Predictions

by Glyn Moody


Filed Under:
open jihad, open source



After Open Source, Open Access, Open Data And The Rest, Here Comes The Open Jihad

from the massively-parallel-codevelopment dept

Even to those of us who are not experts in foreign policy, it is obvious that the security situation is deteriorating across a huge swathe of the Near East and Africa, as attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Cameroon and elsewhere multiply. Western analysts seem to be struggling to come up with a cogent explanation for this increasing success. That makes this short but illuminating post by John Robb particularly valuable. He describes what is happening across this vast area as the "open jihad." Here are its key characteristics:
Open jihad evolves (gets better) through massively parallel co-development. All of the groups in the open jihad, no matter how small (even down to individuals), can contribute. They do this by:

1. tinkering with tactics, strategies, and technologies that can be used to advance the open jihad.

2. testing the efficacy of these innovations by using them against the enemy. In other words, throwing them against the wall to see what sticks.

3. copying the innovations that work.
These are also some of the key features of open source -- hence the name "open jihad." Their appearance in the context of international violence is a reminder that they are not limited to the digital world, with things like open source, open access, open data and all the other "opens," but are a set of very general principles for producing extremely rapid innovation in any domain. That might provide a clue to governments struggling to deal with this growing threat to stability that they ought to try something similar, rather than resorting to traditional responses that are doomed to fail when dealing with a new kind of enemy.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Richard (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 1:54am

    This has been done before

    Look at the history of communism and you see exactly the same pattern - during the period when it was successful.

    It was defeated by undermining its core ideas.

    Open Jihad can only be defeated in the physical world when it has been defeated in the world of ideas. Unfortunately our leaders make no apparent effort to do this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:02am

      Re: This has been done before

      Open Jihad can only be defeated in the physical world when it has been defeated in the world of ideas. Unfortunately our leaders make no apparent effort to do this.

      Probably because they have no interest in doing so. Perpetual war, while terrible for the average person(increased taxes to cover military budgets, and money spend on the military rather than local concerns like education if nothing else), is excellent for those that can use it to make obscene amounts of money providing the guns and gear, and those that can use the never-ending conflict to justify their attempts to grab more and more power for themselves.

      It would probably be quite safe to say, that while very few citizens want a war, very few governments don't.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:08am

        Re: Re: This has been done before

        Yup. Sad but true.
        It's a shame that government does not represent the will and desires of their constituents, hardly ever.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 6:02am

        Re: Re: This has been done before

        Probably because they have no interest in doing so.

        I agree - but I think that the reason is that they don't want to risk offending certain groups (of voters) within society.

        So they leave the ideological task to the "moderate leaders".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:01am

    Adapting

    Sigh, sometimes instead of adapting to new threats or fears. Maybe we should try and go back to the basics that our Founding Fathers sought when they helped build our nation. After all, the adaption from a 9/11 wasn't to destroy all privacy, and resort to torture. Maybe then we could get our economy back on track. Plus be the beacon of light that others would like to emulate. Sigh, I would love to blame terrorist or the government for the actions that have occurred. But while I sit here drinking my coffee in the morning I realize that it is not the government or terrorist fault for the state we are in. But it is my fault for not being proactive enough to hold those who are responsible for represent us accountable. It is my fault for not holding those who do the actions accountable. I'm ready to being Open Human, 1 Respect for yourself and others, 2 Open minded, to different people 3 Not so pig headed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:50am

    Whats being suggested, is continuing a perpetual battle, where things will become worse and worse, one side attacks, then the other side attacks, then the cycle repeats.

    We should be attacking the root causes, take away the need to fight, and people will stop fucking fighting, instead of two opposing sides, forgetting what they originally fought for, and simply now attack eachother over and over again,

    One side
    We attacked them because they attacked us

    Otherside
    We attacked them because they attacked us

    PERPETUAL FUCKING CONFLICT


    The only thing that could remotely be "put on trial", is the cause of the conflict, the stage before the conflict gets out of hand......if this aint recognised, then we will always have conflict

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gracey (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 3:30am

      Re:

      The problem with that is the members of the jihad.

