People are outraged that aid workers have been beheaded after asking them nicely not to do it? Hopefully liberals are going to take note thats not how it works.
KyokushinCatch - desperate cry for attention by people we normally wouldn't give a fuck aboutThis. Entirely this.
"look at what I'm doing, I'm relevant"
I'm guessing that to them, getting blowed-up is better than being ignored
Guarantee none of the western fags that have joined them were hitting it out of the park over here.
It's in the Quran. There are some passages about beheading enemies. Religion of peace, though. 
GEYprideneverdies - It's in the Quran. There are some passages about beheading enemies. Religion of peace, though.Yup, smite at the neck if the infidels.
Anyone can play that game. There are many within their ranks who already dissaprove of the release of these videos. ISIS will implode a lot sooner than most people think.
The Loge -shen -Yeah it's almost like they have been manufactured..... Hmmmm
It's almost funny how "cartoonishly bad" they are...
I mean, they have a black flag, wear black masks, wave scimitars, cut people's heads off and say things like "Will will destroy you!" --they are like an over the top characature of an evil character.
It's BECAUSE they are so cartoonishly bad that no one could quite believe they were real and they have got as far as they have. But they ARE real, and need to be dealt with at this point, whether or not you think they have been "manafactured" (I don't personally)
I mean logically, just going with the conspiracy theorists for a moment (which I normally don't, but I am bored this morning), if they really had been manufactured, then it would have to be by a group even MORE cartoonishly bad than Isis right? Why is that any more plausible?
It works on many levels as have already been explained in this thread, but the "spreading fear" part goes a bit further than just their direct enemies. The fear of violence has successfully stopped Western intellectuals and liberals from criticizing Islam.
Until Salman Rusdie, Western intellectuals and liberals had been able to criticize foreign regimes in total safety. They didn't have to fear reprisals form the Soviet Union. They didn't have to fear reprisals from South American fascists dictators. They were safe. They learned that the fight against fascism in all its forms and in far away countries was something you could practice with the same risk as building model airplanes.
Then the fatwa was called on Salman Rusdie. Rusdie himself went underground and many of his publishers and translators all over the world were attacked, some even killed. Western intellectuals and liberals got very scared because this was not what they were used to. In fact they got so scared that they started blaming the victim(s). They denounced Rusdie and decried his provocation of a peaceful religion.
And that is how it is today. And the beheadings keep these people "in their place". It's a reminder of what happens to the enemies of Islam.
^yeah that is a fair insight.
They behead people so other people like yourself will discuss them and help garner attention/fear. Congratulations op, you just helped terrorist. I'm going to have to set off some fireworks while eating a bacon rapped hot dog and freedom fries to wash myself of this thread.
soooo... if we stop discussing them the curse of Islamism will just disappear from the earth like the end of a bad dream? Hmm I am not entirely convinced bro :/
No they won't disappear if we stop talking about them lol. They're intention is to gain sympathy from other Islamist extremists around the world and possibly begin other factions of ISIS in other countries. I'm starting to think that they're willing to be bombed off the planet if it means provoking others to kill in other countries. We would never be able to stop them at that point because it could be ANYONE.
It's so their victims won't rise from the grave. Zombie eradication 101
Mr Helpmann - I mean logically, just going with the conspiracy theorists for a moment (which I normally don't, but I am bored this morning), if they really had been manufactured, then it would have to be by a group even MORE cartoonishly bad than Isis right? Why is that any more plausible?How do you logically arrive at the conclusion that whoever manufactured ISIS must be even more cartoonishly over the top than they are themselves? You realize that perfectly normal people created "Who framed Roger Rabbit?" Right?
Fuck it I give up on logic for today
Anyone else find the videos to be a little strange. I've seen a lot of beheading vids in the past, They usually show the whole thing. These videos all cut scene right when it starts. Also no blood initially when the cutting starts and none of the victims seem all that scared. They almost seem supportive of what's about to happen. Not trying to go in a conspiracy direction with this but I just find it odd I guess
RicoCutler - So that we will bomb them and make more enemies that want to join them.We need to use bigger bombs then.
