What Daesh (ISIL/ISIS/IS) Really Wants (source: The Atlantic)

[blastingcap]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Addendum:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119433/if-isis-not-islamic-then-inquisition-was-not-catholic

Counterpoint:

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/02032015

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

“not Islamic” “JV team”

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Super long read but I came upon this article earlier and it offered a whole new perspective.

But it does reinforce my belief that fighting these guys with weapons is a mistake (the article even said that that is what they are hoping for).

The article did offer some insight on how to destroy these guys (don't let them setup a caliphate that meets their strict defiition of such a state). If we keep our response to these guys to a minimum I think they will implode and become just another crazy cult.


Good read.

 

[Blanky]

Great read and also strongly takes the position of marginalizing those who claim Isis doesn't represent Islam. On the contrary echoes the comments many of us have made that they represent Islam quite fervently, that what they do is backed clearly by writings in the Koran. To be sure they have a unique approach but it is indeed an Islamic one.

 

[Kadarin]

Great read and also strongly takes the position of marginalizing those who claim Isis doesn't represent Islam. On the contrary echoes the comments many of us have made that they represent Islam quite fervently, that what they do is backed clearly by writings in the Koran. To be sure they have a unique approach but it is indeed an Islamic one.

I agree, ISIS does their best to represent a very literal form of Islam, so calling them "un-Islamic" is blatantly wrong. Great article.

 

[schmuckley]

That is the real deal there.

 

[MrPickins]

That was very informative. Thanks OP. :thumbsup:

 

[blastingcap]

That was very informative. Thanks OP. :thumbsup:

No problem. Also, the expert cited in that article argues against Western intervention in Syria: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcDTP-7nleA

I disagree to some extent: I think it was right to support our only real allies in the region, the Kurds. I also agree with him that we should stop them from capturing oil fields, so maybe the right response is to bomb the living hell out of them every time they got near Kurds or oil fields but leave them alone otherwise.

 

[werepossum]

Very interesting article, OP. Thanks. I also agree that we should be supporting the Kurds to the hilt and otherwise destroying every last bit of modern infrastructure they manage to capture. "Here, let us help you remove all these evil things that didn't exist in the seventh century such as airports, oil wells, refineries, railroads, highway bridges, etc. Enjoy your squalor." If they can only support a population base based on non-mechanized subsistence farming, maybe we won't have to turn that part of the world radioactive.

 

[shira]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

A very informative read, filled with information that I hope Western nations will heed. Most interesting was the idea that ISIS cannot go underground; it's forced by its unassailable requirement that it uncompromisingly follow its ideology to expand and conquer. So - as the author recommends - a strategy of containment (not wholesale attack), combined with the self-evident observation that those under ISIS rule are suffering great deprivations rather than thriving, will slowly undermine its claim to being the true Caliphate and dry up its stream of new recruits. At least I hope so.

 

[blastingcap]

A very informative read, filled with information that I hope Western nations will heed. Most interesting was the idea that ISIS cannot go underground; it's forced by its unassailable requirement that it uncompromisingly follow its ideology to expand and conquer. So - as the author recommends - a strategy of containment (not wholesale attack), combined with the self-evident observation that those under ISIS rule are suffering great deprivations rather than thriving, will slowly undermine its claim to being the true Caliphate and dry up its stream of new recruits. At least I hope so.

Unfortunately UN aid going into that region is hijacked by Daesh to feed Daesh's own needs. And whatever does make it through to civilians is sometimes rebranded as Daesh aid: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/per...st-ISIS-rebranding-U-N-humanitarian-aid-.html

Furthermore, the Iraqi government that is allegedly too broke to pay back salaries to the Kurdistan Regional Government, nevertheless somehow manages to send money directly to Daesh via Mosul. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/opinion/how-iraq-subsidizes-islamic-state.html?_r=0

Now that Daesh is on the defensive and US help isn't as desperately needed by the incompetent Iraqi army anymore, I am all in favor of completely, as in COMPLETELY, cutting off all aid to Syria and Iraq from here on out, except to Rojava and KRG. Give Rojava and KRG all the MRAPs that US police departments have (and don't need!!!), especially since the vast majority of Peshmerga casualties so far have been by IEDs and booby traps.

