Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

gatdamn

 

[Kwixotik]

How do you crucify someone with no limbs?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You are absolutely right, however, in this case, we're comparing the actions of the followers versus the text they adhere to. In one situation, generally speaking, Christians and Jews don't follow the old testament to a tee and kill people for wearing different clothes. However, there are muslims out there that follow the Quran to the degree that it's OK to torture people, take revenge, stone women, kill liars, etc. etc. It's not a question of "which religious text is less crazy" it's a question of "which group of religious followers is more likely to blindly follow their religious text, even if it's morally abhorrent".

Of course, there are people from every religion that follow their doctrine to such a radical degree. These are called extremists. It just seems to a lot of people that there are far more muslim extremists out there today than any other religion.

Yes, and the question you need to ask here is "why?", and examine your answers very carefully. "Because Islam is naturally violent" is clearly not sufficient, which is what Stinkles is trying to point out. Christianity was absolutely brutal back in the day, and Islam and Christianity are broadly pretty analogous - messiahnic religions of the Abrahamic tradition. If it were the case that Islam was the causal factor in motivating terrorism, one would expect that Christianity would also be responsible for a large degree of terrorism. Maybe not quite of the same magnitude, fine, but they're similar enough that you would expect them to be in similar leagues. But, if you look around, Christian terrorism is fairly limited, although there are Christian insurgencies in India and parts of Africa.

So, that's probably not the explanation. What might the explanation be? Well, up until just after the end of the second world war, most of the Middle East was under British or French control respectively, and afterwards, puppet dictators were propped up by the United States. As you can imagine, this was deeply unpopular - most of these dictators were from the elite class left by the British and French, typically from ethnic minorities in the region, such as the Alawi in Syria like Assad or the Sunni in Iraq like Hussein. By and large, they were brutal. The al-Anfal campaign was absolutely horrific and makes ISIS look like the tooth fairy. People were willing to back whoever could get rid of these guys.

People initially didn't look to religious fundamentalism at all; if you look back to the '70s and '80s Islamic terrorism was comparatively rare. What was a massive force was communism and socialism; particularly socialism as it formed a cornerstone of the Arab nationalist movement under prominent figures like Nasser. Many of these countries had popular movements which attempted to align themselves with the Soviet Union to get rid of the administrations which were ethnically and religiously different to themselves, regularly committed genocidal campaigns, refused to invest in infrastructure or education, and brutally surpressed democratic movements - all with United States support. However, socialism wasn't a powerful enough force - the United States provided money and security tech to make sure that socialist movements were kept firmly persecuted, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed.

With socialism gone, people turned to the only strong prevailing social movement that seemed to be left, groups like the mujahideen or the Muslim Brotherhood that had resisted these dictators. The radicalization of Islam in particular makes a huge amount of sense in that context - fundamentally, your problems are oppression, poverty, lack of education, lack of democracy, the fact your basic human rights aren't respected - and a group has come to you and "look, socialism didn't work because the United States crushed it, nationalism didn't work because the United States crushed it, but Islam has the answer". You'll take it, because it's better than the status quo.

The rise of Islamist terrorism is deeply rooted in the appalling policies of France, Britain and the United States; the refusal to acknowledge their guilt and complicity, and refusal to offer any kind of meaningful reparation or even stop funding murderous juntas (hello, Egypt!) is staggering.

 

[funkypie]

Anyone else think this is one step away from calling people "n*gger-lovers"? Also the wholesale blaming of all Muslims everywhere for a statement by extremists.

Talking out of your arse completely. Is this some kind of bait and switch?

 

[m_shortpants]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

Well, damn.

 

[rambis]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

You won't find much argument on here. I don't its good form though to base your argument off a pissing match.

 

[Maninthemirror]

You are absolutely right, however, in this case, we're comparing the actions of the followers versus the text they adhere to. In one situation, generally speaking, Christians and Jews don't follow the old testament to a tee and kill people for wearing different clothes. However, there are muslims out there that follow the Quran to the degree that it's OK to torture people, take revenge, stone women, kill liars, etc. etc. It's not a question of "which religious text is less crazy" it's a question of "which group of religious followers is more likely to blindly follow their religious text, even if it's morally abhorrent".

