Religion of Peace

[blastingcap]

My point, and it is clear

I disagree.

As for the rest of your post, the farther back in history you have to go to dredge up facts, the weaker the argument because it implies you could not find anything more recent and relevant. Furthermore, people are not saying Christians are incapable of violence. Rather, the argument seems to be that Muslims seem to have a higher propensity for violence.

I am not religious so you can bash Christianity or Judaism or any other religion on all you want. I don't care, in fact I wouldn't mind if all religions went away. I don't care if you mock all religious characters.

That's in stark contrast to, say, the throngs of Muslims who express anger about stuff like Charlie Hebdo. You can mock Jesus, Moses, or any number of religious figures without crazed gunmen going after you, but the moment you mock Mohammed you get crazies coming out of the woodwork; Charlie Hebdo was just the most recent incident.

But let me guess, Charlie Hebdo shootings had nothing to do with Islam either, right? Let's be honest here: the vast majority of Muslims roll their eyes and aren't going to shoot up the offices of a magazine that few people knew about and fewer people even read.... but at the same time I have not heard of Buddhists gunning down people who draw comics of Buddha, for instance. Or Catholics gunning down Charlie Hebdo even though Charlie Hebdo mocked the Pope too.

I have said repeatedly that I think most Muslims are decent people because they are decent people. If you took away Islam by magic, they would still be decent people. Nevertheless, it would appear that Muslims are overrepresented among terrorist groups in recent times, relative to other religions. And they aren't merely poor thugs who "just happen to be" Muslim, either: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/opinion/bergen-terrorism-root-causes/ It's stuff like this that leads people to call for an Islamic Reformation, Lockean or otherwise: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/o...letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html?_r=0

 

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastingcap
The poster quoted above continually, habitually puts words into other people's mouths. He writes inscrutable posts that don't make sense to anyone but himself. Trying to untangle his twisted thoughts is an exercise in futility. You have been warned.

My point, and it is clear, is that ones who ignore History can do whatever point he wants and you re exactly in this case, one can be voluntarly ignorant as a mean to be right.

Now let s look at recent history to check if christians were capable of mass murder by pure racism and rights denial.

Do you know Madagascar history..? No...


Quote:
The French government's first official estimate of the number of Malagasy killed in the conflict was 89,000. In 1949 the High Commissioner of Madagascar added to this figure the estimated number who fled into the forest and were believed dead, declaring the true number of dead at over 100,000.

Notice that they are killed in their own land...


Do you know History of Algeria..?. No more than the former, it started earlier than 1947 of course but we ll get back to this date or so later.

Let s start with the "reason" for the invasion :


Quote:
The conquest of Algeria was initiated in the last days of the Bourbon Restoration by Charles X as an attempt to increase his popularity amongst the French people, particularly in Paris, where many veterans of the Napoleonic Wars lived. He believed he would bolster patriotic sentiment and turn eyes away from his domestic policies.

And then :


Quote:
Following the conquest of the Regency of Algiers, the Pacification of Algeria consists of a series of military operations which aimed to put an end to various tribal rebellions, razzias and massacres of French settlers, which were sporadically held in the Algerian countryside. The pacification of Algeria is an early example of unconventional warfare.

Enough to say that at least one million were killed over several decades, but that wasnt enough, after the Algerians had been incorporated in the french army to fight the german twice here how they were treated when they asked for equal rights in 1945 :


Quote:
The initial outbreak occurred on the morning of May 8, 1945, the same day that Nazi Germany surrendered in World War II. A parade by about 5,000 of the Muslim Algerian population of Sétif to celebrate the victory ended in clashes between the marchers and the local French gendarmerie, when the latter tried to seize banners attacking colonial rule

Several dozen thousands massacred because they asked rights that were reserved to christians, yet the Algerians had to make military and war in the french army..

You will notice that the US invaded Iraq for the same reason than France invaded Algeria...


So much for muslims being violent, actualy History says that theses are the western (christians?) nations wich are living out of violence, only thoses nations eradicated other nations to take their lands and goods, check History poor fool, Haiti s whole 100 000 inhabitants where massacred and replaced by slaves imported by french and Spaniards.

Your point is a smoke screen!!
Your point is trying to change the subject which is Muslims...
Your point has nothing to do with the present!!
History was then...this is now.....
Your point is comparing what other religions did in the past to try to justify wqhat your Muslim brothers are doing now -- that is a total fail!!
again this is now, not the past!
Your living in the past!!
Fast forward to the now and deal with it......is it such a scary thought that perhaps you might need to learn to speak one of the language that most Muslims speak in order to survive.....
Arabic, Farsi, Arminian, Kurdish, Urdu, Sindhi...there are many more depending on the country they live in...lol

 

[JEDIYoda]

As for the rest of your post, the farther back in history you have to go to dredge up facts, the weaker the argument because it implies you could not find anything more recent and relevant. Furthermore, people are not saying Christians are incapable of violence. Rather, the argument seems to be that Muslims seem to have a higher propensity for violence.