This means no more subsidizing Daesh via UN aid.

If Baghdad wants money aid and weapons they can go beg Iran and sap more strength from that corrupt theocracy. Yes this means the US will lose whatever leverage it has left with Baghdad, but let's be real here: a) it seems increasingly likely Iraq will fracture, and b) Iraq is not a friend anyway; they are Iranian puppets, and all too often weapons meant for Iraq's army goes to Shiite militias controlled by Iran. Said militias brutalize Sunnis which spurs more AQ and Daesh sign-ups.

And any money sent to Iraq is going to be mismanaged. The geniuses in Baghdad are still subsidizing Daesh via Mosul (see above). Iraq isn't THAT poor; they have tons of oil production and though they complain about how it's not enough, if they stopped the rampant corruption and idiotic stuff like subsidizing Daesh, they'll be fine.

 

[schmuckley]

I think everyone should read that article.

btw...Kurds are having problems with others coming in to "help them" in Mosul right now.

 

[shira]

I think everyone should read that article.

I agree. Very eye-opening. And makes completely comprehensible ISIL'S actions and why so many people want to join up.

 

[realibrad]

ISIS and its caliphate is a sorting tool at this point. A billion people are going to have a lot of crazies in their group. If you look at some polls, you can see that ISIS has a lot of support in western countries.

http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795

The poll of European attitudes towards the group, carried out by ICM for Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya, revealed that 16% of French citizens have a positive opinion of ISIS. This percentage increases among younger respondents, spiking at 27% for those aged 18-24

That is crazy high. These are countries that are modern, and yet it seems to do very little. Most of the major religions like Christianity and Islam have foundations for these types of acts. Most other religions had a reformation and simply ignore those parts now. It is now mainstream to ignore old testament stuff for Christians. Somehow, it needs to be mainstream to do the same in Islam.

As an atheist, I would rather not have any religion, but I also admit that some are not nearly as bad as others. I would much rather have Islam act like Buddhists than Christians, but Ill take any improvement really.

 

[blastingcap]

Most other religions had a reformation and simply ignore those parts now. It is now mainstream to ignore old testament stuff for Christians. Somehow, it needs to be mainstream to do the same in Islam.

Good luck with that. You saw the chilly reception Egypt got for even broaching the subject of reformation. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56682e1e-9bd7-11e4-b6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3S1FXUYdA Virtually no major Muslim groups welcomed it, and Sisi may have felt blowback even within his own circle for making that speech, because he stepped back from that weeks later: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...difies_stance_on_islamic_reform_at_davos.html

Islam is very pro-fundamentalist because one of the tenets of the faith is that the Quran is the perfect word of God. Other than some dearly held sunnah and hadiths, any tampering with interpreting the Quran would be heretical innovation.

 

[realibrad]

Good luck with that. You saw the chilly reception Egypt got for even broaching the subject of reformation. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56682e1e-9bd7-11e4-b6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3S1FXUYdA Virtually no major Muslim groups welcomed it, and Sisi may have felt blowback even within his own circle for making that speech, because he stepped back from that weeks later: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...difies_stance_on_islamic_reform_at_davos.html

Islam is very pro-fundamentalist because one of the tenets of the faith is that the Quran is the perfect word of God. Other than some dearly held sunnah and hadiths, any tampering with interpreting the Quran would be heretical innovation.

Much of the same could be said for Christianity back in the day too. I would argue that the old testament is more brutal than sharia law. The Inquisition was no cakewalk. You are right in that its very unlikely, but it is possible.

 

[blastingcap]

Much of the same could be said for Christianity back in the day too. I would argue that the old testament is more brutal than sharia law. The Inquisition was no cakewalk. You are right in that its very unlikely, but it is possible.

Big difference is that the Bible is not taken as the literal word of god; we know there were human editors and translators. The Quran is taken as the literal word of God and thus perfect and believers are encouraged to read it in Arabic. If you go to Islamic congregations and ask "why should I join Islam instead of X or Y or Z" you may well hear that the Quran is the perfect word of God. You may also hear that there was no corruption of meaning unlike other Abrahamic religions. This makes Islamic fundamentalism more magnetic and powerful than for other religions. It also cripples the religion to some extent as it makes reform almost impossible because, well, the Quran is the Quran. It is the word of God. So there. And if you try to argue that the Quran is actually not literally the word of God you may well be shouted down as a heretic.

