Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West

Page 10 of 10 [ 158 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

04 May 2016, 4:58 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

It's weird how no none of the western media calls Bachar el Assad as terrorist for what he's doing to Aleppo.

As if this label is only applicable on long-bearded radicals.

Media logic: Wear a tie, have a hot and non-veiled wife, and you can be a mass murderer of your own people without being labeled terrorist.

Who isn't a terrorist in the region then? We need to move towards stability and secularism in the middle east instead of trying to force these countries into being Western liberal democracies. Bashar al-Assad is certainly the most moderate secular force in that civil war which is why before all this started he was being a called a 'reformer' in the US. This war in Syria by the way I should mentioned was started by outside agitation and the same in Libya under Gaddafi who would be a godsend in Libya right now if only we didn't have him murdered. Turkey and the Gulf Arabs have their own regional ambitions, the whole middle east is a very dangerous tinder box ready to blow. Things don't work in a vacuum, someone else will fill the void if you remove them as we seen in Iraq and Libya, thankfully the Russians were able to stop us from making the same mistake in Syria or else ISIS would be knocking on the door too Lebanon. The Turks want to take all of northern Syria and to prevent any independent Kurdish state, they want to build an oil pipeline with the Saudis.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

04 May 2016, 5:23 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

The USA created the Al Queda in the same sense that we created the Contras in Nicaragua. Thats just stating the obvious. That Al Queda turned on us later was an accident. But Al Queda has been fighting the same enemies weve been fighting - in Bosnia in the Nineties, and in Syria right now. And we were unwittingly (and quite possibly wittingly and deliberately) arming Al Queda in Syria against Assad.

This isn't true either. The contras were directly trained an armed. You have not provided evidence of this with regard to Al Queda.

I dont need to prove anything.

You just admitted to what everyone knows: that the U.S. made alliance with the Afghan freedom fighters, who also invited Arab adventureres to join, while at the same time the US's Gulf allies were encourging Arab freedom fighters to go to Afghanistan, and the US was encouraging its Gulf Allies to encourage them. Like the King of France giving aid to the insurgency in the 13 colonies against Britain (which also caused 9-11 style blow back to him- the success of the American Revolution inspired the French people to cut off the Louis's head). The Afghan Jihadist kicked out Russia, and one faction of the Jihadist then commandeered Afganistan -the Taliban- who give haven to Bin Ladin and Al Queda in Afghanistan.

Thanks for agreeing with my stating of the obvious: that US policy caused the rise of Al Queda.

Despite 9-11 the US (intentionally or not) continued to aid and abett Al Queda by breaking off our pursuit of them in Afghanistan, and invading Iraq and Toppling Saddam (an enemy of Al Queda), and causing the creation of Alqueda in Iraq. And Al Queda does its part to aid our interests as well by fighting our enemy Assad in Syria.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

04 May 2016, 5:50 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

I dont need to prove anything.

You are being sloppy with your words, and Boo.

People will take that as the CIA/US created Al Qaeda. This was words that were used. This is just not the case.

You can argue that the are culpable, but saying it was created is a completely different insinuation.

ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) may have set up Jaish-e-Mohammed, and is known to have cooperated on some level with militant Islamist groups.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

04 May 2016, 6:05 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Thanks for agreeing with my stating of the obvious: that US policy caused the rise of Al Queda.

US policy didn't help, however Al Queda was actually about the Arabian Peninsular originally rather than the middle east conflict. Before Afgan 1, there was already connections and networking with the founders.

Quite a big factor in the formation of these groups is the 13 centuries of sectarianism. It is not like much is needed to set these guys off.

You don't have to convince me that US make a lot of mistake in foreign policy. The proxy wars in the cold war were stupid.

However I would argue that Angola was a bigger mistake at the time. Obviously Iraq and Libya have been failures.

Syria they are dammed if they do, they are dammed if they don't

TheSpectrum
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,121
Location: Hampshire

04 May 2016, 6:06 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

In the Western world how you look determines what people think you are even if it is wholly irrelevant or untrue.

Ugly socially awkward men are seen as sex offenders.
Confident black women are seen as "angry" thugs.
White collar men are seen as slimy thieves by blue collar workers.
There's no rhyme or reason behind it but there you go.

Going back to the topic, I have nothing useful to add except it is too easy to say the West created the cells we are having to defend ourselves against today. I don't think the word "created" is the right word. The people they supported already had these agendas. The West didn't create them, but they did enable them for various purposes over several decades, and they should be culpabale for that at least.

_________________
Yours sincerely, some dude.

Cup
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 43

05 May 2016, 12:15 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

He is a political leader not a terrorist. By the same token, Bush and Obama are not terrorists when they send flying death robots to bomb things. Another non-example of terrorists Iran's revolutionary guard is the military of a recognized sovereign nation. Even if the nation itself is extreme, they are not terrorists.

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

05 May 2016, 9:19 am

Barchan wrote:

ZenDen wrote:

I could have made the connection, although I did not, with other atrocities, as you say. But if you'll reread our posts you will see I was picking this very visible example of "Muslim exclusive" terrorism which I feel has justly earned them the "Terrorist" label; and also in relation to other, civilized, religions, who do NOT think killing innocent men, women and children is a church sponsored and approved religious event.

