First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Why is the ISIL/IS not recognized as a state? Why do we call them Terrorists?
Posted 11/9/14 , edited 11/9/14
No offense, but the prophet of Islam did use quite a bit of force to get his religion established in the first place. Not sure about the other religions.


P.S. Would Nazis be called terrorist?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/9/14 , edited 11/9/14

KurisuSensei wrote:




Do you live in Europe? Oh, it appears you do. Your society is based upon Christianity.

You started off with wonderful gems like "mohammed went around killing people", so I don't think I need to educate you. You need to educate you. Islam is no worse than any other religion.


Even if the european countries have been primarily christian for the last 1000 years, it is not at all a dominant belief system in Scandinavia anymore. Scandinavia is highly irreligious, and most people here see christians' religious beliefs as being nothing but gullible, nonsensical, ignorant and superstitious.
Ergo, christianity is not the norm.

And I am not the one who started off with the whole "mohammed went around killing people". That was MysticGon. I just said I didn't think he was wrong, because he isn't. It's documented in the Hadith.
You can say that islam is no worse than any other religion, but if you want me to believe that, then you're going to have to present some arguments in favor of your case.
7253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/9/14 , edited 11/9/14
ISIS can never establish a real state, it would be a religious caliphate, governed by religious leaders chewing way too much khat.. Islamic State In Syria and Islamic State in the Levant are both oxymorons. The sad thing is that religious groups like them have destroyed Syria's hospital system and school system, destroyed things that the Syrian state built...

No major power supports ISIS in the proxy war anymore ever since their bestial beheading-habits became known worldwide and also because they were stupid enough to proclaim their own caliphate, which goes against the goal of establishing a US friendly government. But this hasn't stopped the the US government from supporting heart eating FSA 'rebels' or other mentally ill groups with aid...

The US government don't have any legitimate, honourable or justified reason to wage war in the Middle East. Their initial reason for bombing targets in Iraq and invading Syria is that ISIS is a dangerous group and that's it.. That's all they have, since Assad already did give away the Sarin gas. But now Obama will strike ISIS.. "wherever they exist, including Syria". I guess by backing terrorists and agreeing in letting Saudi Arabia train more 'soldiers' they may eventually get around to their goal of toppling Assad and installing a new US-Saudi dependent government.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/10/14

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

P.S. Would Nazis be called terrorist?


Are Nazis terrorists? Not inherently. They could just be racist authoritarians who don't actually terrorize anyone. Folks like that can be left alone as long as they continue to avoid inciting people to commit violence or committing violence themselves. There's nothing illegal about being a racist authoritarian in and of itself, and there really ought not be. Did/do Nazi organizations engage in terrorist activity or illegal discrimination? Oh, yeah. There are some sick people out there. And when they do such things society justifiably puts a boot up their collective backsides.
20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 11/13/14
maybe mass beheading and the radical hate towards anyone not muslim has something to do with it.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/14/14
I've seen it proposed that some of the people (especially young people) who are running off to fight for this organization are really just responding to anti-Muslim sentiments and are simply expressing dissatisfaction with the establishment. That this is really the fault of anti-Muslim sentiments. Maybe there's a nugget of truth in there, but it's as damned foolish a solution to that problem as someone could possibly come up with, and partly because it doesn't actually solve the root problem at all. In fact, it exacerbates that problem by casting Muslims as militant psychopaths.

I'm especially surprised at the women and girls who run off to support this organization. It already has a terrible record for its treatment of women and girls, so they're practically hopping up and down crying out "Oh! Oh! Me! Me! Me! I want to be a sex slave! I want to be beaten!" It's stupid.
5906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / 38.2500° N, 85.76...
Offline
Posted 11/19/14
Why do most countries reject the Islamic State as a State? Because They behead people who do not worship their God

Why do we label them terrorists? So we can kill them, use chemical weapons against them dehumanize and people think we are doing good in the world. and they cause what we call terror.

Does the US have a justified reason for involvement? As Biggest Baddest Wolf in the world we make the rules so whatever we decide goes.