 

[werepossum]

ISIS and its caliphate is a sorting tool at this point. A billion people are going to have a lot of crazies in their group. If you look at some polls, you can see that ISIS has a lot of support in western countries.

http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795

That is crazy high. These are countries that are modern, and yet it seems to do very little. Most of the major religions like Christianity and Islam have foundations for these types of acts. Most other religions had a reformation and simply ignore those parts now. It is now mainstream to ignore old testament stuff for Christians. Somehow, it needs to be mainstream to do the same in Islam.

As an atheist, I would rather not have any religion, but I also admit that some are not nearly as bad as others. I would much rather have Islam act like Buddhists than Christians, but Ill take any improvement really.

Well said. Personally I think we should be offering free flights to Syria for anyone in Western countries wanting to support ISIS; we just don't let them back in.

Good luck with that. You saw the chilly reception Egypt got for even broaching the subject of reformation. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56682e1e-9bd7-11e4-b6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3S1FXUYdA Virtually no major Muslim groups welcomed it, and Sisi may have felt blowback even within his own circle for making that speech, because he stepped back from that weeks later: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...difies_stance_on_islamic_reform_at_davos.html

Islam is very pro-fundamentalist because one of the tenets of the faith is that the Quran is the perfect word of God. Other than some dearly held sunnah and hadiths, any tampering with interpreting the Quran would be heretical innovation.

This is true, and why it is so difficult to reform Islam. The universal agreement is that where the Quran has internal contradictions or Muhammad acted in ways he had previously proscribed, G-d obviously changed his mind; Muhammad being perfect, there is no other possibility. (The Quran could have been a lot shorter were G-d only as perfect as Muhammad, so that He could have known what was going to happen just a few years later.)

I know a surprising number of Christians who do believe the Bible is the literal word of G-d, dictated, transcribed and copied flawlessly (almost always directly into the King James version, Jesus being such a fanboi of medieval English.) They just don't want to crucify you, burn you alive, decapitate you, or stone you (well, except for the Rastafarians) for believing otherwise because that wouldn't be very Christian. (Though they will politely hand you enough informative pamphlets to threaten your life with paper cuts.) By contrast, such behavior would be extremely typical of Muhammad, who conquered and ruled by the sword.

 

[Rebel_L]

That is a really long article to say that he thinks they are a genuine religious movement vs some people using religion to grab power (although I don't actually see him present evidence other than testimonials from recruiters which would be playing the religious angle regardless).

He also seems really naïve to believe that you can end such a movement by showing a contradiction in the beliefs of the movement. He points out that they require territory which actually would make them a target that we could actually attack and declare victory against but then advocates not doing it and rather to target a tenant of belief instead.

It seems he doesn't understand the flexibility of faith to let you believe whatever you want in order to feel like you have it right. I am quite sure that the movement will start moving goalposts as soon as its required. All working only on containment does is keep their foreign recruitment alive and make life miserable for the people they are ruling over.

 

[blastingcap]

That is a really long article to say that he thinks they are a genuine religious movement vs some people using religion to grab power (although I don't actually see him present evidence other than testimonials from recruiters which would be playing the religious angle regardless).

He also seems really naïve to believe that you can end such a movement by showing a contradiction in the beliefs of the movement. He points out that they require territory which actually would make them a target that we could actually attack and declare victory against but then advocates not doing it and rather to target a tenant of belief instead.

It seems he doesn't understand the flexibility of faith to let you believe whatever you want in order to feel like you have it right. I am quite sure that the movement will start moving goalposts as soon as its required. All working only on containment does is keep their foreign recruitment alive and make life miserable for the people they are ruling over.

He's saying first let's stop pretending it has nothing to do with Islam. It does. The most literal and fundamentalist interpretation in centuries perhaps, but still Islam.

