ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[ThestigGT999]

Why is America Protecting the Islamic State (ISIS)? “Why Isn’t the US Bombing ISIS’ Oil Fields”: Turkish Journalist

 

[Jokester]

Yeah because adding ecological disaster to the list of issues in Syria and Iraq sounds like a great idea.

 

[the wopster]

"What to do if you fall into a conversation with someone about ISIS who doesn't believe in retaliation:
1. Engage in conversation, and ask if military force is appropriate.
2. When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
3. Wait until he says something to the effect of "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."
4. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
5. When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would be awful and he should not cause more violence.
6. Wait until he agrees, and has pledged not to commit additional violence.
7. Punch him in the face again, harder this time.
8. Repeat steps 5 through 7 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back."

 

[kitch9]

You're right. He's done a terrific job of discarding information that doesn't support his point of view. It must have taken ages!

Could you point out the untrue bits I appear to have missed them.

 

[Raz]

Could you point out the untrue bits I appear to have missed them.

Why don't you mention the reason for their creation.

I'll elaborate in a bit

 

[Werewolf]

Yeah because adding ecological disaster to the list of issues in Syria and Iraq sounds like a great idea.

Very much so.

It took months/years for them to get the oil fields under control (fires out, safe to be around) after the Gulf War, and I think they're still not fully cleaned up now.

Also the chances are a lot of the people working in those oil fields aren't ISIS but probably forced to be working there.

 

[Rroff]

Of course it's not black and white, which is what I've been saying.

ISIS may be 'Muslim' and use Islamic literature/material to support their agenda, but there are a number of external factors influencing them. The fact that the attackers in Paris linked their attack to Syria should make it obvious.

As a point of debate (which was your opening premise) - the fact that professional predominantly Muslim armies aren't rising up and rampaging over Europe isn't in itself fundamental proof that AQ, etc. are abusing or misinterpreting the Quran or that those Muslim armies aren't acting in that way because such directives aren't there - that doesn't rule out the conditions being different for those Muslims in those countries and an entity like AQ or ISIS in terms of what the Quran may or may not tell them to do.

 

[Werewolf]

Could you point out the untrue bits I appear to have missed them.

You missed out the huge number of purely European terrorist organisations that have been around in the last few decades.
You know the lesser known groups such as the IRA, the PIRA, the real IRA, the loyalists (and that's just some of the UK/NI ones), basque seperatists such as eta etc. The vast bulk of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 20 years have been by the likes of eta.
Isis have "just" had a few high death count attacks, but even then Brevik killed a huge number of people as a lone nut.

It's relatively recently with the rise of Isis and Al'quada that we've had any real problem with Islamic terrorists.

There is a problem, but in terms of attacks the ones by the likes of ISIS in the west are far rarer than the ones by the various "Christian" (if you're just going by the religion they claim to follow and ignoring the political aspect) terrorist groups, however they get a higher death toll because they're well financed, well trained and the people doing them are willing/expecting to die in the attacks so don't even try to get away.

 

[Mynight]

"What to do if you fall into a conversation with someone about ISIS who doesn't believe in retaliation:
1. Engage in conversation, and ask if military force is appropriate.
2. When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
3. Wait until he says something to the effect of "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."
4. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
5. When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would be awful and he should not cause more violence.
6. Wait until he agrees, and has pledged not to commit additional violence.
7. Punch him in the face again, harder this time.
8. Repeat steps 5 through 7 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back."

So basically an eye for an eye? How long until there's no one left.

 

[bitslice]

You're not actually addressing the points and it's not very difficult.

You ignore mine about why haven't muslims done what Christians did 500 years ago, which was sit down and determine what their magic book means.

- People on this forum and the world over think that ISIS other Muslim terrorists are simply doing what Islam and the Quran states.

They are, they set up a Caliphate like it says in the Quran and they are busy expanding its borders to match what they think it should be.

- There are sovereign Muslim states with professional armies made up of Muslims who believe in Allah, Muhammad and follow the Quran.

Most of them are sitting on oil, why rock the boat when you can come to London during ramadan to whore and drink if you feel like it.

These Muslim armies and nations are strangely NOT rampaging across the globe spreading Islam, even though the Quran apparently tells them to.

Six day war ring any bells?

And given that they all imagine they are the true muslims, any war against another muslim state is actually a war spreading true Islam (or their version of it)

-So why are terrorists trying to follow the Quran, but Muslim armies aren't? Why don't the Muslim soldiers simply join the terrorists?