Of course, there are people from every religion that follow their doctrine to such a radical degree. These are called extremists. It just seems to a lot of people that there are far more muslim extremists out there today than any other religion.

Yes fundamentalists use the Quran to justify what they do. If the Quran says "Slay them where they stand" Fundamentalists use that. I mean if one is incredibly stupid, one would read that and say yes this is what ones does

Islam is a holistic religion and Quran is a holistic book. You cannot base your action on one verses without questioning it. I mean that is what a reasonable person does. That is essentially how atheism functions as well, you question and if you dont find faith you leave any faith you were in and if you question it and you DO find faith, it gets stronger, this is why fundamentalists are weaker in their faith than moderates because if fundamentalists did ponder over what they read from their view of how Islam works, they would either become atheists because they cant find faith or they will become even more fundamentalist because they are infact twisted and evil and use anything to justify it. Realistically really conveyed evil as fundamentalists vy to be AND they studied it, most of them would quit islam having any shred of morality in them and the rest would become even more fundamentalists, there wouldnt be any moderate if everyone pondered over verses if they were really evil


Its proven in the Quran:

- He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning — they are the basis of the Book — and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking wrong interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding. —

- In the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of the night and the day there are indeed Signs for men of understanding;

- Say, ‘The bad and the good are not alike,’ even though the abundance of the bad may cause thee to wonder. So fear Allah, O men of understanding, that you may prosper.

- Allah has not ordained any ‘Bahirah’ or ‘Sa’ibah’ or ‘Wasilah’ or ‘Hami’; but those who disbelieve forge a lie against Allah, and most of them do not make use of their understanding.

- This is a Book which We have revealed to thee, full of blessings, that they may reflect over its verses, and that those gifted with understanding may take heed.


- Is he, then, who knows that what has been revealed to thee from thy Lord is the truth, like one who is blind? But only those gifted with understanding will reflect


here is an example of logic being applied to a verse

[2:283] O ye who believe! when you borrow one from another for a fixed period, then write it down. And let a scribe write it in your presence faithfully; and no scribe should refuse to write, because Allah has taught him, so let him write and let him who incurs the liability dictate; and he should fear Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything therefrom. But if the person incurring the liability be of low understanding or be weak or be unable himself to dictate, then let someone who can watch his interest dictate with justice. And call two witnesses from among your men; and if two men be not available, then a man and two women, of such as you like as witnesses, so that if either of two women should err in memory, then one may remind the other. And the witnesses should not refuse when they are called. And do not feel weary of writing it down, whether it be small or large, along with its appointed time of payment. This is more equitable in the sight of Allah and makes testimony surer and is more likely to keep you away from doubts; therefore omit not to write except that it be ready merchandise which you give or take from hand to hand, in which case it shall be no sin for you that you write it not. And have witnesses when you sell one to another; and let no harm be done to the scribe or the witness. And if you do that, then certainly it shall be disobedience on your part. And fear Allah. And Allah grants you knowledge and Allah knows all things well.

Fundamentalists view this as meaning a women's testimony is half of a man's testimony. Now read the bolded portion again ....if EITHER of the two women err in memory, then one may remind the other...

No where does it mention that one woman's testimony is not enough. What if the one woman does not err in memory, then the second woman's testimony is not needed and you have 1 man and 1 woman giving testimony.

The fundamentalist scrambles to justify everything then by saying well the MEMORY of the women seems to be a weaker mind and the moderate says for God's sakes are you nuts?

