Jens wrote:jones wrote:But of course, let's just look at religion and blame that for IS killing 127 people in France. Even if the same IS killed more than 100,000 Muslims in the Middle East.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
So when Breivik went on a killing spree in Norway should we blame Norwegian citizens for it considering that a lunatic nationalist did it because he thought he was protecting his country?
yuv wrote:Meatwad wrote:Weird how this shit works. Democracy in the middle east ... what a horrible joke that is.
Democracy is a wider concept than just vote every 4 years or so. Voting is a mechanism that presupposes far deeper layers regarding human existence, which would in turn enable thinking of "rule of the people". Just popping up with an ideal in impossible circumstances for it to be applied says not a lot about the ideal itself - this would be basically true of any ideal. Equality or justice. eg.
The mess in such torn areas as Syria or Iraq is a consequence of impossible circumstances on so many levels, it is actually hard to separate even for the sake of analysis. But that doesn't change the fact that what we can or should choose in the end is shaped, at least at the core, by ideals - and then we need to try to see what happens to them when thrown into the pot of reality.
The tragedy of trying to follow the decent path in an all-choices-are-tragic situations is not unique, unfortunately. It is applying to it the tag "right choice" that is a bit sickening, as it effectively forces you to choose something horribly wrong (only less wrong than the alternative in the circumstances). Working upwards in the negative part of some ideal seems bleak, but there must be some meaning of the word "right" which would be proper or sensible when applied to choosing -250 over -350 (say in moral terms, or assessing moral outcomes).
It's who they are voting for that's the problem. Theocracies suck. Egypt had their revolution and Mubarak got ousted and then the Muslim Brotherhood won the election. The best thing that happened to Egypt in recent times was something anti-democratic: the military saying fuck this and booting the MB/Morsi a year later. I'd rather an Egyptian situation all over the middle east than Iraq and Libya.
You should read this instead. Establishes quite firmly that ISIS is indeed one version of Islam:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Meatwad wrote:It's who they are voting for that's the problem. Theocracies suck. Egypt had their revolution and Mubarak got ousted and then the Muslim Brotherhood won the election. The best thing that happened to Egypt in recent times was something anti-democratic: the military saying fuck this and booting the MB/Morsi a year later. I'd rather an Egyptian situation all over the middle east than Iraq and Libya.
The military "saying fuck this" meticulously planned to and killed more than 1,000 demonstrators when they ousted Mursi in a single day, you might want to rethink your wording here mate.
This is the exact arrogance that leads to situations like the one we have at the moment. How is this different to what the US did in Chile or Nicaragua when they elected governments the West didn't like (acts that have been endorsed when they happened and less so now)? Or the civil war in the Ukraine which was triggered because the EU couldn't keep their mouth shut? Who are we to decide what's good for Egypt anyway? When demonstrators protested against the dictator Mubarek, who was our ally in the West you found people congratulating the Egyptians for making use of the democracy we so mercifully bestowed on them, yet when they elect in Mursi the only man who was not willing to be a marionette to the West we tell them they are not ready for democracy and instead install the next dictator. Hypocrisy doesn't even come close to describe this attitude.
jones wrote:Meatwad wrote:It's who they are voting for that's the problem. Theocracies suck. Egypt had their revolution and Mubarak got ousted and then the Muslim Brotherhood won the election. The best thing that happened to Egypt in recent times was something anti-democratic: the military saying fuck this and booting the MB/Morsi a year later. I'd rather an Egyptian situation all over the middle east than Iraq and Libya.
The military "saying fuck this" meticulously planned to and killed more than 1,000 demonstrators when they ousted Mursi in a single day, you might want to rethink your wording here mate.
This is the exact arrogance that leads to situations like the one we have at the moment. How is this different to what the US did in Chile or Nicaragua when they elected governments the West didn't like (acts that have been endorsed when they happened and less so now)? Or the civil war in the Ukraine which was triggered because the EU couldn't keep their mouth shut? Who are we to decide what's good for Egypt anyway? When demonstrators protested against the dictator Mubarek, who was our ally in the West you found people congratulating the Egyptians for making use of the democracy we so mercifully bestowed on them, yet when they elect in Mursi the only man who was not willing to be a marionette to the West we tell them they are not ready for democracy and instead install the next dictator. Hypocrisy doesn't even come close to describe this attitude.
Edit:
Hypocrisy? It's self interest. The West has no interest in another crazy theocracy forming in the Middle East. Sisi's Egypt is a de facto ally of the US and the West. They help keep the religious nut jobs under control.
You're talking about as-Sisi, not Mursi.
And obviously it's short sighted self interest, but the hypocrisy comes in when you start preaching about enlightened Western values we allegedly try to export to them. At the same time, see Paris 11/13 to have an idea what happens if you ostracize a huge part of the world population. The West could establish peace in the Middle East (even if it would be a Herculean task) and still keep its position as the leader of the world, instead our governments are more interested in being the apex predator and keeping everyone else in a state of permanent war/shock.
jones wrote:You're talking about as-Sisi, not Mursi.
