FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Anonymous take on ISIS

Anonymous take on ISIS

(2:12) ISIS will be treated like a virus and eradicated from the internet. Hacktivist group Anonymous claim they have 'exposed and destroyed' over 1,000 ISIS-related sites, accounts and emails since declaring war on jihadists after the Charlie Hebdo attack. There is no safe place for ISIS online.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: one more time (977 days ago)

WalterEgo - I can understand the attraction but, in a nutshell, it's the opposite of "rule of law" and that's why it's dangerous. Yes, you and I can agree that taking down Isis is a good thing. But what happens when Anonymous takes an action we don't agree with? Perhaps they will decide that air travel is damaging the planet and should be stopped. If Anonymous takes action that harms you, who do you complain to? How are targets decided? Can you get compensation when your livlihood is destroyed by collateral action?

It took many centuries to achieve rule of law, not rule by dictat or mob. We should not give it up too quickly.

ReplyVote up (161)down (120)
Original comment

WalterEgo - I can understand the attraction but, in a nutshell, it's the opposite of "rule of law" and that's why it's dangerous. Yes, you and I can agree that taking down Isis is a good thing. But what happens when Anonymous takes an action we don't agree with? Perhaps they will decide that air travel is damaging the planet and should be stopped. If Anonymous takes action that harms you, who do you complain to? How are targets decided? Can you get compensation when your livlihood is destroyed by collateral action?

It took many centuries to achieve rule of law, not rule by dictat or mob. We should not give it up too quickly.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (977 days ago)

I'm not convinced 'rule by law' is all it's cracked up to be, after all, a police state is also rule by law. It depends on who creates our laws, and why.

Anonymous is rule by collective wisdom. I like the idea, but I'm not sure how well it works in practice. In principle it's the collective wisdom of everyone on the planet, but in practice it's the collective wisdom of pro-active nerds with quite a lot of power at their fingertips.

Having said that, I have more faith in the values of pro-active nerds than the values of corporate leaders and politicians, who are our law makers.

ReplyVote up (131)down (98)
Original comment

I'm not convinced 'rule by law' is all it's cracked up to be, after all, a police state is also rule by law. It depends on who creates our laws, and why.

Anonymous is rule by collective wisdom. I like the idea, but I'm not sure how well it works in practice. In principle it's the collective wisdom of everyone on the planet, but in practice it's the collective wisdom of pro-active nerds with quite a lot of power at their fingertips.

Having said that, I have more faith in the values of pro-active nerds than the values of corporate leaders and politicians, who are our law makers.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Submitted as a guest (978 days ago)

Fine Gentlemens they are, blessed be you.

ReplyVote up (139)down (123)
Original comment

Fine Gentlemens they are, blessed be you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cardin7 (976 days ago)

Hi WalterEgo - it's 'rule *of* law', not 'rule *by* law', and it is one of the most important foundational principles of civil society (of any human society, whether Western capitalist democracy, theocracy or commune).

The principle holds that all of a society's members, including citizens, lawmakers and officers, are subject to the law on equal terms. It is this idea of universal equality under the law that makes it so powerful - no one of us has the right unilaterally to stand judgement over another.

Of all of the mistakes and abuses on both sides of this conflict, this principle has still more or less held - we can't afford to abandon the tule of law to combat an asymmetric threat. If we do that, then the 'terrorists' (of whatever nation and on whichever side) win.

ReplyVote up (127)down (117)
Original comment

Hi WalterEgo - it's 'rule *of* law', not 'rule *by* law', and it is one of the most important foundational principles of civil society (of any human society, whether Western capitalist democracy, theocracy or commune).

The principle holds that all of a society's members, including citizens, lawmakers and officers, are subject to the law on equal terms. It is this idea of universal equality under the law that makes it so powerful - no one of us has the right unilaterally to stand judgement over another.