Look at what its saying and apply it to the time then and the time now. in the time when Quran was sent Men not only in Arabia but nearly everywhere were the nearly only ones who handled business financial dealings and businesswomen then and even TODAY less than the desired number of women are businesswomen. If you look at the verse for that time Quran gave women unprecedented access to financial affairs where men were the norm and women were the vast exception and due to the scarcity of women then and even in many cases now. the memory suggestion is only implied in the condition if the they are not directly involved like men are in dealings. If we reach a parity in the business world, this verse would like its original intent only need 1 man and 1 woman as a showcase of parity


See if you fundamentalists and others read Islam and treat it holistically rather than pick one and base laws on one, then you are using the power of knowledge given by Quran and misusing it, not implementing it. Even as they are misusing it, it is up to the people with understanding to push and educate people on what Islam and Quran really teaches people rather than read and apply.

here is how it is. Islam is a religious with great power of belief, probably the most belief centric religion left today in the sense that nearly all muslims literally base their entire lives around the idea of one God. It is so powerful that the believers who are mislad or who mislead will use their belief to kill and those who are not misled will use their belief to be good. The only way that the fundamentalist view can be defeated is by moderate views, there is literally no way you can remove fundamentalism other because of the nature of the belief that only THe belief of a God from a good person can counter and reform the belief of a God from an evil person. The good person believing that God tells you to do good things for others while the evil person believing that God has given them the permission to be gods on earth. The only way to root out fundamentalism is for the establishment of a push for moderate views over and over until it is all eradicated.

 

[Lamel]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

I think I'll save this post for any similar threads in the future.

 

[EGOMON]

*Enters ISIS burns Jordanian pilot topic*

*Sees people calling for all manner of torment to be visited upon Daesh*

*Enters topic about Islamic leader calling for torment to be visited upon Daesh.*

*"This is why religion baffles me"*

... The fuck?

Exactly my thoughts, people were calling for all sort of punishments now that someone is going to do it suddenly it's barbaric :/
Anyway Arabs need to deal with ISIS themselves outside help is not an option it is actually what started this whole fucked up situation in the first place

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

Heh.

They sound as if they are cut from the same cloth as ISIS.

 

[Fenderputty]

False equivalence. There aren't people being killed for wesaring silk and cotton.

That's because Christians culturally have moved beyond the violence and claim they're just symbolic stories or some shit. Most current interpretation being preached isn't allowing the violence. However both of the books contain violence. Saying Islam is inherently evil because of a book but ignoring the violence in the Christian book is the issue.

 

[Jonm1010]

Your link sucks, and has barely any examples, and nothing compared to the daily atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Also, most of your post was arguing points that no one here made. You admitted that yourself. Keep fighting the good fight though.

Do you have a point to make that relates to the case I laid out in my post? Or are you just interested in engaging in a list war? I wasn't responding to you so if you have anything of value to add(which will be a first) try and actually address what I was saying.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

Maybe not specifically patriotism, but there has been a lot of innocent blood lost in America's zero accountability drone policy over the past few years.

Why throw an accusation of Patriotisim around then to suit your argument when it has nothing to do with it?

It's a war and unfortunately people die in wars. Innocent people.

Before you jump the gun and say that I'm fine with innocents dying, Name me one war where physical violence has happened and there has been no collateral damage anywhere.

 

[Kurdel]

Exactly my thoughts, people were calling for all sort of punishments now that someone is going to do it suddenly it's barbaric :/
Anyway Arabs need to deal with ISIS themselves outside help is not an option it is actually what started this whole fucked up situation in the first place

A lot of people use Gaf to vent.

Seeing figures of authority call for religiously justified torture and excution is quite different, and should be condemned in 2015.

 