They are waiting to be trained by America and given shiny new weapons, and then they join ISIS

By the way, if you think the Pakistan/India conflict is related to religion in this context then that explains a lot about your views and level of understanding.

I just included them as an example of another retarded muslim nation, because they still stone women to death after they have been raped.

 

[Werewolf]

As a point of debate (which was your opening premise) - the fact that professional predominantly Muslim armies aren't rising up and rampaging over Europe isn't in itself fundamental proof that AQ, etc. are abusing or misinterpreting the Quran or that those Muslim armies aren't acting in that way because such directives aren't there - that doesn't rule out the conditions being different for those Muslims in those countries and an entity like AQ or ISIS in terms of what the Quran may or may not tell them to do.

But it does point to the fact that ISIS obviously are not acting as representatives of what the Koran says as seen by all (or even most) Muslims.

For most of the last 50 years many of those armies have been on good operational terms with various Christian countries, and on far worse terms with their "fellow muslims".
Even now most of the Middle Eastern Muslim armed forces seem to be ready to, or already fighting the likes of ISIS and dealing with ISIS related terrorism at home.

Which puts paid to the idea that all Muslims think the same as ISIS, as if ISIS were so representative of how the Koran should be interpreted then why are their fellow Muslims closer to and fighting with other religions against them.

 

[NickK]

Like I said earlier

Lesson1

There exists a Terrorist(s) that are Muslim.

Lesson 2(a)

There exists a set of religions that live happily with others.

Lesson 2(b)

There exists a set of religions that are fundamentally opposed with others.


There exists individuals members of religions that are fundamentally opposed with one or more individual members of religions.

Lesson (3a)
There exists members of religions that are not happy in a set of countries.

Lesson 3(b)
There exists members of religions that are happy in a set of countries.

Note the above ^^ muslims seem both happy and unhappy in countries that are predominately muslim and non-muslim. It would be interesting to see the happiness correlated against direct impact of civil war and religious attacks between religious groups.

Now the fun part...

There exists a set of religious people feel segregated and isolated.

Now this part is the interesting big - as members of a country, they are subjects of that country and law. In becoming citizens they have sworn on their <insert religious scripture> that they will abide by the law of the country and to serve and protect the country. This includes the religious leaders.

Ok - that's fun.

Next ..


Lesson 4
There exists a set of religious-based terrorist organisations that believes in part of a religious script of their religion.

So that could be transitional witches being subject to death in Christian African nations.. just as easily as muslim terror organisations.

So breaking down the ^^^^ large amount to type into basic logical set theory.. we get to the key point.

Joining a country usually means swearing allegiance etc. So for france (I'm taking this because I know a little about this):

You can apply to become a naturalised French citizen if you have:

have been living in France for five continuous years (less under certain circumstances, such as having studied in a French university);
can prove that you have integrated into the French community by speaking French and having a knowledge of French culture and society and the rights and duties of French citizens.

... rights of ....

The charter spells out “the principles, values and symbols of the French Republic” (Cécilia Gabison, supra). It notably states that “all citizens participate in the defense and cohesion of the nation. Everyone has the duty to contribute, based on their financial means, to the expenses of the nation by the payment of direct taxes, indirect taxes, or social contributions.” It further provides that “n becoming a French citizen, one cannot claim another citizenship on French territory.” It also details the social rights that are attached to French citizenship (id).

So.. the teaching religious leaders are responsible for teaching defence and cohesion. So that's cohesion with the existing culture.

France is an interesting case - it has a far larger history of african muslim, christian and other beliefs. France does not enforce a religious belief. Infact the french state system completely ignores personal belief - so if you get married in france it's a civil ceremony and the religious marriage is not even acknowledged.

So - what is that statement about inclusion and being happy?

I know from personal discussions that the french are concerned by the 'tide of religion" by effectively excluding the concept of being french. Note - france has had more religions than england has for years. So if the religious leaders are french - then they have already agreed in developing the cohesion.

This is applicable to ALL religious leaders.

 

[NickK]

But it does point to the fact that ISIS obviously are not acting as representatives of what the Koran says as seen by all (or even most) Muslims.

For most of the last 50 years many of those armies have been on good operational terms with various Christian countries, and on far worse terms with their "fellow muslims".
Even now most of the Middle Eastern Muslim armed forces seem to be ready to, or already fighting the likes of ISIS and dealing with ISIS related terrorism at home.

Which puts paid to the idea that all Muslims think the same as ISIS, as if ISIS were so representative of how the Koran should be interpreted then why are their fellow Muslims closer to and fighting with other religions against them.