I am not religious so you can bash Christianity or Judaism or any other religion on all you want. I don't care, in fact I wouldn't mind if all religions went away. I don't care if you mock all religious characters.

That's in stark contrast to, say, the throngs of Muslims who express anger about stuff like Charlie Hebdo. You can mock Jesus, Moses, or any number of religious figures without crazed gunmen going after you, but the moment you mock Mohammed you get crazies coming out of the woodwork; Charlie Hebdo was just the most recent incident.

But let me guess, Charlie Hebdo shootings had nothing to do with Islam either, right? Let's be honest here: the vast majority of Muslims roll their eyes and aren't going to shoot up the offices of a magazine that few people knew about and fewer people even read.... but at the same time I have not heard of Buddhists gunning down people who draw comics of Buddha, for instance. Or Catholics gunning down Charlie Hebdo even though Charlie Hebdo mocked the Pope too.

I have said repeatedly that I think most Muslims are decent people because they are decent people. If you took away Islam by magic, they would still be decent people. Nevertheless, it would appear that Muslims are overrepresented among terrorist groups in recent times, relative to other religions. And they aren't merely poor thugs who "just happen to be" Muslim, either: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/opinio...m-root-causes/ It's stuff like this that leads people to call for an Islamic Reformation, Lockean or otherwise: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/op...tion.html?_r=0

For the WIN!!

 

[JumBie]

Your point is a smoke screen!!
Your point is trying to change the subject which is Muslims...
Your point has nothing to do with the present!!
History was then...this is now.....
Your point is comparing what other religions did in the past to try to justify wqhat your Muslim brothers are doing now -- that is a total fail!!
again this is now, not the past!
Your living in the past!!
Fast forward to the now and deal with it......is it such a scary thought that perhaps you might need to learn to speak one of the language that most Muslims speak in order to survive.....
Arabic, Farsi, Arminian, Kurdish, Urdu, Sindhi...there are many more depending on the country they live in...lol

Your problem is that you fail to understand how history effects modern society. Sure its the past, but the past has a great deal of influence on why things are the way they are today, to suggest otherwise is just sheer ignorance.

I see a lot of people putting labels on the group as to imply that the whole group is to blame for the actions of some, are you forgetting that Islam is a religion shared by over 1 billion people? Not even 1% of the population of Muslims participates in terrorism.

Regardless of whether someone does something in the name of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or Sadism a criminal act or act of violence is the same across the board. We are forced to look at Islam as an opposing force, something that must be obliterated, this is something that has been force fed through media involvement and ignorance.

Think for a second, if your religion was being conveyed in a negative way. Always in the media 24/7 being bolstered and condemned as a religion of hatred and violence don't you think people would be upset and angry? Imagine if the US decided to condemn Jews and make them out to be the enemy? I am sure Jews would be going insane. People are unable to look objectively at pressing issues, instead they take everything for face value.

Lets also not forget that most of the terrorist that we see on t.v are a direct result of funding by the United States of America. Its no secret that the USA funded terrorism during the cold war and continue to fund "rebels" to overthrow governments (Libya, Syria). Not hard to understand where and how these extremist come into play. The weapons aren't just coming out of thin air. Lets just forget politics however, cause remember Muslims are the enemy.

Might want to add that I am not religious. I have however I read the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and the Vedas. This was during my own spiritual search and to be honest I found all three Abrahamic religions to be equally deceitful and disgusting.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Victorian Gay is one of the finest attackers on the forum.

Original Erl, is a great follower.

Hi BlastingCap.

Seems you got some unwanted attention.

-John

The thing about Je Suis, Charlie is that people stood up in person and declared it.
Doing it anonymously on a message board is well, cowardly
Your not Charlie

 

[michal1980]

The thing about Je Suis, Charlie is that people stood up in person and declared it.
Doing it anonymously on a message board is well, cowardly
Your not Charlie

Like zuckerberg? Claims he's Je Sur Charlie, but then blocks images of the prophet in certain countries.

What does that make him?

Or the president of France, a liberal hero, who claims he supports free speech, by passing laws against some speech?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Like zuckerberg? Claims he's Je Sur Charlie, but then blocks images of the prophet in certain countries.

What does that make him?

Or the president of France, a liberal hero, who claims he supports free speech, by passing laws against some speech?

They aren't my heroes, does that mean I'm not a liberal?

