Oh imma teach you how to stunt

Ok, I'll say this in very small words so hopefully I dont lose too many of you

Judaism and christianity have had multiple revisions to their scripture and practice over the course of millennia

Islam allows for no alteration or deviation from the scripture or example of the prophet (pbuh)

Right?

So the draw of Isis for people is they can say we are the only real Muslims. Who are practicing as God intended, as set down by God in the Quran and by the prophet. So if you are Muslim, you are bound to do what we doing hence

So the only way to combat that...is for "moderate" or "progressive" Muslims to deconstruct the religion...and find a way to update the practice of the faith

Like Jesus and the new testament did, like martin Luther and the protestants did etc

Dont set me on fire, bro

>Oh imma teach you how to stunt
>
>Ok, I'll say this in very small words so hopefully I dont lose
>too many of you
>
>Judaism and christianity have had multiple revisions to their
>scripture and practice over the course of millennia
>
>Islam allows for no alteration or deviation from the scripture
>or example of the prophet (pbuh)
>
>Right?
>
>So the draw of Isis for people is they can say we are the only
>real Muslims. Who are practicing as God intended, as set down
>by God in the Quran and by the prophet. So if you are Muslim,
>you are bound to do what we doing hence
>
>So the only way to combat that...is for "moderate" or
>"progressive" Muslims to deconstruct the religion...and find a
>way to update the practice of the faith
>
>Like Jesus and the new testament did, like martin Luther and
>the protestants did etc
>
>Dont set me on fire, bro
>
>



http://i.imgur.com/4JrCDqt.gif

-------------------
I wanna go to where the martyrs went
the brown figures on the walls of my apart-a-ment...

>
In fact Catholicism actively tried to counter the 'evils' of enlightenment.
And a whole religion should change to counter deviant beliefs of a minority?
This narrative of moderates should blah blah blah puts us in the position of either denouncing Islam or being called ignorant of our religion by non-Muslims.
Oh imma teach you how to stunt
>
>Ok, I'll say this in very small words so hopefully I dont lose
>too many of you
>
>Judaism and christianity have had multiple revisions to their
>scripture and practice over the course of millennia
>
>Islam allows for no alteration or deviation from the scripture
>or example of the prophet (pbuh)
>
>Right?
>
>So the draw of Isis for people is they can say we are the only
>real Muslims. Who are practicing as God intended, as set down
>by God in the Quran and by the prophet. So if you are Muslim,
>you are bound to do what we doing hence
>
>So the only way to combat that...is for "moderate" or
>"progressive" Muslims to deconstruct the religion...and find a
>way to update the practice of the faith
>
>Like Jesus and the new testament did, like martin Luther and
>the protestants did etc
>
>Dont set me on fire, bro
>
>

http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
instagram:@3rdworldview
Blessed be the Lord /who believe any mess they read up on the message board

Isis can claim they are *the* real Muslims, the only ones totally adhering to every shred of the hadith and Quran, which is considered inviolate and may not be altered changed or fucked around with in any way.

And can therefore say to other Muslims, if you are Muslim...you should join our caliphate, join us in jihad as it clearly says we must do in the Quran etc etc

And they have millennia of tradition and dogma saying Islam is pinned to this, can not change can not deviate etc so logically if they are punctilliously following every dotted I and crossed t well...then do they not have a point? Are they not right?

The only way to effectively fight that is for other Muslims to say we reject this literalist element, yes the religion has many wonderful aspects to it but we dont want to...oh I dunno...make our women were burqas for example. Hell I dunno. But it has to come from within. Bombing ISIS is exactly what they want. Its stupid, reductive and reactive but this is America after all thats kinda what we do


does it really matter?

wonder what bin's doing?
http://i.imgur.com/phECCMp.jpg

>Isis can claim they are *the* real Muslims, the only ones
>totally adhering to every shred of the hadith and Quran, which
>is considered inviolate and may not be altered changed or
>fucked around with in any way.

but they did change it. at least the sect of muslims did. from my understanding that sect of muslims who refer to themselves as THE muslims, and everyone as as being non-muslims (even those are are) are against anything having to do with the west and some aspects of modernity. i was reading about wahhabism last night and this morning and that's what i gathered from it. it also talked about Al-Saud being the one to insert the violence into wahhabism when there originally wasn't. so isn't that altering aspects of the quran?

>
>And they have millennia of tradition and dogma saying Islam is
>pinned to this, can not change can not deviate etc so
>logically if they are punctilliously following every dotted I
>and crossed t well...then do they not have a point? Are they
>not right?
>
>The only way to effectively fight that is for other Muslims to
>say we reject this literalist element, yes the religion has
>many wonderful aspects to it but we dont want to...oh I
>dunno...make our women were burqas for example. Hell I dunno.
>But it has to come from within. Bombing ISIS is exactly what
>they want. Its stupid, reductive and reactive but this is
>America after all thats kinda what we do
>
i think it's more about politics btw muslims nations and less about the interpretation of islam.