"Justly"?

You think it's just to stereotype 1.6 billion people like that?

My thoughts are (I hope I don't offend): There is the Quran. To the Faithful it is the word of God. In the Quran are passages concerning jihad. Some Faithful interpret these passages in a way that may lead them to do violence to others. A faithful Muslim is instructed to understand the Quran according to their personal instruction and beliefs....and there is no prohibition against doing violence to others if this is the interpretation of the Words.

This means there is a "potential" in every Muslim to become radicalized by their adherence to Islam. And not only a potential but REAL acts of violence are carried out in Allah's name....EVERY DAY. Children of peaceful Muslims become radicalized and go off to chop off people's heads (Surprise...your kid just burned someone to death...aren't you proud?).

Do you call this a stereotype? I do not as the news reports continue to tell us of further beheadings and other atrocities
without end. And the radicalization continues. How sad.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

05 May 2016, 9:59 am

Who is closest to Muhammad's interpretation of Islam? Who would he most resemble were he alive today? I think we know the answer to that question and that is the fundamental difference between Islam and other religions. Islam was founded in violence and literally means submission not peace. The only way you get peace with Islam is submission.

I think there are a lot of people that identify as faithful Muslims just like there are a lot of people that identify as faithful Christians but have no idea what they are talking about, Boo mentioned something a long these lines earlier. I think culturally people might associate the virtuous with their religion while forgetting that most people are not so virtuous, some would say that religion has more inspired violence and stupidity than it has virtue. It's easy for us to magnify these incidences of violence and stupidity, I don't want a war on any religion and do think it has/can help a lot of people in their lives if it is something personal without promoting insular values.

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

05 May 2016, 12:46 pm

Cup wrote:

ZenDen wrote:

You seem to be picking one single tactic of terrorism as being the definition of terrorism

I could have made the connection, although I did not, with other atrocities, as you say. But if you'll reread our posts you will see I was picking this very visible example of "Muslim exclusive" terrorism which I feel has justly earned them the "Terrorist" label; and also in relation to other, civilized, religions, who do NOT think killing innocent men, women and children is a church sponsored and approved religious event. I think Bingo is about as radical as many of these other religions get.

So, no. I do not believe I offered a definition of terrorism. Merely the connection between why people use the term "Muslim terrorist" and not "Baptist terrorist", or "Buddhist terrorist" etc.

I think Bingo is about as radical as many of these other religions get.

It's the same way in a typical American Mosque, minus the bingo. They probably have halal snack foods though. I have never been to a mosque but I would imagine.

And insinuating that the culture that gave us algebra and chemistry and preserved the writings of ancient greek thinkers is not civilized suggests that you are a lot like /pol/

"And insinuating that the culture that gave us algebra and chemistry and preserved the writings of ancient greek thinkers is not civilized suggests that you are a lot like /pol/"

Insinuating??? I don't "insinuate." If I thought Muslims were not civilized then I would say: "Muslims are not civilized."

Where did that come from????

However a Muslim killing people in the name of his/her religion is definitely a terrorist. (Besides..aren't many terrorized by having to take algebra and chemistry?

)

"/pol/"???

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

05 May 2016, 4:34 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

There is no solid definition of terrorist.

You could argue anyone that uses terror as a tactic is one.

What may make him not a terrorist is overwhelming force trumping just terrorizing. Meaning he doesn't have to use asymmetric warfare, he can kill on much larger number than most terrorists with conventional warefare. However ISIS itself has operated more as a conventional force too.

The problem is Boo, is the some of the same people the critised the invasion of Iraq or Libya now want us to intervene. It is not clear it will help. Libya is a disaster too, they are not united. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

People like Assad wouldn't exist if there wasn't such sectarianism in the region. It would be good if the current generation would reject this and not teach their kids this nonsense. However where there is such distrust in each other it is a tough cycle to break.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

05 May 2016, 5:03 pm

Btw I made this point a while ago.

I don't think there should "anti-terror" legislation. Our laws should reflect the type of crimes that shoudl be committed.

Motive is separate, that is determined in the trial.

Otherwise we are creating all sort of subjective special cases, which especially could be abused degrading our civil liberties.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,129
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 May 2016, 2:02 pm

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488

Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 850

06 May 2016, 5:31 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Islam was founded in violence and literally means submission not peace.

It means submission to Allah. Not submission in the way you are thinking of.

You need to realize there's some linguistic nuance at work here, and there are some concepts that don't translate well. In English, "submission" has connotations of subjugation and violence that are completely absent in the Arabic word "Islam." "Islam" shares an etymology with "salem" (safety) and "salaam" (peace).

Islam means Islam. I don't think there's a single word in English that can adequately capture what that word means.

Cup
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 43

07 May 2016, 10:51 pm

Barchan wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Islam was founded in violence and literally means submission not peace.

We have a similar concept in Christianity too. Its all over Paul's letters. Its also here, in James 4:7 "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." I'm not sure why this is so controversial.

Page 10 of 10 [ 158 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Jump to:

Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West Post Reply New Topic

Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West