 

[blastingcap]

Think for a second, if your religion was being conveyed in a negative way. Always in the media 24/7 being bolstered and condemned as a religion of hatred and violence don't you think people would be upset and angry?

I'm glad you're shining a light on the plight of non-Muslims in many Muslim-majority countries.

Why don't YOU think about THAT?

I've heard of all sorts of excuses why Muslims are disproportionately represented among terrorists, but "the news media made us do it" is a new one, and something I find unpersuasive as well as ironic considering how non-male, non-Muslim people are treated in many Muslim-majority countries.

For instance, how many Christian Coptics commit terror acts even though they are oppressed a lot worse than Muslims in the USA? As in legalized oppression, not just media coverage?

I'd much rather be a Muslim in the USA than a non-Muslim or publicly-identified atheist in Saudi Arabia. Even in Turkey, it's frowned upon to be a publicly-known atheist, and that country is backsliding towards the past with a President who is an Islamist version of Putin who angrily decries anyone who "offends Islam." Literally.

http://www.todayszaman.com/national...ss-woman-erdogan-tells-journalist_354923.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...minister-tells-female-journalist-9656896.html

The guy keeps getting elected anyway, which tells you something about at least 50% of the voters in the country. Can you imagine Obama telling off a female American journalists like that and getting away with it? He'd be un-electable afterwards.

I don't know how other countries news programs are, but in the USA Islam is not portrayed 24/7 in a negative way unless you actively try to seek out the fringe conservative news channels or something; our politically-correct culture bends over backwards to accommodate even the kookiest religions; just look at how we somehow tolerate Scientology, and just look at Obama's steely resolve to never say "Islamic" next to "terrorist." In classrooms people are brainwashed into the "equality" myth, where you are not allowed to talk about how one religion might be more "right" than another. So Scientologists keep scamming away. The USA has a long history of religious tolerance and religious freedom of expression after all--it's in the Constitution as the First Amendment. First. There is definitely reporting of terrorist attacks, but guess what? Stop the attacks and the press coverage goes away, too.

If you want to see what 24/7 negative coverage really looks like, read the front page of presstv.com on literally ANY DAY OF ANY WEEK. That's one of Iran's state-sponsored news channels in case you didn't know. That's nonstop propaganda that never, ever misses a chance to criticize the USA on anything. You bet they had a field day about the Ferguson riots--all while suppressing reporting on Iran's poor treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, like the Bahá'í, Jews, Kurds, and women.

Some of your other points are more persuasive. Stick to those. By adding "the media made us do it," it tarnishes the rest of your post and veers towards the ridiculous "justification" for the Charlie Hebdo attacks. "You made Islam look bad in media so now we have to kill you and make Islam look even worse in media" is not a winning argument.

 

[Abwx]

I disagree.

As for the rest of your post, the farther back in history you have to go to dredge up facts, the weaker the argument because it implies you could not find anything more recent and relevant.

Invading illegaly iraq and killing hundreds thousands innocents (since the war was illegal) that had absolutely nothing to do with september 2001 events is very recent, it s just that you re so much filled with racism that you re considering that US extremisms and wrongdoings are done for the good of humanity...

This invasion destroyed a country and laid the ground to the armed groups you re talking about, you realize that thoses armed groups would had never existed if it wasnt for the US crime against Iraq.

Indeed Madeleine Albright said; prior to this invasion, that 500 000 dead children because of sanctions against Iraq was worth it...

As for you saying that you would prefer to live as a muslim in the US than as a christian in Arabia, do you even get that this Kingdom and your country are supporting extremists that fight the Syrian laic governement and that doing so you re supporting futures exactions against Syrian Christians..?.

 

[michal1980]

They aren't my heroes, does that mean I'm not a liberal?

Using liberal logic, one republican speaks for all.

So those guys represent all liberals.

 

[Abwx]

History was then...this is now.....

Now is palestinians killed by the israeli ultra fascist regime, because the zionists are fascists as proved by History, actualy this is the only remaining such nationalism from all europeans ultra nationalisms that came at the beginning of the 20th century, Zionism was the european jews racist nationalism the same way Italy got her fascism with Mussolini or Germany her nazism with Hitler, your fascist leader at the time was Herzl.

On a side note, not directed to you since you re too stupid to understand such thing, Italian fascism was a far right movement while Nazism had his roots on a socialist ideology, Hitler s party was "the German Workers Socialist Party", that say it all.

 

[blastingcap]

Invading illegaly iraq and killing hundreds thousands innocents (since the war was illegal) that had absolutely nothing to do with september 2001 events is very recent, it s just that you re so much filled with racism that you re considering that US extremisms and wrongdoings are done for the good of humanity...