Of all of the mistakes and abuses on both sides of this conflict, this principle has still more or less held - we can't afford to abandon the tule of law to combat an asymmetric threat. If we do that, then the 'terrorists' (of whatever nation and on whichever side) win.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Abdullah786 (978 days ago)

As a Muslim, I would say, that Anonymous will be on their own, in hurting ISIS. No other country in the World is hurting them - or even TRY to hurt them!

Where the hell, do you get the armaments, to arm your army, carry out the logistics, to beat your opposition, run sorties across several borders, train your people, sell the oil, bank it, have gold coins minted (abroad) & delivered. All of this in astronomical numbers that require thousands of daily truck, that exceed what many governments cannot do.THEN, to say, they are like a ghost and we cannot stop them! We cannot get an ID made to fool a bar-tender and these guys can fool the world - WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT - from the people who are supposed to be fighting them! Just admit it - the world knows - we are arming, training and supplying them and then cry out - oh dear! they have killed another guy on video!

ReplyVote up (141)down (137)
Original comment

As a Muslim, I would say, that Anonymous will be on their own, in hurting ISIS. No other country in the World is hurting them - or even TRY to hurt them!

Where the hell, do you get the armaments, to arm your army, carry out the logistics, to beat your opposition, run sorties across several borders, train your people, sell the oil, bank it, have gold coins minted (abroad) & delivered. All of this in astronomical numbers that require thousands of daily truck, that exceed what many governments cannot do.THEN, to say, they are like a ghost and we cannot stop them! We cannot get an ID made to fool a bar-tender and these guys can fool the world - WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT - from the people who are supposed to be fighting them! Just admit it - the world knows - we are arming, training and supplying them and then cry out - oh dear! they have killed another guy on video!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: one more time (979 days ago)

Anonymous is a loose canon. Accountable to no-one, subject to no regulation or rule of law, they attack whatever they see fit. In this case the rest of the world might applaud. In the next case, who knows? And the comment that "Isis is not Muslim" - what is that meant to imply? For a start, if you ask Isis, they will say most emphatically that they are Muslim. The clue is in the name, "Isis." That's "Islamic State ..." and I don't know what right Anonymous has to decide anyone's religion. Secondly, is Anonymous saying that a Muslim terrorist group is acceptable? Accpetable to Anonymous, that is.

Vigilantes? No thanks.

ReplyVote up (136)down (139)
Original comment

Anonymous is a loose canon. Accountable to no-one, subject to no regulation or rule of law, they attack whatever they see fit. In this case the rest of the world might applaud. In the next case, who knows? And the comment that "Isis is not Muslim" - what is that meant to imply? For a start, if you ask Isis, they will say most emphatically that they are Muslim. The clue is in the name, "Isis." That's "Islamic State ..." and I don't know what right Anonymous has to decide anyone's religion. Secondly, is Anonymous saying that a Muslim terrorist group is acceptable? Accpetable to Anonymous, that is.

Vigilantes? No thanks.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (978 days ago)

I don't think it's accurate to call Anonymous a loose cannon. I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of Anonymous, but this is how I understand the group to be.

Anonymous is a democratic direct-action concept. Anyone can "join", but you are not really joining anything because there is no organisation or structure to join. It's just a concept, an idea.

The idea is this: if there is an idea, and enough people agree, then they help make it happen in whatever way they can.

So you can suggest an idea (maybe in a forum frequented by people who understand the concept of Anonymous), perhaps to take down all ISIS related websites - and credit the idea to Anonymous.

By crediting the idea to Anonymous, you are saying to the rest of the world, "here's an idea, if you agree and you can do something about it (like organise DDoS attacks), then go ahead". If enough hackers take action, then Anonymous did it. If not, nothing happens.

I think Anonymous is a beautiful idea - it is direct-action directed by the collective wisdom of those who can be bothered. It is about as democratic as you can get.

ReplyVote up (158)down (122)
Original comment

I don't think it's accurate to call Anonymous a loose cannon. I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of Anonymous, but this is how I understand the group to be.

