The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[gourimoko]

Probably all...

Probably not...

 

[gourimoko]

It's an evolving list. Changes based upon mood, so I can see how the number stays low.

No on both accounts.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I don't know if he is a racist or not for certain, and I really don't care one way or the other, but it wouldn't surprise me if he is the type that would celebrate the police gunning down a non violent white victim as much as he would a black one. Anyone the U.S. government murders deserve to die in his book. It is his religion, the government his god. The vast majority of people murdered by the U.S. government are brown, so it just seems he is always condemning the brown folks. I haven't paid close enough attention to see if there is more to it than that. I know many people like that though.

 

[No Regard]

You mean how the President just did and has been doing all week?

Islam isn't the problem anymore than Christianity was the problem during American Slavery, a far worse tragedy than what is happening today in the Middle East yet that was routinely justified by millions of Christian Americans as being representative of the divine order of things.

That's Obama's and mine, and @kosis , and many others' point. It isn't the religion that's the problem, it's the people who distort it to fit their needs.

Where did I say it was the problem? Come on, this is the real world. There is never only one reason for anything.

And please tell me how Islam is not a part of the problem, when Muslim terrorists scream Allahu Akbar while killing innocent people; when defenseless people get killed because they can’t recite the shahada; when Muslim extremists are reportedly being recruited in European mosques?

Christianity’s track record is absolutely disgusting. No doubt about it. But it’s irrelevant in this discussion. To justify what is being done in the name of Allah today, by comparing it to the malevolence done in the name of Christ 150+ years ago, are nothing but an off-track, and to be honest, quite irreverent.

The best we can do with the past are not to learn from it, which neither you, kosis nor Obama does, by obviously ignoring the enormous elephant in the room.

EDIT: And I don't follow American news channels, so I have no idea what Obama has been saying, nor do I care.

 

[gourimoko]

Where did I say it was the problem? Come on, this is the real world. There is never only one reason for anything.

Right, Islam is not the problem; it's not a problem. Other factors are the problems, as the State Department and the President has been saying, repeatedly.

And please tell me how Islam is not a part of the problem, when Muslim terrorists scream Allahu Akbar while killing innocent people;

You're not familiar with the culture I think. Saying Allahu Akbar is like saying "yes" in Western culture. Alhamdulillah, bismillah, takbir, Allahu Akbar, these are phrases you will here just going to buy groceries in the afternoon in any Arab part of the world. You see it as a battlecry, when it's use is fairly ambiguous.

A person can buy a car, get a good deal, and say "Allahu Akbar!" Before a sentence, referring to ANYTHING, it could be about removing BPA from plastic bottles; certain phraseology would indicate an extremely religious connotation to an event, document, conversation, etc that has absolutely nothing to do with religion or spirituality.

This, I think, is causing a great deal of confusion for westerners. Our cultures are so incompatible, that such a nuance is very difficult for many to really understand.

But literally, and no exaggeration, the phrase "Allahu Akbar" is the most commonly used phrase in the world.

when defenseless people get killed because they can’t recite the shahada;

Exactly why this isn't a religious issue. Because such killings would be forbidden under Islam in most cases.

when Muslim extremists are reportedly being recruited in European mosques?

Because Islam is a tool being used for recruitment. It is the one binding, common element, shared by these very diverse and different cultures of people.
Islam is how you would reach disillusioned youth.

Christianity’s track record is absolutely disgusting. No doubt about it. But it’s irrelevant in this discussion.

The point is that there is no difference between the Abrahamic religions because the Old Testament is bad enough. So it's silly to make distinctions with respect to what religion is philosophically more violent than another. The idea itself is preposterous.

To justify what is being done in the name of Allah today, by comparing it to the malevolence done in the name of Christ 150+ years ago, are nothing but an off-track, and to be honest, quite irreverent.

Irreverent of whom?

With respect to Christianity, I do not put American Slavery on Christianity, the religion, but the Christians who sinned and rationalized their actions by twisting their faith and warping it to support their own worldviews.

That's the point. You seem to blame Christianity itself for the failures of those who follow it, but I don't, I blame the people themselves.

The best we can do with the past are not to learn from it, which neither you, kosis nor Obama does, by obviously ignoring the enormous elephant in the room.

Is it just possible that maybe you're not appreciating why "me, kosis, and Obama" are trying to say?

EDIT: And I don't follow American news channels, so I have no idea what Obama has been saying, nor do I care.

Well, I personally think the commander-in-chief and leader of the free world's comments are relevant to this particular discussion, given the OP, thread title, context, and the use of military force.

 

[No Regard]

Right, Islam is not the problem; it's not a problem. Other factors are the problems, as the State Department and the President has been saying, repeatedly.

