The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Otsego Mar]

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.

They aren't favorable to yes men. Besides, your human overlords need you here for the mandatory vaccination round-up.

 

[Sebastian]

They aren't favorable to yes men. Besides, your human overlords need you here for the mandatory vaccination round-up.

You know these fellas?

 

[gourimoko]

Please watch....

 

[gourimoko]

You know these fellas?

roflmao!!!!

 

[CleveRocks]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

For all posters on both sides, this article is an in depth and thoughtful analysis of ISIL. I won't say I agree with all of his conclusions, and niether will most of you, but from a what the hell are we talking about viewpoint, it fills in a lot of information blanks and takes a peek behind the propaganda on both sides of this.

Fair warning, it is a long read (as in it makes gour's posts look like haiku) and you will want to 12 skip a few.. But seriously read it, if you are genuinely interested in the topic.

For me I am done posting in this thread. I can say that I disagree with those of you who think this is about racism, or about a bunch of nut bags on a lark. This is a serious problem and it will not just go away by itself. Whatever my differences with some of you may be, I will check them at the door and try to focus on my favorite sport and team.

 

[No Regard]

JSS, Gouri might call you racist, and I want to believe that isn't true. You are, however, insanely ignorant. This post has already been ripped to shreads, but a quick google search shows that extremism isn't Islam specific. White Christians/Catholics just got lucky.

Christians actively live burned thousands of people they believed to be witches. Conquistadors ended whole civilizations when they didn't respond to Christianity. Go read up on Ante Pavelic and and his concentration camps. The Norway attacks in 2011 were strictly based on Christian morals, that was 77 people. Add in the millions of people killed during global expansion of the religion by missionaries. I'm sure you get the picture, and will refute it completely.

All of that, and more, gets swept under the rug because you can't see it. It's time to stop pretending. It happened. The atrocities happened. Stop justifying it because it's easy to point a finger at a religion that most know absolutely nothing about.

This is completely false.

 

[No Regard]

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.

Just to make it clear yet again, as it seems like you guys read exactly what you want to read:
I have never ever said that Islam is the problem. I am rather saying it is a part of the problem. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to do.

And yes, the extremists are almost - yes, I'm hedging - always a minority. I am not in any way or form, blaming the peaceful Muslims, who definitely are the majority, for the wrongdoings of the Muslim extremists. But then again, the majority is mostly irrelevant. Most Germans weren't Nazis before and during WWII, but that didn't stop the actual extremists from killing millions of innocent people. Does that mean that we can't criticize Nazism, or the German people for not recognizing what happened right before their eyes?

Once and for all, you need to stop taking criticism of Islam, as a critic of individual Muslims. If one can’t criticize the Islamic system, which is one of the biggest organized belief systems in the world, without people getting overly touchy and take it as a personal attack, then we do have a much bigger problem at our hands than I first thought.

The biggest difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has been heavily criticized, for example during the Enlightenment. Christianity had to reform and adapt to its new surroundings, if it were to keep is powers. When Nietzsche, Hume and Voltaire criticized Christianity, they weren’t criticizing the good, peaceful people that happened to inherit a belief system. No, they were criticizing the men in charge, who used Christianity as a mean to suppress others. And since Christianity was a tool for the men in power, it was also - clearly - a part of the problem.

It make perfect sense.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

Absolutely true, but that doesn't even come close to addressing the point of whether criticizing a belief system is morally (and even logically) equivalent to criticizing someone's race. Of course religion can define a person as an individual. In fact, I'd say that religion/personal philosophy/belief system is a much better way to define who a person truly is than skin color. You know, the whole color of skin/content of character distinction MLK drew? Yeah, that. So yes, a belief in a particular belief system does tell you something important about that person. That's the entire point.

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.

So what? They also supported freedom of speech, and there is nothing inconsistent about the government protecting the right to believe what you wish while still permitting others to criticize those beliefs. I mean, fuck, government protects the right to express political beliefs as well. Does that mean people can't criticize the political beliefs of other people?

Neither Washington nor any other Framer even hinted that people could not/should not be critical of other religions And there is nothing inherently wrong/immoral with criticizing aspects Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Nazism, Anarch-Syndicalism, or anything other belief system. There is something fundamentally wrong with criticizing race, and doing that is something to which most of us have a gut-level aversion. So, you're trying to create this false equivalency between race, and religion, so as to make "off-limits" criticism of religion.

