[quote]An NHS doctor left his family in the UK and joined the Islamic State militant group in Syria, the BBC has learned from leaked IS recruitment papers.
Issam Abuanza, 37 - who gained a licence to practise medicine in the UK in 2009 - left his Sheffield home, his wife and two children in 2014.
His sister Najla has told the BBC his parents will never forgive him.
[B]On social media, Dr Abuanza has said he wished that a Jordanian pilot burnt alive by IS had taken longer to die.[/B]
On his Facebook page he is pictured wearing doctors' scrubs and carrying a gun in a holster. He smiles as he raises his finger in the air - a symbolic gesture to represent the oneness of God that is commonly seen in the iconography of Islamic extremism.[/quote]
[URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36362957[/URL]
Poor guy. He was so disenfranchised and oppressed by the West!
I don't understand? What is the appeal to a well educated person like themselves, a doctor, to join ISIS?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;50389053]I don't understand? What is the appeal to a well educated person like themselves, a doctor, to join ISIS?[/QUOTE]
I think it's more of an emotional thing than a rational thing.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;50389053]I don't understand? What is the appeal to a well educated person like themselves, a doctor, to join ISIS?[/QUOTE]
Step 1. Read the Quran, the Hadiths, and various Islamic doctrine.
Step 2. Believe in said texts and doctrine.
Step 3. Carry out the logical theological commandments laid out in said texts/doctrine.
All of this is logical if you really believe.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50389087]Step 1. Read the Quran, the Hadiths, and various Islamic doctrine.
Step 2. Believe in said texts and doctrine.
Step 3. Carry out the logical theological commandments laid out in said texts/doctrine.
All of this is logical if you really believe.[/QUOTE]
Lots of devout muslims condemn ISIS for their actions though, are they not devout muslims or is it only a matter of time?
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50389087]Step 1. Read the Quran, the Hadiths, and various Islamic doctrine.
Step 2. Believe in said texts and doctrine.
Step 3. Carry out the logical theological commandments laid out in said texts/doctrine.
All of this is logical if you really believe.[/QUOTE]
Uh are you implying that ISIS are the "true" muslims and that the moderates who condemn them aren't?
How idiotic.
[QUOTE][b]"His sister Najla has told the BBC his parents will never forgive him."[/b][/QUOTE]
His own muslim parents condemn his actions. How does that in any way indicate that "true practicing muslims" are supposed to follow the doctrines of ISIS?
Whatever ideology you follow, there will always be shitty people. And he happened to be one of those. You guys are the reason why people actually find the need to share posts like "I'm muslim and I'm not a terrorist" on social media just to disassociate themselves with people like these. It's really tragic.
[QUOTE][b]"I would've liked for them to burn him extremely slowly and I could treat him so we could torch him once more."[/b][/QUOTE]
muslim or not these are not the words of a sane man
it's like you guys want to go up to muslims who are just chilling around normally and say "hey man you're not following islam properly according to the qu'ran you should go to the middle east and fight for the cause of isis, burn villages, destroy historical artifacts and ruins, and murder people indiscriminately". anyone with half a brain would know that that's not the logical choice lol
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50389104]
They are not "real muslims" ! Real Muslims follow the book by the word![/QUOTE]
Well yes, otherwise why would you be a muslim? If you don't actually agree with the word of god why on earth would you bother being a muslim?
Obviously whether ISIS follow it properly or not is debated, but there's no doubt that Islamic religious texts provide good justifications for their actions on a religious level.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50389161]If I don't agree with the word of god?
Clearly doable. I guess there are a handful of Christians on the world.[/QUOTE]
The old testament is a rather special case due to the nature of the New Testament, which specifically undoes the large majority of OT rules (such when one of the apostles was specifically told to eat pork). Of course there's no doubt the OT motivates a lot of violent actions, but it's not quite the same.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50389103]Lots of devout muslims condemn ISIS for their actions though, are they not devout muslims or is it only a matter of time?[/QUOTE]
The beard isn't fully developed enough and their liver still hasn't changed into a piece of C4.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50389168]The old testament is a rather special case due to the nature of the New Testament, which specifically undoes the large majority of OT rules (such when one of the apostles was specifically told to eat pork). Of course there's no doubt the OT motivates a lot of violent actions, but it's not quite the same.[/QUOTE]
This. This is the major difference in the violent stuff in the Bible and the Quran. In the Bible, the New Testament declares that most of the OT law was for the Jews and for a specific time. Gentiles (Non-Jews) were told that most of God's law in the OT did not pertain to them any more. The OT is still important to Christians, and is certainly believed to be God-Spoken, but you need the context of the entire Bible to tell what it all means.
