In a new issue of its magazine Dabiq, the Islamic State boasts of the progress it’s made in polarizing the world into two sharply opposing camps—supporters on one side, and on the other, the West and all those Muslims who do not accept its newly declared “Caliphate.”
“As the world progresses towards al-Malhamah al-Kubr (the “Great Battle”), the option to stand on the sidelines as a mere observer is being lost,” declares the cover story, titled “From Hypocrisy to Apostasy: The Extinction of the Grayzone.” The magazine also lauds “the withering of the grayzone,” and grimly warns Muslims in the West that they will soon be forced to make “one of two choices.”
The new issue includes an article purportedly written by British hostage John Cantlie, a defense of recent Islamic State killings carried out against those accused of “sexual deviance,” and a piece about two Japanese hostages executed last month. It also features graphic images of a decapitated head, and the badly burned body of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh, who was captured and killed by the group’s members.
Such shocking and provocative attacks are a means of “dragging the masses into the battle,” the Islamic State explains in Dabiq, through actions meant to “inflame opposition” and “make the people enter into the battle … such that each individual will go to the side which he supports.”
Dividing the world into opposing camps in this manner has long been a tactical objective of extremist ideologues.
In an influential jihadist document, “The Management of Savagery,” first published online in 2004, the late Al Qaeda strategist Abu Bakr Naji cited the need to “transform societies into two opposing groups, igniting a violent battle between them whose end is either victory or martyrdom.”
In recent interviews, Islamic State members have stated that “The Management of Savagery” remains a highly influential text within the organization, employed as part of the training curriculum for commanders, as well as for rank-and-file operatives.
University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole has noted this divide-and-conquer strategy draws less from traditional Islamic theology than from the practice of 20th-century European radicals who sought to “sharpen the contradictions” between various groups as a means of violently reshaping society.
Dabiq also cites recent attacks in France against Charlie Hebdo and in a kosher supermarket as undertaken in order to “further bring division to the world and destroy the grayzone everywhere.”
The magazine even approvingly quotes the war-on-terror rhetoric of former U.S. President George W. Bush: “Bush spoke the truth when he said, ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,’” a passage reads. “‘Meaning, either you are with the crusade or you are with Islam.”
Photo: Jens Meyer/AP
What I would like to know is what are the plans of ISIS (once the Caliphate is installed) with respect to Israel ?……Are they going to live shoulder to shoulder ?….will the “Caliphate” adopt a new name and will pass to call themselves Great Israel ?….Please somebody with better knowledge can answer me for this questions ?…Many thanks.
I made a comment to this article- why wasn’t it published?
This is very, very funny news. Shiite militias backed by Iran are increasingly taking the lead in Iraq’s fight against the Islamic State, threatening to undermine U.S. strategies. I mean, why on earth should Iran interfere with our plans in the Middle-East? Just let ISIL alone …
I honestly believe that these murderous morons are actually being manipulated by Western forces- that they are useful idiots- playing out an essential role, agents wo are ‘run blind’. They may believe they work for the Caliphate- but if you followed the strings from the puppets all the way up- they end in hands of the various Western intelligence agency puppet masters. Follow their strings- for they are puppets too: and you find the think-tanks like PNAC- follow their strings- and you might reach near the top of the Pyramid- the Grand Puppet Masters- groups like the Trilateral Commission, the CFR and Bildaberg where perhaps the War on Terror TM Concept was really born.
Operation Gladio 2.0 in action- a global strategy of tension – that ultimately enables the Police state and the Military industrial complex to expand further and consolidate its power. What is the US’s answer to ISIS? Invasions, Bombs, More surveillance, less rights, etc. What will the answer be in Denmark and France now the ‘leftist’ the cartoonists have been attacked? In Australia our Government has just promised yet more tough measures after our recent terror event- another trading in of actual freedoms for supposed securities. I call this out as the mafia style protection racket that it is.
Basically the cold war ended in 89- and the war on terror began in 91: the military industrial complex hardly skipped a beat- and has NEVER lacked an enemy- for that can never be allowed. Bad for business, don’t you know?
Some may argue that ISIS, 9/11, Libya, etc- are ‘blow-back’ and the inevitable response to incompetent and aggressive actions from a US that NEVER learns… I do not buy that for a second. West Point PsyOps and the Rand Corporation Black Mentats are not the simpletons in matters of War and Propaganda that some might like to think, or that they themselves may suggest. Just about everyone predicted that invading Iraq a second time would lead to Chaos- only the US army and Gov seemed surprised when it inevitably happened. Well that’s crap- they are not that dumb.