[Jonm1010]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

His link does not suck... Islamic terrorism is at it's peak today (today being the key word here), whereas every other terrorism is relatively low. So the perspective of judging is being tainted through today's glasses. If you go back 40, 50, 60 years, there were no such groups as ISIS, Al Qaida, Taliban, Boko Haram, MILF, Hamas or Hizballah. Neither were wanna be 2 bit terrorists like Ansar shariah, TTP, Nusra Front, and various other pro violence Tabhleegi outfits in Asia. So would it be pertinant to examine the rise of Islamic terrorism while at the same time examining the reasons that led to these innumerable groups popping up? Yes. If all it needs for us to condemn Islam and Muslims in a blanket fashion is the bad fortune to be living during it's peak, then its not an objective assessment. We have all seen the pictures of cosmopolitan Kabul and Tehran from the 50's and 60's. Speaking of which, if we were alive during the 60s, we'd be constantly hearing about Jewish Terrorism in lieu of Jewish Underground's bombing campaigns in ME. Few decades earlier we'd be hearing about Christian Terrorism in lieu of Troubles/Ireland. All this is, is a product of time, history, geopolitics and economics. Of course Religion plays a big role. HRW came out with a study recently that said ISIS and various other terrorists like it are the result of lack of stability, security, law and order in Iraq especially with regards to our bungled handling of Iraq democracy. We screwed the pooch when it came to forming a coherant, confessionalism form of government and instead under our watchful eyes, Saddam's default target group was given the reins to power. Its all a complete sordid mess from top to bottom.

Yes, and the question you need to ask here is "why?", and examine your answers very carefully. "Because Islam is naturally violent" is clearly not sufficient, which is what Stinkles is trying to point out. Christianity was absolutely brutal back in the day, and Islam and Christianity are broadly pretty analogous - messiahnic religions of the Abrahamic tradition. If it were the case that Islam was the causal factor in motivating terrorism, one would expect that Christianity would also be responsible for a large degree of terrorism. Maybe not quite of the same magnitude, fine, but they're similar enough that you would expect them to be in similar leagues. But, if you look around, Christian terrorism is fairly limited, although there are Christian insurgencies in India and parts of Africa.

So, that's probably not the explanation. What might the explanation be? Well, up until just after the end of the second world war, most of the Middle East was under British or French control respectively, and afterwards, puppet dictators were propped up by the United States. As you can imagine, this was deeply unpopular - most of these dictators were from the elite class left by the British and French, typically from ethnic minorities in the region, such as the Alawi in Syria like Assad or the Sunni in Iraq like Hussein. By and large, they were brutal. The al-Anfal campaign was absolutely horrific and makes ISIS look like the tooth fairy. People were willing to back whoever could get rid of these guys.

People initially didn't look to religious fundamentalism at all; if you look back to the '70s and '80s Islamic terrorism was comparatively rare. What was a massive force was communism and socialism; particularly socialism as it formed a cornerstone of the Arab nationalist movement under prominent figures like Nasser. Many of these countries had popular movements which attempted to align themselves with the Soviet Union to get rid of the administrations which were ethnically and religiously different to themselves, regularly committed genocidal campaigns, refused to invest in infrastructure or education, and brutally surpressed democratic movements - all with United States support. However, socialism wasn't a powerful enough force - the United States provided money and security tech to make sure that socialist movements were kept firmly persecuted, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed.

With socialism gone, people turned to the only strong prevailing social movement that seemed to be left, groups like the mujahideen or the Muslim Brotherhood that had resisted these dictators. The radicalization of Islam in particular makes a huge amount of sense in that context - fundamentally, your problems are oppression, poverty, lack of education, lack of democracy, the fact your basic human rights aren't respected - and a group has come to you and "look, socialism didn't work because the United States crushed it, nationalism didn't work because the United States crushed it, but Islam has the answer". You'll take it, because it's better than the status quo.

The rise of Islamist terrorism is deeply rooted in the appalling policies of France, Britain and the United States; the refusal to acknowledge their guilt and complicity, and refusal to offer any kind of meaningful reparation or even stop funding murderous juntas (hello, Egypt!) is staggering.

Great posts! I may need to bookmark these so the next time another thread pops up and the usual groupthink patterns prop up and things start going off the deep end.

 

[EGOMON]

A lot of people use Gaf to vent.

Seeing figures of authority call for religiously justified torture and excution is quite different, and should be condemned in 2015.

