Thread by @sfrantzman

Thread: I see these odd debates, mostly among westerners, about whether something is "jihadist"...it reminds me of the old debates about what kind of "Marxist" people were...it views "jihadist" as some academic reality, when the reality on the ground is not so simple, or binary

It also reminds me of the debates in the US about what group is "far right" or "white supremacist"...in the end what we are talking about is groups in the Middle East on a spectrum of far-right extremism as well, some of whom are genocidal.

It misses a key aspect, which is that groups may profess some ideology, some worldview...but the people that join and leave the and move in their circles and commit crimes sometimes for these ideologies, are not so doctrinaire.

And the nonsensical stories of "group X would never work with country Y because that country is a different religion or viewed as 'apostates'" doesn't hold up in history. Groups often work with countries and other groups based on money, shared interests, convenience.

It also reminds me of the use of the word "terrorist" to describe some groups and not others...just because one government labels a group "terrorist" and not another. So what? Governments use terms like "terrorist" or "jihadist" for reasons that may not reflect the ground reality

One has to be careful about entering these debates with people who are trying to whitewash group as "non-jihadist" for reasons, such as giving a country the blank check to work with them...it's about politics, and less about what the groups do, are they ethnic-cleansing, etc?

The idea that you can take a bunch of groups and easily divide them into some arbitrary system of definitions, with little bases in what the members are doing or what they think or why, is an academic exercise, but not one that reflects what is happening.

It's better to ask "what does the group do"...less than what it claims to believe. Does it harass and kidnap minorities, enforce dress codes, ethnic-cleanse or genocide...or is it non-violent...what is it doing? Groups change. Hamas has changed, for instance. Taliban changes.

So we need to know more...groups in Sinai and other places targeted historic Islamic shrines as part of their campaigns. Is it worth knowing if they fit a "jihadist" definition...as if somehow if we whitewash the term we use for them, then the crimes go away?

I think the whole thing is an exercise in attempting to make some extremist groups seem acceptable...and I don't think it helps with definitions of "neo-Nazis" or other extremists either. One needs to ask "what do they do" more than "what do they claim to believe."

Someone may say "your not an expert on Jihad"...yeah ok. I'm not an expert on the religious underpinnings of the Crusades either. But it's worth knowing more about what the Crusaders did, then the often impenetrable complexities of their beliefs at the time.

For instance the massacres of the Rhineland during that era were carried out...do we need to get deep into the theocratic underpinnings of the whole movement to get at that? I would say that may be less helpful than know about the massacres and hate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland…

One can imagine such a discussion where people are like "these are non-Crusader units of the Crusader kingdom"...yeah sure...I understand...some signed up for money and adventure. Ok. Some joined ISIS for the same reason.

When these modern groups murdered Hevrin Khalaf and celebrated, or ethnically-cleansed Afrin...those are the actions they did. Coming along and saying "but this is non-Jihadist"...so? Maybe the "non-Jihadists" are worse? And they get support from a state, which is bad.

If governments or security services only look for "jihadists threats" they will be missing the elephant in the room, they should ask "what does the group do" first...and see if it attracts extremists and then understand the threat. Not just ask about supposed ideology