Forum:ISIS- Parasite or Cancer

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Knowing ISIS is a totally bat shit insane group and are probably in the top five for most insane, which is ISIS more like- parasite or cancer? They have not ability to feel, they like to destroy historical sites, they use fear to get what they want (Though almost all terror groups are like that) so I would say a Cancer. Post your thoughts.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

cancer. A parasite needs its host to live. Cancer is living tissue gone haywire and out of control, threatening the life of the organism. Today there are possible cures for cancer - or at least sending it back into remission. A parasite needs to be flushed down the shit hole and into the sewage system, so yes, ISIS does have similarities to parasites, too. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 02:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Cancers die along with the body. ISIS could survive even if they manage to kill everyone else off. CorruptUser (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
ISIS is not a parasite, nor is it a cancer. It is an ideological movement born of a number of political factors, the two most important of which are a series of grievous errors reaching back decades in the conception and execution of US (and allied nations, to a lesser extent) foreign and military policies and the disillusionment/disappointment/revulsion of a generation of young men in the state of the politics of their home region in the post-Cold War era, if not, (and this may be a bit of a stretch, but I think it's worth thinking about) the post-colonial/post-mandate era more generally. To try to think of a movement like this as "evil embodied" or with disease metaphors is to de-historicize the movement, to de-politicize the movement, to obscure the very real responsibilities that particular actors have for creating the dynamics that led to the movement, and to block off any meaningful discussion about how to deal with the movement or how to prevent mistakes similar to the ones that got us here from being made again. Instead of asking silly and meaningless questions, go to the library and check out a dozen or so books on the history and the politics of the Middle East since the 1970s. Go through back issues of Foreign Affairs and read 50 or so articles from a variety of perspectives. Dig through the archives of Juan Cole's blog. Then come and talk to us about the nature of ISIS. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
ISIS is the West's fault blah blah bla ... BULLSHIT. It's a warped, sick, fucked up ideology aimed at suppressing the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the past 1400 years. Period. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 03:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That goes a little bit further than I would go. Sa'udi Arabia represents a mistake made by Her Majesty's government a long time ago. The Hashemites had a better claim to stewardship of the Holy Cities; the Jordanian monarchy is what they got. And the world would have been a better place if that lineage controlled the oil and resulting cash flow rather than the Sa'udis. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Aging Hippie, here's a question for you. The West was worse, FAR worse to Sub-Saharran Africa and Eastern Asia. Nothing the west has ever done to the Mid-East could ever compare to what Belgium did to Zaire, nothing. Yet THEY aren't producing any groups of significance that have pledged the annihilation of Western society; in fact, in spite of killing over a million Vietnamese they are actually friendly with the US. We nuked Japan, and they practically love the US. Why is that? Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the culture of the Islamic world is one that actually promotes the hatred that has resulted in ISIS? CorruptUser (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not discounting fundamentalist Islam as a key ideological factor at play. But fundamentalist Islam, like all ideologies, will only thrive given the historical/cultural/economic dynamics that are at play. Read again what I wrote -- yes, US and Western foreign policy is at play. Equally important in my thumbnail analysis is a profound sense of disillusionment among young Muslim (mostly) men. Disillusionment with repressive Middle Eastern regimes (many of them propped up by the US, but still perpetuating locally-rooted injustices), disillusionment with the continued occupation/subjugation of the Palestinian people, etc. etc. There are lots of domestic reasons, as well as foreign/neo-imperial ones, that created the environment in which a hateful ideology could thrive. I would rather learn more about those dynamics then dismiss them out of hand with a "Muslims be evil" or "this is a cancer" "they are evil-doers" non-analysis. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
So it's been about a week or so since this discussion but whatever, I'll hop in anyway. So the Daesh is in fact a cancer. The Middle East has this cancer inside of them that must be removed. Now this cancer has been brought upon by many things. While the fact that a corporation downstream has been dumping toxic chemicals into your drinking water probably is the primary reason why you have cancer it still doesn't explain why your cancer is so much more aggressive than your neighbors. In any case while getting the corporation to stop dumping toxic waste in the water is necessary to prevent you from getting cancer this still doesn't change the fact that if you do not remove or destroy said cancer than it will kill you. Alsto003 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Alex
Oh, I agree, understand them. But that also means you shouldn't refuse the answer if it's not one you like. CorruptUser (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
And what is 'the' answer? That religions can be used to get people to rally behind wars? That seems kinda obvious. And maybe Islam is a religion that lends itself to that purpose easier than some others, but that that property can vary from one religion to another is again kinda obvious. And given the history of religiously inspired conflict in the Judeo-Christian tradition, calling Islam a major example of this is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm also not sure how suggesting Islam is an inherently violent or hateful ideology or culture is supposed to be helpful, since that just lends itself as a justification for more discrimination and conflict. (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Polygyny. Wealth inequality too, which polygyny is a part of I suppose. This is tied into the religion yes, but Islam varies far more than Christianity, as is to be expected from a religion that spans from North Africa to Southeast Asia. But from what I understand about the Gitmo detainees from their interviews and such is that the "educated" portion of Al Qaeda is made up of sexually frustrated young men. No, seriously, they are virtually all MRA's. This is in part because in any society, there will be the entitled bastards who think they deserve Keira Knightley. But in places with polygyny, the percentage of unmarriable men is much greater. Actually crunch the numbers. At birth, there are 21 men for every 20 women, so right off the bat there's a spare man. Now add in polygyny. If one of those men has 3 wives, and two more have 2 wives, that's nearly a quarter of all men who simply will not be able to marry. And that's before adding in sex selective abortion. Simply put, you are going to have huge swaths of the population that, well, you get the idea.