      Even if "the other" side (US/Canada, the rest of the world) decided to quit, the jihad would not.

      The root cause is their ideals. As far as they're concerned, the entire world needs to live under their regime.

      Thank you, but no.

      Frankly, I'm on the side who just wants to nuke them. That's problematic too, since they aren't all in one place, and they aren't all able to be identified visibly. Because one dresses like a muslim does not make one a member of the terrorist group.

      I won't pretend to know the answer, but unless individuals fight back, I see no real way out. These people kill if you refuse to join.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 3:56am

        Re: Re:

        Notice also that the members of these groups are not poor and destitute - they are often rich and well educated - as we discovered yesterday when the identity of jihadi john was revealed.

        It is the ideology. It was suppressed from the mid 19th century until the 1970s becasue it was weak and the west looked like a good model to emulate - but now it is funded by oil and a combination of greed on the right and self doubt on the left has made the west look less attractive.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:31am

        Re: Re:

        The fanatics themselves? Don't bother, you aren't going to get anywhere with them, as like you said, they want one thing, and it's not peace on any other terms than theirs. For them, a measured, precise military response is pretty much the only way you can deal with them, because nothing less will stop them.

        However, you can make it a hell of a lot more difficult for them to replenish their numbers, and it doesn't involve shooting them up. Rather, the 'weapons' in that particular fight are more along the lines of humanitarian aid, providing clean water, food for those that need it, medical treatment, access to education, and stuff like that.

        Make the fence sitters your friends, and supporters of your side, and they are much less likely to listen when the nutjob comes calling, talking about how horrible life is and if they want to get anywhere they're going to have to take it from those around them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Agreed. There may be a core group of 'True Believers' who are, in fact, motivated by belief. But also consider that with the correct policies you can isolate them.

          In fact, there's a DoD study that dates back to the mid-00s - yes, the Rumsfeld DoD - that concluded that most mideast is in fact driven by our foreign policy. But make Amy mention of it to the exceptionalist elites and they FREAK OUT

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          However, you can make it a hell of a lot more difficult for them to replenish their numbers, and it doesn't involve shooting them up. Rather, the 'weapons' in that particular fight are more along the lines of humanitarian aid, providing clean water, food for those that need it, medical treatment, access to education, and stuff like that.

          We've tried that - we've even tried bombing their immediate opponents (in Serbia).

          Whilst it is part of the solution I would point out that the Christian minorities (formerly majorities) in the Middle East have been doing that for 1400 years and as a result they have been slowly whittled away to a fraction of their former size and are at present in the process of been eliminated entirely from some regions at the hands of IS.

          I don't believe in violence but I do believe we need to be more aggressive ideologically.

          The problem is that the fanatics version of Islam is the original thing to be found in their holy books. Therefore the moderates are always vulnerable to becoming radicals because their moderation is not well founded.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Pragmatic, 27 Feb 2015 @ 7:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Christian here... that can be said of most of the holy books I know of.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 10:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              that can be said of most of the holy books I know of.

              Yes - but the consequences are rather different. The most fanatical Christians - comparable in cultural background to the middle easterm muslims - would be the monks of the monastery of St Macarius in Egypt.
              http://www.stmacariusmonastery.org/eabout.htm#l

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:57pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                When the Christians were poor in relation to the Muslims, they were the terrorists, they called it the Crusades.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 5:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Are you referring to the Norman knights and the Venetian merchants who attacked the local Christians as well as the Muslims - I wouldn't call them Christians. They did more dam,age in the long run to the local Christians than to the Muslims.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:55am

        Re: Re:

        "the side who just wants to nuke them. That's problematic too"


        Really? ... (cough cough).

        Why yes, that might be a bit problematic.
        But not for the reasons you have stated.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ah ha, you mean in terms of nuclear fallout? Or do you mean in terms of some sort of genocide/morality type thing?

          Solution: clean nukes + clarify situation is an act of war and that terrorists are hence combatants. No problems right?

          /sarc

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 7:43am

        Re: Re:

        The root cause is their ideals. As far as they're concerned, the entire world needs to live under their regime.