9/11 didn’t happen because the Military interceptors were incompetent and unprepared: it happened because the entire event was a stage managed false-flag attack. The WTC 1,2 &7 buildings did not collapse due to structural failure: they EXPLODED due to pre-planted explosives. It wasn’t ‘inter agency rivalry’ or ‘failures to communicate’ that caused the CIA not to tell the FBI about the Patsy hijackers they were watching… No- the entire thing was a work of rubishy Hollywood fiction come horribly to life- complete with the ‘Criminal Mastermind in an elaborate Cave- hell bent on World Domination’ cliche… It just amazes me that humans believe it at all. But seeing s believing right?
The fact that the Anthrax came from evil US DoD chem warfare labs was not a sneaky bit of enterprising Jihadi work either… I mean how stupid are we?
I only mention this God-Awful – soul-destroying – toxic- topic because I believe 9/11 has been used to divide the World, Create and validate the War on Terror (or War on Islam)- and has lead us directly to where we are today: ubiquitous surveillance inside- ISIS without – and WW3 on the horizon. Until it is faced: I do not think we can see any winding back of the Orwellian 1984 blueprint that becomes more real every day. The Panopticon is real: Snowden told us so.
If those at the Intercept think views such as mine are unhinged- paranoid and conspiratorial- and actually believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory- then please- for the Love of God- can you do a quality piece debunking the 9/11 truth movement? In particular the rational ‘truthers’ such as those found at Architects and Engineers for 911 truth? Explain to me the physics: how high rise building can collapse at the speed of free fall- despite structural resistance. Or where are that molten steel came from? Or how the lobby exploded?
Popular mechanics, NIST, the History Channel and the BBC have done such an appalling terrible job at debunking 9/11 truth- all they have done for me is further confirm my worst fear: 9/11 definitely was an inside job.
The Dabiq 7 link is dead. Maybe The Intercept could host?
‘What I don’t understand is the term Islamists”…
Good grief!!!
Heads are rolling and bodies are burning and the guys chopping and striking the matches are very clear as to why and what their endgame is yet people that ought to stand firmly against decapitations and human bonfires keep acting like there is a middle ground. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.
Will this website EVER take Muslim terrorists at their word? It’s even printed in a magazine…good grief.
“You’re either with us, or you’re against us.”
-Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi
Oh wait, that was George Bush!
Care to provide a functioning link to the source document so we can see for ourselves?
Mr. Hussain
“……University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole has noted this divide-and-conquer strategy draws less from traditional Islamic theology than from the practice of 20th-century European radicals who sought to “sharpen the contradictions” between various groups as a means of violently reshaping society……”
Trying to palm off Islamic terrorism on 20th century Europeans is classic Juan Cole. History extends much further back than the twentieth century, and the one thing humans have consistently sought and fought for is power. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Communists, Fascist, Nazis either gained or sought power through violence. Throughout human history, that has generally meant subjugation of the population by force and terror. That is the sole goal of the Islamic State – and they will burn alive as many Muslims as it takes to gain power. This has nothing to do with Bush, the Crusades or twentieth century Europeans. It is strictly twenty-first century extremist Muslims seeking a return of the Islamic empire – through violence.
I think both Juan Cole and Murtaza Hussain try also to explain that (divide and conquer) as an axiom of tyranny with roots as far back as the Roman empire, is not a creation of the traditional Islamic theology. So in other words the US versus THEM mentality exists in our rhetoric and behavior throughout our civilization in one form or the other. Question is if it is appropriate to use religious militant terminologies when conducting a global war on terrorism.
Kay
Thanks for your response.
“…..Question is if it is appropriate to use religious militant terminologies when conducting a global war on terrorism…..”
My last sentence from my original post pretty much answers that question, but the key point is power – a very common endeavor for humans of all persuasions. The Islamists have a legitimate gripe, but answering tyranny (Middle East dictators) with the promise of subjugation and terror is no answer at all, thus they will be defeated.
Thanks.
“The Islamists have a legitimate gripe”–Craig
I really have trouble with use of controvertible words and combinations like this sentence. What I don’t understand is word islamist, is that a person after radicalization or you refer to anyone of muslim heritage leaving according the universal declaration of human rights? For me it is as blurred as crusade.
Tyranny in different shapes and attributes has always existed in the Greater Middle East , and for this reason it can’t be defeated through single minded religious mobilization.
I use “Islamists” to mean a more conservative or fundamentalist Muslim – like the Muslim Brotherhood, for example. It doesn’t equate to terrorist, but most Islamic terrorists are Islamists.