Anonymous is a democratic direct-action concept. Anyone can "join", but you are not really joining anything because there is no organisation or structure to join. It's just a concept, an idea.

The idea is this: if there is an idea, and enough people agree, then they help make it happen in whatever way they can.

So you can suggest an idea (maybe in a forum frequented by people who understand the concept of Anonymous), perhaps to take down all ISIS related websites - and credit the idea to Anonymous.

By crediting the idea to Anonymous, you are saying to the rest of the world, "here's an idea, if you agree and you can do something about it (like organise DDoS attacks), then go ahead". If enough hackers take action, then Anonymous did it. If not, nothing happens.

I think Anonymous is a beautiful idea - it is direct-action directed by the collective wisdom of those who can be bothered. It is about as democratic as you can get.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Anonymous (man) (977 days ago)

Your idea that Anonymous is democratic couldn't be much more wrong.

1 - 99% of people are not internet hackers and do not have the knowledge to be part of this group, meaning only a small elite with access to specific education and resources even have a chance of entry and participation. As an engaged but not-very-computer-savvy world citizen, I have zero influence on the activities of Anonymous, along with the vast majority of the world's population.

2 - Anonymous targets institutions/parties/comp anies/groups which have NO say in how and if they are handled by Anonymous. Anonymous can simply decide that it doesn't like what a group does and screw them without that group having any influence or input on the process. The target also has no chance of appeal or protection. This is surely the opposite of democracy and is more like online lynching.

3 - Most people in the world's population doesn't have consistent internet access, meaning Anonymous is certainly not open to all "who can be bothered".

ReplyVote up (129)down (112)
Original comment

Your idea that Anonymous is democratic couldn't be much more wrong.

1 - 99% of people are not internet hackers and do not have the knowledge to be part of this group, meaning only a small elite with access to specific education and resources even have a chance of entry and participation. As an engaged but not-very-computer-savvy world citizen, I have zero influence on the activities of Anonymous, along with the vast majority of the world's population.

2 - Anonymous targets institutions/parties/comp anies/groups which have NO say in how and if they are handled by Anonymous. Anonymous can simply decide that it doesn't like what a group does and screw them without that group having any influence or input on the process. The target also has no chance of appeal or protection. This is surely the opposite of democracy and is more like online lynching.

3 - Most people in the world's population doesn't have consistent internet access, meaning Anonymous is certainly not open to all "who can be bothered".

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (976 days ago)

Of course you are right in much of what you say, but I think in reality it's not that simple. Hear me out.

The views of a group tend to be moderate (within the values of that group), because the extreme views get diluted. The bigger the group, the more moderate. That's obvious isn't it? By definition, there are more moderates than extremists in any group.

Anonymous is open to anyone and not limited to the internet, so in theory the 'group' is everyone on the planet.

In practice of course, it tends to be hackers, but that's because of where the idea started, and that hacking is an effective weapon that 'ordinary' people have access to. But what if Anonymous were to grow much bigger?

Anonymous does take action in the real physical world. LINK I would argue that the Arab Spring was 'Anonymous'. An idea caught the hearts and minds of a group of people, went viral and kicked off revolution.

It is a different approach to democracy based on trusting collective wisdom rather than the visions of leaders. I don't know whether it's a good thing or not, but I find it hard to imagine how we fight the few hundred most powerful people who control everything of importance, without ideas like Anonymous.

ReplyVote up (131)down (137)
Original comment

Of course you are right in much of what you say, but I think in reality it's not that simple. Hear me out.

The views of a group tend to be moderate (within the values of that group), because the extreme views get diluted. The bigger the group, the more moderate. That's obvious isn't it? By definition, there are more moderates than extremists in any group.

Anonymous is open to anyone and not limited to the internet, so in theory the 'group' is everyone on the planet.

