there's no reason to worry about it unless your willingly supporting russian, american, and western colonialist interests in the region

fuck their borders, don't send any more poor peoples children from far away countries to die over there for blood money

willowtooth

23rd October 2015, 02:31

Yes she is, I still don't think that qualifies it as a theocracy, but let's take your position and assume that it does. She is still only the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, (England being the only country in Britain that still has an established church) does that mean that England is a theocracy but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not?

they are colonized by a theocracy

Antiochus

23rd October 2015, 02:33

ISIS isn't really a threat to the West, but I think the 'savagery' of ISIS is not so much their brutality or body count, but rather their willingness to go against established norms of modern society (i.e they proudly boast about sex slaves and slaves in general).

willowtooth

23rd October 2015, 02:48

Lord Testicles

23rd October 2015, 02:53

they are colonized by a theocracy

Very wow, so knowledge, much profound.

Seriously though, I think the more likely explanation is that it's a constitutional monarchy. Don't let that little fact discourage you though, I'm sure it really helps you understand the world to simplify it to fit your own hyperbole.

theres about 10 million child sex slaves in the world and 1 million are india not syria or iraq.

"The fallacy of relative privation" look it up, you've been doing it a lot in this thread.

willowtooth

23rd October 2015, 03:18

Very wow, so knowledge, much profound.:laugh:

Seriously though, I think the more likely explanation is that it's a constitutional monarchy. Don't let that little fact discourage you though, I'm sure it really helps you understand the world to simplify it to fit your own hyperbole. Theocracy is very loosely defined. What countries would you consider a theocracy that exist today

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd October 2015, 03:20

the rwandan genocide killed a million people alone then triggered the congo civil war which has killed countless millions more, they say atleast 5 million all in the time between 2003 and 2008 and most people don't even know about it because Iraq got all the news coverage, there are wars in the CAR and other countries right now that get no attention because some christian asshole gets his head cut off in a super scary video

bosnian war left around 100,000 dead still 5x worse than ISIS body count which stands around 20,000 and for some reason the western media thinks these 20,000 are more important than the millions dying in conflicts all around the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/islamic-state-pentagon/73840116/

Look im not saying the people in the region shouldn't fight back, but if you live on the other side of the planet there's no reason to worry about it unless your willingly supporting russian, american, and western colonialist interests in the region

fuck their borders, don't send any more poor peoples children from far away countries to die over there for blood money

Ok that's not exactly what I meant. I could be wrong on this so I'll concede to the first part but add that it's all equally horrible and shouldn't be a numbers game or a contest. I didnt mean to imply that, I was just think about what specifically ISIS has been doing to it's victims, but you're right these atrocities probably have and are happening in Africa too. Aside from crucifixtions. There's also every reason to worry about it. We have a duty to one another as a species, yes fuck there borders, fuck there borders and let the refugees come in, open borders. Even the pope is on this and is hosting a family in the Vatican! Indifference, moral relativism and so on is how genocide is tacitly allowed to happen. You don't have to support Assad, Russia, America or whoever to say this. I also care because as it stands a whole minority group, Christians, in the region now, are virtually extinct thanks in large part to ISIS and like groups.

willowtooth

23rd October 2015, 05:10

We have a duty to one another as a species, yes fuck there borders, fuck there borders and let the refugees come in, open borders.

I agree with this

I also care because as it stands a whole minority group, Christians, in the region now, are virtually extinct thanks in large part to ISIS and like groups.Theres enough people worrying about Christians in the region you don't need to pile on. The civil wars in the Congo were between Christians which compromise over 90% of DROC. This also led to a news story and an official Vatican declaration, a few years back that 100,000 Christians are killed every year. Which of course everyone assumed was because of ISIS, not the civil war in the Congo and once they learned it was Christians killing Christians. That story was dropped.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/02/vatican-spokesman-claims-100000-christians-killed-annually-because-faith/

Another example is the CAR civil war when christians were massacred back in 2014 and christian persecution was widely screamed about in the press, but once people found out christians were doing the majority of the killing in this war, the story was quickly dropped.

Emmett Till

23rd October 2015, 18:53

This is pure western orientalism. In fact, not to attack you personally - but this narrative is the greatest intellectual crime.

Westerners have a tendency to try and de-sensitize the horror of something eventful by attempting to link it back to some ancient historic tendency. We see this for example, in how people understand modern Iranian politics in terms of Darius III. It is ridiculous and completely reactionary. The appearance of something and its essential function do not coincide.

ISIS no more seeks to go back to the "glory days of Islam" than Mussolini wanted to go back to the glory days of the Roman Empire, or the Germans to the time of the visigoths, and the list goes on. History does not work like this - pretenses to the "caliphate" is nothing more than capitalist mythology, there is absolutely no historical similarity or correlation between ISIS and ANY caliphate, including the "fundamentalist" almohad caliphate. Why? Because these historic formations existed in entirely different contexts - no caliphate was a reaction to capitalist globalization and modernization.

In order to truly understand the extent of the horror of this phenomena, we need to understand it as a modern one. Islamism is absolutely a modern phenomena, and yes - it is comparable to Fascism, if not a "kind" of fascism. ISIS certainly mobilizes a disgruntled petite-bourgeoisie, but more shockingly, it mobilizes those dispossessed elements of the "informal" sector - the precariat. What pre-modern Islamism existed, mind you? And I'm not talking about making unscientific abstractions that "appear" similar. During the ages of the Caliphate there was no distinction between religion and politics - if you were going to be anything politically, this would have religious implications, and this is true for the whole pre-modern world. This is a barbarism unseen before in the world, these are demons that have been unleashed from the thresher of world capitalism and the social antagonisms of the Near east (it is the same kind of madness you see in, for example, Liberia). These are demons that are present in all societies of world capitalism, any attempt to understand this in terms of "Muslim history" is so painfully stupid - so deprived of any critical thought. It trivializes the reality of the situation.

Caliphates existed in a specific historical context, had their own affirmative part in the weltgiest and were not "reactions" to modern capitalism. This alone qualifies them as entirely different, in that they belonged to an entirely different totality. So ISIS might have the same laws as previous caliphates, but in doing so, they qualify themselves as entirely different becuase these laws are enacted in a new world totality. A modern, secular federation of states in the Middle East would more inherit the spiritual legacy of the caliphates because they would be affirmative historic phenomena (in the same vein that Kemal Pasha, the secular modernizer was compared to Saladin, a religious figure, Stalin to Nevsky, Mao who destroyed old traditional chinese values to previous Chinese emperors, revolutionary France to Rome, and whatever). Spirit survives in its own constant negation in the midst of change.

ISIS is absolutely, absolutely a modern capitalist phenomena that can only be understood in terms of modern world capitalism. It's not like magical historical "energies" happen to manifest themselves here or there, like "Oh, those Muslims, going back to their caliphate again". Islamism as a whole - it is a sophisticated, modern ideology, not some result of tribal or feudal ignorance. And I know this personally - conservative Muslims of the pre-Islamist era were not Islamists. Conservative Muslims were tied to pre-modern social formations but were unable to engage in mass-mobilizations in any way - there was no fundamental difference between the Muslim clerics and conservative Muslims of the 19th and 20th centuries and the conservative clerics of any other "oriental" region of the world, including the Orthodox clergies of various parts of Europe.

It is shameful and criminal to say that the ISIS is the continuation of some ancient caliphate. It is not. There are no caliphates in the world today - this is purely an aesthetic, a myth. It is exactly how in the United States, in the "bible belt" evangelical Christianity is purely a modern phenomena. The "religious revival" is not even a religious one in the traditional sense, it is just as much a part of the degenerate spectacle that they themselves are reacting to. Religion is dead and has been dead for quite some time - what we are seeing here is something entirely different. The only real religion today is the religion of capital, it is the only sanctified idol, it is the only recognized idol, whether we're talking about Muslims or Christians. "Religious people" today are all the same, the only differences between them are ones that can be understood in terms of culture. Beyond this, there is absolutely no difference as far as the spiritual substance of their beliefs go - they are all identical.

This is a rather silly post, going on at length at a straw man, as I never said that the "Islamic State" is a reborn medieval caliphate. And then using that to jump off into some really eccentric notions. I simply said that ideologically, it seeks to go back to the glory days of the Islamic caliphates. Any attempt to deny that is absurd, moon landing never happened stuff.

And that's the territory you are entering with your bizarre assertion that "religion is dead." Religion will die when the human race is liberated from oppression, until then the people will still be addicted to that opium.

Is ISIS a capitalist phenomenon? Well, yes, nowadays capitalism has penetrated worldwide, all social phenomena are capitalist one way or another. We live after all in the era of imperialism, the final stage of capitalism.

Fascism as an ideology is nationalism, the fundamental ideology of capitalism, taken to its logical genocidal extreme. For Marxists, the motor force of history is class struggle, for fascists the motor force of history is nation struggle.

And just as fascism and Marxism are ideological exact opposites, likewise communism and fascism are opposites materially. Marxism seeks to bring the working class to power, fascism is the ultimate capitalist response to working class power, which came into existence as a reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution, and seeks to extirpate communism and subjugate the working class permanently.

Is ISIS a capitalist reaction to an insurgent working class? If you think that, you have absolutely no concept of what is going on in the Middle East.

Where did ISIS come from? It's simply a new name for "Al Quaida in Iraq," the wing of the Iraqi resistance that, unlike all others, did not capitulate to the US occupiers through either the "Sunni awakening" or the incorporation of the Shi'ite wing of the movement into the puppet Iraqi regime of Maliki.

Why is it so murderously brutal? Because of twenty years of US imperialism stoking up Sunni-Shi'ite hatred in the traditional divide-and-rule method.

Oh, minor point, why are there a lot of former Saddam army officers involved in the movement? Because ISIS has a secret secular agenda? Nah, because they were won over to ISIS ideology by the ISIS leadership. Remember, Saddam wasn't all that secular, especially in the final years of his regime, when he was going all Islamic in the hope of shoring up some popular support.

Emmett Till

23rd October 2015, 19:16

The ludicrous of ISIS (and similar movements like it, Hezbollah, Hamas etc...) can be encapsulated in the fact that virtually all of these Islamist movements claim to have leaders who are descended from Muhammad, using child-like fabricated genealogies.

Also, that ISIS is a reaction is, obvious. Most of the ISIS leadership are NOT decades old Islamists, but many are former Saddam officers and former nationalists. If anything it serves to demonstrate that ISIS is a crypto-nationalist variety that seeks to justify itself in a DIFFERENT way from previous movements in the area.

I wouldn't go as far as to claim that all 'religions' and bourgeoisie atheism are identical; bourgeoisie atheism is basically religion stripped of the spiritual mystic element. Generally this is a step up, since there is no possibility of a "counter-revolutionary" movement of people that could be derived from it.

Yes, you have plenty of people in ISIS who were not ultra-Islamists in the past. That is because ISIS has been successful, and all other movements in Iraq and now Syria that claimed to stand up against US imperialism have either capitulated or failed miserably. So the medievalist ideology of ISIS is attractive and persuasive.

ISIS is not the least bit nationalist, it is utterly diverse ethnically, there are even Kurds in ISIS. And in fact the ISIS/Kurdish conflict is due not to murderous ISIS anti-Kurdish hatred, but due to a strategic choice of the Kurdish leadership.

RT reported a year ago that ISIS offered the Syrian Kurds a nonaggression pact in June 2014. Turned down, as Ocalan's Syrian lieutenants decided that it would be wiser to ally with US imperialism.

Is ISIS a reaction? Yes, but to what? It is a reaction to the murderous oppression of Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria at the hands of US imperialism, the murderously sectarian joint US/Iran puppet regime in Iraq, and the secular but equally murderous Assad regime in Syria.

It is essentially, a movement for genocidal murderous revenge. A horrid symptom of the degeneration of human society under an era of imperialism that has become hideously prolonged.