You look at this point in history for Islam and look at the same point in history for Christianity. There was lots of clashes--infighting, wars, funk with other faiths--and redefinition going on. It was a turbulent period. So maybe that is what Islam is going through also. Obviously it's not a precise parallel, but it's fairly close.

But I think your understanding of what the age of enlightenment was is, um, flawed.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

In that competing ideologies withing the same religion vying for dominance in that section of the world and people are willing to wage war over it.

The protestant reformation led to a full on century of war in Europe. Which ended right at the start of the Enlightenment or a few decades before it depending on who you're asking.

But it does point towards why there was an Enlightenment, Europeans had just spend a century slaughtering one another over a few lines of scripture they couldn't agree on.

Meanwhile, the Islamic world was more prone to long periods of large unified states. Even when the Umayyad Caliphate broke up, most areas of the Islamic world were still run by large central states from the Middle East, to North and West Africa, and even Iberia. Hell the Ottoman Empire lasted from the 1400's until 1919.

Having Islam exist in the modern global political system is interesting because while Europe has been used to states breaking up reforming, and then breaking up again for centuries, the muslim world was with few exceptions a series of Empires that controlled significant portions of that religious group. After Rome and the Carolingians, there weren't really any instances where all of Christendom was ruled by a single state.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

Old Testament, the one that's more likely to be used to as a pretext for homophobia or war was set well before that.

So even if they were doing a lot of editing for the first 3 centuries to the complete book, the period in which the canon has been set is much longer than the period where it wasn't. So for the past 1600 years it's all been a matter of interpretation and review.

While the Quran didn't have a similarly extensive period of editing, the life of Muhammad and the recording of the Quran are 3 centuries removed from the canonization of the Bible as we know it today. So the Bible and the Quran have been in the current forms for 1600 and 1300 years plus respectively. It's not as if a lot of gnostic and montanist texts are going to be found in contemporary Christian theology, which is to say we've been dealing with the same two play books for 1.5 millennia.

The Enlightenment is probably more so a result of the decline of feudalism and the rise of a wealthy class of merchants and bureaucrats and more centralized government. Monarchs grew in power and could rely on a system of finance rather than landed vassals to exercise power. Now all of a sudden your kingdom is rolling dough from increased trade, you have people flowing into your cities, and a new class of people with wealth and leisure time that they derive from businesses that require some degree of learning. Sounds to me like the pre-modern age. Nothing special really. An increase in freedoms for lower classes and more access to wealth is a breeding ground for creativity and growth.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

a reformation of islam is definitely what needs to happen. moderate muslim scholars coming together to decide which parts of the original texts are suitable for the 21st century.

muslims who believe that the koran is unalterable are gonna be upset, but fuck them. some moderate muslims - like the ones on this site - are also gonna be upset, but fuck them as well.

the meek and mild left may want to look everywhere else for solutions to our problem with extremist islam rather than islam itself, but this is the only way can hope for a solution.

if you believe wholeheartedly in islam and want to dedicate your life submitting to allah, cool, you are free to do that. just don't expect others to do the same or to 'respect' your nutty beliefs.

we've gotta stand by our principles. this isn't our fault, it's islam's, and it's up to them to sort it out.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

And in the British Isles that turned into several centuries.

Islam was established by a War Lord, that shit is written into their holy book...how would having a reformation help the situation?

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

muslims are slaughtering each other daily because of their different interpretations of the koran. many muslims disagree on many different subjects associated with islam.

some believe that 'jihad' means to spread terror far and wide, others believe that it means to strive to find peace.

we need the latter group to denounce those who promote terror. if that leads to an internal, islamic war, so be it.

either they refine their religion to make it compatible with 21st century, humanistic standards or they face consequences. at the minute, islam is stuck in a warped, 7th century mindset and they must be pressured to move into today's day and age.

a lot of people are gonna die, but that's the way it goes for religion.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

with the oft repeated phrase that Islam is stuck in the 7th century because it gives into a bullshit linear progression of history narrative that is divorced from reality.

The Islamic world flourished in all aspects of culture after the 7th century, and then due to a large variety of internal and external factors is stopped, but that doesn't mean they're stuck anywhere.

If I have to pick one, my biggest criticism of the west is our insistence on and adherence to these grand narratives that barely work in our Western Paradigm, and yet we want to to play these things over other cultures as if that's how history works.

Maybe they won't have an enlightenment, but that's probably because the Enlightenment itself is a unique circumstance in history that isn't even really a thing, it's a category placed on a series of related events, but it's not like all inquisitiveness was dead in Europe in between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment. The economic and political circumstances that would allow for larger numbers of individuals to become literate and participate in a life of the mind need to right for any society to progress.