In practice of course, it tends to be hackers, but that's because of where the idea started, and that hacking is an effective weapon that 'ordinary' people have access to. But what if Anonymous were to grow much bigger?

Anonymous does take action in the real physical world. LINK I would argue that the Arab Spring was 'Anonymous'. An idea caught the hearts and minds of a group of people, went viral and kicked off revolution.

It is a different approach to democracy based on trusting collective wisdom rather than the visions of leaders. I don't know whether it's a good thing or not, but I find it hard to imagine how we fight the few hundred most powerful people who control everything of importance, without ideas like Anonymous.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Rufuscz (971 days ago)

Isis calling themselves Islamic does not make them Islamic, any more than the Lords Resistance Army are Christian. The fact that they go out of their way to murder muslims - very publically in recent events - shows any rational thinker that it's not simply down to Islam. If you choose to believe Isis when they tell you they represent the average muslim, I worry about what other claims of theirs you believe.

ReplyVote up (128)down (117)
Original comment

Isis calling themselves Islamic does not make them Islamic, any more than the Lords Resistance Army are Christian. The fact that they go out of their way to murder muslims - very publically in recent events - shows any rational thinker that it's not simply down to Islam. If you choose to believe Isis when they tell you they represent the average muslim, I worry about what other claims of theirs you believe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: one more time (971 days ago)

Actually the one identifying feature of Muslims seems to be a propensity to murder others who also call themselves Muslims. This is not strictly peculiar to Islam - it's typical of any meme- or gene-based population that divides by schism. Rather ironic that Darwin described it so well back in 1859.

But who are you to judge who is or is not Muslim, Xian, or whatever? The standard religious response is to say that only god (Allah, Jahweh, whatever) can see what is in a person's heart.

ReplyVote up (111)down (119)
Original comment

Actually the one identifying feature of Muslims seems to be a propensity to murder others who also call themselves Muslims. This is not strictly peculiar to Islam - it's typical of any meme- or gene-based population that divides by schism. Rather ironic that Darwin described it so well back in 1859.

But who are you to judge who is or is not Muslim, Xian, or whatever? The standard religious response is to say that only god (Allah, Jahweh, whatever) can see what is in a person's heart.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Rufuscz (969 days ago)

So the 'one identifying feature' of any Muslim, of any branch, in any culture or society across the globe (nearly a quarter of the population), is that they kill one another? Just re-read that and have a think about it.

Darwin's views covered all human populations, not just religions, so it's hardly the identifying feature of Muslims. What is 'ironic' about his description?

I am not anyone to judge who is a Muslim. I leave that to Muslims themselves, and when the vast majority follow an interpretation that completely excludes and condemns the crimes of Isis, that should tell you something pretty significant. What is patently obvious is that simply calling yourself a Muslim, a Christian, a doctor, a genius or a supermodel does not make you one.

ReplyVote up (105)down (127)
Original comment

So the 'one identifying feature' of any Muslim, of any branch, in any culture or society across the globe (nearly a quarter of the population), is that they kill one another? Just re-read that and have a think about it.

Darwin's views covered all human populations, not just religions, so it's hardly the identifying feature of Muslims. What is 'ironic' about his description?

I am not anyone to judge who is a Muslim. I leave that to Muslims themselves, and when the vast majority follow an interpretation that completely excludes and condemns the crimes of Isis, that should tell you something pretty significant. What is patently obvious is that simply calling yourself a Muslim, a Christian, a doctor, a genius or a supermodel does not make you one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: one more time (968 days ago)

You say "I am not anyone to judge who is a Muslim" and then "[...] simply calling yourself a Muslim [...] does not make you one." These are contradictory statements. You have judged Isis not to be True Muslims (as have many others - you are not alone). But Isis would disagree.

