The following statements were made by video
phone by Canadian ISIS fighter Farah Shirdon (aka Abu Usamah Somali). He spoke to VICE News via Skype from Mosul, Iraq on September 23, 2014.
Even though they were made during the same interview, each statement - one and two - has a distinct narrative. Each details the nature of what ISIS considers an acceptable end-state for its current operations. Each has very distinct voice. As you will notice, the statements are altogether quite different when compared to one other.
1
|
“The reason [we’re fighting], you know – we’re tired of oppression. All those threats that I made, put that all aside, we don’t want, you know, no one likes fighting….if you leave us alone, we’re going to leave you alone. We’re tired, you know, I don’t want to fight, I want to be at home with my family. But why am I here? No one is asking that question…..Give us our freedoms. We want Sharia Law, just leave us alone..
If you come to me, I will come to you. Attack me, and we will attack [you]. I swear to you [President Barack Obama], you kuffar (infidel), I swear to Allah, we will fight you until the end. It doesn’t matter who comes after you, we’ll keep fighting you, and keep fighting you. I know so many people, thousands upon thousands that are living in the West, that are ready right now to make an [terror] operation. Why don’t you leave us alone? [You] back up, and we’ll back up.”
_____
2
|
“These kuffars (infidels), if they have a problem with us, and they seem to be attacking us day and night, but they don’t understand that Allah is on our side….these apostate regimes don’t seem to understand….Whatever regime attacks us, we will attack them. We love being under attack. I want martyrdom. Every single time I see a plane over my head, I become very happy. I think, ah, maybe this will be the time that I will go, and I will meet my Lord. But I wonder what this [prisoner of ours] Iraqi pilot – this apostate – I wonder what he thinks right now. And I wonder what the thousands of prisoners from the West that we have, that we will have to behead. I wonder what their families think. Only Allah knows…
“The only time we will stop is when the White House has a black flag over it. The only time we will stop is when we paint the White House black, God willing. We will stop when we behead leaders of the kuffars (infidels), thanks to Allah. And when we turn his children into our slaves, then maybe we will stop. Maybe. When we crucify Benjamin Netanyahu for his war crimes, then maybe. We want to fly the Islamic State flag over the White House.”
As I pointed out earlier, neither of these statements is
like the other.
In the first statement, an ISIS fighter claims that his army is fighting for their freedom to be left alone.
But the second statement is much, much darker. In that statement, the fighter insinuates that the goal of ISIS is actually much broader - that it wishes to dominate the current global superpower and has plans to tactically decentralize in order to accomplish its goal.
So which is it? What really is the strategic intent of ISIS?
In the first statement, an ISIS fighter claims that his army is fighting for their freedom to be left alone.
But the second statement is much, much darker. In that statement, the fighter insinuates that the goal of ISIS is actually much broader - that it wishes to dominate the current global superpower and has plans to tactically decentralize in order to accomplish its goal.
So which is it? What really is the strategic intent of ISIS?
Right now, Progressives are markedly muted in regards to ISIS, save for a few extremes. I believe that an increasing number of Progressives will, in the coming months, begin to tie-in the ultimate old relic of old relic narratives: that the West forced ISIS to behave as they are, and that the West needs to reform its exploitative ways. Indeed, I sense that there is a new relativism abound, and it will passionately attach itself to this issue. With ISIS as the new chapter to their greater struggle, I believe Progressives have the potential to become more viscous than ever, particularly in their verbal attacks against President Obama, who may well continue escalating operations (although his committed posture has been weak so far) against ISIS.
Passionate Progressive ideologues will talk of the injustices of the Sykes-Picot agreement, the evils of capitalism, and various failed foreign policies going back several administrations. They'll continue to perpetuate the notion that the West is ultimately to blame for the current catastrophe in the Middle East, just as they have for the last twenty years.
While Sykes-Picot and all those other things are certainly very interesting, and quite relevant, does it collectively explain the atrocities currently underway by the hand of ISIS? Does ISIS appear to simply be fighting to correct for perceived wrongs of the past, such as Sykes-Picot, and will they bury the hatchet once they achieve this limited goal?
Well, that depends on which quote from above, number one or number two, that is presented to the audience.
At the end of the day, my wish is to get others ready to see what is happening in our society. Should a reasonable person encounter a 'relativist' in their daily lives who tries to play the 'morally superior card' of desiring to appear neutral on the topic of the ISIS cause, the reasonable person needs to make sure the full story is being told. Or at least, make sure everyone involved in the conversation is willing to listen to the full story and all available evidence on the matter.
Passionate Progressive ideologues will talk of the injustices of the Sykes-Picot agreement, the evils of capitalism, and various failed foreign policies going back several administrations. They'll continue to perpetuate the notion that the West is ultimately to blame for the current catastrophe in the Middle East, just as they have for the last twenty years.
While Sykes-Picot and all those other things are certainly very interesting, and quite relevant, does it collectively explain the atrocities currently underway by the hand of ISIS? Does ISIS appear to simply be fighting to correct for perceived wrongs of the past, such as Sykes-Picot, and will they bury the hatchet once they achieve this limited goal?