        That is an over-simplification. If you listen to any religious extremist ever, islamic or otherwise, they all have one central issue - corruption. They believe the ills of society are due to "wrong living" - sometimes they sound like idiots, such as Pat Robertson blaming hurricane katrina on teh gays. But sometimes they have a damn good point like Jesus beating the crap out of the money-changers. Or the Shaw of Iran was installed after a CIA coupe and then looted the country. Or how the shia government in Iraq was abusing the hell out of the sunni minorities. The recent reveal of "Jihad John's" identity is a textbook example of radicalisation created by an unaccountable state.

        So yeah, the answer really is to stop crapping all over people. Live up to our ideals of human rights and government accountability. There will always be some nutters who are not satisfied, but we start walking the walk again and they will be marginalized to the point of just a bunch of cranks posting rants to the internet. Kind of like the way the christian extremists in the US do today.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 10:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          That is an over-simplification.

          Sadly in this case it isn't.

          If you listen to any religious extremist ever, islamic or otherwise, they all have one central issue - corruption.

          Yes but in most cases the definition of corruption is at least vaguely recognisable.

          The Islamic definition however includes democracy, education in anything but religion, (especially of women), freedom to follow other religions or be an atheist and a whole host of other things that you and I would regard as just normal life.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 12:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "The Islamic definition however includes democracy, education in anything but religion, (especially of women), freedom to follow other religions or be an atheist and a whole host of other things that you and I would regard as just normal life."

            It wasn't all that long ago in the US that the exact same arguments that are made about democracy in some islamic circles were about communism and socialism in the US. In a large minority of the population, they still are.

            If you wanted to avoid religious persecution in the US, your religious belief better be some variant of Christianity or Judaism. Atheists were routinely and legally discriminated against and denied employment, housing, etc. In many places, they still are.

            The definition of "corruption" used by Islamic extremists is pretty much the same definition that has been used by extremist groups everywhere (including the US) for as long as there has been extremism. In other words, for as long as there have been people.

            I don't see anything new or unique about Islamic extremism. It's just plain old extremism, and is a problem with a tiny minority of the larger subculture. It's just as silly to blame all of Islam for it as it is to blame all of Christianity for the parade of horribles that Christian extremists have done.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              If you wanted to avoid religious persecution in the US, your religious belief better be some variant of Christianity or Judaism. Atheists were routinely and legally discriminated against and denied employment,

              Oh dear that's so bad - whereas in Islamic countries - even supposedly moderate ones you end up dead.
              or sentenced to death or, if you are lucky in prison

              I don't see anything new or unique about Islamic extremism.
              Only because you aren't looking hard enough.

              It's just plain old extremism, and is a problem with a tiny minority of the larger subculture. It's just as silly to blame all of Islam for it as it is to blame all of Christianity for the parade of horribles that Christian extremists have done.

              Oh come on, get your head out of the sand. You are comparing what has happened in countries that are full of people who are officially Christians over long periods of time to the relatively few attacks that have been mounted against these countries from the muslim minorities within them over a short period. Look instead at what happens in muslim countries and on their borders and you will see that Islam is conducting this kind of thing on a vastly bigger scale than any other group has ever done. There is a good reason for this - it is mandated in their scriptures. I blame the religion because they officially blame the religion themselves!

              Some stats.

              In the past week 571 dead
              In the past month 3998 dead.

              These are all in religiously motivated attacks - not in "normal warfare"

              Details here

              Truth is that it has been like this from the very beginning.

              The last hundred years have been anomalous because Islam has been comparatively weak. This has allowed the myth of the "religion of peace" to which you seem to subscribe to grow. However if you look at the comments/experiences of people who were aware of the pre-1920 islamic world (Jefferson, Gladstone, Churchill) you will find something very different.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 3:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Oh dear that's so bad - whereas in Islamic countries - even supposedly moderate ones you end up dead. or sentenced to death or, if you are lucky in prison"

                As has been the case in the US. That really only changed here relatively recently, and even now there are parts of the country where it persists.

                "You are comparing what has happened in countries that are full of people who are officially Christians over long periods of time to the relatively few attacks that have been mounted against these countries from the muslim minorities within them over a short period."

                If I understand what you're saying here properly, then no, I'm not.