The Muslims were laying a firm foundation for later studies in astronomy and chemistry that Europeans would do because the Muslim world was financially stable and economically vibrant at the time. When another region surpassed them in their ability create societies that produce a large number of scholars, they lost their edge, and when internal factors became more pressing than commissioning new art or patronizing scholars that progress slowed to trickle, but it isn't an inevitability that they'll remain that way or that if they ever do come out of it that it's always going to be straight up with no dips.

Hell, China used to be the most advanced civilization on the planet, and then it declined the point where British businessmen could force the Emperor to sign a treaty that all but assured that his nation would be at the mercy of the west for a long time...except today China is worth a lot more than England and it manufactures more than the Brits could have ever dreamed of.

That is to say, I don't disagree that there are large sections of the Islamic world that aren't havens of human rights and progress, but saying they're stuck in the 7th century is something that reeks of white western supremacy to me. As if Christendom has been on an upward trajectory for its entire history.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

but the fact is, extreme islamists and many islamic countries are stuck in the dark ages, with their stonings, beheadings, lashings, mutilation, blasphemy laws etc. etc.

this is why i said islam needs a reformation. we need their major leaders to come out and say that not everything in the koran should be taken literally. we need them to show us that islam can move into the 21st century, because at the minute it doesn't look like it can.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

So I wasn't saying you were wrong, so much as those types of statements are problematic.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

influential in the rise of "militant Islam" than Islam actually is.

muslims have been committing atrocities in the name of islam for centuries

are you implying that there would be no isis if we didn't intervene in iraq and afghanistan?

and why the quotation marks for militant islam?

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

If Saddam Hussein were still in power?

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

i don't understand the point of your question. are you insinuating that it was a mistake to remove the murderous and psychopathic tyrant, saddam hussein?

iraq was being ruled by fear when he was in charge, much like the cities that isis are controlling now.

what even is your solution for this situation? rather than playing devil's advocate, state what you think should happen

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

why? because they managed to hold militant jihadists in check. All those fuckers were rotting away under the jail where they belong and as soon as the arab spring happened they crawled out of their holes and look what we got now.

Mubarak crushed the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (which Zawahiri initially led) and gave the Muslim Brotherhood crumbs (seats in parliament) to keep them from going buckwild. Look at what happened with the MB in power. They hijacked the original secular revolution for their own agenda. And now Egypt is back to where they started.

Saddam did the same thing, he held together a fractured made up state through fear. Now that he's gone, Iraq is split in 3, with the Shia an Iranian puppet, the Kurds doing their own thing, and Sunnis getting behind ISIS.

Lybia? a complete basket case.

Call it what you want. Now imagine free democratic elections in Saudi Arabia. It won't be the liberal freedom advocates or dissidents that win.

Like the Kurds you say are doing their own thing

i think theyd say thats a definite step up from being slaughtered

corrupt politicians exacting revenge against the Shi'a minority, the fact that the northern half of their country is a fucking warzone?

That place has been getting even worse than when we left in 2011.

It's not even like ISIS is a foreign enemy, the core of the fighters were the same people we were fighting in Iraq. So now Iraqis have to face the reality that not only are a lot of their countrymen psychopathic murderers, they've gotta contend with the fact that these psychopaths are actively administering a government right next to them.

These aren't terrorists anymore. This is almost full blown civil war.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

What was great for secularism was not so great for the Kurds

No more, no less

with them now because of a common enemy, and given the behavior this particular regime, do you think they're going to be inclined to follow through on the promises they were made during this crisis?

I'm sure they are happy that Saddamn is gone, but given the other major obstacles to creating an independent Kurdish nation, I still don't see this as net win for America, and yes goddamnit I'm talking about our interest because I'm an American.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

It was just a business decision that worked out well for those involved.

But just like any other country that initiates an aggressive invasion (kuwait) and loses, they were faced with sanctions like disarmament and the exclusion of former ruling party members from future positions. That is par for the course. Germany and Japan disarmed, the Nazis were scrubbed away, and Japan's emperor acknowledged that he was a constitutional monarch bound by rule of law.

Interesting to think about what Iraq might be now if Saddam had disarmed their military like Japan, Germany, and Italy did after WW2, rather than let sanctions destroy the lives of his people. Of course the other side of that coin is relevant, what if the coalition had been more diligent in constructing a vision of Iraqi future, rather than just hoping a dictator suddenly "sees it our way"?

The entire enterprise is just imperialism. They have resources we need, lets conquer them. Can't conquer them? Let's install a puppet. Can't install a puppet? Let's back a neighbor who is hostile to him. and so on and so forth.

I'm not an isolationist, but even when you bring up Kuwait, I can't help but think of that bullshit testimony about Iraqi soldiers killing babies. We try to put a PR spin on everything we do instead of just being explicit that we're fighting wars to serve the interests of our elite class.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

they fucking love us. trust me. same as many iraqis.

we saved them from being brutally massacred - all of them. saddam would have gone on to create terror on a much greater scale than isis ever would.

if you're really suggesting that we should have left him in power with nuclear weapons - i really don't know what to tell you.

i guess it was a bad move to remove hitler as well. sure, he killed a few people here and there, but that economy though! and you can bet your bottom dollar nobody stepped out of line when he was in charge!