But mounting "anti-ISIS movements" is like putting a bandaid on gangrene. The problem is imperialism, and in the Middle East that basically means US imperialism. That is what has to be fought right now, not ISIS.

Emmett Till

23rd October 2015, 19:22

What a bunch of hooey. The ROC specifically didn't have anything to do with any of that, nor took any formal position on any of that either. All religions have been coopted or corrupted and so on and last time I checked, the US military wasn't selling women and children (both boys and girls) into sexual slavery or crucifixtions, and other elaborate and horrific shit like that. Yeah the US military is a rabid dog guilty of war crimes, it's still no ISIS. Just like Franco was ALMOST as bad as Hitler but objectively, Hitler was worse. Or, yeah, taking too much Tylenol can be bad but cyanide potassium.

The ROC had nothing to do with the Beilis trial? You've got to be either kidding or just plain ignorant. It's true that the ROC was "coopted" under Tsarism, in fact it essentially was simply the religious arm of the Tsars, with zero independence. And the corruption was so extreme that, unlike virtually any other religion in the world, the local Orthodox priests were held in contempt by the peasantry, who regarded them as greedy parasites.

And you are wrong about the US military not selling women and children into sex slavery. There has been a huge scandal, totally suppressed in the US press, of exactly that happening in Bosnia, where US occupying forces have been behaving very badly.

Emmett Till

23rd October 2015, 19:31

I agree that a counter-revolutionary movement cannot "derive" from the premise of bourgeois atheism (an abstraction) but bourgeois atheists can most definitely compose a counter-revolutionary movement - I would reckon many of today's Fascists are atheists on some level, and those silicon valley creeps too.

Even here in the US, I don't think there is a real religious dimension to the Trump phenomena.

I agree though that - you're right - bourgeois atheism, unlike Islamism or fundamentalist Christianity, is not self sufficient as far as a mass-mobilizing political force goes. But its spiritual substance - and I mean deeply rooted substance, not simply at the level of appearances, is the same.

Dawkins et. al. are definitely bourgeois reactionaries. Bourgeois ideology is nationalist not religious, though even people like Voltaire thought that religion was useful for the lower class masses. As fascism is ultra-nationalist, no doubt some fascists are atheists. Mussolini was, unlike Hitler, who always claimed that he was a believing Catholic. And religious mystifications are not gonna help you succeed in Silicon Valley.

Trump is a billionaire, that really is his religion. The Trump phenomenon and right wing fundamentalist Protestantism are quite different phenomena, and in some sense the rise of Trump indicates that the fundamentalists are losing ground in America to other, possibly more dangerous, forms of reaction. (Huckabee, their candidate, is getting nowhere in the Republican party).

Trump's right wing populist demagogy, like his utterly unique call among Republicans for higher taxes on "the rich like myself," could be a breeding ground for actual fascism.

Emmett Till

23rd October 2015, 19:34

Ok that's not exactly what I meant. I could be wrong on this so I'll concede to the first part but add that it's all equally horrible and shouldn't be a numbers game or a contest. I didnt mean to imply that, I was just think about what specifically ISIS has been doing to it's victims, but you're right these atrocities probably have and are happening in Africa too. Aside from crucifixtions. There's also every reason to worry about it. We have a duty to one another as a species, yes fuck there borders, fuck there borders and let the refugees come in, open borders. Even the pope is on this and is hosting a family in the Vatican! Indifference, moral relativism and so on is how genocide is tacitly allowed to happen. You don't have to support Assad, Russia, America or whoever to say this. I also care because as it stands a whole minority group, Christians, in the region now, are virtually extinct thanks in large part to ISIS and like groups.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Yazidis? Well, they're not extinct either. But Christians are very far indeed from extinct in the Middle East.

Rafiq

23rd October 2015, 22:59

This is a rather silly post, going on at length at a straw man, as I never said that the "Islamic State" is a reborn medieval caliphate. And then using that to jump off into some really eccentric notions. I simply said that ideologically, it seeks to go back to the glory days of the Islamic caliphates.

What is truly silly is the lengths you will go to defend yourself - why take this personally?

I did not insinuate you claimed that the Islamic state is a "reborn medieval caliphate". I merely criticized you for refusing to distinguish the appearance of something and its actual function. As stated before, every force of Fascism makes pretenses to a mythical return. The arguments you are putting forth respect the pathologies of Fascists far too much - appearances like "nationalism" and so on emanate a clear lack of understanding of the ideological dimension of Fascism. "Nationalism", "Aryanism", "racialism", all of these are outward, formal appearances. The essential basis of Fascism, what makes Fascism attractive, what makes it a real ideology with historic consequences has little to do with this. As Marx stated, if something's appearance and it's function always coincided, then all science would be worthless. The qualifications for "ideology" you put forward here are derived from the self-proclaimed identity of ISIS. But this is precisely where ideology does not exist. What do I mean? Ideology is precisely that which is designated, which is aimed at, but not known - ideology is to do something, but not know you are doing it - to paraphrase Marx. Of course, the mythology of ISIS is that it makes pretenses to reviving some ancient caliphate, but this is nothing more than a fantastical reaction to present conditions of life. What do I mean? Not only is ISIS not a medieval calihpate, the genuine intent to "return" to what was the Caliphate is not even present among those who belong to ISIS, that is to say, even if they had all the arms, money, and power in the world to replicate a Caliphate, they would not do this because they can not do this. ISIS can no more return to any caliphate, than the Italian Fascists could return to the days of the Roman empire. '

The desire to return to a "caliphate" in 2015 says nothing about the practical possibility of doing this. So when you qualify ISIS in terms of them "wanting to return to a medieval Caliphate", this is the most absurd orientalism imaginable. Ideologically ISIS does not want to "return" to an Islamic caliphate or the glory days of one. Ideologically ISIS seeks to address the ills of a population living in pure hell - that's why when US intelligence intercepted ISIS propaganda leaflets sent to Saudi Arabia, you will seldom find the real substance of them in making pretenses to the "long forgotten glory days". Instead, such leaflets focused on real issues like the oppression, injustices, and destitution faced by the Saudi population. And this is how Fascism works for the non-propertied classes, it has nothing to do with some genuine, self-sufficient desire to do this or that. It addresses real social ills, and aims at the social antagonism in a way that inspires a non-consciousness of it. At the level of psychoanalysis, it is comparable to displacement.

On an ideological level, the temptation of ISIS is precisely that - like any reaction - it is not a true opposition to hegemonic world capitalist ideology. This is a very provocative claim, but such matters must be approached critically. ISIS is just as much a part of the world spectacle, this circus of madness, as a hollywood action flick. ISIS is not only a modern capitalist phenomena, it is postmodern capitalist phenomena (again, as it was in the diamond conflicts in western Africa, with warlords taking on ridiculous spectacle-derived names like "Rambo" or "general butt naked" and whatever you want), pretenses to the caliphate - this is a spectacle, it is just as dramatic as a hollywood film. Such is the case with all Fascism.

Therefore the barbarism of ISIS must not be understood in terms of some aim to return to a medieval caliphate, but to critically assess the conditions that which proclaiming a desire to return to a medieval caliphate, with significant historic implications, even becomes possible.

Any attempt to deny that is absurd, moon landing never happened stuff.

We Leftists have a tradition of self-criticism. So when I criticize you, Emmett, you must realize there is no personal dimension to this - I criticize Leftists in the same ritualistic manner that I synonymously engage in self-criticism.

So when you say "Wow, that's just as crazy as saying the moon landing never happened", this resonates, and emanates the same baseless confidence many reactionaries or naive liberals have when one engages in a critical assessment of social matters that go beyond acknowledging their appearances. Often times precisely Marxist critiques of the existing order are recived as "that's just as nonsense as a conspiracy theory!"

My point is rather simple: In our society, there are systemically ordained rituals that define the public epistemology. For most people, it is legitimacy and legitimacy alone which allows them to distinguish the "truth" of natural selection and the falsity of the moon landing being fake. Legitimacy is ordained insofar as it is presented as speaking on behalf of the real powers that be, which reproduce the conditions of life and production. On a formal level, bourgeois science should not have any respect for "legitimacy" but practical science - however this gets entangled by the real conditions of life. Communists therefore have no regard for legitimacy, and the fact that we deny any faked moon landing, reptilian conspiracy theories, and so on, are done on consistent theoretical terms, not because "Oh, that sounds wacky".

So if you are trying to say that I have insinuated that the media is deliberately lying about ISIS's self-proclaimed goals, you simply haven't been reading my post.

And that's the territory you are entering with your bizarre assertion that "religion is dead." Religion will die when the human race is liberated from oppression, until then the people will still be addicted to that opium.

As if my post was done out of ignorance for standard Left platitudes and cliche's.

Of course religion is not "dead". But opium is still opium. Religion, in terms of what that meant for the pre-modern world, was related to matters of governance, regulation of life at a total level, and society's general ideological substance. You could only be outside of religion insofar as you were outside the sphere of life itself, unless you dabbled in abstractions. That is why the first Communists, arguably, the Anabaptists by Muntzer, were "religious".

If you actually took the time to carefully examine my post, instead of dismissing it like any haughty philistine, you would have understood that my point was religion is dead insofar as there is only one religion, and that is the religion of capital. The religious dimension, the one that was previously occupied by the Catholic Church, the Islamic clergy, priest-castes, and what have you, this is a dimension which has not been taken up by "religions" in modern day capitalist society, but by the ideology of capital.

So when I say religion is dead, all I mean is that we are not living in a post-secular era as many would have it wherein religious "revivals" have actually occurred. What we are seeing right now has nothing to do with the old religions. Richard Dawkins is just as religious as ISIS is. That is all I mean.

Fascism as an ideology is nationalism, the fundamental ideology of capitalism, taken to its logical genocidal extreme. For Marxists, the motor force of history is class struggle, for fascists the motor force of history is nation struggle.

And this emanates a profound respect for Fascism that is actually disgusting. Are you actually qualifying Fascism in terms of its aesthetic? Its appearance? What is even more disgusting is that no, it is precisely not true that Fascism is distinguished by nationalism even at the level of appearances. Nationalism, which rose into prominence decades before Fascism, was particular, Fascism makes pretenses to a transcendent universal. A quick example would be, for example, how the Germans' racial categories stretched beyond Germany itself, with plans to 'aryanize" some occupied territories, and so on. To speak of the "fundamental ideology of capitalism" as nationalism is so painfully stupid in 2015 because we are precisely living in an era, an epoch of globalization. Where is nationalism today, Emmett? Nationalism in Europe is a reaction, JUST AS MUCH AS ISIS IS, to global capitalism! In the United States, where is our nationalism? Donald Trump, again, precisely a reactionary.

Of course globalization will not erase borders or nations. Of course nations will always exist in capitalism. But to speak of this as the "fundamental ideology" of capitalism is complete nonsense, and frankly it is a remark made with the worst timing possible - precisely when the world is in an uproar about TISA and the TPP, and so on.

What is unforgivable about saying this, in the context which you said it, is rather simple: Marxists do not "impose" the social antagonism upon society, it already exists. You claim that for Fascists, "the motor force of history is nation struggle". Interesting, because Foucault claimed that in a letter between Marx and Engels, one of them claimed that "You know ever well where we got our ideas of class struggle, and that was from studying the French and their notions of nation-struggle". Were the French historians who proceeded Fascism by a century Fascists?

No, they weren't. That is because Fascism is simply not distinguished by this. You have failed to locate its essential basis, which is why you have such a hard time qualifying ISIS as Fascist. Of course Fascism is going to have different, particular differences varying between contexts. Mind you, Italian and German Fascism were quite different at the level of appearances before WWII, with the Italians rejecting racial politics for the sake of unifying the Italian nation, which was of course "racially" divided from North and South. The Italians were also, initially, not nearly as pathologically anti-semitic as the Germans, and this holds for the Spanish Fascists as well. The reasons for this are rather obvious - the thoroughly Catholic nature of the reactions, the bridge between the remnants of the ancien regime in Italy, Spain to the Fascist movements being much stronger than in Germany, overall national differences, and so on.