This invasion destroyed a country and laid the ground to the armed groups you re talking about, you realize that thoses armed groups would had never existed if it wasnt for the US crime against Iraq.

Indeed Madeleine Albright said; prior to this invasion, that 500 000 dead children because of sanctions against Iraq was worth it...

As for you saying that you would prefer to live as a muslim in the US than as a christian in Arabia, do you even get that this Kingdom and your country are supporting extremists that fight the Syrian laic governement and that doing so you re supporting futures exactions against Syrian Christians..?.

Racism? Please tell me how I'm racist when I was making an observation about Islamic extremism, which spans multiple colors? I know you're desperate but please, you are trying to accuse other people of racism, of saying that kids of Muslims are evil, etc. but I did not say that at all and you know it. You apparently have a persecution complex where you think everyone is out to "get you" or something.

We were talking about religion as motive for terrorism. Iraq 2003 doesn't fit the bill; despite the paranoid people who think it was some sort of Christian Crusade, it wasn't. It was probably more about misinformation, oil, and Bush's idiotic notion that the people of Iraq would welcome democracy. And by the way the Kurds were grateful.

If you want to talk about Iraq's chaos you must talk about Al Qaeda terrorists actions as well. Yes those Islamic. Terrorists. Islamic terrorists. ISLAMIC terrorists. Sparking a sectarian war, with Maliki's reprisals continuing to fan the flames. If the rest of Iraq weren't so petty and sectarian, maybe they would have enjoyed Saddam's fall as much as the Kurds. (You do remember Saddam's brutal regime, right?)

Anyway the point is that we were talking about Islamic terrorists and you brought up something that was not a Crusade and which was made worse by, you guessed it, Islamic terrorists (AQ). The multitudes of Islamic terrorists can't say two sentences without yelling Allahu Akbar and wrapping themselves up in the Quran. I have never seen a jihadi video where the terrorists say they are fighting for equal rights for democracy, women's rights, education, etc. I have seen plenty of videos where they are fighting for sharia law, or talking about buying slave women, or beheading people. The Islamic terrorists do not want educated people, because educated people ask uncomfortable questions like pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in the Quran which is supposedly perfect. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-burns-8000-rare-books-030900856.html The Islamic terrorists do not want to replace dictators with democracy; they want to replace it with another dictatorship in the guise of theocracy. The irony is that they argue against "man made law" because they think the Quran is the literal word of God, etc. Yet a theocracy would have to be interpreted by man anyway, and theocracies have a poor track record of administering fair justice.

You bring up Syria. Once again, that is not a Crusade. Do you even get that MUSLIM countries are the primary sponsors of Syrian rebels? KSA and other Arab countries and Turkey have done a thousand times more than the US; US support was so pathetic that the few US-affiliated rebels were getting as few as the equivalent of 16 bullets per MONTH? The blame for Syrian brutality lies squarely with Assad and AQ/Daesh. http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582

 

[JEDIYoda]

Now is palestinians killed by the israeli ultra fascist regime, because the zionists are fascists as proved by History, actualy this is the only remaining such nationalism from all europeans ultra nationalisms that came at the beginning of the 20th century, Zionism was the european jews racist nationalism the same way Italy got her fascism with Mussolini or Germany her nazism with Hitler, your fascist leader at the time was Herzl.

On a side note, not directed to you since you re too stupid to understand such thing, Italian fascism was a far right movement while Nazism had his roots on a socialist ideology, Hitler s party was "the German Workers Socialist Party", that say it all.

More deflecting from your Muslim brothers.......deflecting again -- That was then, this is now......you seem incapable even at the lowest level of understanding that we are talking about now and no amount of deflection is going to change things!!

 

[Omar F1]

I'm not saying Muslims should know about Dabiq. It's kind of a weird trivia. I was just saying that it is generally accepted that if you understand an enemy., you have a better chance of defeating it. Victorian basically said he didn't know or care to know about Dabiq. I was saying that since he doesn't even care to even TRY to understand Daesh's perspective, that hurts Victorian's credibility.

Imho, anyone who has closely followed Daesh should know about Dabiq, for crying out loud it's the name of their "magazine"! I've known about Dabiq since last summer, as well as their detailed recordkeeping, etc. but I follow this news much more closely than probably most on this forum. I'm not even sure why, considering that I am not religious or really impacted that much personally.

But my coworker's husband is Syrian and most of his family is still there. And I was stuck at home for a large part of last year including Mosul's fall which surprised me enough that I started reading everything I could about what had happened and why. Since then, I've returned to work but still kept close track of Kobane/Ayn-al-Arab and Syrian news.