                "Look instead at what happens in muslim countries and on their borders and you will see that Islam is conducting this kind of thing on a vastly bigger scale than any other group has ever done. There is a good reason for this - it is mandated in their scriptures."

                Again, what you're describing here applies 100% to Christianity-driven wars in centuries past. Including the reason for it.

                My point is that there's nothing inherent in Islam that isn't also inherent in Christianity that leads to violent action. There are murders happening in the US because some Christian whackjob decided that someone else isn't Christian enough.

                The problem isn't in the religious texts. The problem is that extremists and whackjobs exist in all religions. It's incredibly misleading to blame an entire subculture for the actions of a tiny minority of extremists.

                Also, be careful about pointing to the scriptures as proof that Islam is somehow evil: the Christian bible is chock full of equally outrageous declarations, and those declarations have been used to excuse the commission of atrocities as well.

                I would be much more productive, and much more accurate, to put the blame where it really belongs: on the heads of those people who are committing the atrocities.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 4:15am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  My point is that there's nothing inherent in Islam that isn't also inherent in Christianity that leads to violent action. There are murders happening in the US because some Christian whackjob decided that someone else isn't Christian enough.


                  Evidence please.

                  would be much more productive, and much more accurate, to put the blame where it really belongs: on the heads of those people who are committing the atrocities.

                  Of course that is the trivial solution - but it doesn't do anything to prevent the next person in line from being "radicalised".

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 5:09am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  the Christian bible is chock full of equally outrageous declarations, and those declarations have been used to excuse the commission of atrocities as well.

                  Well it shoukd be easy for you to find some - in fact if it is "chock full" then your should practically be able to pick one out at random.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 1:59pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The Islamic definition however includes democracy, education in anything but religion, (especially of women), freedom to follow other religions or be an atheist and a whole host of other things that you and I would regard as just normal life.

            You are misinformed. You have been listening to self-promoting charlatans. No serious middle-eastern scholar agrees with your claim. If you are interested in a better understanding you could do worse than to start reading what Juan Cole has to say at Informed Comment. He's been studying the middle-east for 30 years.

            Also, in case the opinions of actual experts in the field aren't enough for you -- I married a girl from a muslim family and I can tell you from direct personal experience you are completely in error.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Sorry - but the evidence of the Quran is against you here consider the case of democracy:

              Qur'an (33:36) - "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision."

              and many other verses.

              I prefer to look at the opinions of those brought up in the middle east (both the devout and the apostates) rather than western scholars. However I didn't find anything on your link that would change my opinions - mostly things that would re-inforce them.

              Of course the majority of Muslims in the west behave similarly to other westerners and are nice people. However they are following the "offical islam" that is promulgated in the west. This is really basically "Christianity with the names changed". It is not the real islam of the Quran and the Hadiths. In many ways it resembles the Ahmadi sect - who really are peaceful - but then they themselves are persecuted in places like Pakistan by Sunni Muslims.

              I also know quite a few people from the region some Muslim, some Christian and some ex-Muslim. I also come across a wide cross section of overseas students from the region and I can tell you that knowledge of one family is really not enough and I am not in error.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 10:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                > Sorry - but the evidence of the Quran is against you here consider the case of democracy:

                Ugh. I've run into people like you a thousand times before. All you know about the religion are cherry-picked quotes provided to you by people pushing an agenda. They are context free and ignore both the hundreds of other quotes that contradict them and the mainstream practice of the religion. As if exactly the same thing can't be done with any other major religion.

                I used to play this game with people like you -- drilling down into each quote provided and coming up with 5+ quotes that say otherwise. I won it every single time. I used to think of it as a way to test my understanding of the religion, to look for proof that hater-mongers like you were right. You were always wrong.

                After doing it 30-40 times it got real old. Especially since no amount of contrary evidence ever convinced a hate-monger to stop hating. As Swift said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

                So you keep on seeking out the most extremist possible interpretation of your cherry-picked quotes because it brings you great comfort to have an enemy. The best I can hope for is your embrace of evil becomes so clearly odious that the majority of decent humans will shun you into the dark corners of the web like stormfront and the jawa report along with all the other cranks.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 4:09am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I used to play this game with people like you -- drilling down into each quote provided and coming up with 5+ quotes that say otherwise.