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

I also went to school with some lost boys too, I would have rather us gone to war to end the on going genocide in Darfur than go to Iraq for the bullshit reasons they tried to trot out for going into a second middle east conflict.

>they fucking love us. trust me. same as many iraqis.

And I'm sure if we had killed of Kony during the 00's Ugandans would love us, and if we would have gone into Rwanda the Rwandans would love us. You got a comprehensive list of everyone who would love for the US to send soldiers their way?

Of course you realize that there are Iraqis that hate us too right? Those insurgents, ISIS members, and even just regular people who dislike us are Iraqis as well, and unlike a lot of the Kurds you and I know over here, those Iraqis are actually in fucking Iraq right now. The one we fucked up. The one currently facing its own internal insurgency that just merged with a neighbors ongoing civil war.

>we saved them from being brutally massacred - all of them.
>saddam would have gone on to create terror on a much greater
>scale than isis ever would.

Uh, no. He committed atrocities in the 80's which we did jack diddly shit about (other than make it easier for him to acquire chemical weapons)...and then after the Gulf War and the Kurds rose up and lost, we enforced a no fly zone that all but guaranteed the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. What's more, when the Kurds where fighting amongst themselves, Saddam was allied with one of the major Kurdish groups.

You honestly believe he was going to massacre "all of them" even though we'd effectively had that country in check for a decade prior to invading again, the fact that Iraqi Kurdistan was an autonomous region in that country, and the fact that Saddamn actually supported Kurdish militants during an Kurdish internal conflict?


Saddamn Hussein was a dictator yes, but he wasn't a religious zealot, and he had no intention of exercising power outside of the middle east by the time we invaded the second time. The only terror he sponsored (not counting when we went to war with him, because obviously...)was against regional enemies. And honestly that's not our fucking problem, unless it's our problem whenever one country funds militants that oppose a hostile government, in which case you might want to take a look back at the history of CIA.

Did you fall asleep in 2003 and wake up last week? We've all had time to look at the record and the evidence that has come out. Saddam wasn't a threat to the US, yeah he mistreated an ethnic minority, but so does China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, The US, etc. Unless you've got some new evidence about genocides he was committing after the establishment of the No Fly Zones...?


>
>if you're really suggesting that we should have left him in
>power with nuclear weapons - i really don't know what to tell
>you.

Oh so you HAVE been a coma for a decade huh? What nuclear weapons? Where are these fucking nukes he had? And even if he had nukes...he was going to do what with them? Use them and then immediately have Baghdad turned into a crater of molten glass? Or was he going to give them to terrorists, so they could use them, and then have Baghdad turned into a crater of glass a few months later once we all figure out what happened?

It's really easy to turn someone into an imminent threat when you just assume that they're irrational.

Also, more to your point. It was never our obligation to remove him from anything. The onus is on you to prove why WE specifically had to remove him and why he was more of a threat than the terrorists we were fighting in Afghanistan. We never got those WMDS and Iraqi democracy is a fucking joke...Mission accomplished.


>i guess it was a bad move to remove hitler as well. sure, he
>killed a few people here and there, but that economy though!
>and you can bet your bottom dollar nobody stepped out of line
>when he was in charge!


And isn't it funny that even though we knew Hitler was persecuting Jews and other ethnic minorities since the early 30's we didn't declare war on Germany until 1941, 2 years after WWII had already started. We knew about all the Jews fleeing Germany, hell we even denied some of them entry at first. We knew what was going on in Poland. We knew what kind of rhetoric Hitler was spewing, and it still took 8 (almost 9) years for the US to intervene in Germany.

Oh and why did we eveb enter the war? Was it to stop Hitler from killing people? No, we entered the war because Japan attacked us. We didn't declare war on Germany until after Germany honored its alliance with Japan and declared war on us first.

So miss me with this simplistic world police bullshit. Yeah humanitarianism is important, but nations don't go to war for humanitarian reasons...at least not unless there are more pressing national security or economic concerns.