As far as I know, the Quran flat-out states that it's followers are to do all of the things in the book without later coming back and saying, "That was for a much less uncivilized time, disregard that."
[I][B]But on topic[/B][/I], it truly is sad that someone would abandon their entire family to side with murderous terrorists. I can't begin to imagine what his family is going through.
How does someone fester those kind of feelings and it goes unnoticed for so long?
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50389104]It is this simple. If only we had known, all it would take was to ban Kuran and Hadiths. Somebody should tell this to world leaders or something
[editline]25th May 2016[/editline]
[url]http://www.diplomaticourier.com/what-motivates-jihadi-terrorism/[/url]
[editline]25th May 2016[/editline]
They are not "real muslims" ! Real Muslims follow the book by the word![/QUOTE]
I keep having to bring this up in threads about Islam, but this is simply a straw man. I don't believe this. Nobody believes this. It is very telling that people keep throwing these straw men around in threads about Islam.
[QUOTE=Rainboo;50389132]Uh are you implying that ISIS are the "true" muslims and that the moderates who condemn them aren't?[/quote]
Nope.
See above.
People who think it literally is just the religion are almost as deluded and wrong as people who think it it is the actions of the west. Here is an old post of mine on this issue: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1514293&p=50124473&viewfull=1#post50124473[/url]
Some key points:
1. Conservative Islam is distinct from Jihadism and Islamism.
2. Islamism is an ideology somewhat based upon (but not only drawing upon) the doctrines of Islam, with heavy influence particularly from European Fascism.
3. Regardless, conservative Islam is a social bad - but isn't the primary cause of terrorism.
4. The West is next to nothing to do with Jihadism and Islamism. Western action plays a small role in the vast ideology of Islamism.
5. Military action is needed to tackle the immediate threat. Political and religious action is needed to tackle the long-term ideology.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50389273]People who think it literally is just the religion are almost as deluded and wrong as people who think it it is the actions of the west. Here is an old post of mine on this issue: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1514293&p=50124473&viewfull=1#post50124473[/url]
Some key points:
1. Conservative Islam is distinct from Jihadism and Islamism.
2. Islamism is an ideology somewhat based upon (but not only drawing upon) the doctrines of Islam, with heavy influence particularly from European Fascism.
3. Regardless, conservative Islam is a social bad - but isn't the primary cause of terrorism.
4. The West is next to nothing to do with Jihadism and Islamism. Western action plays a small role in the vast ideology of Islamism.
5. Military action is needed to tackle the immediate threat. Political and religious action is needed to tackle the long-term ideology.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you on this and that old post you did was excellent, but I'm not sure about military action in the short term, didn't we try that for the last decade vs taliban and al queda, they're strong as ever and in many cases it seems worse now.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50389267]I keep having to bring this up in threads about Islam, but this is simply a straw man. I don't believe this. Nobody believes this. It is very telling that people keep throwing these straw men around in threads about Islam.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50389087]Step 1. Read the Quran, the Hadiths, and various Islamic doctrine.
Step 2. Believe in said texts and doctrine.
Step 3. Carry out the logical theological commandments laid out in said texts/doctrine.
All of this is logical if you really believe.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50389289]I agree with you on this and that old post you did was excellent, but I'm not sure about military action in the short term, didn't we try that for the last decade vs taliban and al queda, they're strong as ever and in many cases it seems worse now.[/QUOTE]
I don't have time to write an enormous thing about military intervention, which I think is usually (but not always) effective at *reducing* (but not necessarily ending) violence.
On Afghanistan, people underestimate how [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1518135&p=50293794&viewfull=1#post50293794"]bad the country was before the intervention[/URL]. We withdrew prematurely from the country and as such enabled the Taliban to return. The same occurred in Iraq.
Blowback doesn't occur from military intervention. The Jeremy Corbyn/Glenn Greenwald/Seumus Milne etc. view that intervention will simply create more anger and increase violence is nonsense. I covered this in the post I [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php...1#post50124473"]linked[/URL] earlier.
Ultimately, it comes down to the reality, that now, and right now, jihadis are slaughtering and raping people on the ground, and plotting terrorist attacks to damage us in the West. It is all very well considering how we should deal with the issue in the long term, but we don't really have a choice but to act against militants (it is too late for serious action against IS, I should note though), as they have a gun to our head.