Just to be clear i don't agree with this dismemberment and crucifixion punishments just a normal execution for their crimes. The end goal of fighting isis is to stop the killings and erase them not thinking on what is the best way to torture them

 

[J-Rod]

Who is "him" here? The husband or the assailant? They could have written this clearer considering we're meant to chop a woman's hand off.

The assailant. If two guys were fighting and one of their wives jumped in to help their husband, then kicking her own husband in the nuts in that situation wouldn't be very helpful. It's basically saying if the other person's girl joins the fight and goes for a dirty attack to your junk, then you don't hold back.

 

[m_shortpants]

Why throw an accusation of Patriotisim around then to suit your argument when it has nothing to do with it?

It's a war and unfortunately people die in wars. Innocent people.

Before you jump the gun and say that I'm fine with innocents dying, Name me one war where physical violence has happened and there has been no collateral damage anywhere.

Who are we at war with in Yemen and Pakistan? Has Congress approved this war? Are there any terms of surrender? This is why it's bullshit. It's so vague that you can make any sort of argument supporting it. When we drone bomb a wedding, there is no accountability. There are no ramifications. US drone policy, like most US foreign policy in the ME, is terrible. If anything it only creates more individuals sympathetic with Anti American causes.

And I wasn't the one to use patriotism as the motivator. Switch it with " war" and I still think it's inexcusable.

 

[y2dvd]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

Good post. It further shows why religion is bs.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

So cut a few peoples heads off, thats ok.
Chuck a few people off a tall building, then stone them if they survived, thats ok.
Burying people and kids alive, thats ok.
Other mass excecutions, they're ok too.

Burn 1 guy alive? THOSE MOTHER FUCKERS, KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!!!

Wanna know what's funny about this post?

It's ironically true. Worse still, the burn bit is the funniest because the only reason they are being pissy about it is because it states that burning can only be done by God. So they're basically insulting God.

Which by the way, doesn't exist and was probally someone's story that they wrote down while tripping on magic mushrooms.

 

[m_shortpants]

Good post. It further shows why religion is bs.

I think you completely missed the point of his post.

 

[Kurdel]

Just to be clear i don't agree with this dismemberment and crucifixion punishments just a normal execution for their crimes. The end goal of fighting isis is to stop the killings and erase them not thinking on what is the best way to torture them

Being a canadian, I still find "just a normal execution for their crimes" revolting.

 

[RustyNails]

Being a canadian, I still find "just a normal execution for their crimes" revolting.

What would your appropriate action if they were captured?

 

[RK9039]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

 

[Kurdel]

What would your appropriate action if they were captured?

Maybe something that is not a part of the ISIS playbook?

We have had ISIS sympathizers murder people on our soil, and if they had been caught alive, they would have spent life in prison. No need to end their lives, if you can let them spend the rest of their long lives behind bars.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Maybe something that is not a part of the ISIS playbook?

We have had ISIS sympathizers murder people on our soil, and if they had been caught alive, they would have spent life in prison. No need to end their lives, if you can let them spend the rest of their long lives behind bars.

I actually agree with this. If they dont surrender, then they should be dealt with on the battlefield. if they surrender they should be prosecuted en-masse in court and then put to death or prison depending on country laws

 

[RustyNails]

Maybe something that is not a part of the ISIS playbook?

We have had ISIS sympathizers murder people on our soil, and if they had been caught alive, they would have spent life in prison. No need to end their lives, if you can let them spend the rest of their long lives behind bars.

So you are rewarding them with life in response to them burning people in cages, raping, enslaving and looting. What benefit to society is there to subsidize their existence with your taxpayer money? If I appeal to your emotion by saying, if the victims happened to be your family, wife and kids, would your response still be the same?

 

[rambis]

Maybe something that is not a part of the ISIS playbook?

We have had ISIS sympathizers murder people on our soil, and if they had been caught alive, they would have spent life in prison. No need to end their lives, if you can let them spend the rest of their long lives behind bars.

Im pretty sure that there's quite a few states that would put a terrorist to death.

 

[FZZ]

Koran is the correct English spelling. I have no idea what your point is.