The Koran is interpreted in different ways by the different sects.

The problem is that people don't listen, just shout (because they're god given correctness thus cannot be wrong) that then escalates into a state of genoside.

 

[NickK]

The funny bit is I did a load of religious research for a book - including traditional witchcraft (different from the Wikka - no right/wrong/good/evil).

T.Witches look down on all religion as being young and without understanding.

Also T.Witches don't have a form of dogma or teaching. Thus each T.Witch has their own individually respected valid picture of the world - infact there's only one rule, nothing is taught. So because of this it's flat horizontally unlike taught religions that are vertical. No capability of self-delivered understand is considered unenlightened. All a bit self-zen...

So when you say Christians look at Muslims as an earlier stage of evolution.. the T.Witches look at both in the same light.. funny eh?

 

[Raz]

You ignore mine about why haven't muslims done what Christians did 500 years ago, which was sit down and determine what their magic book means.

They should. But do you honestly think there are no external factors involved?

They are, they set up a Caliphate like it says in the Quran and they are busy expanding its borders to match what they think it should be.

You're using ISIS as an example even though plenty of other Muslim terror groups exist. Great. So which borders was AQ expanding?

Six day war ring any bells?

Ah yes, the well known six day war in which all Muslim nations decided to live according to the Quran and the Prophet's ideal, and went on a six day campaign of 'convert or die' crusade against non-Muslim nations.

You're clutching at straws.

That's clearly not what happened.

And given that they all imagine they are the true muslims, any war against another muslim state is actually a war spreading true Islam (or their version of it)


They are waiting to be trained by America and given shiny new weapons, and then they join ISIS

Ok...

I just included them as an example of another retarded muslim nation, because they still stone women to death after they have been raped.

No, you mentioned them having a conflict with India because of religion. It may well be one cause, but there are many bigger reasons. Besides, stoning a raped woman has no basis in Islam.

 

[Rroff]

You're using ISIS as an example even though plenty of other Muslim terror groups exist. Great. So which borders was AQ expanding?

:S

 

[Raz]

As a point of debate (which was your opening premise) - the fact that professional predominantly Muslim armies aren't rising up and rampaging over Europe isn't in itself fundamental proof that AQ, etc. are abusing or misinterpreting the Quran or that those Muslim armies aren't acting in that way because such directives aren't there - that doesn't rule out the conditions being different for those Muslims in those countries and an entity like AQ or ISIS in terms of what the Quran may or may not tell them to do.

Think Werewolf covers it nicely but to add, my issue isn't that Islam is all perfect - it isn't - but to blame this conflict on the religion without understanding the other issues driving it isn't going to address the issues.

bin Laden's fatwa -

[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah".

and

The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the US and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal

Both can be sourced through wiki.

The point is that it's not just religion that causing the conflict, but also the actions of other states.

But it does point to the fact that ISIS obviously are not acting as representatives of what the Koran says as seen by all (or even most) Muslims.

For most of the last 50 years many of those armies have been on good operational terms with various Christian countries, and on far worse terms with their "fellow muslims".
Even now most of the Middle Eastern Muslim armed forces seem to be ready to, or already fighting the likes of ISIS and dealing with ISIS related terrorism at home.

Which puts paid to the idea that all Muslims think the same as ISIS, as if ISIS were so representative of how the Koran should be interpreted then why are their fellow Muslims closer to and fighting with other religions against them.

 

[Raz]

:S

physical border! ISIS have got hold of something, but AQ was an umbrella term encompassing a number of other groups.

 

[Rroff]

Think Werewolf covers it nicely but to add, my issue isn't that Islam is all perfect - it isn't - but to blame this conflict on the religion without understanding the other issues driving it isn't going to address the issues.

bin Laden's fatwa -

[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah".

and

The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the US and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal

Both can be sourced through wiki.

The point is that it's not just religion that causing the conflict, but also the actions of other states.

^^ Hence my example from Sharia earlier - the complexities of Islam can easily set Muslim against Muslim while working towards the same goal depending on the conditions they are find themselves in and the act of carrying out some things that a follower of Islam is expected to work towards can at the same time be sinful to carry out in the situation a Muslim might find themselves in.

 

[Harlequin]

random thought of the day:

in the `terrorist` attacks since 9/11 in the west , we have found the passports everytime

yet the rest of the world and prior to 2001 (inc the troubles) we never did.....

I`ll get my tinfoil hat