Boko Haram pledges allegiance to Daesh

From my understanding IS is born from a group of people that were oppressed in that area and now the rabbit's got the gun. As far as the chopping of heads and enslavement _ that's nothing new in that part of the world.

You're pretty much preaching violence and or disobedience here... You just don't agree with their rules of engagement there.

They already know... They just realize they have a common enemy.

FIFY...

 

First of all, I disagree with their actions (the beheading and stoning of innocents (including children) and the raping and enslavement of women as sex slaves to name two things) -- I would be against any group if they started doing these things. If a group of poor people and minorities in this country started doing these things, I would be against the group doing them -- and I would hope that you would be too. Rioting, looting, protesting, revolting is not the same as enslaving, raping and persecuting. I am a little surprised, but it seems to me that you are trying to equate the two.

Secondly, I am also against their goals. They do not want to improve life in the areas under their control. They want to set up an ultra-conservative reactionary state that would abuse and enslave non-muslims and dissenting muslims in the area. They are not freedom fighters defending communities, they are authoritarians trying to set up a State with which to oppress and violate the liberty of others -- and that's not just me saying that, that is their expressed goal.

I think you need to look into them more before you start defending them or seeing them as the "rabbit with the gun". Not every group that fights U.S. imperialism is a freedom fighter or even preferable to the U.S. imperialists. Look at the Khmer Rouge for instance. I'd be the first to point to the U.S. mistakes in Indochina that led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, but I sure as **** would not support, defend or paint in a positive light the atrocities they committed.

Similarly with Daesh.

 

Regional players need to step up and get involved. As HamJam has eloquently pointed out we only make matters worse with USA involvement.

 

Like I said in my statement you responded to... Shyt like that has been going on over there. It didn't start with IS and once IS is out of the picture they will still be cutting folks heads off, treating women like property, and trying to enslave folks. I wouldn't be surprised if they're cutting someone's head off in Saudi Arabia right now.

No it's not the same tactics but it's still fighting against the powers that be... And fighting against the powers that be is what you advocate what people should do here. Different tactics same premise.

They were oppressed by the Sunnis so the rabbit does have the gun. Which is probably one of the reasons why other Muslims have been at the top of their hit list. But me pointing that out and not jumping on the 'Islam Is Evil' bandwagon doesn't mean I'm defending them... I'm just not blind to the fact that this type of thing is nothing new. It goes on in Africa all the time but for some reason there are Americans who are in an uproar about what's going on in the middle east and want to put their capes on and fly to the rescue like Captain Save Em.

 

That is no reason to defend a group perpetuating that "shyt". Would you have defended a group of southerners fighting the oppressive invasion of the Union Army in order to maintain their enslavement and oppression of African Americans just because it had "been going on"? Then why would you defend a group fighting to maintain their enslavement and subjugation of Kurds and other groups which Daesh has conquered -- groups that are now desperately fighting to free themselves (groups, which, by the way, are often secular, and who empower women to not only fight, but to serve in government; groups which have feminism as one of their central doctrines, along with liberty and autonomous democratic socialism).

What's more, the amount of people subjected to this oppression and the level of the abuses increases wherever Daesh goes. They aren't just defending areas sympathetic to their ideas. They are invading areas completely opposed to them using military force, and then subjugating, enslaving and raping populations that were previously either autonomous or largely left alone (primarily the various Kurdish groups, but also Christians and other Muslims).

Fighting against the powers that be is not an end in itself -- especially when your goal is to increase the level of subjugation for the people living in the areas you wish to control.

I advocate revolutionary actions, of course. But that does not mean that I support every revolutionary group, no matter how heinous and wretched their goals and means. Do you literally support every revolutionary group? As I asked before, would you similarly defend the Khmer Rouge? How about Fascist revolutionary groups that are fighting imperialism, but who want to create a society even more restrictive and oppressive than the one they are fighting?

Firstly, they are not only attacking Sunnis, they are also (if not primarily) attacking Kurds -- and they were never oppressed by the Kurds.

Secondly, I am not jumping on the Islam is evil bandwagon. I certainly hope you were not implying I was Remii. Nor am I saying the U.S. should occupy the area. In fact, I explicitly, and in a nuanced manner, described why I am against U.S. becoming more involved in the region, while at the same time being fully opposed to Daesh.