Here in Arab world, I concluded not far ago that ignorance is our main enemy.
As for Daesh, I for one, and many others would agree on, that I'm much more concerned to learn about who did create Daesh in the first place, who are financing them and supplying their weapons, why did the regional/west countries turn a blind eye at the early stages of their creation. Of course I'm trying to follow some mirage, and the truth might be never revealed.

Out of curiosity where are you living, Omar? From your name and "location" I am guessing Pakistan, Dagestan, or Afghanistan? Almost certainly not Iran.

Neither one of them. Actually I'm mistaken, as it should been east of Arab world. I'd tell you in another time.

Victorian Gay is one of the finest attackers on the forum.

Original Erl, is a great follower.

Hi BlastingCap.

Seems you got some unwanted attention.

-John

You claim that both Victoriangray & Original Erl are fine attackers, while you only came to post such personal attack to them

 

[Omar F1]

Dont pay attention to this fool, if you were to follow his logic you would pick the unworthy US citizens, like KKK members, and pretend that they are the most christianised people of the US with the rest agreeing even if not participating or supporting this sect...

You can see how he s acting with you, your word has no value since he pretend that some random criminals in Iraq or anywhere else are representative of what they are since they are muslims and that those criminals are born from muslim parents.

To talk the truth the 80% US citizen that supported an illegal war and the subsequent hundreds thousands innocent victims are actualy what he s talking about, that is violent people that do not bother killing innocents for supremacism purposes, it s just that they have an army of mercenaries to perform the crimes.

We're discussing some points here and there, it seems you've jumped into conclusions too early

To talk the truth the 80% US citizen that supported an illegal war and the subsequent hundreds thousands innocent victims are actually what he s talking about

While I won't be shy to acknowledge the US war crime in Iraq and it's responsibility for the current situation (actually I already did that in other post/another thread, as I remember), but currently another points are being discussed here.


Nobody in the whole world should deny or forget the crimes which had been perpetuated here in the region. But now the claim is that we're the leading nation in the world for terrorism, could we defend that or not?

 

[blastingcap]

Here in Arab world, I concluded not far ago that ignorance is our main enemy.
As for Daesh, I for one, and many others would agree on, that I'm much more concerned to learn about who did create Daesh in the first place, who are financing them and supplying their weapons, why did the regional/west countries turn a blind eye at the early stages of their creation. Of course I'm trying to follow some mirage, and the truth might be never revealed.

Neither one of them. Actually I'm mistaken, as it should been east of Arab world. I'd tell you in another time.

Ignorance is the tool of tyrants. Something to think about when discussing groups that want to limit children's and women's education, such as Daesh.

The following is my understanding which may be mistaken, if anyone wants to add more please do:

Thus when Assad first started killing his own people, other countries were wary of outright toppling regimes thanks the 2003 Iraq disaster, and later on Libya and Egypt. Unlike Libya, Syria had strong antiaircraft weapons and powerful friends: Russia and Iran. This made air attack a lot riskier, which was probably one of the reasons why Obama's "red line" didn't hold up even after it became clear Assad used chemical weapons.

So instead, as Assad's brutal crackdown grew, opposition powers apparently decided to arm and fund Syrian rebels instead.

Al Qaeda wanted in on it, and their affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Nusra Front) joined the opposition to Assad. Their aim was not necessarily to establish a caliphate but to overthrow a brutal secular-ish dictator.

Daesh's predecessor was Al Qaeda's Iraq affiliate; Daesh is just a branch off the Al-Qaeda tree that has gotten very large, very quickly. The origins of Al-Qaeda can be traced back to the Cold War (Afghan-Soviet War) when cynical governments threw money and arms at people willing to fight the Soviets.

AQ-in-Iraq (ISI, later ISIL, ISIS, and finally IS/Daesh) was heavily beaten down in Iraq from joint efforts by the Iraqi govt, US, and Sunni Awakening. The Syrian Civil War let them regroup in Syria and mutate into Daesh. Baghdadi made a power play, trying to merge Syria's Nusra Front with is own organization. He was partially successful; many stayed in Nusra Front. Their divorce led to armed confrontation in early 2014 throughout the spring and summer until the US bombings in Syria brought them to a truce.

Who helped AQ? Lots of people, directly or indirectly.

Various Gulf countries (KSA, Qatar, etc.) and/or rich citizens living in the Gulf have donated money and/or weapons to Syrian rebels.