Sure it has a bunch of thugs trying to justify their actions via religion but that doesn't take away from the fact that it very much is being justified by Islam and that Islam and the idea of a caliphate are very magnetic to young, poor men with poor prospects.

He's also saying that their strict adherence to certain tenets might be used against them. Further, if they do move goalposts that will sow discontent among them because some will hate the moving goalposts.

His tangent about how theoretically we could just annihilate their land holdings and see if that persuades some or all of them that the caliphate is dead, was not advocacy. That seems risky and expensive and he is NOT advocating that because it could backfire by drawing more crazies and feeding into their mythology.

I think he is basically advocating that we let them self-destruct. Basically a very large scale version of "let's ignore the internet troll instead of feeding it and paying attention to it." I think that is along the right track. The US is currently trying to wage digital war in clumsy ways like the "think again turn away" programs. Many of the foreign thugs are basically thugs who hate their lives and want adventure. You don't counter that with arcane theological arguments. Instead it should be indirectly supporting the message that if you go, you are joining the wrong team, you will die, be forgotten (most Muslims don't like you so don't think you'll be a remembered martyr), and God won't forgive you for harming innocents. Basically, that your shitty life in some French slum or whatever, will NOT be improved upon by joining and even shittier situation elsewhere in the world.

 

[Rebel_L]

He's saying first let's stop pretending it has nothing to do with Islam. It does. The most literal and fundamentalist interpretation in centuries perhaps, but still Islam.

Sure it has a bunch of thugs trying to justify their actions via religion but that doesn't take away from the fact that it very much is being justified by Islam and that Islam and the idea of a caliphate are very magnetic to young, poor men with poor prospects.

If that's all he was trying to say then the length which it took him to say it added nothing. I really did get the impression that he was trying to say that you have true believers at the root rather than power grubbing thugs. His plan of attack to subtly show them their beliefs are flawed rather than squash the problem as soon as possible only has the chance of working with true believers (and ones that are trying to be rational at that)

I don't see how its worth getting involved over the argument about if it represents islam. They are obviously using Islamic texts, I don't think anyone is trying to deny that, the moderates just don't want to be painted with the same brush as the extremists. Your summary is far better written than his, I found he liked to use muslim terminology but was very poor with explaining the terminology, if anything I would guess his rambling would confuse the issue for more people than clear it up.

He's also saying that their strict adherence to certain tenets might be used against them. Further, if they do move goalposts that will sow discontent among them because some will hate the moving goalposts.

His tangent about how theoretically we could just annihilate their land holdings and see if that persuades some or all of them that the caliphate is dead, was not advocacy. That seems risky and expensive and he is NOT advocating that because it could backfire by drawing more crazies and feeding into their mythology.

I think he is basically advocating that we let them self-destruct. Basically a very large scale version of "let's ignore the internet troll instead of feeding it and paying attention to it." I think that is along the right track. The US is currently trying to wage digital war in clumsy ways like the "think again turn away" programs. Many of the foreign thugs are basically thugs who hate their lives and want adventure. You don't counter that with arcane theological arguments. Instead it should be indirectly supporting the message that if you go, you are joining the wrong team, you will die, be forgotten (most Muslims don't like you so don't think you'll be a remembered martyr), and God won't forgive you for harming innocents. Basically, that your shitty life in some French slum or whatever, will NOT be improved upon by joining and even shittier situation elsewhere in the world.

If they stop growing physically in size it is such a minor inconvenience that I don't see that will do anything, its such a minor move to say you are growing in numbers rather than land area. Subtle is highly ineffective unless you are trying to slowly manipulate. If a troll has successfully engaged the posters on your board would you as a mod ask everyone to stop feeding the troll and leave it at that or do you ban the troll as well?

He advocates letting them self destruct but his mechanism relies on people who up and leave their lives to go halfway around the world to have an adventure or chase an ideal to be reasonable and have a change of heart. On top of that he seems to believe his strategy is at least a medium to long term strategy and seems to write off all the involved civilians as inconsequential collateral damage.

 

[realibrad]

There is a major disconnect from what the writer is saying, vs many others that say that ISIS has nothing to do with religion. In fact, there was just a thread where a hostage was let go, and he said that ISIS did not focus on religion too much. There is an idea out there that ISIS is not about religion, but people wanting power and using Islam to legitimize their actions.