I do support the U.S. airstrikes that are destroying the advanced weaponry Daesh has used to gain their power (weapons they took from the Iraqis without much of a fight, who in turn were given these weapons by the U.S.). But, just like Teen Wolf said, regional players (like the People's Protection Units, the Peshmerga and the tribal militias) will need to bear the brunt of the workload to bring stability to the region -- for, if the U.S. tries to bear this burden, history has shown us they will likely bungle the affair.

 

It was your logic, oh mastermind of crazy idiocy. Interesting you have no response on Europe's collective failure to confront the genocide. Rage on! GRR!

 

If you believe this than you truly have no clue what liberals think.

 

I didn't defend and or condone anything that's going on over there. And by me pointing out the fact that many of the things IS is doing over there is a common practice amongst many people in the middle east and the ones who don't participate with those practices turn a blind eye to the ones that do doesn't make me a defender. You would make a better case if you just said I don't support Arab countries (or Europe) PERIOD.

The Union Army didn't go to war to free black people from slavery and Lincoln didn't care if black people were free are not. And if you do some research you will find that initially Lincoln only freed the slaves in the states he had no control over (how slick is that...lol). But that question is irrelevant anyway because I'm not defending them.

I didn't say anything about supporting. But you do advocate violence and disobedience. And no I don't support every revolutionary group... But I don't pick sides either.

 

Honestly, a lot of what you said sounds like you are defending or being an apologist for the actions of Daesh -- however, I am more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your statement that you are not defending them.

However, you are still creating an equivalency between two things that are not only not the same, but are indeed diametrically opposed. You asked me if I just disagreed with Daesh's "rules of engagement". No, I disagree with their means and their ends, and I find them not only different from the people protesting in Ferguson, but the opposite of that. They may be "fighting the powers that be" as you said, but, unlike the people I support, they are doing so in order to create a State more terrible than the one they are fighting.

Looking at means, As I said before, "Rioting, looting, protesting, revolting is not the same as enslaving, raping and persecuting". And, looking at ends, trying to fight for the liberty and fair treatment of your community is not the same as invading, conquering and enslaving the communities of other people.

I am very interested how you are equating the two? Do you also see the Khmer Rouge as freedom fighters? How about Milosevic? Just because someone stands up to U.S. imperialism does not make them someone that should be lumped together with everyone else who does so. Some people who do so are trying to create liberty for the people in the region they are fighting for, and others are trying to establish their own form of tyrannical enslavement over the area.

I do indeed. But why are you drawing an equivalency between a group fighting to conquer and exploit other people and people fighting not to be conquered and exploited?

I understand the realpolitik nature of the Union during the Civil War -- my point was not to paint them in a positive light (in fact, in the interest of parallelism, I even called it the "oppressive invasion of the Union Army"), my point was that the groups that fought the "powers that be (the U.S.)" were not thus automatically freedom fighters or equivalent to oppressed populations engaging in violence to free themselves from exploitation and abuse. In fact, they were more similar to Daesh, who is fighting a the U.S. in order to create a State in which they can freely exploit and enslave the population of the areas they are fighting for.

 

It probably only sounds like I'm defending them to you because I haven't picked a side and I'm not doing any cheerleading. I have no business picking sides on what goes on in the middle east... Because if I was over there _ there's a great possibility that I would be a slave, oppressed, or dead regardless of which one of those groups are in charge. I just try to have an understanding of what's going on over there and that is an old world with old world beef.

No the means aren't the same but they both bring upon the same scrutiny. And how's protesting and rioting in their own neighborhoods working out for minorities in this country...??? I can tell you right now that it hasn't brought about fair treatment.

I don't draw the same comparison because the start of the civil war by the Union had nothing to do with slavery... Also, many historians believe that Black people in this country would have been freed eventually with or without the civil war. The war just made it happen faster. Now if ISIS didn't exist _ it would still be people over there cutting off heads, treating women as property, and there would still be slavery. And if it wasn't ISIS it would be a different radical group because that place is a powder keg.

 

But what you are not understanding is that there are groups over there who have created communities that you would have a zero percent change of being a "slave, oppressed or dead" in (namely the PYD/ YPG in Rojava), and that Daesh has been trying to conquer these people in order to turn those regions into areas in which you would (and the population actually there certainly has been) be a "slave, oppressed or dead".

And, even aside from Rojava, even the islamic areas there not under Daesh control are at least relatively but drastically better than the form of rule that Daesh has been demonstrating. Daesh may be using what you say are common tactics, but they are using them much more frequently and on more people than the groups fighting Daesh.