Turkey helped, both actively as well as passively by letting jihadis fly to Turkey and then cross the border into Syria: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...-syria-weapons-civil-war-kessab-armenian.html Not only did Turkey help, but Erdogan even considered doing a false-flag attack to precede an official declaration of war on Syria: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/turkey-you...onversation-between-erdogan-officials-1442161

Obama was so cautious about how hard it was to distinguish between non-AQ rebels and AQ rebels that the CIA gave only a trickle of support so I doubt they were the major funders or armers of the rebels. 16 bullets per month?! http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582

Israel is quietly receiving injured Syrian rebels for treatment in Israeli hospitals. http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-medics-seen-treating-syrian-rebels-in-new-video/

Actually you know what, the list is so long that I am getting tired looking up sources one by one... you can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Support_for_the_opposition

As AQ turned into Daesh, I was paying attention. I remember telling my wife about a year ago that Iraq was in big trouble if they didn't take ISIL seriously, as ISIL was active in Iraq again, in a big way. This was several months before Mosul, and I was worried about the recession and whether US troops would have to go back and such.

Obama is a wishful thinker and promised Americans he'd get out of Iraq. When Iraq refused his terms for stationing troops, he didn't argue much. He left. It was too soon, though... Maliki was a corrupt, incompetent, vengeful leader, and the army was weak.

Mosul was the wakeup call but even then, Obama just leaned on Maliki hoping Maliki would change his ways.

Daesh got greedy for slave women, or perhaps they thought they could get Erbil before anyone would wake up, so their sneak attack on the Yezidis and Erbil nearly succeeded. In fact Daesh did capture Mosul Dam at one point, and for over a week they could have blown up the Dam and severely damaged Iraq's economy. I believe the claims that Mosul Dam could flood Baghdad with a tidal wave were exaggerated, but even if the flooding were more modest, it would have been a catastrophe.

At this point, you could tell who was serious about fighting Daesh and who wasn't. Iran had started providing arms to the Peshmerga and had been helping the Shiite militias, being friends with fellow Shiite Maliki. Obama finally gave up the pretense that the USA could stay out of it, and ordered intervention on behalf of the Yezidis and the KRG and to save Mosul Dam.

And Turkey? Turkey looked the other way... in fact Turkey even ignored the plight of Amerli's Turkmen who were besieged by Daesh in Iraq for weeks.

The GCC countries didn't help, either.

So when you say that the West/regional powers were slow to react to Daesh in the beginning, I think it is due to a combination of

a) wishful thinking (the West did not want to get involved in expensive wars again, especially while trying to crawl out of a recession.. and Obama in particularly really did not want to be involved in Iraq since he campaigned so much on getting the USA out of Iraq), and also because

b) many of the regional powers were indiscriminately giving money and arms to anyone who would fight Assad and didn't want to admit they made a mistake. Their hatred of Assad blinded them to how they were creating a monster that could bite the hand that feeds them. Turkey and the Gulf countries which were sponsoring AQ, the predecessor to Daesh, much more heavily than the CIA ever supported the FSA. The CIA was paranoid about weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and their support was tiny compared to what countries like Qatar were giving out.

So you live in... KRG? Chechnya? I was just curious and respect your privacy so of course you do not need to say.

 

[JumBie]

I'm glad you're shining a light on the plight of non-Muslims in many Muslim-majority countries.

Why don't YOU think about THAT?

I've heard of all sorts of excuses why Muslims are disproportionately represented among terrorists, but "the news media made us do it" is a new one, and something I find unpersuasive as well as ironic considering how non-male, non-Muslim people are treated in many Muslim-majority countries.

For instance, how many Christian Coptics commit terror acts even though they are oppressed a lot worse than Muslims in the USA? As in legalized oppression, not just media coverage?

I'd much rather be a Muslim in the USA than a non-Muslim or publicly-identified atheist in Saudi Arabia. Even in Turkey, it's frowned upon to be a publicly-known atheist, and that country is backsliding towards the past with a President who is an Islamist version of Putin who angrily decries anyone who "offends Islam." Literally.

http://www.todayszaman.com/national...ss-woman-erdogan-tells-journalist_354923.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...minister-tells-female-journalist-9656896.html

The guy keeps getting elected anyway, which tells you something about at least 50% of the voters in the country. Can you imagine Obama telling off a female American journalists like that and getting away with it? He'd be un-electable afterwards.

I don't know how other countries news programs are, but in the USA Islam is not portrayed 24/7 in a negative way unless you actively try to seek out the fringe conservative news channels or something; our politically-correct culture bends over backwards to accommodate even the kookiest religions; just look at how we somehow tolerate Scientology, and just look at Obama's steely resolve to never say "Islamic" next to "terrorist." In classrooms people are brainwashed into the "equality" myth, where you are not allowed to talk about how one religion might be more "right" than another. So Scientologists keep scamming away. The USA has a long history of religious tolerance and religious freedom of expression after all--it's in the Constitution as the First Amendment. First. There is definitely reporting of terrorist attacks, but guess what? Stop the attacks and the press coverage goes away, too.