                  Saying that is not a substitute for actually doing it. I am ready to be persuaded that I am wrong.

                  As for context - well that is a difficult one - since I have had difficulty finding the concept of context in the book - it has a tendency to jump about.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No serious middle-eastern scholar agrees with your claim.

              No true Scotsman...

              I married a girl from a muslim family and I can tell you from direct personal experience you are completely in error.

              My father in law was a wonderful, loving man - however he was German and fought on the Nazi side in WW2. His goodness does not mean that Nazism was alright after all. After the war when he found out the truth about Nazism his rejection of it was total (to the point where he would not spend a minute longer than necessary in Germany when he took his parents home after a visit). I have seen something similar amongst ex-muslims.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 9:36pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                >> No serious middle-eastern scholar agrees with your claim.
                >
                > No true Scotsman...

                And that's an analogy fail. Serious middle-eastern scholar equals Phd in topics like middle-east history, sociology, anthropology, etc. That's not a "no true scotsman" that's expertise beyond the agenda-driven stuff you've been listening to.

                You are invited to prove me wrong, find someone with a Phd in any of those fields from an accredited university who agrees with your interpretation and I'll concede. Of course you can't because there are none. The only people who think like you do are the ones looking for a reason to hate. Basically the opposite of everything Jesus stands for.

                > Nazis

                WTF man? I think the fact that you equate muslims to nazis really says it all. This whole battle-of-civilizations thing is just warmongering wish-fulfilment for guys like you. You are just the flipside of the same coin that is Daesh.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 3:46am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You are invited to prove me wrong, find someone with a Phd in any of those fields from an accredited university who agrees with your interpretation and I'll concede.

                  Here you are asking for an appeal to authority rather than an appeal to evidence.

                  I'm not intersted in authority, I look to evidence from original sources.

                  Show me the verses from authentic (non-abrogated) Islamic scriptures that support your point.

                  think the fact that you equate muslims to nazis really says it all. This whole battle-of-civilizations thing is just warmongering wish-fulfilment for guys like you.

                  I don't equate Muslims to Nazis. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. My point was that it is perfectly possible for good people to believe in a bad ideology when they have not been told the whole truth about it. That negates the evidence you supplied - but it leaves the status of Islam undecided.

                  I am not a warmonger. Please stop making assumptions based on a stereotype. You do exactly the same to me as what you accuse me of doing.

                  My argument is with an ideology not with a people - after all Christian and Muslim araba are the same people. The same is true in Iran with Zoroastrians and in India with Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 12:01pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    > Show me the verses from authentic (non-abrogated) Islamic scriptures that support your point.

                    Ugh "non-abrogated" gives away exactly who you've been paying attention to. Stick with that jihadwatch/answering-islam/atlas-shrugs crap, I really don't have the energy to do the same shit over and over again.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 7:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  If you want a serious scholar - try Anthony Flew

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

                  who said "I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam... it is, I think, best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 10:34am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    > Anthony Flew

                    Not a PhD in anything remotely like middle-eastern studies.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 11:35am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I'm sorry but you just confirmed that the "no true Scotsman" fallacy applies. (incidentally Flew is largely responsible for the no true scotsman fallacy!).

                      So philosophy of religion doesn't count does it?

                      I would have thought it much MORE relevant than "middle eastern studies".

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 11:50am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        > So philosophy of religion doesn't count does it?

                        When expertise is the issue an expertise in a different religion is not relevant. That's only marginally better than asking Franklin Graham his opinion on islam.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 12:15pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:


                          When expertise is the issue an expertise in a different religion is not relevant.

                          Flew was an expert in philosophy of religion - not any particular religion - but ALL of them. As an atheist (later a deist) he was impartial between them.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Richard (profile), 28 Feb 2015 @ 9:24am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  No serious middle-eastern scholar agrees with your claim.

