That's a decent point, and I will sometimes call them that as well. What I am not going to do is try to whitewash the "Islamic" part out and pretend that they are not doing what they're doing in the name of Islam. We can't pretend that they are something other than what they are.
Why? Strategically why does it matter that we keep on referring to them as not Islamic? Does it change anything?
You're not going to get an argument from me there. In fact, I don't think the U.S. should be arming the Free Syrian Army forces, because a lot of them are islmacists as well, and those weapons might end up being used on our soldiers in the future, just like when the Neo Cons gave arms to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. No, I think we should be working with people who also value a secular society and actual democracy and liberty -- namely the YPG and Kurds in Rojava.
Because it's more or less the only point on which wingnuts can differentiate themselves. Nobody really likes Daesh on the right or the left, hell the President just went to Congress on it (and of course guess who is holding it up...). Accordingly it becomes important to accentuate small meaningless differences In order to propagate the myth of Obama and the anti America lefties who are destroying america (witness Bassmasters aggressive policing of insufficient kill Darshan enthusiasm) and the noble wingnuts warriors like tree man who are saving it. The myth of their worldview depends on it.
If you're scared go to church... They can bring their big bad azz over here and try to cut people's heads off if they want to... I promise they'll get rained on. And I'm not talking about making it rain on strippers at the club either. Too many guns in this country for that to happen so don't be skeered
Good idea... Less media coverage would be good as well. They thrive off of that and love being in front of cameras. The media helps spread their terror...
Doubt that will happen because we love fighting too... We're always at war and or in some conflict. You ain't know...
They don't love fighting. They love raping, enslaving and murdering -- there's a difference. They actually hate fighting -- especially the ardent armed women of the Kurds
That was a sarcastic response to "lets call them Daesh" and "the media should just ignore them". If everyone stopped fighting them then they'd take over the world. Here's an explanation of the word though for anyone wondering -
I understood that -- I was just pointing out that people on the left (like myself), who advocate calling them daesh and not giving them so much media attention, are not therefore defending them, minimizing them or asking for them not to be fought. I agree with Remii's point of not giving them so much free advertising, it just increases their profile and encourages Muslims to see them as a legitimate Caliphate. We need to make them look illegitimate: call them by the insulting name, highlight defeats and embarrassments, build up the profile of their enemies. Daesh is obsessed with calling themselves IS and with their propaganda for a reason -- it helps with recruiting.
Think they wanna, they wanna, they wanna, they wanna, they wanna really really really wanna zigazig ha.
Jesus, how ardent are they? Can they fight without messing up their couture and make up? I could see how these Kurdish fighters might lead the celibate young fighters of ISIS to get all crazy and confused. Hell wouldn't you hate fighting with those Kurds and rather make love not war. .
I didn't say ignore them... I said less media coverage because it's scaring the shyt out of people with this nonsense of them taking over the world which is F'n ridiculous. The government wants you to be scared so they can keep gaining more control of you and taking away your freedoms.
I would just like to venture out of my self-imposed D&D exile (peace be upon it!) and say that this is a rare and important article in today's era of click-fest shallow media. Even though some will just use parts of it to confirm a pre-existing viewpoint, I would just like to celebrate that, for the most part, we can still recognize, from all parts of the spectrum, good analysis and careful reporting in the once per decade or so that we see it. May we perhaps see more of it. The Atlantic is going to get a subscription from our household now, just as one tiny, tiny way to reward that type of reporting and substance. Thanks for posting this, OP.
I would disagree with that, everyone in the world already knows about the IS. The news coming in about them isn't good, it's basic updates on the war and more atrocities committed. Per the article itself, the Australian man cringed at the violence that broke the news - as it was an unfortunate side effect of being a true caliphate. And being a true caliphate was the original and still only attraction. It's hard to see what in the news would sway anyone's mind from their original opinion. That said I get the Daesh name, as it takes away respect. At the same time, I wonder if it denies the actual issue at hand - that people are still accepting of a 7th century caliphate returning. Isn't it better to admit that they are a caliphate, and let people see a caliphate is not the answer. Rather than try and deny the issue, confront it head on. ISIS is legit, and extremism is real. Reform, not denial, is the answer.
No one is advocating denial, but if we go around agreeing with them that they are a legitimate caliphate, then we are stupidly assisting them in their recruitment. It is not better to admit they are a caliphate, it is better to challenge that Daesh claim to legitimacy. It is a basic marketing/ propaganda strategy. Why would we reinforce and promote the narrative that Daesh is trying to get out there. It is a dumb thing to do.
don't worry folks, we're in the best of hands, our leaders have an intimate understanding of the threat