You just keep digging your head deeper in the sand.

You're not familiar with the culture I think. Saying Allahu Akbar is like saying "yes" in Western culture. Alhamdulillah, bismillah, takbir, Allahu Akbar, these are phrases you will here just going to buy groceries in the afternoon in any Arab part of the world. You see it as a battlecry, when it's use is fairly ambiguous.

A person can buy a car, get a good deal, and say "Allahu Akbar!" Before a sentence, referring to ANYTHING, it could be about removing BPA from plastic bottles; certain phraseology would indicate an extremely religious connotation to an event, document, conversation, etc that has absolutely nothing to do with religion or spirituality.

This, I think, is causing a great deal of confusion for westerners. Our cultures are so incompatible, that such a nuance is very difficult for many to really understand.

But literally, and no exaggeration, the phrase "Allahu Akbar" is the most commonly used phrase in the world.

Please, gourimoko, I don’t appreciate being treated like an idiot.

In the southern parts of Germany they use "Grüß Gott" as a polite greeting. But if I go on a rampage killing innocent people while screaming "Grüß Gott", then it does not mean "Hello" any longer.

The literal translation of "Allahu Akbar" is "Allah/God is Greater". Honestly, what do you think the Muslim terrorists are yelling to their victims? "Yes!! What a nice car!"?

Exactly why this isn't a religious issue. Because such killings would be forbidden under Islam in most cases.

What are you trying to say? This makes no sense at all.

The terrorists in Nairobi deliberately used the shahada to distinguish the Muslims from the non-Muslims, sparing the former, killing the latter. People were killed in cold blood because they didn't belong to a particular religion! How is that not a religious issue?

And what is the meaning of the bolded part? Are you hedging for something in particular?

Because Islam is a tool being used for recruitment. It is the one binding, common element, shared by these very diverse and different cultures of people.

Islam is how you would reach disillusioned youth.

Read the bolded part. Slowly. And let it develop in your mind. Then you should repeat what I’ve been saying, as it was a mantra: Islam is a part of the problem. Islam is a part of the problem. Islam is a part of the problem.

The point is that there is no difference between the Abrahamic religions because the Old Testament is bad enough. So it's silly to make distinctions with respect to what religion is philosophically more violent than another. The idea itself is preposterous.

I'm not making any distinctions. Frankly, I don't care about what the Bible says or what the Quran says. They are nothing but old books.

Irreverent of whom?

Irreverent to all the people, which brutal deaths you are trying to justify.

With respect to Christianity, I do not put American Slavery on Christianity, the religion, but the Christians who sinned and rationalized their actions by twisting their faith and warping it to support their own worldviews.

That's the point. You seem to blame Christianity itself for the failures of those who follow it, but I don't, I blame the people themselves.

Wrong. You have misunderstood me. I blame both Christianity and those who used it as a mean to justify their ends, in the same way as I blame both Islam and the people who use it to suppress others.

Why are you so obsessed with splitting apart the religion of Islam from those who kill in the name of it? How can you not see that they are tied together?

The system that justifies killing of innocents, are just as bad as the killers themselves. If not worse, because organized systems and group thinking, make people inept of making individual reflections. I am sure that you are familiar with both the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment.

Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political system. And it's potentially dangerous.

Is it just possible that maybe you're not appreciating why "me, kosis, and Obama" are trying to say?

Same. Maybe you are in the wrong.

Well, I personally think the commander-in-chief and leader of the free world's comments are relevant to this particular discussion, given the OP, thread title, context, and the use of military force.

Obama is a puppet orchestrated by a gigantic PR group. Enough said.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

.
Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political system.

That's a good discussion point. The concept of a Caliphate is not something unique to ISIS' brand of Islam. A Caliph is literally a successor to Muhammed, and inherent in the concept is the unification of secular and religious authority as wielded by Muhammed himself.. Sunnis and Shi'ites don't agree on the method for selecting a Caliph, but it demonstrates the historical reason why there tends to be so much bleed-over between religion and secular rule in Islam.

It's one of the reasons I raised earlier the "render unto Caesar" quote from the New Testament. That was something of a doctrinal boon to those who argue for separation of Church and State in Christian-majority nations.

All that being said, I really think most of the criticism of Islam, in terms of barbarism or whatever, is not the key issue. I can't discern any moral distance between "an eye for an eye" and lopping off the hand of a thief, or chopping off someone's head with a sword (if intended to be quick and merciful) and methods of execution with which Westerners are more comfortable.