It's a bad translation. It's outdated. Koran (usually pronounced Koe-ran) isn't the same as Qur'an or Quran (pronounced like kur-an).

It is the problem of Arab - English translation. Qur'an, Koran, Quran are all valid translations due to differences in alphabet.

I know this, but how has it not become standard to spell it correctly surely by now people know to pronounce things correctly. It's almost as bad as "Moslems" that's not even how you would sound it out if you said it lmao. Anyways I'm just nitpicking.

You'd almost think it's super easy to annoy you guys.

lol

 

[Kurdel]

So you are rewarding them with life in response to them burning people in cages, raping, enslaving and looting. What benefit to society is there to subsidize their existence with your taxpayer money? If I appeal to your emotion by saying, if the victims happened to be your family, wife and kids, would your response still be the same?

My grandfather was actually one of the last murder victims in Canada whose killer was on death row, but got commuted to life in prison when it was abolished (with 8 other criminals).

So I have a unique perspective on the matter, and would rather see people rot in jail, deprived of freedom, rather than ending it quickly.

I think it is wrong to execute people, especially religious fanatics who will be smiling as they are being martyred and think they are going to paradise.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So you are rewarding them with life in response to them burning people in cages, raping, enslaving and looting. What benefit to society is there to subsidize their existence with your taxpayer money? If I appeal to your emotion by saying, if the victims happened to be your family, wife and kids, would your response still be the same?

With the exception of the most senior figures in ISIS, I'd actually attempt a rehabilitation process and offer a basic income and education program in return for surrendering and turning in any weaponry and information; similar to the program India used with great success against the Naxalites. I think it is probably the only realistic way of bringing ISIS to a halt. When people know they'll die if you catch them, then they'll fight to the bitter end - makes no difference if they die regardless. It'll turn the process of ridding the area of ISIS into a bitter, protracted war, and that means more innocent deaths, and more destruction of homes, schools and hospitals. Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, has a really good article on why this would be the most effective method; I'll see if I can find it somewhere.

 

[RustyNails]

My grandfather was actually one of the last murder victims in Canada whose killer was on death row, but got commuted to life in prison when it was abolished (with 8 other criminals).

So I have a unique perspective on the matter, and would rather see people rot in jail, deprived of freedom, rather than ending it quickly.

I think it is wrong to execute people, especially religious fanatics who will be smiling as they are being martyred and think they are going to paradise.

They wont be smiling when hung high. I see your point, but I'll be damned if pieces of shit like Daesh are allowed to exist, when they clearly did their best to kill as many as possible in the most barbaric ways imaginable. At this point I consider breathing to be a luxury we should not afford them. I find it just.

 

[y2dvd]

I think you completely missed the point of his post.

Sounded like his point was to point out other religions also cause atrocities. Care to tell me his point?

 

[daniels]

One crazy islamist wants to slaughter another crazy islamist ... so whats the news again? isnt this happening 24/7 with crazy islamists?
Can we make it news if they dont want to kill each other atleast then we woudnt have to hear every single day about islam in the news.
You know would be a nice change because right now if i switch on the tv islamic terrorism is basically a fucking tinnitus in my ear.

 

[RustyNails]

With the exception of the most senior figures in ISIS, I'd actually attempt a rehabilitation process and offer a basic income and education program in return for surrendering and turning in any weaponry and information; similar to the program India used with great success against the Naxalites. I think it is probably the only realistic way of bringing ISIS to a halt. When people know they'll die if you catch them, then they'll fight to the bitter end - makes no difference if they die regardless. It'll turn the process of ridding the area of ISIS into a bitter, protracted war, and that means more innocent deaths, and more destruction of homes, schools and hospitals. Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, has a really good article on why this would be the most effective method; I'll see if I can find it somewhere.

I'd love to read it, but my understanding is that its way too far gone now. How many are gonna hide behind "I was following irders"? I thought Nuremburg Trials made it clear that its no excuse. I find them having a thrill in killing people. Its depravity.

