Vinnie Eastwood talks about "the lighter side of genocide" and gets away with it. Anybody ready for "the lighter side of Islamic State"?
The dark side of Islamic State is all over the media: Beheadings, beheadings, and more beheadings. But let's not lose our heads over it. There must be a reason why, despite the near-universal vilification, Islamic State holds appeal for some disaffected Muslims. And not all of them are boneheads like Anjum Choudary, whom I debated last week on Press TV.
In his new article Coming to terms with IS’s ‘new world order’ journalist-author Eric Walberg writes:
"IS continues to confound. Not only negatively for its restrictions on women and its grim revolutionary justice, but because on many fronts, it is spot on.
*It has put the caliphate project back on track after almost a century of Muslim humiliation *It has made sharia (at least its version) the basis of its social order *It has (correctly) targeted Saudi Arabia as the font of corruption and decadence, the Muslim world’s ‘enemy at home’ *It is set to become the only ‘state’ to back its currency with gold coinage. ISIS says the new currency will take the group out of “the oppressors’ money system”, and return control over the money supply from bankers to the state."
Does Islamic State have any positive potential? Or is it a purely destructive false-flag group designed to smear Islam and smash the Middle East into bits? Tune in and decide for yourself!