ReplyVote up (125)down (117)
Original comment

You say "I am not anyone to judge who is a Muslim" and then "[...] simply calling yourself a Muslim [...] does not make you one." These are contradictory statements. You have judged Isis not to be True Muslims (as have many others - you are not alone). But Isis would disagree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Rufuscz (968 days ago)

No, that's incorrect. My statement that an act of calling yourself something does NOT by itself make you that thing, does not mean I am the judge of what IS that thing. The statements aren't in any way contradictory; it's not a difficult concept to get your head around. I am not the judge of who wins Best Actor at the Oscars tomorrow, but I can still say that Charlie Sheen calling himself Best Actor will not make it true. OK?

I'm amused at how much of the Isis propaganda you are swallowing whole. Why would you value their claims higher than those of the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide? You're their ideal audience!

ReplyVote up (139)down (99)
Original comment

No, that's incorrect. My statement that an act of calling yourself something does NOT by itself make you that thing, does not mean I am the judge of what IS that thing. The statements aren't in any way contradictory; it's not a difficult concept to get your head around. I am not the judge of who wins Best Actor at the Oscars tomorrow, but I can still say that Charlie Sheen calling himself Best Actor will not make it true. OK?

I'm amused at how much of the Isis propaganda you are swallowing whole. Why would you value their claims higher than those of the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide? You're their ideal audience!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: one more time (968 days ago)

Claiming to be a believer in a particular faith is not comparable to claiming to be a doctor or to have won the best actor prize. These are objective claims: belief in a particular faith is not.

It seems to me that when, say, Obama asserts that Isis is not True Islam, he is (a) unqualified to make such a statement (by reason of my argument above) and (b) actually making a political statement because he wants and hopes not to upset the many Muslims in his country or in the rest of the world - to divide and conquer, in other words. Wishful thinking, IMO.

If other Muslims' opinion of Isis is valid, by what argument is Isis' opinion of other Muslims invalid? Is it just by numbers, like a popularity contest? In that case all Xian religions except the RCC are invalid because they all started by a very small number of adherents splitting off from the main body. If Isis lasts long enough it will be called a "religion" and not a "death cult."

However, I don't value Isis' claims higher than others'. I value them equally, at very close to zero, because I think that religious people are deluded, and the more devout they are, the more deluded.

ReplyVote up (119)down (118)
Original comment

Claiming to be a believer in a particular faith is not comparable to claiming to be a doctor or to have won the best actor prize. These are objective claims: belief in a particular faith is not.

It seems to me that when, say, Obama asserts that Isis is not True Islam, he is (a) unqualified to make such a statement (by reason of my argument above) and (b) actually making a political statement because he wants and hopes not to upset the many Muslims in his country or in the rest of the world - to divide and conquer, in other words. Wishful thinking, IMO.

If other Muslims' opinion of Isis is valid, by what argument is Isis' opinion of other Muslims invalid? Is it just by numbers, like a popularity contest? In that case all Xian religions except the RCC are invalid because they all started by a very small number of adherents splitting off from the main body. If Isis lasts long enough it will be called a "religion" and not a "death cult."

However, I don't value Isis' claims higher than others'. I value them equally, at very close to zero, because I think that religious people are deluded, and the more devout they are, the more deluded.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Rufuscz (967 days ago)

My point is that claiming to be a follower of a faith and claiming to be a doctor are similar in one key aspect - that the act of claiming such a thing cannot by itself mean that it's true. It's a point of logic, not objectivity or subjectivity. In order to test whether their claim to be Muslims or doctors is true, one has to look at other things such as how well their behaviour correlates with others under that same label, and whether there may be ulterior motives for making a false claim. This is something most of the thinking world is prepared to do, including Obama, whereas you seem happy to ignore their actions, and instead listen to their words, because that suits your particular agenda. If you hold the claims of a tiny fraction of extremists to be of the same validity as a fifth of the world's population, I think I'm wasting my time.

