The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Sebastian]

I don't know @gourimoko. Jesus was totally a chill bro while the Israelites were rather bloody-minded and Mohammed actively promoted Islam as a warrior's faith. Mohammed was also a big believer in ultimatums that ended in "...or die," something that his successors took to heart when they attacked the Roman and Persian Empires with much rapine and pillage. Don't recall Jesus calling for the death of anyone.

Jesus was a pretty awesome guy. However, once Constantine got his hands on the Christ's faith everything went to pot. So at the heart of the religions, it seems Christianity, on paper, is very distinguishable from Islam and even Judaism.

The real problem is humans speaking for God and religion in general.

 

[gourimoko]

I don't know @gourimoko. Jesus was totally a chill bro while the Israelites were rather bloody-minded and Mohammed actively promoted Islam as a warrior's faith. Mohammed was also a big believer in ultimatums that ended in "...or die," something that his successors took to heart when they attacked the Roman and Persian Empires with much rapine and pillage. Don't recall Jesus calling for the death of anyone.

Jesus was a pretty awesome guy. However, once Constantine got his hands on the Christ's faith everything went to pot. So at the heart of the religions, it seems Christianity, on paper, is very distinguishable from Islam and even Judaism.

The real problem is humans speaking for God and religion in general.

Christianity encompasses the Old Testament just as the Qu'ran does. Jesus says himself that his word does not wipe away the Old Testament:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." Matthew 5:17

Either way, a comparison between Jesus who the Christians view as God incarnate, and the Prophet Muhammad who is very much a man with flaws (more analogous to King David or Moses than Jesus Christ) isn't really useful.

Again, I can quote more than a dozen phrases from the Bible that require the deaths this person or that person, or these entire groups of children, or these women over there.

Think about it..

Moses says "kill this person, and that person, and that guy over there too!" and it's a rich and storied religion.

Muhammad says the exact same thing and it's a "violent religion of hate!"

C'mon... it's a double-standard. A convenient double-standard to justify the rationalization of our tendency to dehumanize 1/5th of the world's population. It makes it easier to think Islam is somehow "different," when it reality, it isn't.

To this day, I wish the Soviets had had more of a communist influence in the Middle East; a bit of healthy atheism would have gone a long way for the people who live there.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't know a lot about Islam itself, or religion in general but aren't there parts of Christian texts that denounce gays and people who don't believe and ask for them to be killed? And other heinous acts?

Oh yeah. Not so much the New Testament (exclusive to Christianity), but the Old Testament (common to both Christianity and Judaism) is violent as hell. And as pacifistic as even the New Testament was, you still had some Christians engaging in horrific acts of violence and intolerance in the name of Christianity, even though Jesus never came close to advocating violence against other people. There also was endemic corruption in the Catholic Church.

And these are, over time, kind of moderated and lessened as we have become more enlightened to the world ... ?

Absolutely. If you take both the Koran and Old Testament literally, you can find justification for a whole lot of violence. But there isn't anything preventing re-interpretations, and[or a recognition that some of those teachings were only applicable to the specific time/place in which they were made. Neither Judaism, Christianity, or Islam need be inherently violent. But, it is also possible to interpret them in a more violent way, and I think there isn't a damn thing wrong with calling them out when that happens.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Christianity encompasses the Old Testament just as the Qu'ran does. Jesus says himself that his word does not wipe away the Old Testament:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." Matthew 5:17

To what specific law was Jesus referring? Sure, there were specific occasions in the Old Testament in which God commanded the Jews to expand by force, but what specific law was there in the Old Testament that commanded spreading the faith by the sword?

The most on-point thing Jesus said about that -- other than his general preaching of non-violence -- was his "render unto Caesar" comment cited in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He was unambigiuously discouraging violent opposition to the Romans (in direct contrast to the Zealots and Sicarii who could rightly be labeled "Jewish extremists"). His statement also provided a very clear doctrinal basis for separation of church and state.

I agree with the point that none of the three religions should be bound to a completely literal reading of everything in their foundational texts, but that doesn't justify denying that substantive textual differences do exist.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

A true offensive would cripple Daesh but I doubt one summer of fighting would finish them off. Now, we don't have confirmation on whether Iraq would allow foreign troops to assist in an offensive. However, it is a good possibility as more and more of the populace in neighboring nations demand action. The Jordanians are massing on the border and I don't think they are there to get a tan.

1. Latest estimates put Daesh at around 8,000-13,000 core fighters. By rallying allied extremist groups, they can maybe boast 30,000. However, those forces are scattered over two countries and movement in mass is difficult due to poor logistics train and domination of the air by coalition forces.