Why does it matter if they are looked at with the same scrutiny? Should I respond to the negative mischaracterization of rioters and protestors by positively mischaracterizing Daesh?

How's it working out? Well, a little short term protesting and rioting caused an incident the likes of which goes ignored hundreds of times each year into something that changed the national consciousness on the issue and is going to most likely cause reform for the locality that sparked the discussion.

And larger scale protests and riots in the 60's forced the establishment to pass reforms in fear of completely losing control of the situation. Rioting and protesting on a similar scale today would most likely cause even more nation wide reforms -- and rioting and insurrection at an even greater scale could cause something beyond reforms... this last one is of course what I advocate.

However, if instead of rioting, looting, protesting, and insurrection, groups here started enslaving people and acting more oppressive and predatory than the police or the State, then I would oppose them just as much as I currently oppose the State -- and I would hope you would be willing to take sides and do so as well.

And the start of U.S. involvement in the middle east didn't have anything to do with weapons of mass destruction... still, just as I would not equate those fighting to preserve the Confederacy against the U.S. with populations in revolt against oppression, nor would I equate Daesh with such populations -- what I am looking for is why you do?

You are just wrong on this in regards to a large amount of areas over there. There are a lot of communities (in the millions of people) that gained autonomy during the Syrian Civil War, that created a secular society embracing of all cultures and espousing equality for women. Daesh then conquered those areas, enslaved and raped the women in those areas, killed and persecuted non-muslims and dissenting muslims and created a repressive authoritarian regimen.

Without daesh the autonomy and liberty of those people would not have been taken. They are currently doing a fantastic job of reclaiming their communities from Daesh, and are leading the charge for creating a different sort of society in that region of the world.

I am a little dissapointed in you for lumping all of the middle east together and dismissing it as a whole. The place is a lot more nuanced and differentiated than you seem to think.

 

I never equated anything other than the fact that you promote violence just like they do. You're the one that started drawing comparisons on reasons for the violence and or what kind.

But I guess what Israel is doing is fine and not evil.
Watch "How Israel's Government Treats African Refugees" on YouTube
How Israel's Government Treats African Refugees: https://youtu.be/tmr-dw_hvLI

And you can bet that many of those girls that Boko Haram kidnapped are in the middle east (especially Saudi) and Europe as slaves.

ISIS aren't the only ones not playing nice over there. So why should I pick them to flip out about.

 

I do not promote violence "just like they do". I promote violence, but that doesn't mean I support every use of violence. I don't support the violent imperialism of the U.S. and I don't support the violent territorial expansion of Daesh either. I do support the violent resistance to such groups though.

I promote the use of violence against groups trying to use violence to dominate others (groups like Daesh or other Statists and tyrants) I do not support the use of violence in order to dominate others.

Why are you equating the use of violence to resist oppression with the use of violence in order to oppress?

And, certainly, Daesh is not the "only ones not playing nice", but we should be against all of the groups over there that are trying to tyrannize others -- but not every one who picks up arms over there is doing so (many are just trying to defend themselves from others who are doing so).

 

I never questioned what you support. Violence is violence period.

I am... And that's why I don't pick sides.

 

That's not true. I'll repeat my question since you didn't answer it:

Why are you equating the use of violence to resist oppression with the use of violence in order to oppress?

But, as I've mentioned several times, there are also groups over there that are fighting not to oppress others, but to liberate themselves. Those are the people whose side I am on.

 

And I did answer your question... I didn't equate anything. But it doesn't matter because IS isn't going to get what they want (nor Boko Haram) and neither are you.... You guys are making checker moves against chess players.

And after they get rid of IS there will be another side for you to pick... And another... And another...

 

You said "violence is violence" and questioned why I promote violence for oppressed minorities in this country but not for Daesh -- it sounds to me like you are thus equating the two -- no? How is that not equating the two?

As far as "the side I pick", my support of the communities in Syria that are defending themselves from Daesh is not going to cease when Daesh is gone.

 

Also Remii, you did question what I support in your initial post to me that started this entire exchange:

And what I have been trying to show you in this conversation is why I support the use of violence by people fighting oppressive situations and how Daesh is not an example of this, since they are actually a group using violence to create oppressive situations, not to dispel them.

 

Problem is oppression is in the eyes of the beholder.