                  Also try Bernard Lewis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

                  ".it is the duty of those who have accepted them [Allah's word and message] to strive unceasingly to convert or at least to subjugate those who have not. This obligation is without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state"

                  or David Cook https://reli.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=68

                  "In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible"

                  Or Michael Cook
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cook_%28historian%29

                  "Shortly after 9/11, there was a book published called How Did This Happen? that included an essay by Karen Armstrong in which she said a world religion has been hijacked by this band of fanatics. I don’t buy that for a minute"

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 11:47am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    > Bernard Lewis

                    From your own citation:
                    At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays.

                    > David Cook

                    Hey look, you pulled a quote from a book you've never read. I am soooo surprised!
                    Here, let me quote some sentences that immediately precede that quote:
                    "Thus, while I do not think that jihad has a future in the larger Muslim world, I also do not think that there is any doubt that it will continue among marginalized groups"

                    "Yet the fact that the majority of contemporary Muslims do not actively participate in militant jihad demonstrates a decisive rejection of which the radical Muslims are keenly aware."

                    > Micheal Cook

                    Another quote in isolation!
                    Here's more quotes from that same interview:
                    "Actually forcing people to convert is a different question. I can remember one medieval scholar who says forced conversions are the best thing ever... That view does exist. But the general view is no, you don’t coerce people to enter Islam."

                    "I would say it’s absolutely right that there is, in principle, a doctrinal incompatibility between Islam and democracy, and it’s a very straightforward incompatibility: if you believe the single most important thing in the world is God’s will, and if you believe that you know what God’s will is, then what on earth are you doing with elections? This is an argument that in principle would extend to Jews and Christians. But Jews and Christians don’t seem to have a whole lot of problems with democracy. I’m not sure the Islamic case is in principle all that different.

                    Let me give you an analogy. If you go back something like 100 years and take Catholicism and Catholic anti-modernism — who was that pope in the first two decades of the 20th century who launched an anti-modernist crusade that said the church can have no truck with the corrupt values of the modern world? And there’s the document that says it must shore up its medieval tradition in the face of all these temptations and abominations? Isn’t it actually —

                    MR. CROMARTIE:The Syllabus of Errors.

                    MR. COOK:The Syllabus of Errors, exactly. Isn’t that where it says it is an error to believe the pope can accommodate himself to modern values such as blah, blah, blah, and democracy?

                    MR. CROMARTIE: Liberalism as well.

                    MR. DIONNE: That was the last error on the list and the culmination of the list.

                    MR. COOK: In that late 19th century, early 20th century period, it made good sense — and a lot of people were saying it, both on the Catholic side and the anti-Catholic side — to say Catholicism and democracy are incompatible; there’s no way they could be reconciled. When I tell this to my undergraduates in the early 21st century, and quite a few of them are Catholics, this sounds really bizarre. It corresponds to nothing in their experience."


                    ------------------

                    So, in summary. Exactly as predicted you can't name a serious middle-eastern scholar that agrees with the premise that radical islam is "true islam." And furthermore, as these debates always go, you low-information types can do no better than regurgitate cherry-picked quotes hand-fed to you by self-promoting charlatans.

                    And, all of this will make no difference at all. You will still continue to believe what you want to believe because hating an enemy is just too great of an addiction for the weak-minded to overcome. Which means my continued participation is just a waste of time.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 1:18pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      hating an enemy is just too great of an addiction for the weak-minded to overcome.

                      Hating an enemy?

                      I never expressed that. To quote a phrase:

                      " I think it is important to be able to judge ideas without judging people. "

                      You keep accusing me of hate - but it just isn't true. I'm expressing an opinion about the compatibility of abstract concepts.

                      "you can't name a serious middle-eastern scholar that agrees with the premise that radical islam is "true islam.""

                      I don't think that that actually follows from what you have quoted.

                      What might be concluded is that there is a large body of muslims in the modern world who have created a version of islam that is accommodating to "western" values and pluralism. Is that "true islam"? If so why?
                      What is your definition of "true islam"? - or what is the criterion for deciding what is and isn't.
                      Further to that they express the opinion that this version of islam is likely to prevail and be the most important version in the years to come. Well I would certainly like that to be true but it seems likely to come too late for the religious minorities in the middle east.

                      you low-information types

                      So far you have bombarded me with authority quotes and as yet I see no hard reason to believe you other than "some person with a PhD says so" and when I look at what they say it is just a rehearsal or summary of the opinions of yet more (unnamed) people.