You claim that "for Fascists the motor force in history is nation struggle". Now you contest the notion that ISIS is "nationalistic" in the way Fascists are because Muslims are a trans-national group. I contest this notion. Your average Fascist today, in the United States and the United Kingdom, defines nations in terms of "the white race". The category of the white race is thoroughly a trans-national one, because it encompasses peoples who are of different national backgrounds - as you should know, nations are not defined by race. And this very ambiguity is not present in Marxism: Fascists can see nations as biological constructs, or they can see them mystically as "spiritual" categories, many Fascists reject racial science, while some see races primarily as the basis of nations. So the essential basis of Fascism is NOT because it is so theoretically powerful to be an "opposite" of Marxism (a laughable notion), its essential basis is reaction to world Liberalism in terms of modern capitalist relations. That is why fascism is such a vague term - it can broadly encompass things which are in a way worlds apart - we Marxists use it to vaguely define the monsters, barbarous foes wrought from capitalism which hijack the enraged energy of the masses for ends that reproduce the conditions of their slavery.

Any attempt to qualify Fascism on different terms, is to give Fascists way more credit than they actually deserve:

And just as fascism and Marxism are ideological exact opposites,

This is rather silly. Fascists and Marxists are not opposites, let alone "ideological exact opposites". For one, Marxism is not an ideology - Communism is, it's the ideology which makes Marxism possible. Marxism understands the social dimension scientifically, Fascists, conversely, do not "replace" or occupy this space of scientific assessment, they suppress the possibility of doing so all together. It's not like saying "nations/races are the motor force of history" is just as scientific as saying class struggle is, with the differences being "ideological".

Saying they are exact opposites is to assume the position of a neutral spectator who can see their opposition. But no such spectator can exist - one chooses a side. In fact, this is a profoundly anti-dialectical statement? What does it actually mean? If anything, Anarchism and Marxism are exact opposites, because their oppositional nature can be qualified by the point of reference which unites them. For example, if you ask - "Are you a socialist?", then you can either be a Marxist or an Anarchist. So this qualifies them as opposites.

Saying Fascists are our "opposite" elevates them to a domain of metaphysical respect wherein they belong to the same space as we do. But we don't talk to Fascists, they are not our twins, they are our enemies, and the only language they speak for us is the language of bullets.

It is disgusting to say they are "ideological exact opposites". How? Fascism in the context of the early 20th century was a reaction to Marxism and class consciousness. It displaced class consciousness knowingly and arguably cynically. That Fascists opportunistically had to displace notions associated with the socialist movement, dominated by Marxists, sais nothing about it being an 'exact opposite' of Marxism. This is pure idealism, it's constructing cute hollywood narratives about our relation to Fascism. We aren't storytellers, we're Marxists.

likewise communism and fascism are opposites materially. Marxism seeks to bring the working class to power, fascism is the ultimate capitalist response to working class power, which came into existence as a reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution, and seeks to extirpate communism and subjugate the working class permanently.

For the particular circumstances of the 20's and 30's, this might have been true, but in different circumstances, such as the present ones, it is not. If Leftists weren't picky back then about calling Franco, Salazar, Horthy, or the Greek Junta Fascists, then we aren't picky today about calling Islamists fascists. Of course, we use the term "Islamist", but we must recognize that Islamists and Fascists have to be fought more or less in the same way. Conversely, how we would engage pre-modern social formations, Left-populists, or Liberals today is entirely different. So the term "Fascism" being used here is a practical one.

You will seldom find "capitalists" today who are actually Fascists, perhaps besides the native Bourgeoisie of central and eastern Europe. In Nazi Germany, often times capitalists clashed with the Nazi state, and the Nazis sometimes threatened them with nationalizations. My point is that class categories are transcendent ones which are irreducible to its individual constituents - that is why we can call the Jacobins, who had virtually no basis of support in the bourgeoisie, bourgeois.

Finally, do you deny the existence of Fascists in Europe today? Now, are they a reaction to an insurgent working class? No, they aren't! And yet Fascists are exploding in popularity and significance. How do you explain that?

Is ISIS a capitalist reaction to an insurgent working class? If you think that, you have absolutely no concept of what is going on in the Middle East.

It is you who has no notion of the politics of the middle east if you think ISIS is devoid of agency and is simply the creation of the US. Sorry, but the brown people have a spiritual, political cosnciosuness of their own, and the brown people are not animals who can be hearded into this or that direction.

ISIS is not a reaction to an insurgent working class, but thinking that Fascism only emerges from what WAS a revolutionary movement is fucking stupid. Fascism can very well be a reaction to the possibility of an insurgent working class by hijacking what could become class-consciousness, objective social energies, into aims that inspire false-consciousness. Walter Benjamin, I think, said that for every Fascism there is a failed revolution. There is a Fascism for every missed opportunity for a Left to organize the masses toward revolutionary ends. When Liberalism and ruling ideology fails the masses, they will turn to an alternative. We have failed to make ourselves be an alternative. We have failed to bring about a Communism of the 21st century that can inspire hope in the miserable, wretched souls of the world.

Maybe it is the putrid, weak, cowardly and faithless Left we should blame for ISIS and European Fascism today rather than American politics. Only an idiot expects anything different from world capital. But real Leftists expect Leftists to do something about it, or at least TRY.

did not capitulate to the US occupiers

And why didn't they? Ask yourself this. Why was the Iraqi population dissatisfied with the new conditions of life following Saddam? Because da Americans "imposed" something on them that was unnatural to their habitat, or perhaps because in the midst of a destroyed state, crippling infrastructure, intolerable conditions of life, misery, butchery and hopelessness everywhere, ISIS was able to mobilize people who were fed up with the prevailing conditions of life?

Why is it so murderously brutal? Because of twenty years of US imperialism stoking up Sunni-Shi'ite hatred in the traditional divide-and-rule method.

Sorry, but this is pathetic. What this means on an ideological level, what it translates to, is an inability to morally respond to such brutality in a way that doesn't fall into the trap of "Oh, they're just barbarians".

But blaming "US imperialism" is again ridiculous. Had there been no US imperialism, what the hell would the world have even looked like? We can never know, because US imperialism was irrevocably a part of the world totality just as much as "pre-imperialist invasion" Iraq was under Saddam.

One should rather acknowledge that this barbarism has nothing to do with some magical energy unleashed (which apparently accounts for time) by US manipulators. It is a barbarism we are all capable of, and that is what I am trying to get at: ISIS IS NOT A PHENOMENA UNIQUE TO THE MIDDLE EAST, IT IS FORESHADOWING THE SAME MADNESS, BARBARISM AND BUTCHERY WHICH AWAITS US HERE IN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE. Its level of brutality is the brutality of capital, of this hellish thresher of a world. I mean, what the fuck do you think ISIS is? Look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJI5bqkVirI

What does this look like to you? This obscene dimension of perverse enjoyment. We think of ISIS as a bunch of fanatics, devout fundamentalists - but the reality of ISIS, just as it is with Catholicism, is that its strict, ascetic dimension is what sustains the perverse and limitless hedonistic enjoyment. That's why ISIS, far from being a polar opposite of western hedonistic liberalism, is a perverse accentuation of it.

You want fanatics? Look no further than the real fanatics, the Communists, who devoutly sacrificed their lives without promise of afterlife, who fought bravely and heroically with singleness of purpose and uncompromising will. ISIS's brutality is the same brutality of the US soldiers posing with Abu Gharib inmates, it is a barbarism that - far from being particular to a victimized people, is something that lurks under the shadow in all nations of world capitalism.

Oh, minor point, why are there a lot of former Saddam army officers involved in the movement? Because ISIS has a secret secular agenda?

And you speak of straw men, yet no one has insinuated this. No one. Our point, rather, is that ISIS, like evangelical Christianity in the United States, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRE-MODERN SOCIAL FORMATIONS IT PRETENDS TO WANT TO RETURN TO. The point is that ISIS is not a return to the old, it is a mutation of the new. Who said anything about it having a secular agenda?

Again, approaching this in terms of "conspiracy" or "secret agenda" in juxtaposition to outward appearance is juvenile. Thinking that people have the capacity to willfully engineer all of this shit or "secretly" want things is so stupid it staggers beyond belief how you can accuse of saying this.

In short, you need to critically re-evaluate your positions on the matter, and stop doing this out of some desire to defend yourself. It is not personal.

Emmett Till

24th October 2015, 00:05

(An extremely long post, ending with....

In short, you need to critically re-evaluate your positions on the matter, and stop doing this out of some desire to defend yourself. It is not personal.

Well, I do not feel personally attacked, and I have no objection to self-criticism where necessary, I don't think every post I have written is infallible golden words.

But your post is simply too long to respond to. IMHO, there is an error in almost every line, and it would take me a paragraph to respond to each line. Life is just too short.

Could you try to write something briefer and more manageable? I am sure the readership here would be grateful.

Trap Queen Voxxy

24th October 2015, 22:10

The ROC had nothing to do with the Beilis trial? You've got to be either kidding or just plain ignorant. It's true that the ROC was "coopted" under Tsarism, in fact it essentially was simply the religious arm of the Tsars, with zero independence. And the corruption was so extreme that, unlike virtually any other religion in the world, the local Orthodox priests were held in contempt by the peasantry, who regarded them as greedy parasites.

That's a bit dramatic and is somewhat of inaccurate account of the history of Orthodoxy among le Rus. The ROC is no more to blame for such atrocities any more than 'science' is responsible for Nazi/Soviet human experimentation.

And you are wrong about the US military not selling women and children into sex slavery. There has been a huge scandal, totally suppressed in the US press, of exactly that happening in Bosnia, where US occupying forces have been behaving very badly.

Source? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Yazidis? Well, they're not extinct either. But Christians are very far indeed from extinct in the Middle East.

People offered political, social and economic perspectives and I want to be very clear I am not dismissing or not taking those into account. I'm also not forgetting about other ethno-religious minorities targeted by ISIS. I thought I would offer my opinion, given the fact a) I'm Russian b) I was raised Orthodox and I've taken it very seriously all my life c) I've also, in my spiritual endeavors studied and practiced Islam. The relevance is that to a very large degree the Christians which are being targeted are overwhelmingly Orthodox. Just thought it my be of interest to folk, that's all.

read this (mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/magazine/is-this-the-end-of-christianity-in-the-middle-east.html?referer=&_r=0)

Emmett Till

24th October 2015, 22:47

That's a bit dramatic and is somewhat of inaccurate account of the history of Orthodoxy among le Rus. The ROC is no more to blame for such atrocities any more than 'science' is responsible for Nazi/Soviet human experimentation.

Source? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.

Like so many other things the US military is up to lately, sex slavery was contracted out, to a company called DynaCorp.

There's lots of stuff about that on the Internet, but here's an unimpeachable extremely pro-American source, namely Human Rights Watch, whose main objective is to criticize regimes America does not like for the stuff America does on a grander scale.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/bosnia/Bosnia1102-11.htm

You call my comments about Russian Orthodoxy "dramatic." Well, they are, the crimes of the ROC were dramatic.

It was the Nazis, not "science," to blame for Dr. Mengele, and it was the hierarchy of the ROC, not your average believer, who were up to their neck in the Beilis trial and did their best to whip up the faithful for pogroms against Jews and anyone opposing the holy Tsar. And when Yeltsin was in power, the ROC was campaigning to bring the Tsars back. Putin doesn't like that idea, unlike Yeltsin, which is why the ROC is down on him.

Soviet human medical experimentation? What on earth are you talking about? I suppose anything is possible, but I suspect that comes out of anti-Soviet ROC propaganda. Kinda like the claims right now of American Protestant fundamentalists about Planned Parenthood aborting fetuses for parts.

Or, of course, like the ROC claims back in the day that Jews were draining the blood from Christian children to make Passover matzos. (If nothing else, definitely not kosher!)

