How to respond to religious-based violence?

[Kielbasa]

So it was a sad day for the United States and journalists everywhere: a second innocent American was beheaded in a video published by ISIS today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/world/middleeast/steven-sotloff-isis-execution.html?_r=0

We have seen a serious threat emerge in the last 2 years, a "terrorist" organization with a massive endowment (funded by kidnapping and extortion) is busy creating a new totalitarian theocratic Islamist state. Regardless of the world's action or inaction on ISIS, what we have seen in partial response to these videos is the creation of ISIS cells in the United States and the West and a large outpouring of sympathy for the cause of violent jihadism.

This is sectarian violence, where most of the tens of thousands of victims slaughtered have been Shiite civilians. But the stated purpose of ISIS is to expand into other, non-Muslim countries. And there are many who are afraid to denounce such tactics, for fear of being beheaded themselves.

How though are we to respond to those that would endorse Islam's violence in the name of the religion?

When does ideology get questioned or suggested for reform, or should this ever happen?

 

[Riverwolf]

Respond by removing the qualifier "religious" from the violence. It's just violence. A War God (not Islam's God) now reigns in that region: there will be just violence there for a while yet.

For those of us who do not know how to fight, we must simply avoid it. But if they attack, we defend. But the War God expects us to do likewise.

I have heard it said that Ares would join whatever battle he saw. (Ares is not likely the God involved, but hear me out). He didn't care about sides, and would join in the slaughter, not caring where his sword landed. He relished in the blood and carnage: as long as both sides were killing each other aggressively, he had power.

But another God who has a lot of power here is a relatively younger one: the Straw Man. He impersonates another and makes enemies of friends, leading us to conflict. The Straw Man has ISIS tight in his grip, and he also seeks to make us think all Muslims are like this.

Geez... unfortunate name. ISIS, huh? Isis have mercy on them. Oh, they're murderers? Never mind: Isis curse them all. ... I'm not Egyptian, Kemetic, or Syncretic with the Kemetic Gods, and thus can't invoke Isis? Darn it. Can't invoke my Gods to curse them, either: those of them who're killed in combat will be in Valhalla or Folkvang, drinking and feasting right alongside the fighters they kill, since the Aesir don't particularly care about our politics. Oh, well. I guess I can just hope they get the smallest table.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think we should simply begin to adjust to the reality that there is a whole lot of unreasonable religious motivation out there and develop the skills to challenge and empty it upfront. That won't help a whole lot with ISIS, of course, but it will help in closing the faucet later on.

And, of course, we should seek safe places in the meantime, and attempt to surround them and cut their supply lines.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sometimes it gets to a point that you have to kill the killers.

 

[sandandfoam]

Sometimes it gets to a point that you have to kill the killers.

Killing is what created this madness in the first place. Which killers would you have killed?

 

[sandandfoam]

How though are we to respond to those that would endorse Islam's violence in the name of the religion?

With the same disgust and opposition as we should respond to killing for any cause.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

With the same disgust and opposition as we should respond to killing for any cause.

What's the point of disgust? What possible effect do you hope to achieve with that?

I'm not sure what you mean by opposition? Do you mean we should hold up signs and protest, or do you mean we should bomb them back into the stone age?

 

[Kielbasa]

Killing is what created this madness in the first place. Which killers would you have killed?

Just a shot in the dark: the bad guys murdering innocent men, women and children to further a sectarian goal of creating a Islamic caliphate?

With the same disgust and opposition as we should respond to killing for any cause.?

But not actually justice or killing them first? Yeah, we could do as you suggest and take the moral highroad by not sinking to their level and kill them back before they kill us. That'll show 'em!

 

[sandandfoam]

Just a shot in the dark: the bad guys murdering innocent men, women and children to further a sectarian goal of creating a Islamic caliphate?
!

Those murdering under the banner of ISIS are truly disgusting criminals. They are also the direct result of American military actions.
To date several hundred thousand innocent civilians have died as the direct result of American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The deaths of these victims are as tragic as any other deaths. If the dead were mine I would consider them victims and the US the bad guys.
Killing is wrong. End of. The US has been responsible for killing literally millions of innocent people since the end of WW2. From my point of view anyone killing innocents is a 'bad guy'. One major difference between the US military and ISIS is that the US military has killed many times more innocent people over the last 60 years.
Source Why do we ignore the civilians killed in American wars? - The Washington Post

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm not sure what you mean by opposition? Do you mean we should hold up signs and protest, or do you mean we should bomb them back into the stone age?

I mean oppose.
You set up a false dichotomy. Bombing 'them' back into the stone age would mean killing many thousands of innocent people. Isn't killing innocent people the reason you despise ISIS? It is the reason I despise them.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I mean oppose.
You set up a false dichotomy. Bombing 'them' back into the stone age would mean killing many thousands of innocent people. Isn't killing innocent people the reason you despise ISIS? It is the reason I despise them.

I'm asking YOU what you mean by 'oppose?'

I did not set up any dichotomy, I merely pointed out the fact that your word 'oppose' is basically meaningless without further clarification. As you wrote, it could have meant all most anything, from writing a letter to you congressman to privately funding a rouge army and taking matters into your own hands. Most likely you meant we should roll over and try to get some sleep while being very angry about the situation?

The question asked was 'how should we respond?'

So again I ask, what do you mean by oppose? Your vague, nondescript, action plan is rather unclear.