If you want to see what 24/7 negative coverage really looks like, read the front page of presstv.com on literally ANY DAY OF ANY WEEK. That's one of Iran's state-sponsored news channels in case you didn't know. That's nonstop propaganda that never, ever misses a chance to criticize the USA on anything. You bet they had a field day about the Ferguson riots--all while suppressing reporting on Iran's poor treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, like the Bahá'í, Jews, Kurds, and women.

Some of your other points are more persuasive. Stick to those. By adding "the media made us do it," it tarnishes the rest of your post and veers towards the ridiculous "justification" for the Charlie Hebdo attacks. "You made Islam look bad in media so now we have to kill you and make Islam look even worse in media" is not a winning argument.

I completely understand the plight of non-Muslims in countries throughout the middle east. Its quite terrible and I feel immense sorrow for those that are persecuted based upon their beliefs and religious backgrounds. And while we may look at the Turkish prime ministers remarks as both repressive and repulsive we have to understand that their society as a whole is completely different than that of the United States, Canada or any "modern" society.

The way they behave, the way they convey themselves are all based on how they are raised and the environment that they live in. The majority of us base what we feel is right or wrong solely on what society has taught us. And the society that we live in is completely independent from those abroad. Its easy for us to criticize how someone else runs their country, or how they treat women, or how they punish criminals because we are raised a certain way, our morals and truths are ones that we have been brought up to believe. There is no universal truth, right and wrong is not something that is innate to human beings but something that is learned. Obama cursing out a reporter on television would be a complete shock to us, because as I mentioned before its not the norm of our society.

If you turn the news on at anytime during the day you will notice that terrorist attacks, and I want to stress the word "terrorist", are only used in conjunction with attacks by Muslims. The true definition of terrorism is: to use violence and threats to both intimidate and create fear, "especially" for political purposes. I wanted to highlight the word especially because it points to the fact that a political agenda is not a must have, but is something that is quite often seen as a motive. So instead of using the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" for all violent acts of crime, the media, or government, or both, have chosen to tie the word in only when those of Muslim faith are involved or when violent acts are committed in the name of Islam. A great example of this would be the Austin suicide attack on the IRS building by Andrew Joseph Stack III, his attack was political in nature yet they said it was not a case of terrorism but instead a criminal case. So while they do not need to specifically point or shine Muslims in a negative light they create this idea that all terrorist are Muslims, therefore all Muslims are terrorist. This is the belief that many people around the world are lead to believe, ignorance is more prevalent than you may think. Its reached a point to where Muslims are stereotyped as Terrorist, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard arrogant people crack jokes or make fun of Muslims around them.

As for media coverage in other countries, is it not fair for them to shine a negative light on the US? During the Iraq war and both the Libyan and Egyptian uprising the US sparred no second to criticize the politics of each country. Heck, the media did a great job of making the whole world hate Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. They clearly don't approve of or appreciate the interference that the west has been causing since the invasion of Iraq. You would expect their media to be filled with hatred.

I am not saying that the media is the reason for acts of violence being committed in the name of Islam. I am not saying anyone is justified in committing murder just because the media shined a negative light on them. Anyone and everyone that hurts someone in the name of a god, jealously, fun, or for any other reason, is responsible for the crime committed. Its clear however that those who commit these crimes in the name of Islam are easily pushed over the edge by the negativity that is portrayed. You poke a lion long enough eventually its going to bite you.

Lets be honest, all three of the Abrahamic religions support violence and war. You have to give the Imams and general public the benefit of the doubt when they tell you that they condemn any and all acts of violence in the name of Allah. Just like we give Christians and Jews the benefit of the doubt when they condemn people committing acts of violence in their name.

 

[michal1980]

religion of peace sentences a man to death for denouncing his faith.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ty-to-man-who-renounced-his-Muslim-faith.html

And this isn't in some completely ass backwards county. Its in supposedly modern S.A. And the man had a trail, and it was a high Muslim court that handed down the sentence.


But libs, feel free to continue on the propaganda that islam is a religion of peace and just misunderstood. I'll wont hold my breath waiting for them to reform themselves.

 

[raildogg]

Question please:

Is religion such a casual thing that people become it just by being born into it? Also, is it so easy to "quit" your religion by simply tearing up a Holy Book?

The vast majority of people belong to a certain organized religion because they were born into it. Thus, they claim to be a member of that religion whether or not they actually follow anything of it at all.