They didn't have a reason to be in Iraq in the first place. Yes we did Our companies made money and stopped Sadam from starting selling Oil with Euros. Gaddafi wanted to do same thing with Africa make gold backed transafrica currency to trade oil with so he had to go also.

People have been predicting a war with Syria for quite a while.
Although Syria had tried to keep relations healthy with the US.
What ended up happening was a revolution that conveniently placed an enemy in power. US is keeping Assad on ice if they wanted him gone he would have been. once we decide we will ether put new government or just keep him there.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/23/14

morechunch wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


morechunch wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Why do we call them terrorists. Because they go around killing people, much like Mohammed did... so it's in line with their religion. People like that are better off killed.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm sorry, that just came out of me.


Is what he's saying wrong?


It is an extremely contradictory point. What was basically said is "killing is wrong, we should kill them. Also, religion."

In the end, they are statements loosely equating the religion of Islam to killing and that people deserve to die because of it.

This opinion is very funny to me. Can you not see the inherent contradictions? Can you not feel the total emptiness, the real void created by these statements?

Yes, I believe it is wrong.


Beg pardon? It's human nature. Fight fire with fire. Negotiating with people with that fundamental view will result in only your death, at their hands. It's a weird chicken and egg dilemma I know, but you are more likely to negotiate your way out of death with players from the civilized world. It's harsh but true.

But hey that's quite bold of you, putting words in my mouth.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/23/14 , edited 11/23/14

KurisuSensei wrote:

What he's doing is talking out of his anus. He has no idea about Islam.




I know about the Conquests, which is no better than Christian Crusades. Only difference in my eyes is a founder plays a role in one of those. That's not to damn a whole religion as being warmongers, but if their founder did it, ISIL are not wrong in their eyes... If their founder was a pacifist then that would lend more wind to the sails of your argument.

That said, since their belief is fundamental it would be hard to stop the bloodshed... even if you do nothing to fight back. Since their's is a Holy War and all that...
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/25/14 , edited 11/25/14

MysticGon wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


morechunch wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Why do we call them terrorists. Because they go around killing people, much like Mohammed did... so it's in line with their religion. People like that are better off killed.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm sorry, that just came out of me.


Is what he's saying wrong?


It is an extremely contradictory point. What was basically said is "killing is wrong, we should kill them. Also, religion."

In the end, they are statements loosely equating the religion of Islam to killing and that people deserve to die because of it.

This opinion is very funny to me. Can you not see the inherent contradictions? Can you not feel the total emptiness, the real void created by these statements?

Yes, I believe it is wrong.


Beg pardon? It's human nature. Fight fire with fire. Negotiating with people with that fundamental view will result in only your death, at their hands. It's a weird chicken and egg dilemma I know, but you are more likely to negotiate your way out of death with players from the civilized world. It's harsh but true.

But hey that's quite bold of you, putting words in my mouth.


I sincerely apologize for causing trouble. I didn't realize using quotations for my own interpretation of your words might put them in your mouth. I will forever stop using quotes when I am not quoting somebody directly. That was unfair play, and I'm sorry.

But I agree on your point of human nature. Fight fire with fire indeed.

The problem is, you're mixing up a broad religion with a singular culture. These people have been under military patrol for generations. The victims are followers of Mohammed moreso than followers of any other religious figure. Look at Ireland's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Religion is a tool for peace or war. Culture decides the use. Firing more bullets and arming militants is no way to shift a culture towards peace, no matter the religion.

I was only laughing because your intended action and justification had no correlation whatsoever. I know there's some right-from-wrong dial in your head that I totally agree with.

But there's some reasoning dial that I don't think you're paying enough attention to.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/25/14 , edited 11/25/14

morechunch wrote:



I sincerely apologize for using quotations for my own interpretation of your words. Fight fire with fire indeed.

But the problem is, you're mixing up a broad religion with a singular culture. These people have been under military patrol for generations. The victims are followers of Mohammed moreso than followers of any other religious figure. Look at Ireland's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Religion is a tool for peace or war. Culture decides the use. Firing more bullets and arming militants is no way to shift a culture towards peace, no matter the religion.