2. Obviously, the RJA, Turkish Army, IA and Pesh can field a lot more troops than that. The Jordanians and Turks have superior equipment, training, leadership and logistics. The IA and the Kurds are of much lesser quality with poor logistics support. There are 10,000 US troops in Iraq at present. Everything from advisors and Special Forces to support troops.

I'd just add that numbers can be deceiving, because there is a big difference between "troop" numbers, and numbers of actual trigger-pullers. The Daesh count is probably all/mostly all trigger pullers, with support being provided by other civilians. For us and the more conventional military forces, the tooth/tail ratio is a lot worse.

The big gorilla (potentially) is the Turks, but is there really a significant chance on them truly committing to the fight on a large scale? Because absent a major ground commitment by either the Turks or us, I don't see the RJA and IA having the necessary ground strength to defeat Daesh anytime in the foreseeable future. Although I still think that those forces plus heavy U.S. air support are probably enough to contain them from further expansion.

 

[Chris]

Like I said. Fuck it and send in the Marines. Crush them swiftly and let the regional forces clean up.

But in all seriousness how much danger is al asad air base really in? I hear we have like 300 Marines there mostly support staff, but the old cliche is every Marine is a rifleman. I heard it would take a massive ISIS force to assault the air base, which even if mustered would be an easy target for Coalition airstrikes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Like I said. Fuck it and send in the Marines. Crush them swiftly and let the regional forces clean up.

But in all seriousness how much danger is al asad air base really in? I hear we have like 300 Marines there mostly support staff, but the old cliche is every Marine is a rifleman. I heard it would take a massive ISIS force to assault the air base, which even if mustered would be an easy target for Coalition airstrikes.

I'm not sure about that "support staff" thing. If you're talking about trainers, most of those are going to be 03 (infantry) themselves. Or at least from other combat arms such as armor/artillery.

 

[kosis]

This isn't the thread for religion, but are we really going to just post violent passages without ANY proper context at all? i.e. The below is not even 191-193... it's like you purposely removed the rest...

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

191 is preceded by this:

002.190

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

This is the entirety of 191:

002.191

And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

Onto 192:

002:192
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Onto 193:

002:193
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

The problem with posting bits and not reading the actual Qur'an is evidenced above. Context paints a completely different picture. There are very specific texts in the Qur'an pertaining to war and there are specific texts pertaining to people versus God.

What does this tell us though? ISIS can very well be identifying what is happening in the ME as decades long aggression and convincing people of this to secure their ends. The longer the US remains involved and dominant in the region, the more ISIS can point and say "See, we should attack them because they oppress us!" and amass some sort of following (as small as that might be in retrospect).

What these passages absolutely do not do is give credence to ISIS actions. It's irresponsible to post these passages and act like they're just doing what is being told to them, unlike peaceful Muslims that "don't act on them".

I'm not trying to be religious in this thread, but let's not lie and twist text for your argument's sake...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The longer the US remains involved and dominant in the region, the more ISIS can point and say "See, we should attack them because they oppress us!" and amass some sort of following (as small as that might be in retrospect).

So...are you saying that to defeat ISIS, we need to withdraw from that region? I mean, their biggest period of growth coincided with us withdrawing most of our forces....

What these passages absolutely do not do is give credence to ISIS actions. It's irresponsible to post these passages and act like they're just doing what is being told to them, unlike peaceful Muslims that "don't act on them".

I pretty much agree with this. There is certainly enough context/room for disagreement to follow Islam without violence.

 

[OptimusPrime]

So...are you saying that to defeat ISIS, we need to withdraw from that region?

Yes. Their recruiting would be cut off. It would be a bit harder to convince people to die fighting other Arabs than it is to convince them to fight the occupiers and regimes propped up by the occupiers.

 

[Chris]

I'm not sure about that "support staff" thing. If you're talking about trainers, most of those are going to be 03 (infantry) themselves. Or at least from other combat arms such as armor/artillery.

Just going by what I read. Some retired military guy was talking about how ISIS would need a massive force to even think about assaulting the base, citing that the Marines there are not all Infantry but it's an academic distinction as every Marine is trained for combat.

So, like he said, moot point regardless.

 

[gourimoko]

To what specific law was Jesus referring? Sure, there were specific occasions in the Old Testament in which God commanded the Jews to expand by force, but what specific law was there in the Old Testament that commanded spreading the faith by the sword?

Couple things...

1) Jesus is referring to "the Law," which are the laws of the Hebrews handed down by Moses from God.