Well we know Saddam wasn't a threat to us militarily, we forced him to recognize Iraqi Kurdistan as an autonomous region, so...what's left...hmmm?

i've spoken to people who live in kurdistan right now, i've read their testimonies. they're thankful that we saved their lives. many people in iraq are also thankful that we saved them from a brutal tyrant. the muslims in bosnia who we saved from being ethnically cleansed are also thankful for our support. as are many people in afghanistan, iran, syria and so on. the west does do some good things, it's ok to admit it.

if i had my way, we'd go after ALL the piece of shit tyrants that rule through fear and violence. i'm not saying that all our motives for invading were strictly altruistic, i'm saying that saddam was a murderous psycho who needed a bullet put in his head, simple as that. he'd already murdered thousands of people and was willing to carry on. he lied about developing chemical weapons and said that he would eventually develop nuclear ones.

maybe you don't care about this, because it wasn't OUR problem, but i disagree. somebody's gotta police the world, why shouldn't it be us who steps up to the plate?

there is no onus on me to prove anything either, because the points you're making are ones i didn't raise. we could have gone about it in a better way, instead of our gung-ho approach, but it was still needed.

you think it's all our fault and that's cool. i just don't feel the same guilt and shame that you do

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

>i've spoken to people who live in kurdistan right now, i've
>read their testimonies. they're thankful that we saved their
>lives. many people in iraq are also thankful that we saved
>them from a brutal tyrant. the muslims in bosnia who we saved
>from being ethnically cleansed are also thankful for our
>support. as are many people in afghanistan, iran, syria and so
>on. the west does do some good things, it's ok to admit it.

Who was disagreeing that some people are happy about these things? I just said that isn't a justification for the war.

Our foreign policy isn't built on making other people around the world feel good. And when you play this game where you pretend that a significant portion of our foreign policy is based on that you mask the actual process by which our interested are projected and protected, and you minimize the damage that we actually do.

What you're doing is what colonialists did when fucked up half the world in the first place. Just keep on laying justifications until you come to paternalism and convince yourself that it's both our obligation to meddle in everyone's problems and that we're a supernaturally benevolent force.

Sorry. That's two steps away from Neo-colonialism.

>if i had my way, we'd go after ALL the piece of shit tyrants
>that rule through fear and violence. i'm not saying that all
>our motives for invading were strictly altruistic, i'm saying
>that saddam was a murderous psycho who needed a bullet put in
>his head, simple as that. he'd already murdered thousands of
>people and was willing to carry on. he lied about developing
>chemical weapons and said that he would eventually develop
>nuclear ones.

Was willing to carry on? Once again...what's your proof? Like I already said, we basically neutered him after 1991 and he supported a Kurdish militant group during the unrest in Iraqi Kurdistan during the mid-1990s. There's no proof of any chemical munitions being used used after 1991, and there's no proof that their program was able to ever fully recover. The Clinton administration bombed anything that looked like it was being made to make weapons if you recall.

Also, he could have said he intended to ride dragons into battle. You really, genuinely believe that he had the capability to produce a nuke? Despite everything said before the war and what we learned about his administration after we toppled it?

Like I said, absent of proving the WMD thing or an active genocide you haven't made the case for why he was more deserving of us sending our soldiers to get killed, killing Iraqi civilians, and spending a bunch of money that it turns out the country was going to need 5 years later, than any other "bad guy" who has his own country.

The still stone people to death in Suadi Arabia, why not invade them?

>maybe you don't care about this, because it wasn't OUR
>problem, but i disagree. somebody's gotta police the world,
>why shouldn't it be us who steps up to the plate?

No, someone most certainly does not have to police the world. I'm sure China would love to be the world's police too, but if they ever get powerful enough to do so I bet you won't be saying, "Well someone's gotta do it."

And it's not that I don't care about people being mascaraed, I;m just not in the business of letting one set of war criminals walk free just because they killed another war criminal who they used to be friends with.

Sorry Kurds, you having slightly more autonomy and way more violent conflicts around you wasn't worth seeing my country blow up weddings, kill children, and strapping batteries to inmates in black site prisons.

Also, I am addressing the points you're raising because you keep mentioning all this shit that's bad about Saddam, but everything you mentioned happened before we fucked him up the first time. You trying to use shit that justified the Gulf War to retroactively justify the 2003 invasion. Unless, once again you're holding on to those docs proving he was two days away from finishing a bomb or that he was seconds away from gassing some Kurds before we invaded in 2003, you're talking about things that had already been dealt with.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

You haven't one iota what your talking about in any of these posts

Honestly you feel like a plant at worst and a troll in the least

You pretty much only show up in the Islam / ISIS posts and everytime some one brings up the nuance of the historical and political factors that have shaped Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Egypt, you ignore or dismiss the info and revert back to the same pseudo-patriotic modern crusador Islamophic sensationalism

Please, do us all a favor and close your laptop. Not one of us believes you.

Are you bad as Fox news? Nope, but you're highly ignorant and misinformed

i won't be stopping any time soon

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

lot of bad guys in the world. If this was really about taking out bad people and freedom and all that shit, then why were we still so buddy buddy with the Saudis? If we're all about doing the right thing, why didn't we kill Kony when he was actually in Uganda using child soldiers? Oh that's right, we were too busy taking out that bad guy Saddam, the same one we propped up to use in our real life game of risk.

That argument wasn't good in 2003 and it isn't good now.

Now as to what my question was asking. I wasn't asking whether or not it was a good or bad thing to remove him from power (It was, but that isn't the point) it was whether or not you thought removing him from power allowed ISIS more operating room.

