Home | About | Donate

From Nice to the Middle ISIS: Only One Way to Challenge ISIS


From Nice to the Middle ISIS: Only One Way to Challenge ISIS

Ramzy Baroud

I visited Iraq in 1999. At the time, there were no so-called ‘jihadis’ espousing the principles of ‘jihadism’, whatever the interpretation may be. On the outskirts of Baghdad was a military training camp, not for ‘al-Qaeda’, but for ‘Mojahedin-e-Khalq’, an Iranian militant exile group that worked, with foreign funding and arms, to overthrow the Iranian Republic.


Spot-on advice for dissidents, activists, organizers, protestors in the USA, to focus on the source of the problems:

End The Wars
End The Occupations

And furthermore:

Slash War Funding and Invest In Peace:
Convert the War Economy:
Green Energy, Not War
Good Jobs, Not War
Build Transit, Not Bombs


"Defeating ISIS requires that we also confront and defeat the thinking that led to its inception: to defeat the logic of the George W. Bushes, Tony Blairs and John Howards of this world."

And Clintons.


Only the stilling of the wind can stay the tempest of the whirlwind


Dear Ramzy- You are right, and you are wrong, bless your heart. You are right that the actions of the occupiers do nothing to lessen the likelihood of terrorist attacks. They will in fact create more terrorists. You are wrong that the occupying powers want to make the terrorist attacks come to an end. Rather, they are, by occupying and doing the very thing that increases terrorism, serving the interests of the military industrial complex (which is NOT strictly speaking 'American' but now global!) and serving the interests of the neoconservatives and neoliberals... and there's plenty of overlap there.



If asked to recommend only a single article on the topic, this would be it. It merits
the widest circulation.


To end war, end empire.


And in other news from Northern Ireland, another day of the historical split within segments of Christianity . . . but we have no conveniently biased term that equates to 'jihad, jihadi, or jihadist', unfortunately.

Just hate and bombs and terror, all in the name of . . . 'religious ideology'?


Baroud, the writer of the instant article ought better do extensive research into much more important factors:

Who funded and trained the Northern Alliance?
Who funded and trained the Mujahideen?
Who funded and trained various factions of Al-Qaeda?

What are the origins of ISIS/ISIL and where did its various factions get training, supplies and financial assistance?
What are some other major "brands" of Islamic fighters and their respective origins?

Under what various circumstances have factions of a given Islamic military group "defected" to a morphed version of one of the above-mentioned groups?

What Western countries have trained, supplied, funded and exported Islamic fighters to foreign countries or used them within the fighters' respective countries of origin? And, describe the historical background of any such strategies.

To what extent are the major underlying factors that give rise to the various hostilities involve religious ideologies, territorial/autonomy disputes, nationalism or economic factors?

How can it be argued that the terms such as "moderate rebels" or "moderate insurgents" are largely euphemistic characterizations, which are used to legitimize certain geo-political agendas? And, what are the historical roots of such factions?

Please provide a detailed explanation of how the global elite, along with the military-industrial complex, just might derive benefits from the existence of ever-present and wide-spread Islamic-related threats and fighting , e.g. an increase in power and control over certain regions, an increase in economic exploitation, increased likelihood of the passage of laws designed to maintain the status quo of the global ruling class, paving the way for use of war-honed strategies, capabilities and technologies domestically, etc.

And lastly, please explain how the "endless wars" conundrum of Orwell's 1984 may have some relevance to the above issues.


No, no, and no. The life history of the Founder is one tinged with violence, which is why it is seemingly so easy to radicalize the weak-minded and young. Further, the 'leaders' of the radicals are self-appointed; the only real requirement is literacy in written Arabic, since the sanctioned teachings are printed only in Arabic. Acolytes cannot see for themselves, and relies instead on leaders who can. Put the two together, and it spells ISIS.

If I were a moderate Islamic, I would teach my children to always scrutinize and accept only scientific truths. Taking it 'on faith' is not rational thinking. That of course becomes pretty much a mea culpa. That is, being religious in any organized religion is, to put it gently, a less than healthful world view.


They were tried in abstensia in some international court and found guilty, right? But that doesn't have the same impact as, say, their beheadings on live TV like Saddam and some of our guys, eh? If ISIS or whoever they are could behead the players in that administration and drag their carcasses through the streets on international television, maybe their taste for revenge would be satiated and we could move on. BUT, no, we have never learned to stop aggressing against UNARMED COUNTRIES much like our police force (some officers) gun down unarmed black men. Anyone see a correlation here?