2) Jesus says that every part, great or small, is included in this: "I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Regarding your comments:

Where did the caveat "spreading faith by the sword" come from? Seems like you kinda snuck that in there... dunno, why, my post is regarding the use of capital punishment and lethal force. But, I can tell you haven't read the Old Testament in some time... so let me briefly provide you with the Word of God for a second:

Here, Moses commands the Hebrews to kill their neighbors, brothers, and sons; all whom have decided to worship an idol:

"So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.

27Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’ ” 28The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

But why did Moses do this? Well, because it is the law of God:
"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." Exodus 22

In other words, anyone (whoever) sacrifices to any god, EXCEPT THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, shall be doomed (to death).

Not convinced?
"6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things[c] are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— 18 because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes."

The list goes on and on.... and on and on...

The most on-point thing Jesus said about that -- other than his general preaching of non-violence -- was his "render unto Caesar" comment cited in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He was unambigiuously discouraging violent opposition to the Romans (in direct contrast to the Zealots and Sicarii who could rightly be labeled "Jewish extremists"). His statement also provided a very clear doctrinal basis for separation of church and state.

Not sure where you are going with this..

I agree with the point that none of the three religions should be bound to a completely literal reading of everything in their foundational texts,

What you can foundational, many would call all encompassing (Sola scriptura).

but that doesn't justify denying that substantive textual differences do exist.

The Qu'ran is no more bloody, or violent than the Bible.

 

[gourimoko]

This isn't the thread for religion, but are we really going to just post violent passages without ANY proper context at all? i.e. The below is not even 191-193... it's like you purposely removed the rest...



191 is preceded by this:



This is the entirety of 191:



Onto 192:



Onto 193:



The problem with posting bits and not reading the actual Qur'an is evidenced above. Context paints a completely different picture. There are very specific texts in the Qur'an pertaining to war and there are specific texts pertaining to people versus God.

What does this tell us though? ISIS can very well be identifying what is happening in the ME as decades long aggression and convincing people of this to secure their ends. The longer the US remains involved and dominant in the region, the more ISIS can point and say "See, we should attack them because they oppress us!" and amass some sort of following (as small as that might be in retrospect).

What these passages absolutely do not do is give credence to ISIS actions. It's irresponsible to post these passages and act like they're just doing what is being told to them, unlike peaceful Muslims that "don't act on them".

I'm not trying to be religious in this thread, but let's not lie and twist text for your argument's sake...

@kosis , there are those in this thread who believe that Islam is in itself, part of the problem; not willing to recognize that Islam is no different than Judaism or Christianity in this regard.

 

[kosis]

@kosis , there are those in this thread who believe that Islam is in itself, part of the problem; not willing to recognize that Islam is no different than Judaism or Christianity in this regard.

Yep, also very representative of how a large portion of the public feels in general. It gets worse and worse as we further rely on sound bites for our news. Too much work to give any one topic a deep dive anymore... and that's especially dangerous when dealing with something as influential and contextualized as religion.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Where did the caveat "spreading faith by the sword" come from?

I think it's a "caveat" in which a great many people may be interested. It represents a major aspect of the risk posed by the faithful (of whatever religion) to nonbelievers in other lands. Especially on a large scale. It's bad enough if a religion endorses cruelty to its own adherents. Much worse if it also commands that religion to be spread by the sword.

Now, you may not want to discuss that "caveat" -- you have a habit of dismissing as irrelevant any aspect of an issue you personally don't want to address. But others may not agree with limitations you want to put on a discussion.

Here,

Moses commands the Hebrews to kill their neighbors, brothers, and sons; all whom have decided to worship an idol:

"So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.

27Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’ ” 28The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

That's not a law. That's a specific order to given to take a specific action against a specific target at a specific time and place in history. And it's what Moses said after coming down from Mount Sinai, so he was talking about punishments to be meted out within the Jewish tribes.

But why did Moses do this? Well, because it is the law of God:
"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." Exodus 22

Again, those statements are all things God told Moses to tell the Israelites, and they're all prohibitions on actions by Israelites. Your attempt to turn that into some open ended order to kill anyone, in any land, who worships an idol, is simply a distortion.

"6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things[c] are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— 18 because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes."

Again, by its own express terms ("gods of the peoples around you"), this is a command applicable to the Israelites only. Barbaric, brutal, and lots of other nasty things. Equivalent to the death penalty for apostasy that some modern Muslim nations have actually codified. But not a problem if you weren't an Israelite. And that's particularly true when you try to extrapolate this to Jesus, who told people to live peaceably with the Romans, not to kill them because they worshipped idols.

Not sure where you are going with this.

Seriously? "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's" was a public recognition by Jesus of a dividing line between the government, and how/whom people chose to worship. It's a statement that doctrinally enables the endorsement of the separation of church and state, as opposed to religious beliefs that unify secular and religious authority.