I was only laughing because your actions and your justification had no correlation whatsoever.


I'm not trying to overgeneralize. In regards to ISIL, and ISIL alone and knowing the actions of their religion's founder it's my conclusion that you won't be able to negotiate with them. Much like Boco Haraam, al Shabaad and al Queda (excuse the spelling), they are extreme sects of religious fundamentalists with their own set of laws and examples to live by. They've racked up huge body counts and don't appear to want to stop. I would be in favor of killing people like that. You can interpret that how ever you want, but at least NATO has a slightly more realistic endgame than ISIL.


Edit: As far as your edits go... Yeah I don't think arming a ragtag group of militiamen with weapons is smart. I think sending the SEALS, SAS, French Foreign Legion is...
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/25/14 , edited 11/25/14

MysticGon wrote:


morechunch wrote:



I sincerely apologize for using quotations for my own interpretation of your words. Fight fire with fire indeed.

But the problem is, you're mixing up a broad religion with a singular culture. These people have been under military patrol for generations. The victims are followers of Mohammed moreso than followers of any other religious figure. Look at Ireland's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Religion is a tool for peace or war. Culture decides the use. Firing more bullets and arming militants is no way to shift a culture towards peace, no matter the religion.

I was only laughing because your actions and your justification had no correlation whatsoever.


I'm not trying to overgeneralize. In regards to ISIL, and ISIL alone and knowing the actions of their religion's founder it's my conclusion that you won't be able to negotiate with them. Much like Boco Haraam, al Shabaad and al Queda (excuse the spelling), they are extreme sects of religious fundamentalists with their own set of laws and examples to live by. They've racked up huge body counts and don't appear to want to stop. I would be in favor of killing people like that. You can interpret that how ever you want, but at least NATO has a slightly more realistic endgame than ISIL.


Edit: As far as your edits go... Yeah I don't think arming a ragtag group of militiamen with weapons is smart. I think sending the SEALS, SAS, French Foreign Legion is...


Haha, good. As long as we're clear that religion is playing into the agenda as opposed to the other way around, we can reconcile. It's dangerous to confuse religion and morality. I am not good with politics or foreign affairs, or religion for that matter, so it's especially important to me that the intentions behind statements like the original quote are clearly laid out.

Being said, how far have the countries we've tried to help come under the tutelage of the SEALS? Edited for clarity: Under the tutelage of the SEALS, how far have these countries really come? If you want to talk military tactics, the militants are certainly pounding the non-militants into the ground. Edited for clarity : the people who live there grow up knowing that the groups with the arms and the experience get to run the show until somebody else rises up where the honchos don't have full control.
24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/26/14

morechunch wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


morechunch wrote:



I sincerely apologize for using quotations for my own interpretation of your words. Fight fire with fire indeed.

But the problem is, you're mixing up a broad religion with a singular culture. These people have been under military patrol for generations. The victims are followers of Mohammed moreso than followers of any other religious figure. Look at Ireland's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Religion is a tool for peace or war. Culture decides the use. Firing more bullets and arming militants is no way to shift a culture towards peace, no matter the religion.

I was only laughing because your actions and your justification had no correlation whatsoever.


I'm not trying to overgeneralize. In regards to ISIL, and ISIL alone and knowing the actions of their religion's founder it's my conclusion that you won't be able to negotiate with them. Much like Boco Haraam, al Shabaad and al Queda (excuse the spelling), they are extreme sects of religious fundamentalists with their own set of laws and examples to live by. They've racked up huge body counts and don't appear to want to stop. I would be in favor of killing people like that. You can interpret that how ever you want, but at least NATO has a slightly more realistic endgame than ISIL.


Edit: As far as your edits go... Yeah I don't think arming a ragtag group of militiamen with weapons is smart. I think sending the SEALS, SAS, French Foreign Legion is...


Haha, good. As long as we're clear that religion is playing into the agenda as opposed to the other way around, we can reconcile. It's dangerous to confuse religion and morality. I am not good with politics or foreign affairs, or religion for that matter, so it's especially important to me that the intentions behind statements like the original quote are clearly laid out.

