ISIS is the Modern Version of Early British Colonialism

A1) Religious Freedom does not Equal Religious Dominance >>This is a good example of how the Islamic State and early British colonists are similar, not the exact same. I totally agree with what your statement, “They [colonists] sought new land to cultivate open religion, not oppressive.” Some colonists wanted to simply mind their own business and have religious freedom, while others wanted to spread Christianity. Such acts can easily be taken note of through the depiction of many documentaries, articles, and even some documented primary sources. The most relevant example of which would originate from colonists’ first and continued interactions with Native Americans. In the process of seeking religious freedom and land, colonists invaded and seized control of Native American land, sometimes without attempting to negotiate with the natives on how to split the land or—more importantly—whether or not the Natives were even willing to give up their land. Though some colonists went beyond trending the line between strictly wanting religious freedom and forcing it upon others. For those Natives who complied and did not mind interacting with colonists were relentlessly preached to. [1] A2) Monetary Gain >>Something that I must admit right off hand is that I do not totally understand the meaning of your statement due to its wording. Correct me if I am wrong: my interpretation of your first point made under the second argument point is ISIS’ motivation for selling oil is not economic, but religious. >>I would argue though economic benefit was a huge motivation for capturing many countries. In the case of the soon to be United States, it was the people seeking religious freedom who were followed by those seeking economic gain. [1] And also like the Islamic State, the only reasons why colonists did business with Europe was because Europe had an established economy that could pay handsomely. - British colonies and ISIS could very well be put under the same label since they both are (1) independent groups seeking religious freedom and forcing oppression, (2) believe in order to obtain freedom, people who do not cooperate shall move out or die—generally speaking, and (3) both developed a well operating economy that boomed. In the article posted by RT Media, the author stated that ISIS profits greatly from drug smuggling, specifically heroine. [2] Now in both Christianity and Islam, is doing drugs or drinking excessive amounts of alcohol not despised? But for the sake of their economies, ISIS profits nearly one billion annually from heroine smuggling and British colonists of the New World became world’s lead producer of tobacco. [3] [4] But it is not like the colonists and ISIS sold the drugs and did not do any. The drug of choice in the New World was tobacco because of its abundance. [3] [4] For ISIS, it has been discovered that many of its militants use a powerful drug called PCP, which plays with the mind to make it feel like it is immortal—with a bunch of other side effects. [5] At least for ISIS, PCP gives the user a crazy boost of adrenaline, causing him or her to do unimaginable “heroic” acts, instead of just smoking or chewing a leaf because of its taste and addictiveness. - P.S.: I reread part of my previous, incomplete rebuttal and noticed how I stated the Islamic State gained a profit of “around $8 to $10 million every month”. [6] In this rebuttal, I viewed a couple other sources and with backing from the IHS Conflict Monitor, I stand firm on what seems to be the most accurate number: around $80 million a month. Just about $50 million of which only comes from illegally selling oil. [2] Though ISIS profits could exceed $80 million a month. A3) General Intent >>One thing I would like to clarify is I did not say British colonists only wanted religious freedom. Going back to my incomplete rebuttal, I typed, “one of the main motivations was [for] economic reasons; but, religious freedom was just as big of a contributor”. - You are very correct in saying that British colonists that settled in the New World wanted to be rid of religious oppression on themselves, but what you are mistaken on is colonists did not mind giving their fair share of religious oppression to Native Americans. In nearly all of the countries that not just the British, but European colonists colonized—or attempted to, the English invaders pressed Christianity and Catholic beliefs on the locals. Colonists justified their actions and condemned those who did not follow their will in the name of God. Though this did not take place in the New World, an otherwise perfect example of this can be found in the Pulitzer Prize awarding-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, professor of Geography at the University of California. For the sake of saving words to type, I will not explain his discoveries (though his theory is conveniently the title). [7] - This is another example of how ISIS is