The so-called Muslims that are so popular nowadays were born into their religion. We have no way of knowing if they are following it or not. They claim that they are but we don't know. So why are we always attacking the religion rather than the problem - human beings? It's humans that are hypocrites, not the actual religion.

Others supposedly follow their religion but twist it to suit their agenda. Again, not the fault of the religion.

The Saudis that are supposedly going to kill that man for denouncing his religion - are they actually following their religion? They like to point fingers at others for not following theirs, but are they?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Question please:

Is religion such a casual thing that people become it just by being born into it? Also, is it so easy to "quit" your religion by simply tearing up a Holy Book?

The vast majority of people belong to a certain organized religion because they were born into it. Thus, they claim to be a member of that religion whether or not they actually follow anything of it at all.

The so-called Muslims that are so popular nowadays were born into their religion. We have no way of knowing if they are following it or not. They claim that they are but we don't know. So why are we always attacking the religion rather than the problem - human beings? It's humans that are hypocrites, not the actual religion.

Others supposedly follow their religion but twist it to suit their agenda. Again, not the fault of the religion.

The Saudis that are supposedly going to kill that man for denouncing his religion - are they actually following their religion? They like to point fingers at others for not following theirs, but are they?

start a new thread??

On second thought....your questions actually don`t mean a thing.
You are trying to define what is truly is or is no Muslim based on your thinking.

My belief is even id they are non practicing Muslims they take and choose to call themselves Muslim! That`s good enough for me.....
After all who am I to judge if they are practicing their religion??

 

[blastingcap]

snip

First, I agree that what is or is not terror can vary. I also find it ironic that the USA was founded by insurgents against the English crown.

However, I don't think that the "T" word gets slapped onto only Muslim attacks.

Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting and how it was classified as workplace violence? Only a minority of people called it a terrorist attack.

Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing and how it was labeled domestic terrorism?

More to the point, how else are you supposed to describe an attack where the perpetrators specifically justify their behavior on Islam?

Remember how the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attack specifically said it was revenge over what they considered insulting drawings of the Prophet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Motive If that was not a case of terrorism then what was it?

You can argue that they "weren't Muslims" but that's a cop-out. They were self-identified Muslims who specifically tied Islam to their actions. Regardless of whether their interpretation of Islam was accurate or not, THEY certainly thought they were right. THEY thought they were Muslims. I have no problem labeling the Charlie Hebdo incident--or any of other incidents where the perpetrators were self-identified Muslims who claimed justification based on Islam--as Islamic terrorism.

If a guy kills someone for money and happens to be Muslim, that is not a terror attack in my mind, and it's not Islamic terrorism either (duh).

If a guy kills someone to try to intimidate, and is Muslim and claims to have done the act for Islam, then unless there are other factors like mental illness, I would classify it as Islamic terrorism.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

I agree all Abrahamic religions are violent and among my least-favorite religions. If I could magically get rid of all religions in the world, I would. Religion is not necessary for leading a moral life. Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you. It's not that hard to follow and requires no scare stories about everlasting fire.

 

[raildogg]

start a new thread??

On second thought....your questions actually don`t mean a thing.
You are trying to define what is truly is or is no Muslim based on your thinking.

My belief is even id they are non practicing Muslims they take and choose to call themselves Muslim! That`s good enough for me.....
After all who am I to judge if they are practicing their religion??

So religion has no real meaning other than a label you put on someone (or they put on themselves)?

I'm not trying to define anything. Simply asking if religion is a casual thing. Apparently, from your reply, it is. I'm not saying its a bad thing or a good thing. It is what it is.

No, you should not judge someone but you should also be careful when you say bad words about a religion without understanding the whole thing. When you call someone a Muslim, maybe they just happen to be born a Muslim and are just going with the program rather than truly following their religion. My question is, whether they are actually following their religion or simply a person who happened to be born into the religion.

We are too eager to denounce, vilify and drag each other through the mud without comprehending the whole situation. We sarcastically call other people's organized religions "Religion of Peace" while looking up stories to strengthen our opinions. This is not how we're going to live in peace in this world. Not by mocking other people.

The enemy is most often not the person you think he is. But in our minds, we have pictures of our enemies. And we live our lives with these pictures.

 

[JumBie]

snip

Can't argue with anything there, well said.

 

[schmuckley]

Religion of Peace at it again
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/lahore-churches-hit-deadly-bomb-attacks-150315074103093.html

"In the tense aftermath of the bombings, angry mobs burned to death one person they believed was involved in the attack and tried to lynch another, said Haider Ashraf, deputy inspector general for Lahore.

Local television footage showed an angry crowd beating a person they thought was connected to the attack, while others attacked buses in the city."

Like I said,people are tired of this crap.

 

[cabri]

Taliban splinter group;