Saddam Hussein wasn't a devout Muslim. He was pretty damn secular, and because of this, along with his ruthless nature, he was able to maintain control over a region that if you haven't noticed, if kind of filled with lots of small squabbling factions. If Saddam was still in power, The Islamic State doesn't have a chaotic region with which to base itself, but even before that, the number of radical Islamic clerics in the area wouldn't have been so high. Our war on terror about as good at stopping the creation of new terrorists as our war on drugs is at stopping the use of drugs.

You've got to look at these things on a grader scale. It's like people who were for the Iraq war in 2003, but they'd never heard of what we did in Iran in the 50's or how we've propped up dictators in that region for decades. Our meddling has unintended consequences.

We helped "liberate" Libya, and once Qadaffi croaked a bunch of those weapons and fighters from that war made it into Mali during the ensuing chaos and nearly brought an ancient, peaceful society to collapse.

Islamic Extremism doesn't just pop up randomly. ISIS owes their livelihood to our meddling and lack of foresight.

>lot of bad guys in the world. If this was really about taking
>out bad people and freedom and all that shit, then why were we
>still so buddy buddy with the Saudis? If we're all about doing
>the right thing, why didn't we kill Kony when he was actually
>in Uganda using child soldiers? Oh that's right, we were too
>busy taking out that bad guy Saddam, the same one we propped
>up to use in our real life game of risk.
>
>That argument wasn't good in 2003 and it isn't good now.
>

____
Some will tell you that they love you but they've got an ulterior motive - Oh what a shame
They will tell you that they need you but they've got an ulterior motive - Personal gain

(c) Luciano


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg0-qndkemo

rise of the modern nation state.

Whether it's under the guise of religion, or patriotism, or manifest destiny, there will always be someone willing to justify monkeyshit with some sort of random fuckery.

Otherizing it to just "militant Islam" is a full-on crock of shit.

Politics, colonialism, economics and corporatism have shaped the post-colonial world, and continue to do so.

Also, the fragmentation of Iraq and rise of organizations like ISIS was TOTALLY predicted by opponents of the Iraqi Invasion. There is absolutely nothing shocking about these events, at all

started the first war.

I listened to a podcast once where they were pointing out that we only look at WWII as a heroic war because there weren't embedded journalists filming refugees fleeing the outskirts of Nagasaki with their hair falling out in clumps right around the time you were sitting down for dinner because we didn't have TV's and the military had more control of what information journalists were fed. Meanwhile before the Vietnam war is even a year old they've already had more cameras filming more shit than in the entirety of WWII. It's kind of hard to keep up support for war when you actually see it play out in real time, but if everything is on a filtered, censored delay, well then you can do all types of shit and no one will care.

The worst atrocities in history probably occurred before people had mastered drawing perspective let alone the printing press.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

in re: violence/war when they have a hard time remembering 12 years ago when all of this was predicted just wasn't my angle for the evening.

But yeah, i agree

>are you implying that there would be no isis if we didn't
>intervene in iraq and afghanistan?

That americans REFUSE to take responsibllity for this shit kills me; I know people from IRAN (not a country you mentioned but still...) who are old enoguh to remember what the country looked like before... To pretend that the Ayatollah-shit would even have happened without US sponsoring is naive as fuck...

Old iranian refugees that aren't even religious but rather communist (yes, there are LOTS of those here) have a tendency to HATE the US and damn if they don't have a good reason for that...

Not that Iran under the Shah was a good country either but still... The US and Soviet played chess with the world as a playground and we all (including the US and Russia) have to suffer the consequences, it may seem like an overt simplification but it's ultimately not deeper than that...

I'm not american so I can not relate to your patriotism; still, you have fucked up shit worldwide and benefitted from it. Now it's payback time...

Actually, during the Iraq-crisis, the US armies even bombed a wrong city in *Iran* that happened to be where my ex-gf's relatives lived; was that shit even in the news???

Fuck america-two times...

But hey, let's just believe it's all conspiracy theories...

i like you a lot jakob and i always look forward to your posts on music, but on this we're just gonna have to disagree, which is cool.

i believe it was right to remove saddam and try to promote democratic values in the middle east. granted, the way we went about it wasn't the best, but to leave that psycho in power would have caused us much more problems in the long run.

and it depends who you talk to. i've spoken to many kurds, iraqis and iranians, and the majority of them have said that what we did was a good thing - despite our ham-fisted approach to it.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

...but I think the Iranians that went to sweden and the ones that went to the US have VERY different views on this shit for a variety of reasons relating to class, power etc.

Whatever, peace out...

enough for us to invade Iraq?

Also, democracy promotion shouldn't be something you apply from the top down. We won our own democracy. France didn't roll into Boston and start a war to bring us democracy, we started our own revolution and they offered help. And they didn't offer help because they believed in democracy, they did it because they were rivals of the English.