People offered political, social and economic perspectives and I want to be very clear I am not dismissing or not taking those into account. I'm also not forgetting about other ethno-religious minorities targeted by ISIS. I thought I would offer my opinion, given the fact a) I'm Russian b) I was raised Orthodox and I've taken it very seriously all my life c) I've also, in my spiritual endeavors studied and practiced Islam. The relevance is that to a very large degree the Christians which are being targeted are overwhelmingly Orthodox. Just thought it my be of interest to folk, that's all.

read this (mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/magazine/is-this-the-end-of-christianity-in-the-middle-east.html?referer=&_r=0)

There are some Greek Orthodox, but the vast majority of the Christians in the Middle East are are Maronite, Assyrians, Armenians, etc. etc. In the heyday of Greek Orthodoxy in the Byzantine empire, Maronites were considered heretics to be executed, Gibbon talks about that in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I suspect all the other sects too.

The Lucifer-worshipping Yazidis are the only religious group ISIS targets for extermination. With Christians ISIS follows Islamic tradition, if they pay the special infidel head tax that Mohamed himself institutionalized, they are tolerated unless they support one of ISIS's numerous enemies. Which, naturally, most of them do however.

The article doesn't explain why so few of the Christians are willing to pay the Jizya. I suppose it's because everyone is broke so they can't, given what US imperialism has done to Iraq and Syria.

Trap Queen Voxxy

24th October 2015, 23:12

Like so many other things the US military is up to lately, sex slavery was contracted out, to a company called DynaCorp.

There's lots of stuff about that on the Internet, but here's an unimpeachable extremely pro-American source, namely Human Rights Watch, whose main objective is to criticize regimes America does not like for the stuff America does on a grander scale.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/bosnia/Bosnia1102-11.htm

Thank you.

You call my comments about Russian Orthodoxy "dramatic." Well, they are, the crimes of the ROC were dramatic.

Ok

It was the Nazis, not "science," to blame for Dr. Mengele,

No it wasn't. What we now consider pseudo-science (eugenics, phrenology, etc) was considered legitimate in this time. It was these pre-existing theories that the Nazis coopted and built upon just like they used structural anti-Semitism to increase hatred of Jews. Science is what "legitimized," the claims of the Nazi party.

and it was the hierarchy of the ROC, not your average believer, who were up to their neck in the Beilis trial and did their best to whip up the faithful for pogroms against Jews and anyone opposing the holy Tsar. And when Yeltsin was in power, the ROC was campaigning to bring the Tsars back. Putin doesn't like that idea, unlike Yeltsin, which is why the ROC is down on him.

Because traditionally the Church saw the Tzar and royal family as a sacrament. Which is why it took a hard line stance when the Bolsheviks murdered the royal family. With this being said, I think a large part of what you're saying is inaccurate and this view of the RoC in relation to the Tsar, isn't necessarily 'formal' or an essential part of Russian Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy in general.

Soviet human medical experimentation? What on earth are you talking about? I suppose anything is possible, but I suspect that comes out of anti-Soviet ROC propaganda. Kinda like the claims right now of American Protestant fundamentalists about Planned Parenthood aborting fetuses for parts.

There's numerous materials out there detailing this. I mean one could point to the poison lab, humanzee experiments, chemical weapons research, etc. Also, while I don't support the fSU as in ML, I always defend it against bias and historical inaccuracies or just outright lies against it.

Or, of course, like the ROC claims back in the day that Jews were draining the blood from Christian children to make Passover matzos. (If nothing else, definitely not kosher!)

Never apart of official Church dogma, or teachings.

There are some Greek Orthodox, but the vast majority of the Christians in the Middle East, if not Armenian, are Maronite. In the heyday of Greek Orthodoxy in the Byzantine empire, Maronites were considered heretics to be executed, Gibbon talks about that in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I suspect Armenians too.

That's not true, in addition to the Armenian Church (also, technically Orthodox) there is the Syriac Church, Eritrean, Assyrian, etc.

The Lucifer-worshipping Yazidis are the only religious group ISIS targets for extermination. With Christians ISIS follows Islamic tradition, if they pay the special infidel head tax that Mohamed himself institutionalized, they are tolerated unless they support one of ISIS's numerous enemies. Which, naturally, most of them do however.

That's not how ISIS is treating it's Christian victims AT ALL. Extermination is their preferred method of dealing with us. Also, Yezidis don't worship Satan/Lucifer.

Antiochus

25th October 2015, 01:06

The Lucifer-worshipping Yazidis are the only religious group ISIS targets for extermination

Can someone ban this fucking imbecile? This is as close to genocide apologia as you can get.

Fourth Internationalist

25th October 2015, 01:31

Can someone ban this fucking imbecile? This is as close to genocide apologia as you can get.

How is it excusing genocide?

Antiochus

25th October 2015, 01:46

Fourth Internationalist

25th October 2015, 02:21

How is putting a completely fabricated reason to exterminate a group of people as some sort of actual justification by the killers anything BUT excusing genocide?

The Nazis targeted Jews for extermination because they are greedy bankers that destroy nations.

As far as I'm aware, the Satan figure in their religion is similar but also different from the Satan figure in Islam. Different because he is not viewed as "evil" but also the same because he was a rebel and was proud, which the Yezidis revere rather than oppose (I believe Bakunin complimented the Satan figure as well for these qualities). Even then, Marxists wouldn't care if someone worshipped an "evil" supernatural being. Given that the Yezidis aren't doing anything worth killing them over, especially from a Marxist (atheist) perspective which ET has, I don't see how he is justifying genocide. Unlike your comparison with the Jews and the Nazis, it is true that the Yezidis believe in and revere their own Satan figure. Atheists, especially Marxists, don't believe in Satan let alone Islam's interpretation of Satan over the Yazidi interpretation of Satan. So it's not a reason for us to take action.

Trap Queen Voxxy

25th October 2015, 02:32

As far as I'm aware, the Satan figure in their religion is similar but also different from the Satan figure in Islam. Different because he is not viewed as "evil" but also the same because he was a rebel and was proud, which the Yezidis revere rather than oppose (I believe Bakunin complimented the Satan figure as well for these qualities). Even then, Marxists wouldn't care if someone worshipped an "evil" supernatural being. Given that the Yezidis aren't doing anything worth killing them over, especially from a Marxist (atheist) perspective which ET has, I don't see how he is justifying genocide. Unlike your comparison with the Jews and the Nazis, it is true that the Yezidis believe in and revere their own Satan figure. Atheists, especially Marxists, don't believe in Satan let alone Islam's interpretation of Satan over the Yazidi interpretation of Satan. So it's not a reason for us to take action.

its a peacock angel that has nothing to do with Satan OR Lucifer (http://www.yeziditruth.org/more-about-the-peacock-angel)

Fourth Internationalist

25th October 2015, 02:42

its a peacock angel that has nothing to do with Satan OR Lucifer (http://www.yeziditruth.org/more-about-the-peacock-angel)

Obviously he is not the Muslim Satan, but I've read that he originated in the same way as the other religions' Satans (like how a lot of religions have a flood myth, but different understandings of it), but perhaps not. Nor is it a big deal for non-religious folk, like Marxists, in how we should treat them. If my understanding as well as ET's is based on erroneous knowledge, then it's simply a common misconception that should not be thought of as the equivalent of advocating for their genocide.

Antiochus

25th October 2015, 03:16

Unlike your comparison with the Jews and the Nazis, it is true that the Yezidis believe in and revere their own Satan figure.

WOw, I can't even believe I am reading this in a leftist forum. Claiming the Yazidis worship the devil and that somehow that is why they have been systematically targeted for enslavement, mass rape and extermination because their god 'resembles' the devil (you DO realize that the Spanish claimed the Aztecs/Maya worshipped demons/devils, right? hint hint, its political) is NOT like the Nazis and their cabal bullshit?

If you asked some virulent anti-semite, he might then 'quote' prominent Jews or list Jewish CEOs and proof of their international Cabal. Are we to take this as innocent 'curiosity' about the work Jews do and don't do? Its insane.

Fourth Internationalist

25th October 2015, 03:33

WOw, I can't even believe I am reading this in a leftist forum. Claiming the Yazidis worship the devil and that somehow that is why they have been systematically targeted for enslavement, mass rape and extermination because their god 'resembles' the devil (you DO realize that the Spanish claimed the Aztecs/Maya worshipped demons/devils, right? hint hint, its political) is NOT like the Nazis and their cabal bullshit?

If you asked some virulent anti-semite, he might then 'quote' prominent Jews or list Jewish CEOs and proof of their international Cabal. Are we to take this as innocent 'curiosity' about the work Jews do and don't do? Its insane.

They don't worship the devil, an evil malevolent being. It seems to be the case the figure they do worship is very similar to Satan of other religions, indicating they originate similarly. The figure is the archetype of Satan -- he tells Adam to eat forbidden fruit, he is a "fallen angel" of sorts, etc. Is he not? I've read he is. This is simply describing their beliefs. Again, you try to compare this to the Nazis and the Jews when it's simply inaccurate. The Satan archetype is present in many religions, the Yazidis included. But their version is highly different from the "devil" of other religions. The Aztecs worshipped multiple Gods, and didn't share the Satan archetype that the Yazidis share with other Abrahamic religions. Highly inaccurate comparison. The Yazidis do share the Satan archetype in their religion. It's just a fact. Whereas picking a small number of Jews to say they're businessmen is not proving anything. Do you see how it is different? If you think the assessment that they share the Satanic achetype is wrong, please show me. Can't we all talk and discuss intellectually without calling for bans?

Emmett Till

25th October 2015, 03:43

WOw, I can't even believe I am reading this in a leftist forum. Claiming the Yazidis worship the devil and that somehow that is why they have been systematically targeted for enslavement, mass rape and extermination because their god 'resembles' the devil (you DO realize that the Spanish claimed the Aztecs/Maya worshipped demons/devils, right? hint hint, its political) is NOT like the Nazis and their cabal bullshit?

If you asked some virulent anti-semite, he might then 'quote' prominent Jews or list Jewish CEOs and proof of their international Cabal. Are we to take this as innocent 'curiosity' about the work Jews do and don't do? Its insane.

As FI has tried to point out to you, there is no devil. And even outright devil worshippers, Aleister Crowley fans with their Church of Satan, have the right to their own beliefs, they've certainly never done anything like the harm that Christian churches had.

That Satan/Shaitan/the peacock are pretty much the same thing under different names with some changes in the mythos is simply fact. According to the Yazidis, the peacock repented of his Promethean pride and, rather than ruling over hell, put an end to hell after 7,000 years of his tears.

According to the Black Book of the Yazidi, the nearest thing to any authentic source as to the colossal secret of Yazidi doctrines, which they are forbidden to reveal to outsiders, Yazidi are forbidden ever to even utter the name "Shaitan," as that name is too holy for human lips.

Muslims and Christians and Jews all traditionally regarded the Yazidis as devil worshippers, ISIS simply takes the attitude that all the Abrahamic faiths used to have to its logical conclusion, treating them the way Christians in particular always used to treat any other faiths, even if they didn't think they were devil worshippers. It is not the Yazidis who are the criminals here, but all the Abrahamic faiths.

In fact, there are indications that the Yazidi faith may well be the *original* Middle Eastern faith, and that the Jews and Zoroastrians and all that who were heretics, turning Shaitan or whatever he was called many thousands of years ago into a devil for the benefit of Yahweh and other upstarts.

Here's an interesting piece about the Yazidis from vice.com. Learn something before you shoot off your mouth.

http://www.vice.com/read/yazidi-gobekli-tepe-is-172

Emmett Till

25th October 2015, 03:55

How is putting a completely fabricated reason to exterminate a group of people as some sort of actual justification by the killers anything BUT excusing genocide?

The Nazis targeted Jews for extermination because they are greedy bankers that destroy nations.