Religion is just like any "ism" that constitutes a belief system. For some people, it is religion that provides moral/ethical guidance and influences their behaviors. For more secular people, it may be a belief in communism, anarchism, libertarianism, Nazism, or a more mixed believe system that defies easy categorizations. Should we all be barred from criticizing and discussing those belief systems as well for fear of offending the person who considers themselves "a Nazi" or "a Communist", "a scientologist", "a Fundamentalist Christian" or whatever?

Now, It is of course entirely possible that some of those criticisms are wrong, and wrongly ascribe to a particular belief system certain opinions/beliefs. And that should be discussed. But the fact that some criticisms may be misinformed or wrong is not a justification to place all such criticisms and discussions off-limits.

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.

Eh? My argument It does no such thing. In fact, depending upon the nature of those beliefs, and how deeply/devoutly they are held and followed, a man (or woman's) religion or other belief system is likely going to be more central to who they are, and more predictive of their behaviors, than anything else you listed.

Which is the entire point of why discussing the virtues or flaws of a religion is different in kind from discussing the virtues or flaws of someone's race, which doesn't even make logical sense because race has no inherent virtue or flaw.

 

[The Oi]

This is completely false.

They WERE however, anti-Muslim. He killed people because he felt Norway was allowing too many Muslims into the country and running the risk of terrorism.

He is a fucking lunatic.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

And I'd say that a great many people may hold their beliefs, whether secular humanist, Nazi, Communist, Ayn Randian libertarian, etc., as being just as central to who they are as you hold religion. Just because a belief system includes a belief in an supreme mystical being doesn't make it more important, valid, or central to who one is than any other. Heck, a fair number of those secular beliefs systems have been openly referred to as a kind of religion.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

There's 1.5 billion Muslims. Only 4.5 million practice puritanical Wahhabism.

First, are you saying it's perfectly okay if people specifically criticize Wahhabism? Because if you are, then the whole principle of religious criticism being off limits goes out the window.

Second, while there clearly are some people who argue that Islam itself is inherently violent, there are a great many who instead criticize "Islamist extremism", which I think is at least an attempted shorthand for Wahhabism or other extremist/puritanical viewpoints. Are you okay with that?

Third, are you okay with the doctrines of apostasy, blasphemy and proselytizing of religions other than Islam being banned? Because unless the Wahhabis are running every Muslim nation, there are problematic aspects to how Islam is currently practiced by more than just 4.5 million Wahhabis.

 

[No Regard]

How?

Because you continue to ignore the facts.

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

I am sorry. It was not my intention to be hostile.

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.

Do they both include a reference to holiness?
Are they both used in the everyday language, where the holiness is not necessarily important any more?
Do their meanings both depend on a given context?
Are they still not in a sense analogous?

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.

You got to be kidding me.

Saying “Allahu Akbar” after you’ve eaten burger does not have the same meaning as saying the phrase when you cut of a man's head.

If I say that “God is great” after I’ve gotten an C on my English exam, than it is obviously not the same as if I say “God is great” while setting of a bomb in a public marketplace.

This is nevertheless an off-track of the actual meaningful discussion, and an effective way for you to try to escape the argument I’m making.

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.

Nice try. But it doesn’t work as @The Human Q-Tip made clear in his post.

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.

I get your point, but it doesn’t make any difference for what I’ve been saying.

If the KKK could find justification in Christianity for their gruesome acts, than Christianity most certainly is a part of the problem.

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.

The bolded part is laughably incorrect. Christianity has changed a lot since then. And thanks god for that!

You are actually proving this yourself, by saying that the worldviews, cultures and situations have changed. For instance, why have people’s worldviews changed the last 150 years? Might some part of the explanation be that Christianity no longer holds a monopoly on how to perceive the world?

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.

Please stop with your attempts to turn this into a racial discussion. I am pretty sure that there exists a fancy Latin expression in logical theory, which describes what you are trying to do.

I will repeat myself one last time, and I will type slowly while doing it: Christianity was a part of the problem. Not the problem. But most definitely a P-A-R-T of the problem, because it was used as a mean to justify the end.

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

Which make it perfectly fine to criticize both religions if you’re against 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.

It doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, ey?

I am so tired of this argument. The fact is that they are killing in the name of their version of Allah. The fact is that they are using Islamic teachings as a justification of their acts. Whether it is within “the true framework” of Islam is completely irrelevant.