Even if you believe in democracy promotion as a value, are you saying the ends justify the means?

Remembering of course that speculating about what Saddam might be doing today isn't the same as giving me what I asked for, which is proof that Saddam was an imminent threat or actively ethnically cleansing people.

If you recall at the time we had just been attacked, not by a sovereign nation, but by a terrorist network that was spread through out the Middle East and North and East Africa. A terrorist network that we should remember that was not using Iraq as a major base of operations because their ideology ran counter to the secular leadership of the country.

I really can't believe we're having to rehash this argument, but seriously the onus is on you to prove why we should have gone to war in the first place, not to retroactively find a justification.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

>enough for us to invade Iraq?
>
>Also, democracy promotion shouldn't be something you apply
>from the top down. We won our own democracy. France didn't
>roll into Boston and start a war to bring us democracy, we
>started our own revolution and they offered help. And they
>didn't offer help because they believed in democracy, they did
>it because they were rivals of the English.
>
>Even if you believe in democracy promotion as a value, are you
>saying the ends justify the means?
>
>Remembering of course that speculating about what Saddam might
>be doing today isn't the same as giving me what I asked for,
>which is proof that Saddam was an imminent threat or actively
>ethnically cleansing people.
>
>If you recall at the time we had just been attacked, not by a
>sovereign nation, but by a terrorist network that was spread
>through out the Middle East and North and East Africa. A
>terrorist network that we should remember that was not using
>Iraq as a major base of operations because their ideology ran
>counter to the secular leadership of the country.
>
>I really can't believe we're having to rehash this argument,
>but seriously the onus is on you to prove why we should have
>gone to war in the first place, not to retroactively find a
>justification.

Don't even indulge it.....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

just pathos? "The Kurds are happy so it's good! Saddam was bad so it's good we killed him!"

I'm not mad at all, I got someone who was anti-religion to divorce their arguments from logic and reason, to the contrary, I'm quite happy.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

What problems?

>i believe it was right to remove saddam and try to promote
>democratic values in the middle east. granted, the way we went
>about it wasn't the best, but to leave that psycho in power
>would have caused us much more problems in the long run.


Sadaam wouldn't have done SHIT to us, notice when he invaded Kuwait and fucked with our money it took longer for me to beat Grand Theft Auto 5 then it was for US to stomp the fuck out of him and beat him back.

Like it's been pointed above, it's politics. Nobody cares about the dozens of other dictators killing their people world wide.


>and it depends who you talk to. i've spoken to many kurds,
>iraqis and iranians, and the majority of them have said that
>what we did was a good thing - despite our ham-fisted approach
>to it.

You're always going to have people with different opinions. But I am going to assume those people who spoke to are people who have enough resources to live in the Western world (or enough to travel to it often) and don't have to deal with the day to day chaos that we left in our wake.

Changing a government by force and expecting magical 'democracy' make everything right is as bizarre an idea as anything else. Particularly since in the US we are barely a democracy ourselves with so much undue corporate influence. As many outright lies, subterfuge, etc that take place in the US landscape which is relatively well educated and we still manage to vote in fucking morons like Bush...

because somebody who kills thousands of people, shows no remorse for doing so and states that he will gladly do it again says psycho to me.

*shrugs*

i'm not saying we're a bastion of truth and liberty and that our reasons for invading were strictly altruistic, but it was still necessary to remove saddam from power.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

Necessary suggests we needed to do it.

We did we need to do it?

As I've asked before. What are you basing your assumption on that the world would be worse than it is right now if we hadn't invaded? Because a bad guy died? Well there's probably the next Mussolini lying in a crib right now waiting for a bottle. We didn't gain a net decrease in murderous assholes world wide just because Saddam died. All we did was give other murderous assholes a chance to grab the spoils left after we high tailed it out of there.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

let it go

we saved people from being brutally massacred, that's why it was necessary.

we did a good thing removing him and we should be proud of that. in an ideal world we'd be removing all murderous tyrants from power, but i guess that would be impossible.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

done it. If that were acceptable you could do whatever you wanted provided you could come up with a good enough reason after the fact. That's a really terrible way to go about life or conducting war. Fuck explaining why we have to do it before we go in, we'll just hobble something together after it happens.




>we saved people from being brutally massacred, that's why it
>was necessary.


Secondly, you've never proven that they were going to be massacred. You keep saying it as if I'm forgetting some crucial news report in 2003 where we discovered that he was shipping Kurds into gas chambers. So you can't say we saved anybody because you haven't proven that they were in imminent danger.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

But fundamentalism appears in every religion, and violence follows when millenarianism is a factor

Militant Islam occupies the same rung of the ladder as Christian abortion clinic bombers, Israeli rockets into Palestine, and the Mormons a while back that went on a murder spree

any massive state destabilization of the sort that Iraq and Afghanistan have experienced since the 80s will, almost by definition, lead to sectarian violence.

how many juntas, death squads, terrorist orgs, insurgencies and counter insurgencies happened in SE Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Eurpoe in the past 100 years after COVERT ops to destabilize governments?