Besides, following an organised religion is not as subjective as you may think, as it is usually based on public texts. There is a consensus, or even many of them, about how to interpret those texts. When a variant or interpretation radically differs from the vastly more common forms, then naturally steps are taken to separate it and label it in another way. In this instance, when much of what Isis support and promote is in direct conflict with the views of 1.5 billion of Muslims and contradicts swathes of explicit doctrine in the Qu'ran, then the term 'Islamic' or even 'Muslim' is no longer useful, accurate, specific or fair. Instead, it becomes a means for the ignorant and phobic to criticise and attack a huge subset of people that have nothing to do with it - a way of ignoring massive distinctions in ethos and worldview, and tarring everyone with the same brush.

ReplyVote up (111)down (114)
Original comment

My point is that claiming to be a follower of a faith and claiming to be a doctor are similar in one key aspect - that the act of claiming such a thing cannot by itself mean that it's true. It's a point of logic, not objectivity or subjectivity. In order to test whether their claim to be Muslims or doctors is true, one has to look at other things such as how well their behaviour correlates with others under that same label, and whether there may be ulterior motives for making a false claim. This is something most of the thinking world is prepared to do, including Obama, whereas you seem happy to ignore their actions, and instead listen to their words, because that suits your particular agenda. If you hold the claims of a tiny fraction of extremists to be of the same validity as a fifth of the world's population, I think I'm wasting my time.

Besides, following an organised religion is not as subjective as you may think, as it is usually based on public texts. There is a consensus, or even many of them, about how to interpret those texts. When a variant or interpretation radically differs from the vastly more common forms, then naturally steps are taken to separate it and label it in another way. In this instance, when much of what Isis support and promote is in direct conflict with the views of 1.5 billion of Muslims and contradicts swathes of explicit doctrine in the Qu'ran, then the term 'Islamic' or even 'Muslim' is no longer useful, accurate, specific or fair. Instead, it becomes a means for the ignorant and phobic to criticise and attack a huge subset of people that have nothing to do with it - a way of ignoring massive distinctions in ethos and worldview, and tarring everyone with the same brush.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: one more time (967 days ago)

WalterEgo - I see your point, but I don't think it is as black and white as you seem to. If your argument was sound, then at most one of the Sunni and Shia sects could claim to be Muslim because each sect believes the other to be infidel. And there's lots more than just these two sects of Islam.

Isis is just another, albeit violent, Islamic sect. They have set up a caliphate. They brandish the Koran. They do at least some of what the Koran advocates, and justify their actions by reference to the Koran or Hadiths. It may be a peculiar and violent interpretation of the religion, but it is inspired by Islam - not by Hinduism, not by Buddhism, not by any other religion or political philosophy. To deny that Isis is based on, and retains a strong connection with, Islam, is perverse.

I think that you are misled by examples such as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" which claims to be democratic, but is not in fact so. There are plenty examples of false presentation, but I don't think Isis is a clear cut case.

ReplyVote up (126)down (142)
Original comment

WalterEgo - I see your point, but I don't think it is as black and white as you seem to. If your argument was sound, then at most one of the Sunni and Shia sects could claim to be Muslim because each sect believes the other to be infidel. And there's lots more than just these two sects of Islam.

Isis is just another, albeit violent, Islamic sect. They have set up a caliphate. They brandish the Koran. They do at least some of what the Koran advocates, and justify their actions by reference to the Koran or Hadiths. It may be a peculiar and violent interpretation of the religion, but it is inspired by Islam - not by Hinduism, not by Buddhism, not by any other religion or political philosophy. To deny that Isis is based on, and retains a strong connection with, Islam, is perverse.

I think that you are misled by examples such as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" which claims to be democratic, but is not in fact so. There are plenty examples of false presentation, but I don't think Isis is a clear cut case.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Rufuscz (966 days ago)
Latest comment:

I'm not sure if you were intending that reply to go to me rather than WalterEgo. Apologies if I'm replying on his behalf, but your comment seemed aimed at me.