I suppose you mean when you think or speak about ISIS you should just express your opposition. In all honesty, that is not opposition! That is nothing more than expressing your freedom of speech. Tell me, exactly how would you 'oppose' ISIS if you were living were they are in power?

In short, your answer to the question of how should we react, is nothing more than a squeaky wheel, making a lot of noise and getting no one anywhere.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm asking YOU what you mean by 'oppose?'

For starters - If I could I would:
Cut off their access to social and other media.
I would seize the passports of those with plans to travel.
I would close down radical clerics.
Cut off the money and supplies of arms.
I would embark on a serious education and propaganda campaign.
I would gather the best heads together and figure out how these things and more can be done.
That's off the top of my head.

 

[Kielbasa]

Those murdering under the banner of ISIS are truly disgusting criminals. They are also the direct result of American military actions.
To date several hundred thousand innocent civilians have died as the direct result of American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The deaths of these victims are as tragic as any other deaths. If the dead were mine I would consider them victims and the US the bad guys.

The direct result? No. The US may be indirectly responsible, giving such truly disgusting murdering criminals the opportunity to engage in living their fantasy. Blaming the biggest party in this nasty business is just cowardly.

Killing is wrong. End of. The US has been responsible for killing literally millions of innocent people since the end of WW2. From my point of view anyone killing innocents is a 'bad guy'. One major difference between the US military and ISIS is that the US military has killed many times more innocent people over the last 60 years.

Do you have statistical evidence of this, or do you just think that the US intervening in conflicts to keep bad guys from murdering peace-loving peoples with machetes is bad behavior?

Source Why do we ignore the civilians killed in American wars? - The Washington Post

Different question. The US military certainly has acted irresponsibly, but at least the civilians it has killed has been out of oversight and negligence, not insane testosterone-fueled greedy hornyness for their God.

 

[Kielbasa]

For starters - If I could I would:
Cut off their access to social and other media.
I would seize the passports of those with plans to travel.
I would close down radical clerics.
Cut off the money and supplies of arms.
I would embark on a serious education and propaganda campaign.
I would gather the best heads together and figure out how these things and more can be done.
That's off the top of my head.

Cool beans. Would you ground them, and send them to bed without supper too?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Killing is what created this madness in the first place. Which killers would you have killed?

The ones who kill, and will not stop killing.

 

[Kielbasa]

The ones who kill, and will not stop killing.

It might lessen the number of people killed for stupid reasons, though.

 

[Riverwolf]

Cool beans. Would you ground them, and send them to bed without supper too?

I think non-killers have a high ground over killers of innocents, and killing innocents is not comparable to a child's temper tantrum. So I'm calling false analogy.

What would you do, given the power and means to do something? Nothing?

...though I'm not sure cutting access to social media would be a good idea. A lack of communication is part of what causes these messes in the first place. Cutting off travel isn't good, either, and a propaganda campaign is just asking for trouble.

...in fact, except for the cutting off of money and arms supplies, and the education campaign, I'm not sure any of those are specifically a good idea.

 

[averageJOE]

For starters - If I could I would:
Cut off their access to social and other media.
I would seize the passports of those with plans to travel.
I would close down radical clerics.
Cut off the money and supplies of arms.
I would embark on a serious education and propaganda campaign.
I would gather the best heads together and figure out how these things and more can be done.
That's off the top of my head.

Why don't you just add: "I would send Superman" to your list.

 

[Castaigne]

We have seen a serious threat emerge in the last 2 years, a "terrorist" organization with a massive endowment (funded by kidnapping and extortion) is busy creating a new totalitarian theocratic Islamist state.

I'd call it more monarchist than totalitarian, but sure.

How though are we to respond to those that would endorse Islam's violence in the name of the religion?

I personally see no reason for an American response. Not on the North American continent, not our problem.

When does ideology get questioned or suggested for reform, or should this ever happen?

1) I think you are conflating ideology with the goals of a nascent nation-state.
2) That's really up to the adherents of that ideology.

With the same disgust and opposition as we should respond to killing for any cause.

That really only applies if you think that killing for a cause is absolutely uncalled for in any hypothetical situation. Personally, I accept violence in pursuit of a cause. That doesn't mean I won't defend myself against such or that I will accept it being done, but it's certainly within the realm of tactics.

For starters - If I could I would:
Cut off their access to social and other media.
I would seize the passports of those with plans to travel.
I would close down radical clerics.
Cut off the money and supplies of arms.
I would embark on a serious education and propaganda campaign.
I would gather the best heads together and figure out how these things and more can be done.
That's off the top of my head.

You are located in....*checks* Ireland.
Why is this in the interest of the nation of Ireland? How does it affect the nation of Ireland? Why do you think the Irish government and military should do these things?

 

[Brinne]

I personally see no reason for an American response. Not on the North American continent, not our problem.

Actually, it is our problem unless citizenship is revoked for not being in the country? If you hadn't noticed we've lost American lives to ISIS and other groups over in the Middle East.

However, the main reason we should intervene is because to be honest we're the root of a lot of the problems that occurred/are occurring in the middle east. Not to say the U.S. is completely to blame but our previous interventions have caused a lot of trouble. It wouldn't be right to mess with the region and not clean up the mess that's largely our fault, the United Kingdom showed that bad things can happen when you do a half *** job of cleaning up your mess.

Then again I hate violence of any type so it does hurt me to say "fight fire with more fire."