The problem is that once you dont believe religions are true, then all actions taken by them lose meaning. Once you believe god talks to people, how do you prove that ISIS is not doing gods work? ISIS is following Islamic teachings pretty closely. Its a religion founded during a time were people were assholes. All other major religions got over the assholes for the most part. The problem is that people are trying to say that ISIS is not really Islam and it very much is.

Religion can be interpreted. How you say any 1 interpretation is right over another is impossible. You would have to "know" which one is true, and that is to presuppose one is true. If you dont presuppose that one is true, then you can look and say which is more damaging. Right now, Islam has more followers that are doing terrorist activity. This does not mean that they do more illegal activities, as many other people do shit wrong that are not followers of Islam. Its also true that the internet is not being filled with Buddhists cutting off peoples heads, or Jews strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Muslims. Both of those religions do have followers that do crazy shit too, but not as many terrorist activities. Something is there, and many say its racist to ask what, because its assumed you like one over another when you say one is worse than another. As an atheist, I don't like any religions, I just think followers in some religions are not as crazy as others.

 

[blastingcap]

There is a major disconnect from what the writer is saying, vs many others that say that ISIS has nothing to do with religion. In fact, there was just a thread where a hostage was let go, and he said that ISIS did not focus on religion too much. There is an idea out there that ISIS is not about religion, but people wanting power and using Islam to legitimize their actions.

The problem is that once you dont believe religions are true, then all actions taken by them lose meaning. Once you believe god talks to people, how do you prove that ISIS is not doing gods work? ISIS is following Islamic teachings pretty closely. Its a religion founded during a time were people were assholes. All other major religions got over the assholes for the most part. The problem is that people are trying to say that ISIS is not really Islam and it very much is.

Religion can be interpreted. How you say any 1 interpretation is right over another is impossible. You would have to "know" which one is true, and that is to presuppose one is true. If you dont presuppose that one is true, then you can look and say which is more damaging. Right now, Islam has more followers that are doing terrorist activity. This does not mean that they do more illegal activities, as many other people do shit wrong that are not followers of Islam. Its also true that the internet is not being filled with Buddhists cutting off peoples heads, or Jews strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Muslims. Both of those religions do have followers that do crazy shit too, but not as many terrorist activities. Something is there, and many say its racist to ask what, because its assumed you like one over another when you say one is worse than another. As an atheist, I don't like any religions, I just think followers in some religions are not as crazy as others.

The "they didn't have a Quran" hostage guy doesn't make sense. As an infidel why should the give him a Quran? They could if they wanted to, but they were under no obligation to.

Anyway the point is not that 100% of Daesh is due to religion; clearly a lot of its appeal is also due to how many poor downtrodden Muslims there are around the world who are eager to find meaning in their life and to blame others (the infidel Crusaders, tyrant Assad, etc.). (The guys like the Wisconsin guy who joined the Kurdish YPG is the flipside of this. He came from a troubled background and didn't last long in the army, something like only 1 year, and who was wasting his life making little money stocking shelves.)

The point is that psychologically, people need justifications, and religion is being used. And contrary to what non-Muslims like Obama would tell you, Daesh appeals to a literal, fundy interpretation of Islam.

As for the rest, I would add that I am disgusted with the false equality promoted by certain people. You know what I mean: the kumbaya-all-religions-are-equal crowd. They want to live in a fantasyworld of mutual respect when in reality some of those people would rather behead those false-equality people. To push things to the extreme, are we to believe that Buddhists are as prone to violence as Muslims? How about scientologists? Satanists? What is more believable, that all religions are equally prone to violence or that there is a spectrum; variability?

So I agree with you. In order to solve a problem you must first admit that you have a problem, instead of sweeping jihadis under the rug and insisting that those people "aren't Muslims." It is high time for an Islamist Reformation. I just don't see it happening, though.