I think you hit the nail on the head where you say that they use the Qu'ran to justify their actions. They do indeed, in the same way that the Bible has been used by the KKK, LRA etc etc to commit atrocities, and even Buddhism has been used by groups such as the DKBA. This supposed inspiration doesn't mean that the most accurate or useful description of these groups is a religious one nor that their interpretation is valid when all evidence suggests otherwise. If you focus on the self-proclaimed religious credentials, you are thereby trusting their own identification and ignoring that of the majority of the same religion who dispute and discredit this.

The Sunni / Shia sect is not a fair comparison, nor is pretty much any other variation of belief; these variations are seen by most believers as just that. Sunnis certainly do not consider Shias as 'infidels' as you put it, nor vice versa - their divisions are mainly political. Isis considers itself a Sunni Islam group rather than its own distinct branch, but yet again the overwhelming majority of Sunnis discredit this claim, citing numerous examples of behaviour that does not correlate with their group, or even more generally with Islam.

I'm amazed that you feel they have actually set up a caliphate - again, you are the absolute ideal audience for their propaganda. Most people, including Sunnis under whose name this supposed caliphate would be, think the caliphate idea is totally ridiculous and totally invalid. A Sunni leader ( Dr Yusuf Al-Karadawi) has even said that Isis making such a presumptious declaration is totally "null and void" and "lacks any realistic or legitimate standards." .

My conclusion would be, it takes more than self-declarations to make your behaviour Islamic in any real universal sense, and it takes more than pompous announcements to give yourself a bona fide caliphate. Of course, you and Isis would strongly disagree with me.

ReplyVote up (119)down (115)
Original comment
Latest comment:

I'm not sure if you were intending that reply to go to me rather than WalterEgo. Apologies if I'm replying on his behalf, but your comment seemed aimed at me.

I think you hit the nail on the head where you say that they use the Qu'ran to justify their actions. They do indeed, in the same way that the Bible has been used by the KKK, LRA etc etc to commit atrocities, and even Buddhism has been used by groups such as the DKBA. This supposed inspiration doesn't mean that the most accurate or useful description of these groups is a religious one nor that their interpretation is valid when all evidence suggests otherwise. If you focus on the self-proclaimed religious credentials, you are thereby trusting their own identification and ignoring that of the majority of the same religion who dispute and discredit this.

The Sunni / Shia sect is not a fair comparison, nor is pretty much any other variation of belief; these variations are seen by most believers as just that. Sunnis certainly do not consider Shias as 'infidels' as you put it, nor vice versa - their divisions are mainly political. Isis considers itself a Sunni Islam group rather than its own distinct branch, but yet again the overwhelming majority of Sunnis discredit this claim, citing numerous examples of behaviour that does not correlate with their group, or even more generally with Islam.

I'm amazed that you feel they have actually set up a caliphate - again, you are the absolute ideal audience for their propaganda. Most people, including Sunnis under whose name this supposed caliphate would be, think the caliphate idea is totally ridiculous and totally invalid. A Sunni leader ( Dr Yusuf Al-Karadawi) has even said that Isis making such a presumptious declaration is totally "null and void" and "lacks any realistic or legitimate standards." .

My conclusion would be, it takes more than self-declarations to make your behaviour Islamic in any real universal sense, and it takes more than pompous announcements to give yourself a bona fide caliphate. Of course, you and Isis would strongly disagree with me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Martin20 (979 days ago)

About bloody time!! Go Anonymous!!

ReplyVote up (109)down (130)
Original comment

About bloody time!! Go Anonymous!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Anonymous message to Hillary Clinton
Anonymous message to Hillary Clinton
Anonymous take on ISIS
Anonymous take on ISIS
TYT - Anonymous vs North Korea
TYT - Anonymous vs North Korea
Anonymous in 2013
Anonymous in 2013
Anonymous message to Westboro Baptist Church
Anonymous message to Westboro Baptist Church