On the point of 'is this war on terror/war on ISIS an actual war' - yeah it is. The nature of warfare is ever changing. We call these types of wars 'New Wars'. Wars aren't necessarily between two states, or localised in one theatre. The concept of a battlefield doesn't exist anymore, the whole world is the battlefield. Since the 90s, these 'New Wars' have had an increasingly eschatological slant and since the 70s there's been a significant decrease in the amount of interstate wars. The wars we think of when we think of the word 'war' are the 'traditional' types of wars, dominated by Clausewitzian thinking. That's old school, though. Many of the traditional assumptions of warfare no longer relate to the current nature of it. Our war with ISIS is a war. It's a war between an exclusivist (Salafi jihadists) and cosmopolitan identity group. They're reliant on guerrilla techniques and counterinsurgency (international terrorism = modern guerrilla warfare). Their territory is controlled by political manipulation by peddling fear and hatred. State's no longer have a monopoly on legitimised political violence - this has been steadily eroding along with the changing nature of warfare.
Expanding on this point, over the last half century war has become far less total. We do not go in with everything we have. We take care in selecting methods that produce the least collateral damage. I don't know if 'noble' is the best word to describe, but there's international norms that focus on making war more humane.
Their ideology and their war effort are the same thing. Their ideology is jihad - 'holy war'. This eschatological type of war, while being religious in nature, isn't solely motivated by religion. Do you disagree that economic aspirations and geopolitics have influenced ISIS's formation and how the conduct themselves in their jihad?
Originally Posted by cowmeat
"But all of a sudden we expect war to be a noble thing"
There are things like warcrimes, Geneva conventions (protocols of war) etc., so yeah, we kind of do expect war to be atleast somewhat "noble"
Expanding on this point, over the last half century war has become far less total. We do not go in with everything we have. We take care in selecting methods that produce the least collateral damage. I don't know if 'noble' is the best word to describe, but there's international norms that focus on making war more humane.
Originally Posted by Zelda
I'm afraid I am not buying that these attacks are motivated by anything other than the urge to satisfy religious hatred in the short-term. They are doing this for their ideology, not for their war effort.
Their ideology and their war effort are the same thing. Their ideology is jihad - 'holy war'. This eschatological type of war, while being religious in nature, isn't solely motivated by religion. Do you disagree that economic aspirations and geopolitics have influenced ISIS's formation and how the conduct themselves in their jihad?
Originally Posted by Ele
Their ideology and their war effort are the same thing. Their ideology is jihad - 'holy war'. This eschatological type of war, while being religious in nature, isn't solely motivated by religion. Do you disagree that economic aspirations and geopolitics have influenced ISIS's formation and how the conduct themselves in their jihad?
Maybe you have misunderstood what I was trying to say? I was not saying anything about geopolitics or the formation of ISIS, I was trying to find a suitable place to draw the line when it comes to the types of attacks we are including in this discussion as acts of terrorism for the sake of the thread's future clarity. I know nothing of politics, but I was concerned that Smogard was taking the thread off topic so wanted to make sure I knew what on topic actually was.
Last edited by Zelda; Mar 24, 2016 at 05:01 AM.
Good morning sweet princess
Right. It seemed like you said that ISIS's acts of terrorism were/are only motivated by their religious fervour. Isn't that what you were saying? If that's what you're saying then you're divorcing geopolitics and economics from their decision-making process. That's what I was getting at.
Originally Posted by Zelda
Although there is a discussion as to whether Terrorism is growing as a result of Islam or Islam growing as an excuse for terrorism
What? I didn't read the whole discussion, will do later probably, but I don't get this statement. What do you mean?
“War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin, keep out of the way till you can.” - Winston Churchill
Originally Posted by bigGrin
What? I didn't read the whole discussion, will do later probably, but I don't get this statement. What do you mean?
Well you could argue that growth in the worship of Islam is what is causing an increase in terrorism, this would be a pretty standard view. You could also try to argue that some other factor is causing the terrorism, and that people are turning to (radical) Islam to justify what they are doing instead of admitting that it is another, more self centred or disenchanting factor which is making them do it. I don't necessarily support either of the viewpoints, they were just examples of what would be acceptable.
-----
Ele: what do ISIS gain from these attacks economically? They require an expenditure of resources which would likely be better used in holding or capturing strategically important territories in the Middle East.
Last edited by Zelda; Mar 25, 2016 at 10:39 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