And what exactly is the “true framework of Islam”? Is it you’re interpretation or is it ISIS’s?

It’s a bullshit term, that’s what it is.

???

Wow. Do I really need to spell it out for you?

I say: “Islam is a part of the problem” (Shit, I had to say it again…)
You say: “No it is not. It is a tool being used for recruitment.”
I say: “Oh really. How is it not a part of the problem then?
You say: “???”
I say: “Wow. Do I really need to spell it out for you?”

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.

Yep. It is an argument from ignorance following your interpretation.

So let me make my point clearer.

The Bible and the Quran are old books, wherein it stands old words. Words are nothing but symbols and they are in no way exact, which means that these words are open for interpretation. It means that any given text can carry an entirely different meaning depending on the reader.

What I tried to say – and yes, I understand that my point perhaps wasn’t clear, because I know that words are incomplete – is that I don’t want to discuss neither what The Bible nor what the Quran “says”.

These books are saying an uncountable amount of different things. A discussion about whether the textual teachings of The Bible are worse than the Quran or not, is nothing but a dead end.

That is why I said that I don’t make any distinctions. That is why I said that I don’t care – in the discussion we’re know having - about these old, dusty books.

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

To not be offended is no human right. Sorry to say.

The same goes for those who are being offended when I criticize their religion. Grow a thicker skin. It might help.

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.

Again. This is not a racial issue. At all.

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

No doubt. But you’re only seeing part of the picture, if you think that a given action is separated from group thinking and group dynamics. As Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo have showed us.

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.

This goes to show that you read whatever you want to read. I have never criticized a peaceful practicing Muslim. I have never criticized his or her personal beliefs.

But why not try explaining it to me...

I have and I am, but I’m doubtful that you will make an attempt to understand.

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?

Welp. From whom are jihadists being told that they will come to heaven after blowing themselves up in a public place? From where are they being told that their actions are completely justified?

Islam teaches a bunch of different things which can be interpreted in a bunch of different ways. Some are good, some are really, really bad.

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

It is not only some truth to this. I suggest that you read Hannah Arendt’s take on Eichmann’s trial.

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.

You hit the nail on the head. That is why any form of organization of people is potentially dangerous.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

This line of thinking is what is dangerous.

What exactly is dangerous? That I mean that people should be able to think for themselves, and not have a belief system defining for them what’s good or bad?

Could be...

The chances are growing by the minute…

Lol....

You can lol al your want. It doesn’t make any less true.

 

[kosis]

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.

I'm behind, but I wanted to add to this point because I feel that it's important and a common cause for consternation... Muslims saying Allahu Akbar in association with killing, along with the recruitment angle.

Saying the tenants of Islam are bringing these people together to commit violence as prescribed by a shared doctrine is false. I think it's important to differentiate the idea of using religion as a catalyst of violence and using religion as a rallying cry.

When resentment already exists against an opposing entity, religion (specifically in the ME) is the easiest card to play when trying to garner support and relate to potential allies. It also helps perpetrators sleep better at night when they can convince themselves that they have evidence supporting their claims (which is why ISIS types will use the same verses out of context that JSS posted earlier).

Non-ME, example:

In Bosnia in the 90's, Christians were essentially the aggressors in the conflict. Most would agree that Bosnia wasn't the second coming of the Crusades, but Serbs were very forthcoming with placing crosses on everything. They waved their three fingers around (Orthodox use them for crossing themselves) and made it clear they were using the morality of men to rid the region of the scourge/ regain territory. (~7,000 Muslims massacred in Srebrenica alone over one weekend). Still, you'd be hard pressed to find many people on this board (or otherwise) willing to blame Christianity or the teachings of Christianity for Bosnia. See: "It was a territorial dispute", "Stolen land", "oppressive government", "fallout from communism".

They weren't flaunting Christ because the Bible commanded them to. They did it because Serbs were Orthodox, because the cross was comfort, and they rallied support from the one thing Serbs all had it common.

As @gourimoko said, Allahu Akbar is an expression of victory, and it's only natural that Muslims would be shouting this if they were succeeding in ANYTHING.

This small point might not have been the most crucial in the conversation, but it is repeatedly discussed in the media, and -by extension- by people I see in daily environments. "See, their God commands them to do this!!"... No.

 

[No Regard]

They WERE however, anti-Muslim. He killed people because he felt Norway was allowing too many Muslims into the country and running the risk of terrorism.