Actually no. The banker thing was an addon to appeal to the popularity of socialism in Germany, "national socialism" you know. The Nazis targeted the Jews, as Hitler explains quite clearly in Mein Kampf because when "the scales dropped from his eyes" as a failed architect in Vienna, he realized that it was the Jews who were behind Marxism.

Which has a certain measure of truth to it. It wasn't just Karl Marx himself, "non-Jewish Jews" as Isaac Deutscher famously put it played a central role in all initiatives for social progress in the twentieth century, especially communism. And Jewish workers were the first mass base of Marxism in the Russian Empire.

Hitler's central passion was his lifelong crusade against "Judeo-Bolshevism," leading to the Holocaust and Operation Barbarossa, his invasion of the Soviet Union, which as far as the Nazis were concerned were basically the same thing, two sides of the same coin.

willowtooth

25th October 2015, 07:53

Can someone ban this fucking imbecile? This is as close to genocide apologia as you can get.

there hasn't been a genocide, when we talk about persecution of the yazidis we are really talking about the sinjar massacre, during ISIS's conquest of the area, many civilians who happened to be yazidis fled to the mountains and were trapped but only about 2-5k thousand people died. You can't call it a genocide if they offer you a chance to surrender your arms and convert no victim of ethnic cleansing gets that chance

people were afraid that 50,000 people who were trapped in the mountains without food would starve this led to food drops and eventually kurds escorted them out, but considering this is a war a low estimate of 2000 deaths in a military takeover of 6 cities is pretty non-violent, and less deadly than the americans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinjar_massacre
https://biblepaedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/wiraqbombing_graphicd.jpg

and they do worship the devil its your own prejudices that made you think his statement was something bad

And who is Melek Taus? Halil looks slightly uncomfortable: "We believe he is a proud angel, who rebelled and was thrown into Hell by God. He stayed there 40,000 years, until his tears quenched the fires of the underworld. Now he is reconciled to God."
But is he good or evil? "He is both. Like fire. Flames can cook but they can also burn. The world is good and bad."
For a Yezidi to say they worship the Devil is understandably difficult. It is their reputation as infidels - as genuine "devil worshippers" - that has led to their fierce persecution over time, especially by Muslims. Saddam Hussein intensified this suppression.
But some Yezidi do claim that Melek Taus is "the Devil". One hereditary leader of the Yezidi, Mir Hazem, said in 2005: "I cannot say this word [Devil] out loud because it is sacred. It's the chief of angels. We believe in the chief of angels."
There are further indications that Melek Taus is "the Devil". The parallels between the story of the peacock angel's rebellion, and the story of Lucifer, cast into Hell by the Christian God, are surely too close to be coincidence. The very word "Melek" is cognate with "Moloch", the name of a Biblical demon - who demanded human sacrifice.
The avian imagery of Melek Taus also indicates a demonic aspect. The Yezidi come from Kurdistan, the ancient lands of Sumeria and Assyria. Sumerian gods were often cruel, and equipped with beaks and wings. Birdlike. Three thousand years ago the Assyrians worshipped flying demons, spirits of the desert wind. One was the scaly-winged demon featured in The Exorcist: Pazuzu.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1560714/The-Devil-worshippers-of-Iraq.html

unless of course you think the americans and NATO are guilty of genocide as well, in that case i 100% agree with you
:wub:

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th October 2015, 08:09

I literally can't believe some of the shit i'm reading here.

The systematic murder of thousands of Yazidis for being Yazidis isn't apparently genocide, even though the following is the UN definition: http://www.teachgenocide.org/files/UN%20Definition%20of%20Genocide.pdf

And the jews apparently started Marxism and so Hitler killed them of.

I feel like i've not slept enough and i'm imagining that this shit is coming from the mouths of 'leftists'.

Antiochus

25th October 2015, 08:44

there hasn't been a genocide, when we talk about persecution of the yazidis we are really talking about the sinjar massacre, during ISIS's conquest of the area, many civilians who happened to be yazidis fled to the mountains and were trapped but only about 2-5k thousand people died. You can't call it a genocide if they offer you a chance to surrender your arms and convert no victim of ethnic cleansing gets that chance

Hey, is your stupidity reducible to oxygen deprivation or is this some sort of art-form for you? Jews were 'allowed' to leave Germany. The Tutsis were 'allowed' to survive as sex slaves. Seeing as how the consequence for being captured by ISIS (if you're a woman) is to be gangraped and sold into sexual slavery, I'd probably rather be killed.

Yeah, wow, "only" 2-5 thousand died! That totally doesn't mean its genocide. You are such a slimy little piece of shit by attempting to obsfuscate this with your little "but hur dur the americans killed too". Like, how fucking stupid are you?

and convert no victim of ethnic cleansing gets that chance

Actually Einstein, that is the VERY DEFINITION of ethnic cleansing. Forcing someone to "convert" or the prospect of death is a HALLMARK of ethnic cleansing.

khad

25th October 2015, 09:31

This thread, seriously, I don't even

John Nada

25th October 2015, 09:45

Adonai sounds like Satan.:rolleyes: Goddamn it Emmett, if you don't know what you're saying, shut the fuck up. Some Christians would say Allah, Brahma, Buddha or any other deity are the Devil or Antichrist. Does that mean Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus worship the devil, no. Might as well say Melek Taus is Zeus, Odin, Krishna or Archangel Michael, and it'd probably be more accurate, particularly the last one.

Muslims believe Satan is a jinni damned by God for not prostrating before Adam. Jinn are not Angels(which Muslims believe cannot sin and so cannot be fallen angels), but spirits that can be good or evil like humans. They are said to whisper to human, tempting them into sin, but a righteous person can make them repent and convert to Islam, though Satan will never repent, according to Islam.

Christians believe Satan and demons are fallen angels who rebelled against God. A unpardonable sin, they can never achieve salvation:(.
Then he commanded Gabriel to escort Adam into Paradise, and to tell him that he could eat from all the trees but not of wheat.Here Adam remained for a hundred years. Thereupon, Melek Ts asked God how Adam could multiply and have descendants if he were forbidden to eat of the grain. God answered, “I have put the whole matter into thy hands.” Thereupon Melek Ts visited Adam and said “Have you eaten of the grain?” He answered, “No, God forbade me.” Melek Ts replied and said, “Eat of the grain and all shall go better with thee.” Then Adam ate of the grain and immediately his belly was inflated. But Melek Ts drove him out of the garden, and leaving him, ascended into heaven. Now Adam was troubled because his belly was inflated, for he had no outlet. God therefore sent a bird to him which pecked at his anus and made an outlet, and Adam was relieved.

Now Gabriel was away from Adam for a hundred years. And Adam was sad and weeping. Then God commanded Gabriel to create Eve from under the left shoulder of Adam. Now it came to pass, after the creation of Eve and of all the animals, that Adam and Eve quarreled over the question whether the human race should be descended from him or her, for each wished to be the sole begetter of the race. This quarrel originated in their observation of the fact that among animals both the male and the female were factors in the production of their respective species. After a long discussion Adam and Eve agreed on this: each should cast his seed into a jar, close it, and seal it with his own seal, and wait for nine months. When they opened the jars at the completion of this period, they found in Adam’s jar two children, male and female. Now from these two our sect, the Yezidis, are descended. In Eve’s jar they found naught but rotten worms emitting a foul odor. And God caused nipples to grow for Adam that he might suckle the children that proceeded from his jar. This is the reason why man has nipples. http://www.yeziditruth.org/yezidi_scriptures An allegory for puberty just got replaced for an allegory for potty training.

On the significance of the Serpent and why they don't say Satan:
And know that besides the flood of Noah, there was another flood in this world. Now our sect, the Yezidis, are descended from Naumi, an honored person, king of peace. We call him Melek Miran. The other sects are descended from Ham, who despised his father. The ship rested at a village called Ain Sifni,distant from Mosul about five parasangs. The cause of the first flood was the mockery of those who were without, Jews, Christians, Moslems, and others descended from Adam and Eve. We, on the other hand, are descended from Adam only, as already indicated: This second flood came upon our sect, the Yezidis. As the water rose and the ship floated, it came above Mount Sinjar,where it ran aground and was pierced by a rock. The serpent twisted itself like a cake and stopped the hole. Then the ship moved on and rested on Mount Judie.

Now the species of the serpent increased, and began to bite man and animal. It was finally caught and burned, and from its ashes fleas were created. From the time of the flood until now are seven thousand years. In every thousand years one of the seven gods descends to establish rules, statutes, and laws, after which he returns to his abode. While below, he sojourns with us, for we have every kind of holy places. This last time the god dwelt among us longer than any of the other gods who came before him. He confirmed the saints. He spoke in the Kurdish language. He also illuminated Mohammed, the prophet of the Ishmaelites, who had a servant named Muwiya, When God saw that Mohammed was not upright before him, he afflicted him with a headache. The prophet then asked his servant to shave his head, for Muwiya knew how to shave. He shaved his master in haste, and with some difficulty. As a result, he cut his head and made it bleed. Fearing that the blood might drop to the ground, Muwiya licked it with his tongue. Whereupon Mohammed asked, “What are you doing, Muwiya?” He replied, “I licked thy blood with my tongue, for I feared that it might drop to the ground.” Then Mohammed said to him, “You have sinned, O Muwiya, you shall draw a nation after you. You shall oppose my sect.” Muwiya answered and said, “Then I will not enter the world; I will not marry!”

It came to pass that after some time God sent scorpions upon Muwiya, which bit him, causing his face to break out with poison. Physicians urged him to marry lest he die. Hearing this, he consented. They brought him an old woman, eighty years of age, in order that no child might be born. Muwiya knew his wife, and in the morning she appeared a woman of twenty-five, by the power of the great God. And she conceived and bore our god Yezid. But the foreign sects, ignorant of this fact, say that our god came from heaven, despised and driven out by the great God. For this reason they blaspheme him. In this they have erred. But we, the Yezidi sect, believe this not, for we know that he is one of the above-mentioned seven gods. We know the form of his person and his image. It is the form of a cock which we possess. None of us is allowed to utter his name, nor anything that resembles it, such as eitn (Satan), aitn (cord), ar (evil), at (river), and the like. Nor do we pronounce maln (accursed), or laanat (curse), or naal (horseshoe), or any word that has a similar sound. All these are forbidden us out of respect for him. So hass (lettuce) is debarred. We do not eat it, for it sounds like the name of our prophetess Hassiah. Fish is prohibited, in honor of Jonah the prophet. Likewise deer, for deer are the sheep of one of our prophets. The peacock is forbidden to our eich and his disciples, for the sake of our Ts. Squash also is debarred. It is forbidden to pass water while standing, or to dress up while sitting down, or to go to the toilet room, or to take a bath according to the custom of the people.Whosoever does contrary to this is an infidel. Now the other sects, Jews, Christians, Moslems, and others, know not these things, because they dislike Melek Ts. He, therefore, does not teach them, nor does he visit them. But he dwelt among us; he delivered to us the doctrines, the rules, and the traditions, all of which have become an inheritance, handed down from father to son. After this, Melek Ts returned to heaven. http://www.yeziditruth.org/yezidi_scriptures

willowtooth

25th October 2015, 11:38

Hey, is your stupidity reducible to oxygen deprivation or is this some sort of art-form for you? Jews were 'allowed' to leave Germany. The Tutsis were 'allowed' to survive as sex slaves. Seeing as how the consequence for being captured by ISIS (if you're a woman) is to be gangraped and sold into sexual slavery, I'd probably rather be killed.

Yeah, wow, "only" 2-5 thousand died! That totally doesn't mean its genocide. You are such a slimy little piece of shit by attempting to obsfuscate this with your little "but hur dur the americans killed too". Like, how fucking stupid are you?