And obviously it's short sighted self interest, but the hypocrisy comes in when you start preaching about enlightened Western values we allegedly try to export to them. At the same time, see Paris 11/13 to have an idea what happens if you ostracize a huge part of the world population. The West could establish peace in the Middle East (even if it would be a Herculean task) and still keep its position as the leader of the world, instead our governments are more interested in being the apex predator and keeping everyone else in a state of permanent war/shock.
Are you seriously blaming terrorism on the West here?
This is just the beginning of things to come really. As Assad inevitably claws his way back, these guys will be returning to their countries in Europe and North Africa. The West and their allies helped create them, now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Meatwad wrote:I'd rather an Egyptian situation all over the middle east than Iraq and Libya.
I somehow managed to overlook this. Do you realise that the situation in Iraq and (Eastern) Libya is only as bad as it is because of anti-democratic, Western-led intervention? Gaddafi was a dictator, but Libya had one of the highest standards of living in all of Africa, housing, education, social welfare and health services were all significantly higher than anywhere else in the region. I've been there some ten years ago and the services provided were on another level compared to my own home country. Great idea to bomb them into a civil war because of their dictator, I'm sure every Libyan out there is grateful for removing him from power.
Kel Varnsen wrote:You should read this instead. Establishes quite firmly that ISIS is indeed one version of Islam:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
isis is to islam what the ku klux klan is to christianity. a very tiny minority distorting and interpreting a text to suit their repugnant, morally bankrupt policies.
Kel Varnsen wrote:jones wrote:You're talking about as-Sisi, not Mursi.
And obviously it's short sighted self interest, but the hypocrisy comes in when you start preaching about enlightened Western values we allegedly try to export to them. At the same time, see Paris 11/13 to have an idea what happens if you ostracize a huge part of the world population. The West could establish peace in the Middle East (even if it would be a Herculean task) and still keep its position as the leader of the world, instead our governments are more interested in being the apex predator and keeping everyone else in a state of permanent war/shock.
Are you seriously blaming terrorism on the West here?
I don't know where you read that but sure, whatever. I said a couple of times I won't respond to you in this thread until you reply to my question a few weeks back but I have to hand it to you, you know how to lure me into discussions.
mdgoonah41 wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:You should read this instead. Establishes quite firmly that ISIS is indeed one version of Islam:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
isis is to islam what the ku klux klan is to christianity. a very tiny minority distorting and interpreting a text to suit their repugnant, morally bankrupt policies.
Read the article. It explains in detail how ISIS is built on a very consistent and literal interpretation of Islamic texts. They are not distorting it, as you seem to think.
He's right MD, trust the Atlantic on issues of Islam and not the 1.5bn+ Muslims on this planet, hundreds of thousands of Islamic scholars and Imams or even the couple posters on this board who have actually read the book and deal with the faith on a day to day basis. No, the Atlantic should be your source of wisdom.
the atlantic generally produces decent work, but there are a lot of holes in that article. i read it when it was originally published back in march.
wonder why the drone papers didn't evoke similar responses all around.
It's just sad all around.
Kel Varnsen wrote:A large part (at least 20%) of Islam/muslims is already radicalised.
Why would you spout such absolute nonsense without the slighest evidence ffs.
It's fair to say 99% of such attacks in the history of terrorism is related to Islamic/Muslim. The other 1% are reserved for people with mental illness.
But it is completely unfair to say this is all the muslims fault because in Muslim's beliefs killing innocent citizens is COMPLETELY wrong. These people are being radicalised and can be no longer be treated as muslims even though they think they are. It's just some fucked up people out there spreading these wrong education and it's unfortunate that these people has breeded rapidly.
It's just fucking frustrating that a group of people with fucked up beliefs twisted their Allah's teaching and now any Muslims who have any sort of vulnerability in their mental state can be easily radicalised. I have personally read stories about some people who looked completely normal in the day but secretly building up their attacks in the dark even in my country which is probably one of the safest in the world. It's not their fault they are brainwashed. It's hard to just comprehend why people can't simply get along with each other and live peacefully.
Of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world how many would truly be considered radical? 100,000 seems far too high, and even that is a mere .006% of all muslims.
ISIS probably have about 20k on hand in Syria, but a few hundreds more planted in other countries. That is already an excessive estimation mind you.
The problem is the way they carry out attacks. They use one life to sacrifice many others to create "news", spread fear into everyone. Their main aim is to radicalise more muslims in other countries to join them. They hope Westerners turn onto them and view them as dangerous. When these muslims have no places to run, ISIS will gain more troops.
the bigger problem is that you can cut the head off the snake, but it will still re-grow. you can take out the current ISIS leadership, but those under them will step up.
the true weapon to fight terrorism, not just ISIS, is hope. when you give people hope and make them feel like they have choices, most of them will choose a life that doesn't involve the destruction of society.
