[emil0r]

I really wonder how this got to be the explanation behind IS and similar groups. They always reference the Qu'ran, the hadiths and the sunnah in everything they do. The US foreign policy was used as a convenient excuse and certainly wasn't helping at times, but the drive does not come from how they've been treated. The drive comes directly from the religious commands found in the Qu'ran, the hadiths and the sunnah.

It's the teachings combined with the knowledge of them combined with a desire to follow them that is creating the current situation with IS and other groups.

[dragonwriter]

> I really wonder how this got to be the explanation behind IS and similar groups.

Because its not that hard to observe the conditions in the world, historically, in which people are attracted, and not attracted, to violent groups like IS, of varying sources of ideological propaganda.

> They always reference the Qu'ran, the hadiths and the sunnah in everything they do.

Yes, that's their source of ideological propaganda, and its obviously a source that makes a lot of sense when you are recruiting in a place where people are previously socialized to favor those sources.

But there are plenty of people in the same regions that aren't violent extremists that also reference the Qu'ran, hadiths, and sunnah in everything they do.

> The US foreign policy was used as a convenient excuse

The US foreign policy is one of the major factors creating the conditions which lead to their particular application of the Qu'ran, hadiths, and sunnah being as successful as it is in appealing to people in the region.

[gjm11]

There are something like a billion Muslims who treat the Qur'an and the sunnah with equal reverence but somehow manage to get through their lives without beheading anyone or pillaging any cities.

And there are plenty of people who have been screwed over by US foreign policy but who, again, somehow manage to refrain from committing atrocities.

Terrorism generally seems to spring up where there is both a big political grievance and some kind of ideological foundation to hook it onto. That's not an absolute requirement (e.g., I don't believe the Tamil Tigers had any ideology beyond their nationalism; on a much smaller scale, the occasional cases of Christians blowing up abortion clinics aren't very political) but generally that partnership is what does it.

And when that's the case, it's misleading to blame the terrorism exclusively on the ideology or exclusively on the political grievance.

Groups like IS and al Qaeda, so far as I can tell, really truly do believe that what they are doing is justified by Islam; and they really truly do believe that what they are doing is a necessary response to US intervention in the Middle East.

[DanBC]

All the non violent muslims have access to the same book and teachings, so why are they non violent?

Any religion can be distorted. There's a buddhist army and two buddhist terrorist groups currently operating, yet most people would rate buddhism as one of the most pacifist religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena

[simonh]

If that was true all Muslims would support ISIS but they don't. The ones that do largely come from and are based in the section of Iraq that got most massively screwed over in the US lead invasion. You're telling me that's purely a co-incidence?

There's no excuse for what ISIS does. No reason is strong enough for the kind of barbarity they practice, but characterising it as purely senseless and ignoring the actual reasons behind it doesn't help either. The actual reasons they do what they do may not be sufficient or reasonable relative to their actions, and may not actually align well with their rhetoric, but they do exist.

[philh]

> If that was true all Muslims would support ISIS but they don't.

Different people react to things differently, interpret things differently, take ideas more or less seriously, and so on.

I think the reasoning: "if ISIS was about religion, then all muslims would support ISIS", would approximately equally support: "if ISIS was about foreign policy, then all Iraqis would support ISIS".

I don't think either of those if-thens holds as an if-then, regardless of the truth value of the "if" part.

[magicalist]

> but the drive does not come from how they've been treated

> It's the teachings combined with...a desire to follow them

where do you think that desire comes from?

Saying "US foreign policy" created these groups isn't a great short hand for talking about the creation of the conditions that foment these groups. In reality it's an incredibly complicated situation where almost any action will have downsides that entail a lot of human suffering, but US foreign policy is an outsized input into that situation, so it's right to hold it responsible in turn for whatever those consequences are.

[happyscrappy]

The Middle East was peaceful until the US started meddling so anything bad that happens there is their fault.

[magicalist]

Yes, that's called "completely missing the point for little rhetorical gain". I did not say it was solely anyone's fault.

[JonnieCache]

Here's some info about ISIS and its origins

http://wartard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-idea-of-isis-histo...

Hint: they don't do it because they read it in a book, any more than the US kills and maims people because of the bible.

[AngrySkillzz]

Think about it from a historical perspective: religion has always been a tool used by the powerful to motivate the masses and mask their own agendas. Think about the Roman emperor Constantine, who converted his empire to Christianity. Most would argue it was an attempt to preserve the integrity of the empire so he could maintain power. How different is this from a radical group in the Middle East using religion to motivate other to join their cause? Or using Islam to cover up their actual political motivations?

[reagency]

This article is not about IS. Take it elsewhere.

[HanyouHottie]

The US foreign policy can destroy the well-being of entire nations, and therefore the lives of millions of people. When you come to the conclusion that your life and the lives of everyone you've known have been fucked over by a nation half way around the world, I image that can get you pretty mad.

The movie Three Kings explores this a bit:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120188/

[happyscrappy]

Mad enough to behead other Muslims?