                      As someone with a PhD in a scientific subject I'm expecting something rather more concrete than that. The sheer volume of information is not (or should not be) the point rather the quality of the information ought to be what matters.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2015 @ 1:29pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "I would say it’s absolutely right that there is, in principle, a doctrinal incompatibility between Islam and democracy, and it’s a very straightforward incompatibility: if you believe the single most important thing in the world is God’s will, and if you believe that you know what God’s will is, then what on earth are you doing with elections? This is an argument that in principle would extend to Jews and Christians.

                      I can't speak for the Jews but Christianity grew up separate from the state - which often persecuted it - so it has never had a reason to object to any system of government.
                      Also, from the New Testament, "render unto Caesar" and "Obey the authorities "(Romans 12) make the point clear.

                      As far as Roman Catholicism goes - has he forgotten that Popes are elected?

                      AFAIK Islam WAS the state from the 620's until the end of the Ottoman empire after ww2 - unless you can supply some information to the contrary.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2015 @ 5:07am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  find someone with a Phd in any of those fields from an accredited university who agrees with your interpretation and I'll concede.

                  Since the departments of middle eastern studies that you would "accept" all receive or would like to receive Middle Eastern oil money it is unlikley that anyone from these departments would openly say the truth about these things so you are safe.

                  It's like asking for honesty about global warming from the oil industry or lung cancer from the tobacco indusry.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 2:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You have been listening to self-promoting charlatans.

              It is a strange form of self promotion that puts forward an opinion that puts his life in danger...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 9:26pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It is a strange form of self promotion that puts forward an opinion that puts his life in danger...

                Actually, you only ever hear these things from people who are safely ensconced thousands of miles away.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 12:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "There will always be some nutters who are not satisfied, but we start walking the walk again and they will be marginalized to the point of just a bunch of cranks posting rants to the internet. Kind of like the way the christian extremists in the US do today."

          Ahh, there's the rub; we've never really "walked the walk."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:55am

      Re:

      That would require our leaders to not desire constant conflict as a smokescreen to their efforts to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else.

      If we did not have a constant state of war their crimes would undo them instead of providing cover for treasonous acts

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 6:40am

        Re: Re:

        I cant see where we have any authority to stop violent fanatics on the otherside, if we keep ignoring and allowing OUR violent fanatics to go on unoposed, and our violent fanatics have access to things that could destroy cities, making who is more dangerous way out of proportion

        We dont have the moral grounds, fix that, clean house, and then maybe, we'll start having suggestions being put through that are based more on humanitarian solutions then a trigger finger violent one.............our side created the jihadi opposition, we funded them, we supplied them, we dont take that resposibility, and our solution is to do more of the thing that created the problem

        Fuck that

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:18am

    Don't give them tips idiot

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    alternatives(), 27 Feb 2015 @ 4:54am

    Making a talking point of Alex Jones right?

    Alex's website is called Info Wars - it's taken "Jihadists" this long to point out what Capt. Obvious (now promoted to a General due to time in service) knew a long time ago?

    Humans are all about communication, so why wouldn't they embrace it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:04am

    Use of the term "open" in this context is undesirable for several reasons. First, it doesn't really fit. Open is used to describe the freely distributable specifications of an item and a an accompanying permissive "IP". The nuts going around causing trouble these days hardly agree with such ideas and ways. Second, those who dislike the open distribution of ideas will use this "open jihad" to claim proponents are terrorists.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 6:43am

      Re:

      Exactly my thoughts

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 9:54am

      Re:

      I think "open" fits here as a method, not a goal. "I did X using Y, and successfully circumvented Z." Broadcast via social media, and others can try it, refine it, and share their results. Without competition for a finite resource (e.g. money), there aren't any real IP-style issues. Of course, this reduces the idea of open source to nothing more than communication... which leads to your point about misusing the term to prejudice people against the general idea being spot-on.

      The boogeyman used against the idea of Open/Free Source and sharing is transitioning from a Communist to a Terrorist. Just like the Reds under the bed got chased away and replaced with wild-eyed jihadists.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Patrick Masson, 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:55am

    Perhaps reading the Open Source Definition would help?