“…….Tyranny in different shapes and attributes has always existed in the Greater Middle East , and for this reason it can’t be defeated through single minded religious mobilization…..”
If you mean what I think you mean, then I agree. That won’t keep them from trying though as you can see in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria and so on.
Thanks Kay.
And from my view “It is strictly twenty-first century extremist capitalists seeking to dominate every part of the world – through violence.” To continue to use your words “That is the sole goal of the United States – and they will burn alive as many Muslims as it takes.”
Two sides of the same coin. The coin of domination and death.
I have long believed that Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush were cut from the same cloth.
Wanton murder in the name of domination and fear-mongering is in the threads of both.
And the West just keep on playing into their hands. Obviously they would love idiots like Bush. He is just the other side of the same coin. Divide and conquer is all these imbeciles know and the West have played the game for centuries. These fanatic crazies is pretty much the only byproduct you’ll get through those games. You don’t win a fight by hitting harder. You win it from walking away and by letting go of ones ego. Something that is usually difficult for egotistical idiots who believe in their own superiority and their man made gods.
The axioms of tyranny
Fac et excusa (Act now, and make excuses later)
Si fecisti, nega (when you commit a crime, deny it)
Divide et impera (Divide and Rule)
Still no excuse for the sadistic management of savagery.
I’m with Mike.
I’ll take option C.
There’s always an option C.
What a stupid idea. If that’s all ISIS has, I’m afraid they will not succeed in their goals. I can be against ISIS and not want war with them. Conversely, I can be for ISIS and not want war with the West. Also, I can pretend to be for ISIS and still be for the west. Finally, what happens if more strong countries are “for” the west? I sometimes sympathize with ISIS, but if this thought represents their cutting edge, I may have to reconsider.
ISIS: The Mouse That Roared. The only power they have outside of their “borders” is what the West gives them. The fear-mongers in DC are screaming about westerners fighting in the Middle East and returning to kill Americans in das Homeland. I’m a lot more nervous about Americans fighting in the Middle East FOR the US and returning with sniper skills. Terrorism is a bigger load of group-think BS than the Commie Threat ever was.
The kettle and the fire. That’s the choices, line up with the religious fanatics or the capitalist fanatics if you believe the status quo. Each side dedicated to killing and domination, neither presents a vision of life. I reject you both, happy in my atheism and localism while disgusted with both history’s boogie men and a capitalistic system destroying our planetary home to enrich an oligarchy.
And I’ll throw out one more vision. If the masses cannot recognize that either of the choices above is death, then humanity’s days are numbered.
“And I’ll throw out one more vision. If the masses cannot recognize that either of the choices above is death, then humanity’s days are numbered.”
Agree.
Each human does have a choice to reject both ideologies in favor of polarity tolerance, peace, and restoration of Planet Earth.
It is my hope that sooner or later enlightenment will reach critical mass and tip the scales through sheer numeric volume.
Sooner would be preferred.
Later could be too late as the possible consequences of allowing “fanatics” to rule in complete unbridled domination could result in more massive losses of innocent lives and further, if not total, planetary destruction. Not a good recipe.
Each human was granted free will as a birthright…the right to choose a polarity; or to not choose a polarity (in this case—-between two evils presented as opposing forces) but rather to integrate positive and negative polarity in such a fashion as to make a cohesive functioning whole.
As you implied Mike Tabony….now is a great time for each person to choose…before it is too late.
“Such that each individual will go to the side which he supports.”
That certainly cuts to the chase.
The history of power, government, god, and good and evil itself represented so succinctly. The Great Divide. The horror here, of course, is that this truth is not presented with satire’s smile or the empathy of education, but as the inevitability of match to tinder.
ISIS is a most horrible mirror.
The Management of Savagery, eh? Hard to argue that ISIS is deficient in this regard. And, if, as Juan Cole observes, this strategy draws less from Islamic theology than it does from Western radicals, then it’s hard to imagine that the West wouldn’t recognize it and be more sophisticated in their response. Unless… It were true that these two sides need each other in order to simply be. And, given how unmoored western “democratic” governments have become from their citizens, the degree to which any group of global citizens can remain detached and clear-eyed to the provocation, and influence their governments views similarly is likely very slim. I’ve never considered myself a despairing pessimist, but the annihilation of our species via a global climatic disaster is beginning to look like the only solution. If one cannot solve a problem on the same level on which it was created, then – perhaps it follows – that one cannot solve an existential threat [in order to simply be] without an even bigger one.