Thought this article was relevant to this thread:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11141332/Isils-reign-of-terror-rooted-in-the-political-culture-of-Iraq-and-Syria.html
The beheading of Alan Henning was not Isil's first, as we all know full well, nor will it be the last. But by ignoring pleas for mercy from across the Muslim world, the group set any doubt to rest as to the nature of its need for video horror violence.
That violence is in part religious – a public insistence that its own ultra-aggressive interpretation of Islam is more "authentic" than the wishy-washy versions of Muslim politicians, scholars and ordinary people who want to live peacefully and get on with the modern world.
It demands recognition that Islam can be spread by the sword in the 21st century, just as much as it was in the 7th.
The violence is also rooted in the political culture of Iraq and Syria, the countries from which Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has sprung.
The extreme cruelty with which Isil's "Caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his predecessors have avenged themselves on Westerners has revealed a culture of violence to an international public. But it is not very different from what these countries' leaders – and to some extent their colonial predecessors – have been doing to local people for decades.
Zarqawi was already a local al-Qaeda leader, but his particular brand of filmic savagery, mostly inflicted on Iraqi Shia, flourished in the lawlessness and increasing sectarianism of the country in the wake of the invasion. It is a platitude that the absence of order allows deranged men to prosper.
The defeat of Saddam Hussein also fed into the widespread Middle Eastern perception that Sunni Islam is under particular threat in the Arab world, is suffering an Arab equivalent of what the Chinese call "a century of humiliation": colonial rule, the existence of the state of Israel and its repeated defeat of its (Sunni) Palestinian enemies, the economic catastrophes represented by Egypt and Yemen.
For those with ethnic or sectarian inferiority complexes - in this case both - there is a primal appeal in seeing your foe kneel before you and die.
However, the idea that politics is not just occasionally violent, but requires of its essence demonstrative violence, long predates 2003.
The modern Iraqi state is founded upon it. When the royal family, imposed by the British Empire in its dying days, was overthrown by a coup in 1958, the prime minister was not only shot dead with the king.
His corpse was dragged through the streets of Baghdad, publicly hanged and then burned.
The fate of the coup leader, Abdul Karim Qasem, when he was in turn overthrown five years later, is even more reminiscent of Isil's approach to the media. He was shot on live television, and the state network's camera rested on his bloodied corpse for the rest of the day, army officers occasionally intruding to insert a knife to prove his death for the viewer.
The lawlessness, in other words, is not just a product of the absence of a state, but written into the state. In Syria next door, ordinary people routinely tell stories of similarly pointless horrors, that served some political purpose while having little apparent rationality, from long before the civil war.
One Christian friend describes watching, as a child, her nine-year-old playmate next door being lined up against a wall and executed, after the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in 1982.
Another describes how a secret school truant smoking session in a Damascus cemetery was broken up by police who wrongly thought the teenagers were drug dealers. One boy disappeared, arriving home without his finger nails a few days later.
These are just stories plucked at random.
In war, everything escalates. The same regime that did these "small", local crimes then began mutilating corpses of teenagers who opposed it. In 2011 one 13-year-old boy was sent home without his penis. From then on, anything was possible, impunity was written into the code of conduct. Impunity's apotheosis was the attack by a regime militia on the town of Baniyas, where among the 400 victims, many of them children with their throats cut, was a pregnant woman whose body had been cut out so her foetus could be killed too.
Like Isil, the militia's leader boasted publicly for the camera of what he was about to do.
These victims were, in the nature of the war, Sunni. The need to see your enemy kneel and die in a pool of blood is common to both extremes.
Can the West do anything to stop this? It should only try with humility. It is all too easy to find pictures on the Internet of Western soldiers – French, Italian, even British – posing for pictures with the heads of their colonial victims in the all-too-recent past.
There is no start point to the cycle of violence.
We do, however, have the experience of putting back together what is psychologically broken, as Syria and Iraq undoubtedly are. Whether that can be done from the air, or even in the halls of the United Nations, is another matter.