UK General Election 2017

[Pannonian]

But why? Even if they did have an ambition to attack Christians indiscriminately - even if this were their only ambition, which they don't claim it to be - far better to do so in Africa and Eurasia than South America. Their stated principle does not oblige them to evenly distribute attacks geographically or by population.

The official ISIS rag states that our liberalism is one of the main reasons why they attack us, and will continue attacking us (explicitly refuting the possibility that our foreign policies may substantially contribute to our status as targets). And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.

[Montmorency]

Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq? You take exception to equating Muslims with ISIS. Listen to his comments then. Like I said, his group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK, and one that has had the ear of the PM in the past. What about him do you think lacks credibility? If he doesn't lack credibility, why don't you address his argument?

What do you think his argument is, exactly? Are you referring to something other than the posted interview?

The official ISIS rag states that our liberalism is one of the main reasons why they attack us, and will continue attacking us (explicitly refuting the possibility that our foreign policies may substantially contribute to our status as targets). And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.

You are right in the sense that IS is founded upon the premise of direct war with - well, everyone, but particularly Europe and America.

But IS isn't the only organization out there, and while IS has been bleeding out in their blaze of glory, Al Qaeda is calmly expanding to fill whatever vacuum will remain. Their Long War/Management of Savagery doctrine may prove more worrisome than IS' blunt approach, since it is specifically designed to subvert and manipulate Western foreign policies.

[Pannonian]

What do you think his argument is, exactly? Are you referring to something other than the posted interview?

You are right in the sense that IS is founded upon the premise of direct war with - well, everyone, but particularly Europe and America.

But IS isn't the only organization out there, and while IS has been bleeding out in their blaze of glory, Al Qaeda is calmly expanding to fill whatever vacuum will remain. Their Long War/Management of Savagery doctrine may prove more worrisome than IS' blunt approach, since it is specifically designed to subvert and manipulate Western foreign policies.

Rafiq's argument is that, until we recognise that this is a Muslim problem founded on Muslims practicing a form of Islam, then we'll never get anywhere towards finding a lasting solution, as it allows Muslims (and he's talking about the UK here, as his group is only concerned with Muslims in the UK) to ignore that fundamental problem. Non-Muslim attempts to excuse Muslims from this gives Muslims the excuse they want to say that this is none of their business. What ISIS represents isn't something that isn't really Islam. It is founded on something that is part of Islam, and history shows that Muslims can readily turn to that. That's not them not being Muslims; them joining or supporting ISIS is indeed Muslim, and denying it makes it easier to deny the problem and allow the problem to persist.

His group's stated challenge is to find a way for Muslims in Britain to be part of Britain. So Sarmatian's and Husar's jibes about wanting to deport Muslims are wide of the mark.

[Sarmatian]

Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq?

No, I must have missed that post. A link?

And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.

Would you accept Russian official comments on their involvement in Ukraine as readily as you accepted this? We have an entire system in place that checks and rechecks "official statements" of our own politicians, precisely because we know we mustn't take them at face value.

If you don't like the Russian example, take Kurdish terrorists. They're targeting Turkey, not Austria.
Like it or not, there's a political goal tied to terrorist attacks. That doesn't mean there aren't some moral (from their point of view) reasons as well, but they're not 100% irrational as presented by you (and almost all of western media). So, yes, I'm taking that particular story with a grain of salt.

[Pannonian]

No, I must have missed that post. A link?



Would you accept Russian official comments on their involvement in Ukraine as readily as you accepted this? We have an entire system in place that checks and rechecks "official statements" of our own politicians, precisely because we know we mustn't take them at face value.

If you don't like the Russian example, take Kurdish terrorists. They're targeting Turkey, not Austria.
Like it or not, there's a political goal tied to terrorist attacks. That doesn't mean there aren't some moral (from their point of view) reasons as well, but they're not 100% irrational as presented by you (and almost all of western media). So, yes, I'm taking that particular story with a grain of salt.

If we're talking about why ISIS attack the west, are we then to ignore what ISIS say, and instead generate our own explanation independent of anything they say? See my numerous posts about the increased tendency to dismiss primary sources close to the subject as biased, in favour of another narrative that one prefers.

[Montmorency]

If we're talking about why ISIS attack the west, are we then to ignore what ISIS say, and instead generate our own explanation independent of anything they say? See my numerous posts about the increased tendency to dismiss primary sources close to the subject as biased, in favour of another narrative that one prefers.

It's pretty clear Sarmatian is saying that primary sources need context and complementary investigation to be best utilized, something I hope you don't wish to dispute.

[Pannonian]

It's pretty clear Sarmatian is saying that primary sources need context and complementary investigation to be best utilized, something I hope you don't wish to dispute.

When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?

[Pannonian]

A couple of questions.

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A couple of questions.

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

The first question is a vital one for historians and journalists alike. Remember, no matter how "spun" the first-person source may be, it generally provides an accurate sense of how they WANT to be viewed. That, of itself, does tell you something. Obviously, relying solely on first person sources has its limitations. Caesar's discussion of the culture of Long-haired Gaul was hardly a complete treatment and was written for the Roman middle classes -- his electorate.

[Montmorency]

When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?

The horse's feet?

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?

You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...

Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?

Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

I don't see that I have.

[Pannonian]

The horse's feet?

You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...

Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?

I don't see that I have.

Do other primary sources contradict that article?