America bombed and embargoed Iraq for 20 years BEFORE completely obliterating any semblance of government with Bush II's invasion.

In that type of scenario, just about everyone, from pacifists to scientologists to atheists would have been feeling some kinda way.

How can you separate ISIS from its religious mission statement?

Its not a coincidence that there is no secular faction in Iraq with even a fraction of its influence, and its not a coincidence that Muslims get put to the sword while Christians can pay a $10 survival tax.

These are perceived religious mandates they are following.

>How can you separate ISIS from its religious mission
>statement?

there's just some anti-west masochists on here that want to believe that it's all our fault and that we made these monsters the way they are.

if only we'd left saddam in charge - he would have handled this MUCH better!

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

anomaly.

They're not, at all. This was predicted to happen by most before the toppling of Iraq.

If it wasn't going to be ISIS, it was going to some other group rushing to fill the power vacuum...cuz that's just how it works in these situations. That's how it has ALWAYS worked in these situations.

Hand-wringing about Islam is a complete waste of time if you ain't gonna do something about the material conditions of people's existence.

we're focussing on isis as if they're some sort of far-right, extremist, religious group. which they are.

they are not an anomaly. there has been many like them before this and there will be many after as long as people continue to believe that islam is the unalterable truth of the world.

politics is somewhat involved, but religion - and people's vehement belief in it - is the main problem.

a lot of people are hiding the ball here

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

You just have a low reading comprehension and an idiotic understanding of geopolitical situations.

I mean once you said the US has altruistic purposes when they war I let out a nice laugh

I mean I really hope your this up in arms about Christianity when they bomb buildings, murder doctors, and terrorize civilians. Cause even when it's Christians doing the dirt its not solely about Christianity

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

Its about what happens to people psychologically when they believe the world we live in is a precursor to something better, and that violence is a way to please the gatekeeper

Really?

Tell us what's been revised?



.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

If you're going to exclude some works that were used by people of the same faith, but slightly different traditions, you're revising either the worth or authenticity of something that at one point was part of either Jewish or Christian scripture.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

I swear y'all love talking and making up nonsense just to try and sound smart.
.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

If a scripture was part of the Christian tradition prior to canonization and after canonization it's no longer considered valid then that's a revision. Or what about the fact that Eastern and Asian Orthodox faiths have books that western Christianity doesn't? Explain to me how they weren't revising the scriptures when they were including certain books but dropping others?



"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

But the do protest the use of the word revision within the context that Bin created this post.


.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

How do you feel about Christianity's views on translation vs. those in Islam? Their entire argument for the Quran is that altering it in any way would be altering the word of God, and it has the benefit of preventing things from being lost in translation. Do you think there is any validity to that? Do you think that all translations of the Bible are equally valid? Is it more that the spirit of the book remains the same or is it that you don't think that these translations really lose anything when being transcribed?

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

>How do you feel about Christianity's views on translation vs.
>those in Islam? Their entire argument for the Quran is that
>altering it in any way would be altering the word of God, and
>it has the benefit of preventing things from being lost in
>translation. Do you think there is any validity to that? Do
>you think that all translations of the Bible are equally
>valid? Is it more that the spirit of the book remains the same
>or is it that you don't think that these translations really
>lose anything when being transcribed?
>
>"All the world's a stage,
>And all the men and women merely players:
>They have their exits and their entrances;
>And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard


Honestly, I really don’t worry about the comparison between the Translations or needed Revisions of the Bible vs. the Quran. There are some Bibles that are word-for-word translations, some are thought for thought, and some are c combination of both. With that said I only use the Bibles that are intentional about being honest to the original text, language, and historical context. With that said, I can honestly say that some context can be lost in translation when it cones to various versions like the Message Bible (strongly dislike), whereas the King James Bible (Non common language) is an excellent word-for word translation even though it’s hard to read. With that said, not all Bible translations are equal in my eyes for what I need and for my growth. Still I respect the other versions that Bibles that stay true to the spirit, even if they lack the word-for-word designation.

The issue that I have is when Bible versions try to water down the historical effort and language in order to reach an intended audience. With that said, I can see where people will hold the Quran on a higher level of authenticity because it has less versions. But there are Bible translations and versions that are just as rooted in the original text where available.

But, I must say there is a certain level of understanding that comes from reading the Bible when one has a relationship with God and they have the Holy Spirit as a guide and teacher.




.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

this little tea time between the 'scholar' & the 'man of cloth' is fucking priceless


your method is not only outdated, but you really are considering a real response from a closeted pastor that believes his coloring books weren't revised??


way to look the truth in the eye lol

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

And protestantism removed 7 books from the old testament

So...theres 2

What scriptures were revised?
.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

Lol. Translation alone GREATLY alters the word

Just so that you know.
.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."