Actually Einstein, that is the VERY DEFINITION of ethnic cleansing. Forcing someone to "convert" or the prospect of death is a HALLMARK of ethnic cleansing.

jews were forced to leave, nazis didn't recruit them, they didn't allow them to join. its a completely different situation. If you just want to say ISIS=the nazis because its easier for your stupid little brain to understand it that way then you have nothing more to contribute to the conversation then the average fox news viewer who thinks we should nuke all the sunnis (speaking of genocide)

your completely belittling the holocaust or ethnic cleansing in africa your not using the term genocide for every single war, your not using it to claim every single religious war in world history is a form of genocide, your using to just spread fear and dismiss any other argument or discussion about the people in this region other than their wholesale slaughter

independent countries don't even agree on whether the armenian genocide was technically a "genocide" so forgive me if im not willing to say 2,000 people dying in a civil war is the same godamned thing as the fucking holocaust you moron. I find it hilarious you can think the murder of over a million iraqis by the usa was "for their freedom" but this was a genocide

even the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government says it wasn't a genocide or ethnic cleansing but fuck them right what do they know :laugh:

Rudaw: When ISIS started its campaign in the Shingal area, on August 3, 2014, what was its goal? Was it meant as genocide against the Yezidis?

ISIS wanted to make a demographic change, because the area is Kurdish and near to the border. It is isolated and surrounded by Arabs.

Noori Abdulrahman: Shingal was a strategic goal: it was not about Yezidis. ISIS wanted to make a demographic change, because the area is Kurdish and near to the border. It is isolated and surrounded by Arabs. The first Arabization campaign started there in 1974, and my family was deported then. Now, ISIS thought it would be easy to bring Arab people there.

It is another Arabization campaign. I see a connection with what Saddam Hussein did -- as most of ISIS are Baath-party people. They are Sunni Arabs, not Kurds, and this is about Arab extremism. When they occupied Mosul they planned to put all the area under their control. Even if they bring in foreign fighters, at the end of the day still 99 percent of them are Arab.

At the same time Shingal is very strategic, as it is connected to Syria, and even to Ramadi, Anbar and al-Hadhar. It is all flat. They thought it would be easy to make the west bank of the Tigris Arab, that if they pushed us Kurds to the east bank, the west could be Arab and Islamic State.

Rudaw: So if it was not about the Yezidis, why did ISIS send in empty trucks for the women and children?

Noori Abdulrahman: They wanted the people to convert to Islam. To force them, they used the females as sex slaves. It is a humiliation to the Kurdish state. And they want to exchange some of them for our prisoners. A few days ago I had a message from Tal Afar (which is under ISIS control), saying they had some people they wanted to offer for an exchange. I did not believe them, and anyway our principle is not to negotiate with ISIS.

Shingal was multicultural. ISIS also killed a lot of Shiites in the first days -- the women were even killed in the streets. And for those who were captured, their relatives did not hear of them again. I think that all of them have been killed. Hundreds of them, but we have no statistics.

It was not ISIS policy in Shingal to chase everybody out. ISIS asked people to stay, especially the Sunnis, but nobody believed them. First, a lot of Sunni families stayed, but after a few weeks they also left. Even now there is a village of Sunnis that could not leave. They kept Yezidi families with them and made safe corridors to help them run away.

ISIS asked people to stay, especially the Sunnis, but nobody believed them.

Rudaw: What is being done to get the women and children that are still in ISIS hands released? Did you try to secure their freedom through diplomatic channels?

Noori Abdulrahman: We have asked some countries for help, but got no response. None of these countries is going to say they can do something for the women, as they won’t dare to show anymore they have any connection with ISIS. What we are doing now, helping them escape one by one, is the only way to get them out. Up till now we have been able to secure the freedom of 469 people, of whom some 298 are women. We pay for their transportation out of ISIS territories. This costs a lot, as nobody dares to bring them out unless you pay well. If the smugglers are caught ISIS will kill them both.

- See more at: http://rudaw.net/mobile/english/interview/29122014#sthash.O3qHW0iR.dpuf

but fuck it lets just call everyone nazis who gives a fuck

khad

25th October 2015, 12:02

jews were forced to leave, nazis didn't recruit them, they didn't allow them to join. its a completely different situation. If you just want to say ISIS=the nazis because its easier for your stupid little brain to understand it that way then you have nothing more to contribute to the conversation then the average fox news viewer who thinks we should nuke all the sunnis (speaking of genocide)
http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/as-many-as-150000-jews-served-in-hitlers-military/

As many as 150000 Jews served in Hitlers military, some with the Nazi leader’s explicit consent, according to a U.S. historian who has interviewed hundreds of former soldiers.

Bryan Mark Rigg, history professor at the American Military University in Virginia, told Reuters on Thursday that the issue of soldiers of partial Jewish descent was long a somewhat taboo subject, overlooked by most academics as it threw up thorny questions.

“Not everybody who wore a uniform was a Nazi and not every person of Jewish descent was persecuted,” he said. “Where do they belong? They served in the military but lost mum at Auschwitz.”

According to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, Jews or those of partial Jewish descent were unfit for military service, but Rigg tracked down and interviewed more than 400 former soldiers of partial Jewish descent — labelled “Mischlinge” (“half-caste”) by the Nazis.

He estimates there were about 60,000 soldiers with one Jewish parent and 90,000 with a Jewish grandparent in the Wehrmacht, the regular army as distinct from the Nazi SS.

“They thought ‘if I serve well they’re not going to hurt me and not going to hurt my family’,” he said.

However, on returning home from the campaign in Poland at the start of the war to find persecution of their families worsening, many soldiers classified as half-Jewish started to complain, prompting Hitler to order their dismissal in 1940.

But many of these so-called half-Jewish soldiers continued to serve, sometimes due to delays in the discharge order reaching the front, because they concealed their background or because they applied and won clemency for good service.

Many senior officers with Jewish ancestry won special permission to serve from Hitler himself.

“History is not so black and white. History about Mischlinge shows how bankrupt the Nazi racial laws were,” said Rigg.

Just because you can theoretically be declared "acceptable" to those in charge does not obviate the fact of genocide.

willowtooth

25th October 2015, 12:51

http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/as-many-as-150000-jews-served-in-hitlers-military/

Just because you can theoretically be declared "acceptable" to those in charge does not obviate the fact of genocide.

the only genocide in iraq was the al anfar campaign way back in 1988 which killed between 50-100,000 and still only 3 countries Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom officially recognize it as a genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Iraq

here is the 8 stages of genocide according to gregory stanton of genocide watch, who has also criticized the term "ethnic cleansing" use in the media since it has no legal definition and is used to bleach and distract from acts of real genocide

http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/8StagesBriefingpaper.pdf

Trap Queen Voxxy

25th October 2015, 12:53

Trap Queen Voxxy

25th October 2015, 12:58

the only genocide in iraq was the al anfar campaign way back in 1988 which killed between 50-100,000 and still only 3 countries Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom officially recognize it as a genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Iraq

here is the 8 stages of genocide according to gregory stanton of genocide watch, who has also criticized the term "ethnic cleansing" use in the media since it has no legal definition and is used to bleach and distract from acts of real genocide

http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/8StagesBriefingpaper.pdf

That's fucking bullshit, just stop, they're were also groups colloborating with the Nazis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud)

willowtooth

25th October 2015, 14:15

The nazis wouldn't allow "Jews to join"? They were dozens accounts of Gestapo working with Jews, Jews helping in the camps, Jews calming other Jews before they're gassed, etc. As someone pointed out, as per the UN definition, this is genocide (which doesn't inherently refer to the HOLOCAUST or the Nazis). So, what? Was Srebrenica not genocide? Rwanda? How many souls have to perish before it counts?

As khad pointed out there were half jews in the nazi military, but as if to prove my point there were laws against full blooded jews (in this case labelled an ethnicity) joining the military. no such laws exist in ISIS all races and ethnicities can join. If they said you have to prove you had atleast one sunni arab parent to join maybe there would be a small similarity, but they didn't so there isn't

As i said no country labels anything that ISIS has done as genocide, including the UN, in fact only 3 countries label what saddam did as a genocide. The USA obviously doesn't because it was allied with saddam at the time

The middle east is a troubling spot and it seems most people only have a choice between two hells, thats why alot of people are putting faith in the kurdish communist groups creating or inspiring a true socialist revolution. but the USA won't allow that. Many people even claim the USA directly funds and trains ISIS, and if any meaningful communist movement does succeed in kurdistan than the USA will quickly turn around its propaganda efforts its using against ISIS and use them against the kurds then pretty soon the kurds are going to be accused of "ethnic cleansing" as the usa kills them by the millions

That's fucking bullshit, just stop, they're were also groups colloborating with the Nazis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud)

I think thats a bit unfair thats like comparing ISIS and boko haram's alliance to that of germany and japan, i don't think any historian or political science would say that's a fair or accurate connection

Lord Testicles

25th October 2015, 15:55

Fucking hell willowtooth, are you even reading what you are writing?

Trap Queen Voxxy

25th October 2015, 15:58

As khad pointed out there were half jews in the nazi military, but as if to prove my point there were laws against full blooded jews (in this case labelled an ethnicity) joining the military. no such laws exist in ISIS all races and ethnicities can join. If they said you have to prove you had atleast one sunni arab parent to join maybe there would be a small similarity, but they didn't so there isn't

As i said no country labels anything that ISIS has done as genocide, including the UN, in fact only 3 countries label what saddam did as a genocide. The USA obviously doesn't because it was allied with saddam at the time

The middle east is a troubling spot and it seems most people only have a choice between two hells, thats why alot of people are putting faith in the kurdish communist groups creating or inspiring a true socialist revolution. but the USA won't allow that. Many people even claim the USA directly funds and trains ISIS, and if any meaningful communist movement does succeed in kurdistan than the USA will quickly turn around its propaganda efforts its using against ISIS and use them against the kurds then pretty soon the kurds are going to be accused of "ethnic cleansing" as the usa kills them by the millions

Tf dude

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

source (http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf)

I think thats a bit unfair thats like comparing ISIS and boko haram's alliance to that of germany and japan, i don't think any historian or political science would say that's a fair or accurate connection

No, it completely fair considering PM Rashid Ali was trying to align Iraq with the Axis powers to counter Anglo-imperialism. I mean he was the leader of a nationalist party for crying out loud. A fascist reaching out to other fascists for help.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th October 2015, 16:34

I internet, therefore I am.

Emmett Till

25th October 2015, 19:14

khad

25th October 2015, 19:51

How many full blooded Levantine Semites were there in the northern European Jewish population?

Antiochus

25th October 2015, 20:26

How many full blooded Levantine Semites were there in the northern European Jewish population?

What is the point of this? Seems a bit random.

http://speakfamily.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/ashkenazi-jewish-breakdown-cropped.png

E1b1, J2, J1 and G are all typical of the Middle East and North Africa. R1b, R1a and I (which I belong to, ;D) are typical (and this is a generalization ofc) of Western, Eastern and Central/Southeastern Europe respectively. So, generally speaking, many Ashkenazi Jews can trace their paternal lineage to men from the Middle East.

khad

25th October 2015, 21:40

Antiochus

25th October 2015, 21:55

Learn to follow a discussion. Willowtooth was attempting to spin Nazi acceptance of "Half-Jews" as support of his claim.

My point is that any claim of full or half-blooded Jewishness is a meaningless in the European context. I would downvote you for being such a dullard.

You don't have to be a smug dipshit about it. You made a comment indirectly meant for someone that hadn't posted directly before you without quotations.

John Nada

25th October 2015, 22:03

Naturally "yezidi truth" picks out the quotes from the Black Book, which by the way was not written by Yazidis, that make them sound least like "Satan worshippers." And more power to them, that's exactly what they should do, if they did anything else it would be most unwise.

The remarkable parallels between the mythos of Melek Taus/Aziz and his many other names, of which the one that is closest to the Muslim "Shaitan" they, very wisely, forbid the faithful to use, are ridiculously obvious, trying to deny that is silly. Unless you have the misfortune to be Yazidi or be speaking to orthodox Muslims, in which case you damn well better. But this is Revleft, not a street corner in Baghdad.