 

[Kurdel]

They wont be smiling when hung high. I see your point, but I'll be damned if pieces of shit like Daesh are allowed to exist, when they clearly did their best to kill as many as possible in the most barbaric ways imaginable. At this point I consider breathing to be a luxury we should not afford them. I find it just.

You aren't gifting life to prisoners you maintain, you are depriving them of their freedom because they are dangerous.

I think letting the state have power over life and death is something that must be avoided at all costs, no matter how satisfying people find it to see shitbags dead.

 

[Interfectum]

Sounded like his point was to point out other religions also cause atrocities. Care to tell me his point?

His overall point is the United States and other western powers fucked up big time.

 

[m_shortpants]

Sounded like his point was to point out other religions also cause atrocities. Care to tell me his point?

His point was that religion isn't even close to being the primary motivation of these types of movements.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'd love to read it, but my understanding is that its way too far gone now. How many are gonna hide behind "I was following irders"? I thought Nuremburg Trials made it clear that its no excuse. I find them having a thrill in killing people. Its depravity.

You can't really solve this problem, though. ISIS has a core group of around 19,000, and can expand to 31,000 by drawing on aligned but not necessarily integrated forces. 31,000 people is a lot of people. If you make an explicit policy of "we will kill you all", you do a number of things. Firstly, you incentivize every last one of them to absolutely fight to the bloody and bitter death, in a way you can't motivate your own soldiers. That makes it much more difficult for forces like the Iraqi state army to deal with ISIS incursions. Secondly, you motivate them to fight dirty. They'll deliberately set up camp in the midst of civilian areas, put a greater emphasis on using civilians as smoke-screens, and so on. This has worse consequences than the fact that anti-ISIS forces might kill civilians; each time anti-ISIS forces do kill civilians, ISIS are likely to be able to draw on their family and relatives as new recruits. Thirdly, you ensure negotiation is literally impossible. If you make a "you will die" policy, you are ruling yourself out from possibilities at ending the conflict early; that's particularly harmful with respect to insurgencies because they have the tendency to linger on for decades given that members are relatively autonomous and head-of-the-snake strategies aren't very successful. Fourthly, it's just very difficult - 31,000 is a lot of people, and that's a lot resources, lot of manpower, lot of time and effort that could, if the insurgency process had died down sooner, gone towards reconstruction projects.

The truth of the matter is that terrorist insurgencies are almost never ended by violence. Almost every single one ends in some sort of compromise, or truth and reconciliation program. There's just too many people for anything else to be a realistic policy. The Nuremberg trials didn't end with the execution of every single soldier who served in the German army, precisely because that would have been a terrible idea for the stability of the region. Peace is not an easy process, it is a painful one, but you cannot make a wasteland and call it peace.

 

[ibyea]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

I wanted to say something like that, but I don't need to. Damn, this is simply amazing.

 

[riotous]

How do you crucify someone with no limbs?

He said "or."

People of course are focusing on the more barbaric sounding parts of his statement; when the basis of it is essentially they should be put to death.. which is barbaric on it's own, but Americans in particular don't have much of a leg to stand on considering the death penalty.

 

[RustyNails]

You can't really solve this problem, though. ISIS has a core group of around 19,000, and can expand to 31,000 by drawing on aligned but not necessarily integrated forces. 31,000 people is a lot of people. If you make an explicit policy of "we will kill you all", you do a number of things. Firstly, you incentivize every last one of them to absolutely fight to the bloody and bitter death, in a way you can't motivate your own soldiers. That makes it much more difficult for forces like the Iraqi state army to deal with ISIS incursions. Secondly, you motivate them to fight dirty. They'll deliberately set up camp in the midst of civilian areas, put a greater emphasis on using civilians as smoke-screens, and so on. This has worse consequences than the fact that anti-ISIS forces might kill civilians; each time anti-ISIS forces do kill civilians, ISIS are likely to be able to draw on their family and relatives as new recruits. Thirdly, you ensure negotiation is literally impossible. If you make a "you will die" policy, you are ruling yourself out from possibilities at ending the conflict early; that's particularly harmful with respect to insurgencies because they have the tendency to linger on for decades given that members are relatively autonomous and head-of-the-snake strategies aren't very successful. Fourthly, it's just very difficult - 31,000 is a lot of people, and that's a lot resources, lot of manpower, lot of time and effort that could, if the insurgency process had died down sooner, gone towards reconstruction projects.