Being said, how far have the countries we've tried to help come under the tutelage of the SEALS? Edited for clarity: Under the tutelage of the SEALS, how far have these countries really come? If you want to talk military tactics, the militants are certainly pounding the non-militants into the ground. Edited for clarity : the people who live there grow up knowing that the groups with the arms and the experience get to run the show until somebody else rises up where the honchos don't have full control.


Right, we wouldn't want to rush to judgement and start labeling people's statements, now would we?

I still think ISIL uses Mohammed's Conquests to vindicate themselves and motivate more people to join their cause.

As far as what NATO should do? I'm not talking about talking about establishing any form of government. NATO tried that. I'm talking about a simple eradication ala what S.W.A.T or A.T.F do in the U.S. when something gets too out of control. A simple and quiet show of force, where the only press the operation gets is the stats on murders and kidnappings falling in which ever region those groups call home. Be discreet in the slaughter, lest ISIL take the news of an operation to fuel more radicals into thinking this is a 'war'. I think of them as a criminal organization that deserve a good killing, not a military force worthy of a war. Because that is all they want.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/14

MysticGon wrote:


morechunch wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


morechunch wrote:



I sincerely apologize for using quotations for my own interpretation of your words. Fight fire with fire indeed.

But the problem is, you're mixing up a broad religion with a singular culture. These people have been under military patrol for generations. The victims are followers of Mohammed moreso than followers of any other religious figure. Look at Ireland's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Religion is a tool for peace or war. Culture decides the use. Firing more bullets and arming militants is no way to shift a culture towards peace, no matter the religion.

I was only laughing because your actions and your justification had no correlation whatsoever.


I'm not trying to overgeneralize. In regards to ISIL, and ISIL alone and knowing the actions of their religion's founder it's my conclusion that you won't be able to negotiate with them. Much like Boco Haraam, al Shabaad and al Queda (excuse the spelling), they are extreme sects of religious fundamentalists with their own set of laws and examples to live by. They've racked up huge body counts and don't appear to want to stop. I would be in favor of killing people like that. You can interpret that how ever you want, but at least NATO has a slightly more realistic endgame than ISIL.


Edit: As far as your edits go... Yeah I don't think arming a ragtag group of militiamen with weapons is smart. I think sending the SEALS, SAS, French Foreign Legion is...


Haha, good. As long as we're clear that religion is playing into the agenda as opposed to the other way around, we can reconcile. It's dangerous to confuse religion and morality. I am not good with politics or foreign affairs, or religion for that matter, so it's especially important to me that the intentions behind statements like the original quote are clearly laid out.

Being said, how far have the countries we've tried to help come under the tutelage of the SEALS? Edited for clarity: Under the tutelage of the SEALS, how far have these countries really come? If you want to talk military tactics, the militants are certainly pounding the non-militants into the ground. Edited for clarity : the people who live there grow up knowing that the groups with the arms and the experience get to run the show until somebody else rises up where the honchos don't have full control.


Right, we wouldn't want to rush to judgement and start labeling people's statements, now would we?

I still think ISIL uses Mohammed's Conquests to vindicate themselves and motivate more people to join their cause.

As far as what NATO should do? I'm not talking about talking about establishing any form of government. NATO tried that. I'm talking about a simple eradication ala what S.W.A.T or A.T.F do in the U.S. when something gets too out of control. A simple and quiet show of force, where the only press the operation gets is the stats on murders and kidnappings falling in which ever region those groups call home. Be discreet in the slaughter, lest ISIL take the news of an operation to fuel more radicals into thinking this is a 'war'. I think of them as a criminal organization that deserve a good killing, not a military force worthy of a war. Because that is all they want.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/us/georgia-toddler-stun-grenade-no-indictment/

6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/14 , edited 11/28/14
Shifting, what about Mexico? Drug cartels are corrupting the government of a shared border, but it makes more sense to fight in the middle east? If America was actually so concerned as its citizens claim to be about border security and global civil liberty, we wouldn't be looking to the middle east first.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.