And Willowtooth of course it's genocide. If the official definitions of genocide the UN used don't technically match, that is the UN's problem,they need to improve them.You're right, this is not a street corner in Baghdad. And most on this board are not Christian either, who'd say it's all devils. They don't have the same concept of angels, demons and jinn as either Christians or Muslims. They don't claim it's Satan or Lucifer the Morning Star(though personally I'd think it'd be badass if they did). It is not the same as Islam's concept of Ilblis, who was a jinni damned for different reasons(not bowing before man out of prided). It's based more on oral traditions, though I've seen that book elsewhere. Most on here are not Christian, some of whom would claim that anything but the Trinity is devils. I can find plenty of Christian shit claiming that. Yet it'd be absurd to claim Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wicca and Hindus worship the devil if they do not identify it as such. You're just incapable of admitting you're wrong, maybe you're Shaytan:rolleyes:.

jaycee

25th October 2015, 23:04

ISIS were definitely funded by local Arab powers at first; they probably were funded by USA and Israel at least in the beginning when US were givings arms to any and every anti Assad (anti-Russia more importantly)group in Syria. However I think all these funders apart from perhaps the most deluded of the Arab princes have since seen Isis as a problem and have probably stopped supplying them now.

This is an article I wrote and posted a while back on the historical context of ISIS and Islamism compared to the original movement of Islam.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamic-state-cannot-t193739/index.html

Emmett Till

26th October 2015, 02:07

You're right, this is not a street corner in Baghdad. And most on this board are not Christian either, who'd say it's all devils. They don't have the same concept of angels, demons and jinn as either Christians or Muslims. They don't claim it's Satan or Lucifer the Morning Star(though personally I'd think it'd be badass if they did). It is not the same as Islam's concept of Ilblis, who was a jinni damned for different reasons(not bowing before man out of prided). It's based more on oral traditions, though I've seen that book elsewhere. Most on here are not Christian, some of whom would claim that anything but the Trinity is devils. I can find plenty of Christian shit claiming that. Yet it'd be absurd to claim Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wicca and Hindus worship the devil if they do not identify it as such. You're just incapable of admitting you're wrong, maybe you're Shaytan:rolleyes:.

Actually they can't worship "the devil," as there isn't one. Nor gods either come to think of it.

Yes, there are plenty of sectarians claiming anyone of a different sect are devil worshippers. Back in the day, Protestants liked to call the Pope the Anti-Christ, and Catholics called Luther the same.

And it's certainly true that Melek Tau is a thoroughly non-diabolical type in Yazidi mythology.

But nonetheless, the remarkable parallels between the Yazidi peacock mythos and the Satan/Shaitan Abrahamic mythos are very well known, just do a little Googling yourself and read sources other than Yazidi advocates. Like that piece from vice.com I posted, and I could post a lot more.

These parallels explain why it is that not just ISIS but Muslims in general for centuries have carried out murderous campaigns against Yazidis, whereas Muslims historically were *more* tolerant of Christians and Jews than Christians were of Muslims, until the 19th century at latest.

And the only reason there were never any Christian or that matter Jewish persecutions of Yazidis is that the Yazidis for *at least* the last millenium have always been under Muslim rule. Before that the Zoroastrians I suppose, who theologically would be less disturbed about Yazidi dogma, as Zoroastrian dualism parallels Yazidi dualism in some ways. Or the Roman empire, and the Romans really didn't give a damn, until they went Christian.

Antiochus

26th October 2015, 02:26

That is because Yazidis are an offshoot of Zoroastrianism with significant syncretism from other local religions.

You keep repeating, "how can they worship the devil when he doesn't exist", which completely misses the point. Yaweh does not exist, nevertheless Jews were systematically killed in Europe for centuries.

Furthermore, this campaign ISIS performed against the Yazidis, both in extent and purpose, is different from previous Ottoman or what-have-you, campaigns.

These parallels explain why it is that not just ISIS but Muslims in general for centuries have carried out murderous campaigns against Yazidis, whereas Muslims historically were *more* tolerant of Christians and Jews than Christians were of Muslims, until the 19th century at latest.

Not really. The supposed 'tolerance' of religions has very little to do with inherent "tolerance" and simply was a strategic way to rule. So, it made little sense for Muslims to "persecute" (directly) Christians in the Middle East, since until the 12th century, they were minorities compared to Christians.

John Nada

26th October 2015, 06:10

Actually they can't worship "the devil," as there isn't one. Nor gods either come to think of it.No shit, you sure fooled me.:glare:
But nonetheless, the remarkable parallels between the Yazidi peacock mythos and the Satan/Shaitan Abrahamic mythos are very well known, just do a little Googling yourself and read sources other than Yazidi advocates. Like that piece from vice.com I posted, and I could post a lot more.Don't. You're posting rape apologia. You can do all this mental gymnastics, throw up all these hurdles on how fucked up Christianity and US imperialism is, to avoid admitting you're wrong, but the Yazidi=Satanists is Daesh apologia for slavery, rape and genocide.

willowtooth

26th October 2015, 15:56

How many full blooded Levantine Semites were there in the northern European Jewish population?

I doubt Hitler cared if there were any, hitler used his own classification system of what a Jewish person was, just like the Hutu tutsis had classification system that used fairly random features to distinguish one another, most of them had probably little or no actual genetic differences. Hitler used things like names, and in rwanda they used things like measurements of the ears. In either case they were classified prior to the genocide

thats why classification is considered the first step in the 8 steps of genocide

Classification
All languages and cultures require classification - division of the natural and social world into
categories. We distinguish and classify objects and people. All cultures have categories to
distinguish between “us” and “them,” between members of our group and others. We treat
different categories of people differently. Racial and ethnic classifications may be defined by
absurdly detailed laws -- the Nazi Nuremberg laws, the "one drop" laws of segregation in
America, or apartheid racial classification laws in South Africa. Racist societies often prohibit
mixed categories and outlaw miscegenation. Bipolar societies are the most likely to have
genocide. In Rwanda and Burundi, children are the ethnicity of their father, either Tutsi or Hutu.
No one is mixed. Mixed marriages do not result in mixed children. http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/8StagesBriefingpaper.pdf

Could you imagine if the USA actually recognized the Sinjar massacre as a genocide but continued to ignore the Armenian massacres as a genocide?

here is a copy of the official petition for the sinjar massacre to be labelled a genocide at the UN, detailing what happened using hundreds of witness testimonials. I would like to point out that when trying to google this is I strangely came across alot of links from svoboda.org, not really sure why, but since were talking about propaganda i thought i would mention that

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session28/Documents/A_HRC_28_18_AUV.doc

they absolutely committed war crimes, but as you will read in the report so did ISF and kurdish forces. they killed innocent sunnis because of their religion, raped women, burned and looted houses.

Extrajudicial killings, abductions and torture
52. Between June and August 2014, a series of attacks occurred in Diyala governorate when militia, at times jointly with ISF, waged a retaliatory campaign against members of the Sunni community. Numerous victims and witnesses described a number of incidents in the villages of Baquba, Imam Weis and Sinsil, which they alleged, all specifically targeted Sunnis. In mid-June, fleeing armed forces allegedly set fire to an army base in Sinsil, where 53 Sunnis were held. Witnesses discovered their bodies: some were charred beyond recognition; others were only partially burnt, revealing gunshot wounds, severe bruises and broken limbs.
53. On 16 June, at least 43 prisoners from the al-Wahda police station in Baquba were allegedly summarily executed by gunshots to the head. Some victims had broken limbs, suggesting torture.
54. On 22 August, militia members and Iraqi police allegedly carried out two consecutive attacks against the Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair mosque in Imam Weis village killing 34 civilians including a woman, and a 17-year-old boy, who were attending Friday prayers. An investigation has been launched; findings are yet to be made public.
55. The mission received multiple allegations that members of militia and ISF executed at least 70 Sunni civilians in different locations in Barwana, Diyala governorate, on 26 January 2015. The bodies were reportedly removed to an unknown location, and victims’ families were unable to retrieve them. Other civilians arrested on the same day allegedly remain unaccounted for. The Government has announced an investigation.
56. Attacks allegedly perpetrated by militia affiliated to ISF were reported in Baghdad, Baquba, Kirkuk, Mosul, Samarra, and Tel Afar, allegedly in revenge for attacks by ISIL. The mission could not independently verify these incidents, which require further investigation.
57. Against the background of attacks against Sunni villages in Salah ad-Din and Diyala governorates, numerous witnesses reported incidents involving illegal arrests and the taking of hostages. They allegedly occurred in al-Hatimiya, Baquba, Dujail, Tuz Khormato and Yathrib. Some families said they secured the release of loved ones by paying ransoms.
58. In August and September 2014, as ISF and affiliated militia moved against ISIL in Yathrib, Salah ad-Din governorate, Sunni men from the area were allegedly systematically arrested in the village of Jami’iya and at checkpoints in al-Hatimiya and Dujail. Victims provided consistent accounts of being ordered to hand over mobile phones, valuables and identity documents. They were blindfolded, handcuffed and taken to al-Bakr (Balad) airbase in Salah ad-Din governorate, where they were tortured or ill-treated for several days while being interrogated about ISIL forces and their positions in the region.
59. On the night of 8-9 August 2014, a militia stationed at the Youth Sports Club in Tuz Khormato town in Salah ad-Din governorate abducted up to seven Sunnis from their houses. One was brutally beaten, tortured and killed, while the fate of the others remains unknown. The mission received multiple reports that militia groups are running detention facilities at al-Bakr airbase, Salah ad-Din, where routine torture is allegedly undertaken. On 25 October 2014, for example, two Sunnis were taken from the Brigade 17 checkpoint in Dujail to al-Bakr airbase. They were handcuffed, blindfolded and tortured for five days by beatings, kicks and electric shocks. Up to 40 men allegedly shared a cell with them and suffered the same treatment. One of their captors allegedly urged them daily to convert to Shi’a Islam. On 11 December a Sunni man was abducted at al-Hatimiya checkpoint by fighters and was taken to al-Bakr airbase where he was held and tortured for four days. He was released once his family paid 6,000 US dollars in ransom.
60. The mission gathered information from a number of victims and witnesses about an attack on 25 January 2015 against Sunni Arabs in al-Sibaya and al-Jeri villages, north of Sinjar. Based on evidence gathered, it may be reasonable to conclude that this attack was perpetrated by a Yezidi armed group. Twenty-two people were allegedly shot dead including women, children and elderly; several others were injured. At least six bodies were burnt in their homes after being shot. Several houses were allegedly burnt, properties were looted, and villagers were allegedly ordered to hand over valuables. Witnesses reported that 17 people were abducted; their whereabouts remain unknown. Inhabitants of both villages were displaced.
61. These allegations could not be thoroughly investigated by the mission and warrant further investigation.

So its fairly clear the USA just uses this term for every war it doesn't like. Its why every single war the USA has fought the enemy has been accused by the press of genocide. which is why the kurds will soon be accused of it as well. this word was invented in 1944 to describe the holocaust, and since then has been expanding its definition to include almost every war.

Emmett Till

26th October 2015, 16:13

That is because Yazidis are an offshoot of Zoroastrianism with significant syncretism from other local religions.

You keep repeating, "how can they worship the devil when he doesn't exist", which completely misses the point. Yaweh does not exist, nevertheless Jews were systematically killed in Europe for centuries.

Furthermore, this campaign ISIS performed against the Yazidis, both in extent and purpose, is different from previous Ottoman or what-have-you, campaigns.

Not really. The supposed 'tolerance' of religions has very little to do with inherent "tolerance" and simply was a strategic way to rule. So, it made little sense for Muslims to "persecute" (directly) Christians in the Middle East, since until the 12th century, they were minorities compared to Christians.

Well, yes and no. The major reason for the remarkable rapidity with which Islam spread across traditional heartland of human civilization was the relative tolerance of the Muslim faith in comparison to seventh century Christianity. Was this a strategic choice of Mohamed himself and his successors? Probably.