The truth of the matter is that terrorist insurgencies are almost never ended by violence. Almost every single one ends in some sort of compromise, or truth and reconciliation program. There's just too many people for anything else to be a realistic policy. The Nuremberg trials didn't end with the execution of every single soldier who served in the German army, precisely because that would have been a terrible idea for the stability of the region. Peace is not an easy process, it is a painful one, but you cannot make a wasteland and call it peace.

Well if you frame it like that within the framework of Game Theory, I'd be lying if I say disagree. Thanks for the informative post. As much as I want them to stop consuming oxygen, I want the hostilities to stop even more.

BUT if YPG or other green forces on the ground DID decide to string them up, lets just say I wont be shedding any tears.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well if you frame it like that within the framework of Game Theory, I'd be lying if I say disagree. Thanks for the informative post. As much as I want them to stop consuming oxygen, I want the hostilities to stop even more.

BUT if YPG or other green forces on the ground DID decide to string them up, lets just say I wont be shedding any tears.

I largely agree. I want peace and peace probably requires negotiation and rehabilitation programmes; that doesn't mean I have to be happy about in the slightest, and I won't weep for those who are killed in the mean-time.

 

[Jonm1010]

With the exception of the most senior figures in ISIS, I'd actually attempt a rehabilitation process and offer a basic income and education program in return for surrendering and turning in any weaponry and information; similar to the program India used with great success against the Naxalites. I think it is probably the only realistic way of bringing ISIS to a halt. When people know they'll die if you catch them, then they'll fight to the bitter end - makes no difference if they die regardless. It'll turn the process of ridding the area of ISIS into a bitter, protracted war, and that means more innocent deaths, and more destruction of homes, schools and hospitals. Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, has a really good article on why this would be the most effective method; I'll see if I can find it somewhere.

IF you do come across the article please do share. I would be very interested in reading it. I tried to see if I could google it but I have came up empty.

 

[KingFire]

He said "or."

People of course are focusing on the more barbaric sounding parts of his statement; when the basis of it is essentially they should be put to death.. which is barbaric on it's own, but Americans in particular don't have much of a leg to stand on considering the death penalty.

They want the literal punishment; it is in the Koran:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,(33) Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

This is the type of punishment that ISIS has been using.

Same source. Same shit.

 

[Messofanego]

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

Ooooh

There are a lot more complex issues to consider than just the religion.

 

[riotous]

They want the literal punishment; it is in the Koran:



This is the type of punishment that ISIS has been using.

Same source. Same shit.

Yes.. and it says killed... or those other things. Execution of any kind would fit the "literal punishment."

 

[y2dvd]

His overall point is the United States and other western powers fucked up big time.

His point was that religion isn't even close to being the primary motivation of these types of movements.

Riiiiight. He explicitly calls out a few religion. It was a pissing contest post, and it's one I'm agreeing with.

 

[Joni]

It's a bad translation. It's outdated. Koran (usually pronounced Koe-ran) isn't the same as Qur'an or Quran (pronounced like kur-an).

I know this, but how has it not become standard to spell it correctly surely by now people know to pronounce things correctly. It's almost as bad as "Moslems" that's not even how you would sound it out if you said it lmao. Anyways I'm just nitpicking.

For fun, Koran is the only correct translation to Dutch. Also, Koran was the AP standard for years, it only changed in 2000 after 25 years.

 

[Jonm1010]

Riiiiight. He explicitly calls out a few religion. It was a pissing contest post, and it's one I'm agreeing with.

I'm sure if you want clarification he would probably give it to you. Either here or through a PM. But I don't think you are understanding or drawing the right conclusions from his post.