I think a more realistic/effective way to deal with extremists is to make sure they aren't born in the first place. Look at what Ataturk did in terms of educational, cultural, linguistic, and legal reforms (not the bad stuff like Kurdish persecution), and repeat it as much as possible in as many Muslim places as possible. At the top of the list is mandatory education of females. To be blunt, we need more educated women who can work change from within Muslims societies, who delay childbirth. The education may improve their quality of life and critical thinking skills, which may help with their kids and furthermore reduces the overpopulation in Muslim countries. With fewer people competing for jobs, that may further enhance the economic prospects of the people who are born to Muslim families. The War on Terror cost $3 trillion so far; we could have funded free education for all the females in all Muslim-majority countries for a lot less. Not everyone would follow along--see Afghanistan and Boko Haram--but some would. And it would be a longer-lasting, more POSITIVE way to deal with the problem than to use military might. Women are a moderating force. Look at Iran. Theocrats there sowed the seeds of their own undoing by educating women so well. Too well for Islam. Most educated women don't want literal applications of Sharia law. Ataturk did something like that in Turkey, only more so. Some of it was very clearly anti-religious, like banning Muslim dress in government buildings. But some of it was masterful in its long-term effects, like cutting off ordinary Turks from Arabic so that they could no longer read un-translated Qurans and therein made it harder to be dogmatic/fundy. And of course educating and empowering women. Empowered, educated women strike fear in the hearts of fundamentalists to the point where people like Boko Haram kidnapped those schoolgirls and KSA makes it so that women can't drive or do other things. So hit them where it hurts. Free, mandatory education (a real one not just recitation of the Quran or somesuch) for females in all Muslim-majority countries.

 

[ivwshane]

There is a major disconnect from what the writer is saying, vs many others that say that ISIS has nothing to do with religion. In fact, there was just a thread where a hostage was let go, and he said that ISIS did not focus on religion too much. There is an idea out there that ISIS is not about religion, but people wanting power and using Islam to legitimize their actions.

The problem is that once you dont believe religions are true, then all actions taken by them lose meaning. Once you believe god talks to people, how do you prove that ISIS is not doing gods work? ISIS is following Islamic teachings pretty closely. Its a religion founded during a time were people were assholes. All other major religions got over the assholes for the most part. The problem is that people are trying to say that ISIS is not really Islam and it very much is.

Religion can be interpreted. How you say any 1 interpretation is right over another is impossible. You would have to "know" which one is true, and that is to presuppose one is true. If you dont presuppose that one is true, then you can look and say which is more damaging. Right now, Islam has more followers that are doing terrorist activity. This does not mean that they do more illegal activities, as many other people do shit wrong that are not followers of Islam. Its also true that the internet is not being filled with Buddhists cutting off peoples heads, or Jews strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Muslims. Both of those religions do have followers that do crazy shit too, but not as many terrorist activities. Something is there, and many say its racist to ask what, because its assumed you like one over another when you say one is worse than another. As an atheist, I don't like any religions, I just think followers in some religions are not as crazy as others.

I'm the one that created that thread and I did so because their actions made zero sense to me especially if there was some sort of religious reasoning behind it, as they appeared to contradict every religious teaching I've ever read.

What this article explains is that it's based on a very literal interpretation of the Koran and in order to meet their goals they have to create a caliphate and it has to be done a certain way and it has to meet some very specific requirements. When viewed in that context their actions start to make sense (by "sense" I mean their actions don't appear to just be random acts).

 

[ivwshane]

As for the rest, I would add that I am disgusted with the false equality promoted by certain people. You know what I mean: the kumbaya-all-religions-are-equal crowd. They want to live in a fantasyworld of mutual respect when in reality some of those people would rather behead those false-equality people. To push things to the extreme, are we to believe that Buddhists are as prone to violence as Muslims? How about scientologists? Satanists? What is more believable, that all religions are equally prone to violence or that there is a spectrum; variability?

I think that's a mischaracterization of people's position. No one (in the media, or of any importance), is saying that all religions are equal, that's certainly not what Obama was saying. What people are saying is that these "fundies" as you call them, don't represent the majority of people of any particular religion and he's right. Most Christians are not fundamentalist nor are most Muslims. Once people understand that then we can make better policies to deal with these "fundies". Surely you'd agree that a policy to rid the world of Islam would look totally different than a policy to rid the world of Islamic extremists who interpret the Koran literally.