Well, that depends on which quote from above, number one or number two, that is presented to the audience.
At the end of the day, my wish is to get others ready to see what is happening in our society. Should a reasonable person encounter a 'relativist' in their daily lives who tries to play the 'morally superior card' of desiring to appear neutral on the topic of the ISIS cause, the reasonable person needs to make sure the full story is being told. Or at least, make sure everyone involved in the conversation is willing to listen to the full story and all available evidence on the matter.
Of these 'morally-superior beings,'
many of them do not want to discuss things in full detail. If the issue is pushed, a very likely course of action pursued by Progressives is to start dealing out character assassination and other personal condemnations. They often use of terms such as 'Islamaphobe' in responding to an otherwise logical debater. This
means that they reached a conclusion on the matter at hand at some previous date, and have since closed themselves to the totality of evidence currently available on the issue.
Troubling as it may be, Progressives with this
type of fixated ideology elevate their need to maintain an emotionally-charged viewpoint over calmly listening to pertinent evidence. They simply love their theory more than the science of testing and coherently debating their theory with peers. Sadly, this mentality has never led human kind to a very good place.
Any truly civilized person would go looking for new evidence to inform their opinion. They would ask, 'If ISIS is successful, what kind of world will it be for Muslims who disagree with
ISIS?' As responsible citizens, they might also ask, 'What would it be like for women
to live under ISIS rule?'
I believe Progressives are citizens. Good people have died ensuring this status for them. But the problem is that they don't see themselves as mere citizens. They've been fed the party line for so long they've begun see themselves with elevated elite status. They've totally committed to the collectivist cause and seek continual social recognition for their sacrifice. Their world consists of an ice cream cone licking itself, satisfying itself only, and then everyone watching applauds. Repeat.
But I don't think Progressives truly feel free to think on their own, mainly out fear and resulting social backlash should they chose to 'go it alone' on a particular issue. As a result, they bury themselves inside their minds. They find ways to justify the notion that anyone not as 'committed to the cause' as themselves must be a lesser being. From an outsiders perspective, I see Progressives not as elite citizens, but as serfs who merely exist to please their chosen power structure. They're no more open-minded than a white Southerner in 1960 raising hell about a black man being served a chocolate malt at the next bar stool.
Arrogance like this - people like this - and their overwhelming hatred of America should be clearly seen for what it is. If unreasonable hatred is intellectualized and wins out as the battle-cry of a generation, it means anti-progress for humanity. That is a recipe to create monsters whose wishful end will justify all means available to achieve it. Once theoretical hatred of capitalism and Western society become more important than disavowing other, more lethal monsters than themselves, we're in real trouble as a society.
I believe Progressives are citizens. Good people have died ensuring this status for them. But the problem is that they don't see themselves as mere citizens. They've been fed the party line for so long they've begun see themselves with elevated elite status. They've totally committed to the collectivist cause and seek continual social recognition for their sacrifice. Their world consists of an ice cream cone licking itself, satisfying itself only, and then everyone watching applauds. Repeat.
But I don't think Progressives truly feel free to think on their own, mainly out fear and resulting social backlash should they chose to 'go it alone' on a particular issue. As a result, they bury themselves inside their minds. They find ways to justify the notion that anyone not as 'committed to the cause' as themselves must be a lesser being. From an outsiders perspective, I see Progressives not as elite citizens, but as serfs who merely exist to please their chosen power structure. They're no more open-minded than a white Southerner in 1960 raising hell about a black man being served a chocolate malt at the next bar stool.
Arrogance like this - people like this - and their overwhelming hatred of America should be clearly seen for what it is. If unreasonable hatred is intellectualized and wins out as the battle-cry of a generation, it means anti-progress for humanity. That is a recipe to create monsters whose wishful end will justify all means available to achieve it. Once theoretical hatred of capitalism and Western society become more important than disavowing other, more lethal monsters than themselves, we're in real trouble as a society.
The good news is that there is an abundance of
good information available as to the long-term intent and strategic goals of ISIS. The interview clip above is one of those sources, but there are several other,
more thorough sources that delve much deeper into the issue. A reasonable person just needs to do a half-assed job of looking, and they'll find what they need to form an opinion.
If I were make a recommendation, I'd say that the best way to understand ISIS is to not to rely on traditional reporting at all. On the contrary, simply find information sources who are willing to step aside and let ISIS make their remarks, at length, with no edits, and then broadcast it to the world. All the viewer needs to do is sit back and listen. That is obviously the best way to learn.
VICE News is at the forefront of good information; a great place to start learning is here: http://youtu.be/AUjHb4C7b94 There are also a good number of links on the right-hand side bar of this page, namely the Middle East Media Research Institute.
In conclusion, ISIS either represents the victims of Western oppression or they are a purveyor of totalitarianism that will stop at nothing to conquer those that oppose it - even fellow Muslims. If Progressives claim moral superiority by advancing the notion that ISIS is the former, challenge them for evidence, while forcing them to comment on the abundance of evidence which overwhelmingly suggests ISIS is the latter.