    The use of the term "open" in this instance fails to fully recognize all of the criteria/attributes of open source development. Many initiatives have co-opted the term open as a synonym for cooperation, collaboration, iteration. While unfortunately terrorists may be using these techniques to self-organize, I would not qualify this with the term "open source."

    Folks should take a look at the Open Source Definition (http://opensource.org/osd-annotated) to better understand all of the requirements of the open source label. "Open Jihad" fails to meet this criteria on several points: #5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, #6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, #9. Must Not Restrict Others, # 10. Must Be Neutral.

    I realize that the author is simply trying to make the point, similar to that in "The Starfish and the Spider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starfish_and_the_Spider) about leaderless, self-organizing organizations. However in my work I have seen the increasing use of the term "open" to describe peer-based activities (e.g. "open courses," "open government," "open beer," now "open jihad") results in ambiguity, particularly due to marketing and promotion efforts, thus not only distorting the definition of open source but diluting its value as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 8:13am

      Re: Perhaps reading the Open Source Definition would help?

      > "Open Jihad" fails to meet this criteria on several points: #5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, #6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, #9. Must Not Restrict Others, # 10. Must Be Neutral.

      The movement violates those points. The techniques do not. If you carry an analogy too far, it will wake up in your arms and scratch you fiercely.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 10:07am

      Re: Perhaps reading the Open Source Definition would help?

      It's funny how a defense of Open Source sounds like a mix of legalese and corporate speak blended to create brand awareness.

      Oops, gotta run... I left my paradigm outside the box, and I can't unpack my calibrated expectations without it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    BW (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 5:57am

    Microsoft has had an answer to open source for a long time

    What you do is flood them with misinformation and false alternatives. I.e. "To make a really great explosive, first chew a 60cc wad of superglue in you mouth for 30 seconds. It is important that all members of the bomb-making team begin chewing simultaneously, while snorting 20cc of corn starch."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 27 Feb 2015 @ 7:15am

      Re: Microsoft has had an answer to open source for a long time

      "What you do is flood them with misinformation and false alternatives. "

      The CIA has been doing that since the fifties, when our indigenous "open source jihadists" were still called "hairy-eyed anarchists".

      The re-edit of The Anachists Cookbook is perhaps the most famous - try anything out of it and you'll be lucky if you only blow off a hand instead of taking out your whole house.

      For a more current one, search out "The Poor Man's Ray Gun". It's a detailed book on how to make a very powerful MASER out of a microwave oven. And it WORKS.

      BUT... they neglect to shield it or add a collimator, so when you turn it on it fries the brains of everything within about a hundred feet of it.

      There are dozens of such "how-to" books easily available on the net. Hell, Amazon sell some of them in hardcopy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Just Another Anonymous Troll, 27 Feb 2015 @ 6:16am

    The only good use for bad patent laws...

    ...is fighting terrorism. Give them something similar to our patent system, and they'll get too caught up in lawsuits and arguments to actually do any jihad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Cow Herd, 27 Feb 2015 @ 8:45am

    How long before we get this?

    If jihad is like open source, then clearly open source is like jihad. Jihad is bad, therefore anything like it is bad. Since open source is like jihad, open source is bad. Therefore it must be banned!

    Think of the children!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 3:46pm

    The US should not have invaded Iraq to begin. The only fix I know is sending the "architects" back to account for what's been done.

    I think people under estimate how much of a role history of US interventions in the region in the past plays a part, it's not just 'religion'. US policies do not fall into the "good guy" category much of the time over the last 70 years.

    I think it's because the US is used to the attention span of a week or two. Unfortunatley the rest of the world is not the same.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GEMont (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 1:29am

    Organized Terrorism - hooda thunk it!

    Sounds like exactly the sort of thing one would expect to come out of an American Think Tank.... even the name sounds like the kind of label that a US marketing team would attach to such a nifty false flag fear factor program.

    Not going to get approval for an all out war against ISIL until the US public sees ISIL as a serious threat.

    This looks like it'll do the trick nicely.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.