Is the ISIS campaign much larger scale and worse than previous Muslim campaigns against Yazidis? Yes, just as Hitler's extermination of the Jews was likewise as compared to the pogroms of the past.

But was it different in purpose? Doubtful, certainly less so than with Hitler, whose anti-Semitism wasn't religious. The idea that the Yazidi are Satanists is not a brand new Daesh invention.

Antiochus

26th October 2015, 16:23

Yes and which 7th century Christianity? In case you don't know, Christianity doesn't have any proscriptions against "other religions", in fact, in this regard it is acutely benign.

The major reason for the remarkable rapidity with which Islam spread across traditional heartland of human civilization was the relative tolerance of the Muslim faith

No it fucking wasn't. Do you even have a basic understanding of history? The Rashidun Caliphate CONQUERED these areas. They destroyed and absorbed a weakened Sassanid Empire and Byzantine Empire that had for centuries warred with one another and were unused to fighting semi-nomadic Arabs.

Claiming the Arabs were successful in their conquest due to "the tolerance of the Muslim faith" is astoundingly naive. One might as well remark the of the "tolerance" of the Spanish army or the tolerance of the Mongols or some other banality like that.

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th October 2015, 20:05

Emmett Till

26th October 2015, 22:12

Yes and which 7th century Christianity? In case you don't know, Christianity doesn't have any proscriptions against "other religions", in fact, in this regard it is acutely benign.

No it fucking wasn't. Do you even have a basic understanding of history? The Rashidun Caliphate CONQUERED these areas. They destroyed and absorbed a weakened Sassanid Empire and Byzantine Empire that had for centuries warred with one another and were unused to fighting semi-nomadic Arabs.

Claiming the Arabs were successful in their conquest due to "the tolerance of the Muslim faith" is astoundingly naive. One might as well remark the of the "tolerance" of the Spanish army or the tolerance of the Mongols or some other banality like that.

Now this posting does indeed take the cake for, at best, jaw-dropping naivete. Back in the 7th century, not only were Christians killing all those who practiced any other faith (except the Jews, who had a very narrow margin of toleration as erring Christ-killing brothers), all the different Christian sects were exterminating each other.

That's why it was only under Muslim rule that any of the 15 different flavors of Christianity of the time have even survived to this day. All heretics were exterminated to the last man, woman and child in the Catholic/Orthodox lands, the split between Rome and Byzantium being almost half a millenium in the future.

If I wanted to emulate your method of polemic, I would call you an apologist for genocide, which technically you are.

Emmett Till

26th October 2015, 22:29

No shit, you sure fooled me.:glare:Don't. You're posting rape apologia. You can do all this mental gymnastics, throw up all these hurdles on how fucked up Christianity and US imperialism is, to avoid admitting you're wrong, but the Yazidi=Satanists is Daesh apologia for slavery, rape and genocide.

Oh please. If you analyze why a rapist or a murderer commits his crimes, that is not "rape apology." What's the basic rule that should be (but unfortunately isn't) engraved in gold letters on the front door of all holocaust museums for any holocaust?

"To understand everything is to forgive nothing."

This "Yazidi=Satanism" stuff is far, far, far from a Daesh invention. Western visitors to the region, ethnologists and whatnot, insofar as they've paid any attention to them at all, have generally accepted it for good coin until recently at least when it became a political issue, and generally not been terribly hostile about it, as they have rarely been religious fanatics.

But hey, somebody on this thread accused me of Orientalism, maybe so, I'm certainly no ethnographic scholar, what I know is what I read on the Internet, not always reliable. And what's more, this is a bizarre argument, as Khad pointed out. Why should we be arguing fine points in a theology nobody believes in here on Revleft of all places?

So fine, I hereby retract everything I've said previously on the subject, in what is, hopefully, my last posting on this. Let's get back to talking about things that are important.

I have yet to see any arguments on this I find persuasive, but maybe there are some out there.

I will note that the idea that the Yazidis are an ancient group going back 12,000 years does sound a bit like romantic Orientalism, and the idea that they are really just an offshoot of Zoroastrianism does have plausibility. After all, they speak Kurdish in a part of the world famous as the refuge for all sorts of ancient populations speaking languages forgotten most everywhere else, like Assyrian and so forth.

And, with all the Yazidi corpses piled up on the ground, maybe even here on Revleft is not the place for 100% factual precision. 99.99% of the time the truth is revolutionary, but maybe this is one of those rare times when "little white lies" are more useful for the cause.

Emmett Till

26th October 2015, 22:34

John Nada

26th October 2015, 22:37

So, you read none of my posts in this thread then? You can totally be Christian and refer to other lets say 'religious personalities' in a non-confrontational, respectful and polite manner. Like, I'm not going to up a Hindu and be like "yo dawg what's up with that weird elephant man? You guys worship a 19th century Englishman?" That's just fucked, rude and shows no modicum of civility or charity at all.At least you didn't use His name in vain.;) I read them. Keyword "most", not everybody on this board. This is a commie board after all. Probably could've worded it better, but was just drawing parallels that someone in a predominately Christian country might understand(like if someone said "Allah is Baal, the Lord of Flies!", then claim Muslims are Satanists because of this), though it's clearly pointless. I know most Christians aren't all, well, extreme like that. Like half my family and most friends are Christian, probably only a couple are even close to that hostile to other beliefs. Probably just bitterness and guilt from a Christian childhood.:unsure:

John Nada

26th October 2015, 22:44

I know is what I read on the Internet, not always reliable.I can tell.
And, with all the Yazidi corpses piled up on the ground, maybe even here on Revleft is not the place for 100% factual precision. 99.99% of the time the truth is revolutionary, but maybe this is one of those rare times when "little white lies" are more useful for the cause."This isn't rape apologia." Fuck you.

Burzhuin

31st October 2015, 13:00

I think it is (To put it shortly) a neo-eka/pseudo-fascist ultra-nationalist pan-islamic organization.

But, I'm a newbie. So whatever.
I am disagree with "pseudo". It is fascist movement. Look at NSDAP (German's hitlerits) and replace "race" with "Islam" and you would see no any difference.

Odonian

1st November 2015, 05:22

A CIA front, to judge by how angry the US is over Russia bombing ISIS.
It is more likely the US is angry that Russia is getting friendly with Turkey. The US has put a lot of stake in Turkey as an ally so that they can have nuclear missiles pointed at Russia within striking range. The US has had that gun pointed at Russia's head for decades. Now Russia is getting friendly with Turkey. Suddenly the US has an interest is supporting the Kurdish Left who are fighting ISIS.

If you don't know, the Kurdish Left have been fighting ISIS for some time now, and until Russia and Turkey started getting friendly, the US was fine looking the other way while Turkey conducted mass arrests of the Turkish and Kurdish left, calling it "anti-terrorism". But the people they were raiding weren't "terrorists", or ISIS, so much as they were people in the Kurdish and Turkish Left that Turkey wanted gone.

Trap Queen Voxxy

1st November 2015, 13:15

It is more likely the US is angry that Russia is getting friendly with Turkey. The US has put a lot of stake in Turkey as an ally so that they can have nuclear missiles pointed at Russia within striking range. The US has had that gun pointed at Russia's head for decades. Now Russia is getting friendly with Turkey. Suddenly the US has an interest is supporting the Kurdish Left who are fighting ISIS.

If you don't know, the Kurdish Left have been fighting ISIS for some time now, and until Russia and Turkey started getting friendly, the US was fine looking the other way while Turkey conducted mass arrests of the Turkish and Kurdish left, calling it "anti-terrorism". But the people they were raiding weren't "terrorists", or ISIS, so much as they were people in the Kurdish and Turkish Left that Turkey wanted gone.

The Turkish govt also started targeting/killing Armenians (again) too; which for the umpteenth time in history no one knows or cares about. Shock I know and I mean, I think it's safe to cut the crap. There's no denying that ISIS and all other rebel Islamist groups like al-Nusra and FSA, are all American front groups. What I've been seeing is a sideshow and hysterical propaganda. One month my country took out 1,600 terrorist targets (ISIS, FSA, Al-Nusra) and America hasn't done shit. They haven't tried to "create a coalition of European states and Arab allies," per usual the Obama administration. In fact, America refuses to coordinate any strikes on Islamist groups with Russia, period, and has vowed to continue to fund and arm them. None of this is really presented accurately in the media either. All the news channels spin it as "Putin is only targeting people opposing Assad," when last I checked that was all the fucking Islamist rebel groups. This whole incident (like none before it) pretty much blew the kid on America's meddling in the region. Last I heard the president and his cabinet are adopting the strategy of "kicking ass leaving a strongman."

Emmett Till

2nd November 2015, 02:30

The Turkish govt also started targeting/killing Armenians (again) too; which for the umpteenth time in history no one knows or cares about. Shock I know and I mean, I think it's safe to cut the crap. There's no denying that ISIS and all other rebel Islamist groups like al-Nusra and FSA, are all American front groups. What I've been seeing is a sideshow and hysterical propaganda. One month my country took out 1,600 terrorist targets (ISIS, FSA, Al-Nusra) and America hasn't done shit. They haven't tried to "create a coalition of European states and Arab allies," per usual the Obama administration. In fact, America refuses to coordinate any strikes on Islamist groups with Russia, period, and has vowed to continue to fund and arm them. None of this is really presented accurately in the media either. All the news channels spin it as "Putin is only targeting people opposing Assad," when last I checked that was all the fucking Islamist rebel groups. This whole incident (like none before it) pretty much blew the kid on America's meddling in the region. Last I heard the president and his cabinet are adopting the strategy of "kicking ass leaving a strongman."

TQV, can you post some links as to what the Turks are doing to the Armenians (again)? Despite our disagreements, this is something I for one consider very important indeed.

On what is going on in Syria you are seriously misguided. The FSA is the so-called "secular" opposition to Assad, it indeed is pretty much a CIA front. Al Nusra is Al Quaida, and no, Osama Bin Laden was not a CIA agent.

Of course the US won't coordinate with Russia vs. ISIS. For Obama, ISIS is a problem, but Russia is a bigger problem, just look at the Ukrainian situation.

Why has US intervention in Syria been so pathetic and unsuccessful? It's not some bizarre conspiracy of Obama secretly backing ISIS. That's really giving Obama far too much credit.

Basically, the US is caught in a cleft stick. The USA at this point really has no friends left in Syria--except the Kurds. Everything Obama has tried to do there has blown up in his face, and his latest gamble with US soldiers will lead to an even worse disaster probably.

Burzhuin

2nd November 2015, 12:42

The Turkish govt also started targeting/killing Armenians (again) too; which for the umpteenth time in history no one knows or cares about. Shock I know and I mean, I think it's safe to cut the crap. There's no denying that ISIS and all other rebel Islamist groups like al-Nusra and FSA, are all American front groups. What I've been seeing is a sideshow and hysterical propaganda. One month my country took out 1,600 terrorist targets (ISIS, FSA, Al-Nusra) and America hasn't done shit. They haven't tried to "create a coalition of European states and Arab allies," per usual the Obama administration. In fact, America refuses to coordinate any strikes on Islamist groups with Russia, period, and has vowed to continue to fund and arm them. None of this is really presented accurately in the media either. All the news channels spin it as "Putin is only targeting people opposing Assad," when last I checked that was all the fucking Islamist rebel groups. This whole incident (like none before it) pretty much blew the kid on America's meddling in the region. Last I heard the president and his cabinet are adopting the strategy of "kicking ass leaving a strongman."
I do not know about Armenians. I know of the Genocide 100 years ago. So I would appreciate some more info too.

According to the information I managed to collect the situation is pretty simple: Turkish are killing Kurds. They are not targeting ISIS but Kurds. There is only one other government (beside Syrian) who REALLY fights ISIS. And I am ashamed to admit it: this government is not ours, American, but Russian one.

Khalistani

4th November 2015, 08:26

ISIS must be utterly destroyed. They threaten everyone who does not think like them, and that is a threat to the balance of the world.