He is a fucking lunatic.

No doubt. But as you say; he was more a lunatic than anything else. He was a lone wolf with no spesific belief system, other than that he hated Muslims.

This is exactly my biggest fear regarding the future of Europe, where I currently live.

On the on side you have the extreme Muslims, on the other side the extreme anti-Muslims. Both are willing to commit violence. In the middle you have the peaceful people, who only want to be left the fuck out of all the nonsense. Combine that with a shitty economy and rising poverty and you have a very dangerous mixture.

I have scary visions of what's going to happen, if/when the two sides seriously clash together.

 

[DJTJ]

This is completely false.

A man blaming Muslim's for ruining the Christian morals set forth in Norway is completely true.

First, are you saying it's perfectly okay if people specifically criticize Wahhabism? Because if you are, then the whole principle of religious criticism being off limits goes out the window.

Second, while there clearly are some people who argue that Islam itself is inherently violent, there are a great many who instead criticize "Islamist extremism", which I think is at least an attempted shorthand for Wahhabism or other extremist/puritanical viewpoints. Are you okay with that?

Third, are you okay with the doctrines of apostasy, blasphemy and proselytizing of religions other than Islam being banned? Because unless the Wahhabis are running every Muslim nation, there are problematic aspects to how Islam is currently practiced by more than just 4.5 million Wahhabis.

First, I think it's completely illogical for it to be an Islam discussion without open knowledge of the actual sect of religion being scrutinized. It's like blaming Protestants for the Pope. There needs to be a better understanding of what's actually happening before religious slander can just be spread against the wall.

Second, if there was a similar situation with Christianity, the term used against them would be the denomination followed by the descriptive term. No one blames the Catholics or Lutherens for Fred Phelps, and the same, in my opinion, should happen here. To each their own on this point, quality question.

Third, I disagree with what I THINK you're trying to get at. I don't see an issue with how Islam, or any other religion is practiced, and I don't believe I've ever made that claim. I think the analogy that works best in my head (gouri, don't kill me) is gangs in hoods. Money, power, material goods links gangs to urban youth. In the Middle East, where religion is the driving force behind life, Islam is used as that same link. Is that wrong? Honestly, that's not up to me. It's not my belief system, it's not where/how I was raised. Had any of us grown up in a similar situation, I'd like to believe that their be some pretty enticing situations for joining ISIL, despite the risks associated.

Just to make it clear yet again, as it seems like you guys read exactly what you want to read:
I have never ever said that Islam is the problem. I am rather saying it is a part of the problem. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to do.

And yes, the extremists are almost - yes, I'm hedging - always a minority. I am not in any way or form, blaming the peaceful Muslims, who definitely are the majority, for the wrongdoings of the Muslim extremists. But then again, the majority is mostly irrelevant. Most Germans weren't Nazis before and during WWII, but that didn't stop the actual extremists from killing millions of innocent people. Does that mean that we can't criticize Nazism, or the German people for not recognizing what happened right before their eyes?

Once and for all, you need to stop taking criticism of Islam, as a critic of individual Muslims. If one can’t criticize the Islamic system, which is one of the biggest organized belief systems in the world, without people getting overly touchy and take it as a personal attack, then we do have a much bigger problem at our hands than I first thought.

The biggest difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has been heavily criticized, for example during the Enlightenment. Christianity had to reform and adapt to its new surroundings, if it were to keep is powers. When Nietzsche, Hume and Voltaire criticized Christianity, they weren’t criticizing the good, peaceful people that happened to inherit a belief system. No, they were criticizing the men in charge, who used Christianity as a mean to suppress others. And since Christianity was a tool for the men in power, it was also - clearly - a part of the problem.

It make perfect sense.

Great post for the most part. The issue I took up with your original statement was that your intentions didn't seem to be anything more than hate speak on the religion and people who don't support just nuking the fuck out of ISIL because booo, Islam! Apologies.

The bold sentence is a stretch, as is most of the Nazi talk in that paragraph. While not a majority, it isn't a two party system in Germany. 43% is a vast majority, as are the two 35% plus the two elections prior to that. German people had no clue that the Holocaust was happening, so comparing them to peaceful Muslims who aware of extremism is completely off kilter.

The only thing in that paragraph that I agree with? Yes, we can criticize Nazi's, We can't criticize Islam, though.