Also, Al Qaeda were losing as a result of constant military action. Military action was effective against Al Qaeda. Not totally effective, but effective enough. People mistake their continued existence for proof that they kept on receiving support and gaining recruits. In fact, they have effectively no support in Islamic countries as a whole, and even less in the areas directly affected by militant actions. The reality is that insurgencies can survive with near to no support whatsoever. FARC is a good example of this.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50389273]People who think it literally is just the religion are almost as deluded and wrong as people who think it it is the actions of the west. Here is an old post of mine on this issue: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1514293&p=50124473&viewfull=1#post50124473[/url]
Some key points:
1. Conservative Islam is distinct from Jihadism and Islamism.
2. Islamism is an ideology somewhat based upon (but not only drawing upon) the doctrines of Islam, with heavy influence particularly from European Fascism.
3. Regardless, conservative Islam is a social bad - but isn't the primary cause of terrorism.
4. The West is next to nothing to do with Jihadism and Islamism. Western action plays a small role in the vast ideology of Islamism.
5. Military action is needed to tackle the immediate threat. Political and religious action is needed to tackle the long-term ideology.[/QUOTE]
It's not the only cause, but people seem to flat out deny Islams involvement in it.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;50389053]I don't understand? What is the appeal to a well educated person like themselves, a doctor, to join ISIS?[/QUOTE]
And what makes other educated western people from first world countries which officially condemn isis on every level possible join it? It's not like being educated or rational completely excludes the possibility of being violent or greedy or misguided by your beliefs and whatnot, it just makes you way more dangerous if you follow the wrong path. Do you really think every single isis member is a crazy uneducated maniac?
[QUOTE=antianan;50389351]And what makes other educated western people from first world countries which officially condemn isis on every level possible join it? It's not like being educated or rational completely excludes the possibility of being violent or greedy or misguided by your beliefs and whatnot, it just makes you way more dangerous if you follow the wrong path. Do you really think every single isis member is a crazy uneducated maniac?[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;ryA8PafooQ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryA8PafooQ4[/video]
This is pretty good on this claim that bad people are 'maniacs' if you ignore the religious aspect.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50389318]I don't have time to write an enormous thing about military intervention, which I think is usually (but not always) effective at *reducing* (but not necessarily ending) violence.
On Afghanistan, people underestimate how [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1518135&p=50293794&viewfull=1#post50293794"]bad the country was before the intervention[/URL]. We withdrew prematurely from the country and as such enabled the Taliban to return. The same occurred in Iraq.
[/quote]
I think the issue with afghanistan is that it was our third option. We tried to work with the taliban, not understanding their culture/the situation and assumed they would cooperate and surrender their "guest". Then we made a pact with the warlords to help find bin laden, they failed and then the army went in. The warlords still demanded their reward (the country) and bin laden had plenty of warning and time to prepare. A combination of lack of ethnic and cultural understanding, vast corrupting, compromising for the warlords, general culture there and lack of transparency made the entire thing shitty and the shitty udnerstanding made it easy for taliban to recruit.
[quote]
Blowback doesn't occur from military intervention. The Jeremy Corbyn/Glenn Greenwald/Seumus Milne etc. view that intervention will simply create more anger and increase violence is nonsense. I covered this in the post I [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php...1#post50124473"]linked[/URL] earlier.
[/quote]
Link didn't work here, I'd like to read it if you could fix though? Intervention does create more violence, intervention in Libya caused a tidal wave of violence which washed south causing french to have to intervene in mali and a bunch of terrorist groups to receive increased support and men. Afghanistan isn't a perfect example because what happened was exacerbated by the plethora of mistakes made but I think violence definately increased in peoples day to day lives and bred support for terror cells in the region. US bombings in afghanistan and pakistan have become the main recruiting tool for terrorists there, when asked why the coalition were occupying the area most afghans had no idea, they just thought we were an invading force.
[quote]
Ultimately, it comes down to the reality, that now, and right now, jihadis are slaughtering and raping people on the ground, and plotting terrorist attacks to damage us in the West. It is all very well considering how we should deal with the issue in the long term, but we don't really have a choice but to act against militants (it is too late for serious action against IS, I should note though), as they have a gun to our head.
[/quote]
I agree something needs to be done about the sitation with ISIS, i think boots on ground is the best way but also a bloody and unpopular way and I don't really want to advocate it since I have no idea how it would play out + theres so many different groups there. I only recently discovered some assyrian forum, they are accusing the kurds of doing ethnic cleansing against them. Everyone seems to have everyone, if we pick a side we alienate people, if we don't then we stand no chance of having order.