similar, not the exact same as early British colonists. Unlike ISIS, British colonists of unknown nations had relatively good relations with their home countries, from a business prospective. So yes, colonists did benefit the international economy since the sales of products such as tobacco and eventually cotton (that is a whole new story) since its economy was, in a way, dependent on other European country’s economies. Even though ISIS is not on “good terms” with global economic superpowers, does not mean ISIS is not benefitting some nations’ economies—indirectly. After all, how else would ISIS pull-in nearly $50 million a month on oil profits alone? [2] Current findings suggest ISIS sells the majority of its oil to small business, random people on the black market, and crude, low-quality oil in Turkey for prices as high as $350 a barrel; three times more than that of a barrel sold in Syria. [8] - I have addressed this in A1, so for the sake of saving words, I will just ask that you refer to that as a slightly less direct, but nonetheless effective rebuttal to your third key problem listed. >>Giving pushback on this final statement in A3, through the eyes of the Islamic State militants, they believe they are making the world a better place. Specifically, ISIS believes it is “a key agent of the coming apocalypse”. [9] British colonialism could be argued by the majority to have been great in the end, but it depends on what lens it is looked through. If you ask an American whether or not British colonization was a good thing, more than likely he or she will agree. But if you ask that same question to a Native American living on a reservation, with the odds and an entire system designed to oppress him or her, you will get a completely different answer. [10] [11] A4) Global Benefit >>ISIS’ stealing oil has boosted many business revenues and even economies—after some circulation, specifically in Turkey and its drug smuggling has brought “pleasure” to many people’s lives. Thanks to modern technology, getting around to carry out various malicious activities is not as easy as it was back in days of the New World. So ISIS is not as profitable as it could be—which is a good thing. The benefits you listed were all great, but they do have some issues. Non-Human Organisms: The only non-human organisms that are regularly being shipped—alive—from one country to another are microbes and plants, which ISIS has in abundance. As mentioned earlier in A2, ISIS runs a huge international drug smuggling operation. Regarding animals (such as goats, not humans), they are not needed and relied on nearly as much. If a member of the Islamic State wanted a specific food or drink, he or she would go to one of the food marts, pay a 20% tax on whatever he or she purchased [2], and get just about whatever he or she wanted that is in accordance with their religion. Remember, the Islamic State is not just a bunch of savages huddling in huts with the world’s crappiest Kalashnikovs and Vietnam War era M4s and M16s—which is a good thing, it actually functions like a well-run nation. Trade: ISIS has its own magazine [12], charges a 20% sales tax on everything to everyone (taxation accounts for nearly 50% of ISIS’ revenue) [2], trades and sells merchandise between various ISIS controlled territories, and even reaches outside the walls of Syria to bring in more revenue. Settlement Patters: What you stated about grouping Native Americans together is both a good and a bad thing, which is exactly what many European colonists did in Africa. [13] And just like in Africa, the results in North America were not good at all initially. Not knowing—or not caring—of some of the tribal tensions, British settlers sometimes grouped rival tribes in close proximity to one another. This caused flashpoints between some tribes, none of which ended well. In relation to ISIS, the Islamic State offers a man or woman a guaranteed place to stay and a spouse that has the same ideals has him or her. Which eliminates the potential for major internal conflicts arising. So in some ways, ISIS is more civilized than early British colonists were. Supplies: This is true: British vehicles, weapons, and more was a real eye opener for Native Americans and opened up a world of opportunities for them—if they could escape the prejudice and lies. For ISIS, Toyota pick-up trucks (lol), HUMVEEs, tanks, and even military aircraft as modes of transportation and firepower to help spread their message and destroy their adversaries. [14] [15] >>Okay, I do not understand this: “this assertion operates under the premise that Islam is a true religion”. May you please clarify how Islam is not a “true” religion? >>And yes, the Islamic State does not operate entirely how the British colonists of the New World did, and for good reason: times have changed and their religion and methods are different. Like I said in my thesis, “the two are similar, not the same”. NOTE: My sources are in the comment section.