And that's before getting into the question of whether or not Salafism really is what Mohammed practiced. CorruptUser (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay.. I guess you could consider male sexual frustation a factor as to why people join jihadist/terrorist groups, maybe even a major one. So what would your solution be? Force all Muslim countries to ban polygyny? Start up female baby farms? (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ban polygyny and sex selective abortions. From there, work on reducing the wealth inequality a bit, so that the vast majority of men in the Mid-East can "afford" a wife rather than only the rich. CorruptUser (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. Personally I don't think polygyny is that big an issue, let alone the main driving factor behind jihadism. Even if you succeed in banning it, though, won't the rich pro-polygyny dudes just take concubines instead of extra wives? (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You could argue the same about rich people in the West. Like there's an Italian politician without a mistress on the side. You'd need to combine it with women's education, so that no woman is ever forced into the position where she has to get married or starve. That alone would probably be enough to cripple polygyny. CorruptUser (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
More importantly, it'd un-cripple women's position in society. (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The banning of polygyny is a question of religion, not women's rights. That stuff was banned by Christian politicians before any kind of women's rights movement existed. If the laws would be changed into treating men and women exactly the same, than polygamy (polygyny or polyandry or a mix of both) wouldn't be a problem, if it ever was.--Arisboch (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Polygyny was banned by Rome and Greece, because they practiced sex-selective murder, so they already had a massive woman shortage. What ended up happening as a result was that the upper classes just divorced their wives as soon as they got a little wrinkly, throwing them on the street. Christianity banned divorce to prevent this, in a 'progressive in its day' sort of way. CorruptUser (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't saying polygyny's a women's rights thing. I was saying that I perceive the direct beneficial effect for women from women's education as more important than the proposed crippling effect it'd have on the practice of polygyny. (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So we both believe that gender equality and world peace are important goals, but you believe gender equality is slightly more important while I believe world peace is slightly more important, yet we both agree that women's education is among the best solutions for both of these problems. We have similar and related goals, our method of achieving those goals is identical, so we must be mortal enemies. Heathen! CorruptUser (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying gender equality is more important than world peace, but educating women is something that has a direct beneficial effect for these women, while polygyny is only indirectly a bad thing (as far as world peace is concerned) since it reduces the amount of marriagable women which seems to have a destabilizing effect on society. Personally, I'd prefer a solution to the latter issue that didn't involve using women as a tool to pacify frustrated men through marriage. Surely there's something else that these men can preoccupy themselves with besides having sex and waging war? (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What kind of right-wing crap is this? ISIS are poor little victims of the White/Jewish capitalist imperialist cisheterosexist patriarchy. They should be hugged, just like pedophiles. In fact, we should donate to ISIS and help them destroy Christianity and achieve world Communism. Typical lib (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally somebody gets it. Why can't the rest of you be as Typical as this lib? Fonzie (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a little of both, although they're beyond mere protection rackets and bank robberies now. They have conquered oil wells and racking in sums Osama's little outfit could only dream of.--Arisboch (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"and help them destroy Christianity and achieve world Communism." Um, wut? Conspiracy thinking much? (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It was a joke, silly.--Arisboch (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For the person who said ISIS is not a parasite or cancer but an ideology, I already knew that. It is merely an analogy.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Since cancer is basically tissue that's become parasitic, it seems like a pretty pointless choice, to be honest. (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Cancer. LlamaPastor31 In the name of Unicode! 23:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd actually say parasite, because it feeds off of legitimate concerns and grievances of the civilian population of the region it inhabits, but twists those to create something far worse and more harmful. Cancer is uncontrolled cell growth. ISIS is a group that thrives off of Sunni discontent with oppressive regimes (US, Iraqi government, Syrian regime). Parasite is far more accurate.— Unsigned, by: Pbfreespace3 / talk / contribs
I'm going to say, neither. I know, I know. But a parasite needs a host to survive, and cancer dies with the body. ISIS/ISIL could definitley survive without anyone else for a short time. BiscuitCat (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points, after really thinking about it ISIS is like a Prion disease. Not only does it kill its host (As for the host it would be a nation's government) but the ideology can last outside the host. My reason, after a prion protein kills the host can last a very long time outside a host body until it infects a wondering animal or human.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)