[quote]
Also, Al Qaeda were losing as a result of constant military action. Military action was effective against Al Qaeda. Not totally effective, but effective enough. People mistake their continued existence for proof that they kept on receiving support and gaining recruits. In fact, they have effectively no support in Islamic countries as a whole, and even less in the areas directly affected by militant actions. The reality is that insurgencies can survive with near to no support whatsoever. FARC is a good example of this.[/QUOTE]
Al queda broke into several groups several of which turned into the really nasty ones like IS, BH and those ones who did that mall killing in kenya. We didn't do anything against the ideology, its like a metastatic cancer broken up and spread into the lymph nodes. They don't seem to need support from the locals. I guess a solution might be to strengthen the states where its happening so the governments have the power to independently crack down on groups, but places like nigeria where its so large and rural they could hide anywhere and governments just arent able to do anything.
[editline]25th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50389337]It's not the only cause, but people seem to flat out deny Islams involvement in it.[/QUOTE]
Islam is involved in it but if they weren't muslim they would find a different reason to do what they're doing.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50389087]Step 1. Read the Quran, the Hadiths, and various Islamic doctrine.
Step 2. Believe in said texts and doctrine.
Step 3. Carry out the logical theological commandments laid out in said texts/doctrine.
All of this is logical if you really believe.[/QUOTE]
But it also covers some relatively "normal" stuff, like ownership laws and marriage laws.
Are laws only ever logical if you really believe? Like the EU law, or the federal law of the United States?
[editline]all praise to allah[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50389104]They are not "real muslims" ! Real Muslims follow the book by the word![/QUOTE]
But the words are not always up to interpretation. The message is often pretty clear.
However, I haven't read the Qu'ran myself, so I can't talk about it much further, plus I feel it's quite inappropriate or utterly disrespectful for me to speak on behalf of it. I should read the bitch.
These two blog posts explain everything against blowback far better than I can personally, backed up by a large number of studies:
[url]http://anonymousmugwump.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/blowback-against-glenn-greenwald-1.html[/url]
[url]http://anonymousmugwump.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/five-myths-about-isis.html[/url]
Basically, the entire claim about blowback simply isn't backed up by empirical evidence whatsoever. Intervention has decreased violence in Gaza, the West Bank, Pakistan and Mali. More questionably (given that arguably the violence was created by Western intervention in the first place) is the big reduction in violence caused by the Surge and increase in troop numbers in Iraq, followed by the large increases in violence following US withdrawal as a result of Obama's terrible foreign policy.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/17/drone-blow-back-in-pakistan-is-a-myth-heres-why/[/url]
The claims that drones cause increased violence are equally untrue. They come from two sources: listening to clearly irrational grievances from terrorists who stand to gain from lack of intervention, and pure supposition and an ideological opposition to any intervention from the people who push it in the West.
[QUOTE]To assess local perceptions of drone strikes, I conducted 147 semi-structured interviews with adult (18 years or older) residents of North Waziristan in the summer and winter of 2015. Access to the respondents was made possible by the Pakistani military’s June 2014 offensive against the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) that displaced some 800,000 locals from their homes to the adjoining “settled” districts. While the sample is not statistically representative of the entire population, it constitutes the largest set of in-depth interviews with people from the district, including maliks (tribal elders), reporters, lawyers, businessmen, rights activists, teachers, university students, and last but not least, heads and members of the local chapters of seven political parties, including the Islamist Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam (JUI-Fazlur-Rehman) and the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI).
Broadly speaking, the interview data do not support the blowback thesis. More specifically, the data contradict the presumed local radicalization effects of drones. [B]In fact, 79 percent of the respondents endorsed drones. In sharp contrast to claims about the significant civilian death toll from drone strikes, 64 percent, including several living in villages close to strike locations, believed that drone strikes accurately targeted militants.[/B] While many interviewees did specifically point to pre-2012 “signature strikes,” which targeted groups of men based on behavior patterns rather than individual identity, as the cause of occasionally high fatalities, [B]56 percent believed drones seldom killed non-militants.[/B] And as the Crisis Group and Georgetown’s Christine Fair have noted, most locals prefer drones to the Pakistan military’s ground and aerial offensives that cause more extensive damage to civilian life and property...