The critical issue is the separation of Church/State, or at least the recognition of religious belief and activity being solely a matter of individual conscience. You get that, and everything else follows, and you're just left with the normal, incidental brutality of life common to all people. But if you don't have that, it's trouble.

 

[gourimoko]

You just keep digging your head deeper in the sand.

How?

Please, gourimoko, I don’t appreciate being treated like an idiot.

Why the hostility? I didn't think I was being condescending or in any way treating you as an idiot.

In the southern parts of Germany they use "Grüß Gott" as a polite greeting.

Yes I know.

But if I go on a rampage killing innocent people while screaming "Grüß Gott", then it does not mean "Hello" any longer.

This is kind of my point. The very fact that you would conflate the use of the German phrase "Grüß Gott" with the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar" shows, or at least seems to demonstrate, that you really don't understand the actual contextual usage of the Arabic phrase. These two phrases are not really analogous.

The literal translation of "Allahu Akbar" is "Allah/God is Greater". Honestly, what do you think the Muslim terrorists are yelling to their victims? "Yes!! What a nice car!"?

They are doing exactly what they would do if they bought a nice car, or got a good grade on an exam, or had a fantastic meal, or married a beautiful woman.

Again, your own words are demonstrative of your confusion with respect to the cultural differences. "Allahu Akbar" at the beginning or end of an act is not inherently meaningful.

I'm not calling you an idiot, and I'm not trying to be condescending. But how do you tell a Westerner "no, umm, that's not right..?"

What are you trying to say? This makes no sense at all.

The terrorists in Nairobi deliberately used the shahada to distinguish the Muslims from the non-Muslims, sparing the former, killing the latter. People were killed in cold blood because they didn't belong to a particular religion! How is that not a religious issue?

Perhaps we're speaking past each other.

Let me try to make my position a bit clearer.

When a White cop in America shoots an unarmed Black man, and does so out of racial prejudice, that act, in itself is not indicative of a problem with White people; the group this person belongs to.

Reverse that.

When African-Americans kill Whites, for whatever reasons but when those reasons stem from racial motivations, that doesn't mean there is a problem with Black people.

Both of these examples substitute race for religion, but both are applicable.

The point that is being made by the Administration is that you don't point to the person's race, or faith, and automatically assume that it must be the motivating factor to their actions.

For example, the Ku Klux Klan or Neo Nazi groups can preach "White Pride," and on the surface, some will advocate a wholly positive message. But in reality, their motivations are to increase their numbers, and pursue ulterior motives.

ISIS, al-Shaabab, al-Qaeda, etc, are no different than the KKK, a White Christian nationalist movement that terrorized the United States for nearly 150 years. But in that time, Christianity itself had not changed; it's the same religion today as it was then. People's worldviews changed. Culture changed. The situation changed.

But at no time would I say that there was a problem the White race, or with Christianity. There was a problem with those who were against the abolition of slaves, and that entire course of thought.

Now if you disagree, then we have a fundamental difference. If you think White people were to blame, and that Christianity itself and it's teachings were to blame, then I don't know how we can come to terms.

And what is the meaning of the bolded part? Are you hedging for something in particular?

I'm trying to avoid absolute statements. Both Christianity and Islam allow for capital punishment.

But Islam expressly forbids the killing of Christians in the manner that has been done by these terrorist groups. That's the point. These terrorists are not working within the framework of Islam.

Read the bolded part. Slowly. And let it develop in your mind. Then you should repeat what I’ve been saying, as it was a mantra: Islam is a part of the problem. Islam is a part of the problem. Islam is a part of the problem.

???

I'm not making any distinctions. Frankly, I don't care about what the Bible says or what the Quran says. They are nothing but old books.

That's one way of looking at it. But I doubt you'll understand much about these people if you take that approach. It's literally an argument from ignorance.

Irreverent to all the people, which brutal deaths you are trying to justify.

What??? We're getting to the point that this is becoming offensive.

Wrong. You have misunderstood me. I blame both Christianity and those who used it as a mean to justify their ends, in the same way as I blame both Islam and the people who use it to suppress others.

So do you blame Blacks for the crimes that Black people commit? Do you blame Whites for the crimes that White people commit?

It just seems odd that you make this comment about groups of people so casually.

People are ultimately responsible for their own actions, not the groups they happen to belong to.

Why are you so obsessed with splitting apart the religion of Islam from those who kill in the name of it?

The same way I separate the criminal from his race. Because I am trying to actually ascertain what the problem is, rather than cast blanket judgement over 1.6 billion people.

How can you not see that they are tied together?

Pretty easily, read above.

But why not try explaining it to me...

The system that justifies killing of innocents, are just as bad as the killers themselves.

But Islam doesn't justify these actions.