Drone warfare in the FATA has many problems. But as my interview data clearly suggest, blowback is not one of them. In fact, the data show the opposite: Most respondents support drone strikes. This is not to say that America’s drone campaign is “winning hearts and minds,” to borrow that imperious slogan of U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine. Instead, locals approve of drone attacks because they viscerally hate the militants and feel betrayed by their own government. As one university student from the North Waziristan town of Mir Ali pragmatically explained it: “When the government left us at the mercy of the zalim (cruel) Taliban, we used to feel utterly helpless and cower in fear. Since nobody seemed concerned with our plight, the drones were the closest thing to getting your prayers answered.”[/QUOTE]
The people most in support of intervention are those affected by militants themselves. People assume the areas with militants support the militants because the militants are able to survive. This isn't true, because militants can survive without any support from the local population at all.
[QUOTE]Al queda broke into several groups several of which turned into the really nasty ones like IS, BH and those ones who did that mall killing in kenya. We didn't do anything against the ideology, its like a metastatic cancer broken up and spread into the lymph nodes. They don't seem to need support from the locals. I guess a solution might be to strengthen the states where its happening so the governments have the power to independently crack down on groups, but places like nigeria where its so large and rural they could hide anywhere and governments just arent able to do anything.[/QUOTE]
Lack of military action is even worse. Central to the legitimacy of IS is its controlled territory. When fascism was defeated, it was completely destroyed because it failed fundamentally in militarily succeeding, which is a major part of its doctrine. The same can be said against Islamists. Of course there will be violence after intervention. But overall, 'welfare' is increased as a result of intervention. The counter-factual of doing little to nothing has played out in Syria, and Syria has been many, many times worse than Afghanistan, for example. Iraq is more debatable, however that involved other factors, as action was taken as a result of supposed WMDs rather than against Islamists.
[editline]25th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE]I agree something needs to be done about the sitation with ISIS, i think boots on ground is the best way but also a bloody and unpopular way and I don't really want to advocate it since I have no idea how it would play out + theres so many different groups there. I only recently discovered some assyrian forum, they are accusing the kurds of doing ethnic cleansing against them. Everyone seems to have everyone, if we pick a side we alienate people, if we don't then we stand no chance of having order.[/QUOTE]
We could have picked a side by supporting the FSA earlier before the other groups grew massively in power and Syria turned into the catastrophe it is. After there were so many groups involved, and the FSA declined in power, our opportunity was gone.
:snip: auto-merge
What a twat, he had everything and tossed it all away because of some deep seeded hatred for the very country he was living comfortably in.
I hope he finds everything he wants from Isis, including a hellfire missile
[QUOTE=Sableye;50389629]What a twat, he had everything and tossed it all away because of some deep seeded hatred for the very country he was living comfortably in.
I hope he finds everything he wants from Isis, including a hellfire missile[/QUOTE]
His family will hate him when they end up living in a bombed out building in an abandoned city with no clean water, flickering lights and religious police knocking on their door demanding money to pay for mass murder of civilians.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50389649]His family will hate him when they end up living in a bombed out building in an abandoned city with no clean water, flickering lights and religious police knocking on their door demanding money to pay for mass murder of civilians.[/QUOTE]
it sounds like all his family believes he's gone nuts and has no plans to ever join him in the hell that is syria. its really tragic, but looking at his social media rants before he joined up, it seems like his family should have seen something, he was celebrating all sorts of terrorist acts on twitter and stuff long before he left for syria
And no-one in his community, especially other practicing Muslims picked up on the fact he was potentially becoming radicalized? Exactly. It won't stop until they start stopping their own from doing this shit.
every time an islam thread comes up, I can always count on facepunch into turning it into a "no true scottsman" argument thread.
its easier to understand why someone uneducated would fall for ISIS. the thing that puzzles me is why are more educated people following ISIS? makes me wonder what kind of propaganda they must have to enable this.
then again, don't always assume things, he may have been a doctor, [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/16/why-us-last-ebola-travel-ban-ben-carson/"]but not all doctors say or do the smartest things either[/URL]
What an ungrateful prick.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;50389053]I don't understand? What is the appeal to a well educated person like themselves, a doctor, to join ISIS?[/QUOTE]
Blind fundamentalism.
I feel sorry for this guy's family, the wife and kids he's left behind Can't imagine what's going through their heads right now.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;50390511]Blind fundamentalism.
I feel sorry for this guy's family, the wife and kids he's left behind Can't imagine what's going through their heads right now.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, talk about inconsiderate. It's ironic that he's joined a group that willingly and brutally end peoples' lives when his job is to save them, his name will probably be struck from NHS records.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