It's been explained by myself and @kosis in numerous posts. But again, according to you, you could care less what Islam teaches, so, how and why have you come to this conclusion; again, out of self-described and self-imposed ignorance?

If not worse, because organized systems and group thinking, make people inept of making individual reflections.

While there is some truth to this, people are ultimately responsible for their own behavior. Not any one system of belief.

I am sure that you are familiar with both the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment.

Yes. I understand, but this could be used against any and all forms of moral and cultural authority, including all religion, or even organized political parties.

Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political system.

No it isn't.

And it's potentially dangerous.

This line of thinking is what is dangerous.

Same. Maybe you are in the wrong.

Could be...

Obama is a puppet orchestrated by a gigantic PR group. Enough said.

Lol....

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

When a White cop in America shoots an unarmed Black man, and does so out of racial prejudice, that act, in itself is not indicative of a problem with White people; the group this person belongs to.

Reverse that.

When African-Americans kill Whites, for whatever reasons but when those reasons stem from racial motivations, that doesn't mean there is a problem with Black people.

Both of these examples substitute race for religion, but both are applicable.

No. Race is not ta substitute for religion or any other belief system, and there is no logical reason at all to connect "white people" or "black people" with a particular way of thinking, values, or beliefs. A white person who shoots a black person out of racial animus tells you absolutely nothing about "white people". It suggests no higher truth, because there is no particular way of thinking associated with the genetic condition of being "white".

That is not true with respect to religion or any other belief system, which does involve conscious moral choices on the part of its adherents.

So if you want to substitute something, use another belief system. If a Republican shoots a Democrat, and does so because he hates anyone who opposes Republican values, that doesn't tell you that all Republicans think that way. But if it happens enough, it may be cause to investigate whether there is something in Republican ideology that suggests they are more prone to violence. That would be a perfectly legitimate inquiry, in contrast to associating behaviors with race.

Again, try the same exercise with Nazis, Communists, Jainists, or whomever. Their behaviors may tell you something about their belief system because belief systems are part of what control behaviors.

 

[gourimoko]

No. Race is not ta substitute for religion or any other belief system, and there is no logical reason at all to connect "white people" or "black people" with a particular way of thinking, values, or beliefs. A white person who shoots a black person out of racial animus tells you absolutely nothing about "white people". It suggests no higher truth, because there is no particular way of thinking associated with the genetic condition of being "white".

Quite the contrary.

A person's religion can define them as an individual. A person's religion is a protected class, a protected attribute that society has recognized as being central to a person's life. You may not think so, but millions of people would say their religion is more of an important classification, more defining of their person, than anything else. This would including millions of Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, etc.

Historically, George Washington and the Framers referenced protection of religious beliefs when they discussed freedom, far more often (if ever), than they did with respect to race.

Your viewpoint discounts the entire idea that a man's religion is equally important to anything else that defines him including his race, gender, or more recently acknowledged, his orientation or sexual identity.

 

[gourimoko]

So if you want to substitute something, use another belief system. If a Republican shoots a Democrat, and does so because he hates anyone who opposes Republican values, that doesn't tell you that all Republicans think that way. But if it happens enough, it may be cause to investigate whether there is something in Republican ideology that suggests they are more prone to violence. That would be a perfectly legitimate inquiry, in contrast to associating behaviors with race.

Again, here you further demonstrate my point. You're either elevating political ideology to the unique place reserved for religion, or demoting religion to the place of petty politics. Either way, it's a misrepresentation of just how defining a person's religion really is.

 

[DJTJ]

There's 1.5 billion Muslims. Only 4.5 million practice puritanical Wahhabism. Saying Islam is the problem because of one minority sect is essentially blaming 1.5 billion people for issues caused by something that represents less than one percent of the religion's makeup. It's like blaming the Amish/Mennonites for anything Christian related. It makes no sense.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Religion is going down the pooper when the aliens reveal themselves. This will all be irrelevent in due time.

Religion is a very effective tool of seperation and control.

 

[gourimoko]

There's 1.5 billion Muslims. Only 4.5 million practice puritanical Wahhabism. Saying Islam is the problem because of one minority sect is essentially blaming 1.5 billion people for issues caused by something that represents less than one percent of the religion's makeup. It's like blaming the Amish/Mennonites for anything Christian related. It makes no sense.

Agreed. It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Sebastian]

Religion is going down the pooper when the aliens reveal themselves. This will all be irrelevent in due time.

Religion is a very effective tool of seperation and control.

I for one welcome our new alien overlords. I'd like to remind them that as an Army officer, I could be helpful in rounding up others for the mandatory, and painful, rectal exams.