Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Syrian Crisis in One Picture (Warning: Very Sad)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    They're cherry-picking what they want to believe. Not unsual for religous folks.

    But how do you get someone to fly himself into a building without convincing him that paradise awaits. That takes religion.

    Or contempt and hatred towards the target with the promise of their families being cared for for life when they are gone.


    In this situation, if that takes religion, I believe it is as you said, a case of selective religion.


    If they were devout followers of Islam, they wouldn't be drinking in strip clubs, getting lap/table dances, and calling prostitutes to their hotels just days before their own personal sacrifice.

    Comment


    • #92
      Nilanka wrote: View Post
      I'm sure you've seen this, but it's still awesome. Liberal, politically-correct madness.
      That's awesome.

      Comment


      • #93
        mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
        If they were devout followers of Islam, they wouldn't be drinking in strip clubs, getting lap/table dances, and calling prostitutes to their hotels just days before their own personal sacrifice.
        In their minds, I'm sure they thought of themselves as devout.

        Comment


        • #94
          McHappy, you obviously strongly believe all this can be tied back to the West and evil corporations, etc. That's fine and I'm not going to argue with you cause it's pointless. Just consider for a moment that Islam has been at war with its neighbours for centuries, long before pipelines or Americans ever existed. There's a reason for it and it has nothing to do with the neighbours.

          Comment


          • #95
            slaw wrote: View Post
            McHappy, you obviously strongly believe all this can be tied back to the West and evil corporations, etc. That's fine and I'm not going to argue with you cause it's pointless. Just consider for a moment that Islam has been at war with its neighbours for centuries, long before pipelines or Americans ever existed. There's a reason for it and it has nothing to do with the neighbours.
            Right, so yet again, because they have been at war with each other for years, it is all fine and dandy for the West to interfere and contribute to instability in pursuit of their own agenda.

            You obviously prefer not to see any accountability shifted to the west for bringing that war from that region of the world in to the western world.


            I find your opinion ignorant - I really do.


            And I said nothing about evil corporations. You can ignore my talking points and examples I illustrated but please do not attribute ideas which I have not mentioned or said.

            Comment


            • #96
              Nilanka wrote: View Post
              In their minds, I'm sure they thought of themselves as devout.

              And that is where my point of radicals, extremists comes in to play.

              Selective is the key word in their religious followings.


              Most of the Muslim faith have condemned their actions. It is a shame western media does not emphasize that message.

              Comment


              • #97
                Nilanka wrote: View Post
                In their minds, I'm sure they thought of themselves as devout.
                I dont know how much of a motivating factor religion plays in the mind of those willing to commit suicide but it is definitely not the only. Other components of socio-economic conditions, education, depression, patriarchy, overwhelming force/protection mechanism of the opposition (eg. the west) etc.... play a part as well. Those who have religion (not that all understand it fully...like teens) may well be the factor that takes some over the top.

                One example which is cited often to show that religion may not play any part at all is the case of the Tamil Tigers insurgency of a few years ago in Sri Lanka. They were more so adherents of a Marxist/Leninist ideology which made them essentially a political group using suicide (or life itself) as a weapon. No religion. Their most likely religion in their formative years was likely Hinduism which is not known to have a martial component particularly.

                Last point...while those who actually commit the acts are essentially rubes and mules those who control them are the real fiends who most likely while proselytizing would never strap on the belt themselves.

                It is complex and I would say McHappy does have a valid point. Cannot minimize the greed & power factors on all sides actually.

                ps...Frontline on PBS this week had a chilling show on the making of a jihadi in Afghanistan.
                Last edited by Bendit; Thu Nov 19, 2015, 01:01 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  mcHAPPY wrote: View Post


                  I find your opinion ignorant - I really do.

                  I take that as a compliment.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    slaw wrote: View Post
                    I take that as a compliment.
                    Good for you.

                    But yes, it is all religion afterall...... note the title: Russia Explains To Clueless US Public Why Obama Can't Defeat ISIS


                    Earlier this week, CNN’s senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta asked President Obama the following question at a press briefing:

                    "A lot of Americans have this frustration that they see the United States has the greatest military in the world, it has the backing of nearly every other country in the world when it comes to taking on ISIS. I guess the question is, and if you'll forgive the language, but why can't we take out these bastards?"

                    Well Jim, the answer is quite simple and indeed, if you - or any other member of the mainstream media for that matter - would bother to look at things like the declassified Pentagon report that Judicial Watch turned up earlier this year, you’d be less confused.

                    Allow us, once again, to provide you with the answers you seek, straight from the Pentagon ca. 2012:

                    ...there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”


                    Translation: if Sunni extremists were to establish a proto-state in eastern Syria that would be great because it would destabilize Assad and cut off Iran from Hezbollah thus endangering the preservation of Tehran’s Shiite crescent.

                    For those who need a still simpler formulation: ISIS started out no different than any of the other rebels the US supports in Syria. They likely received guns, money, and training if not directly from the US, then from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Washington seems to have had some idea that they would seek to capture and hold territory and as far as the Pentagon was concerned, that was just fine. Whether or not the CIA anticipated what would come next is up for debate, but make no mistake, US intelligence knew good and well this was a possibility and let it happen because ousting Assad was (and still is) the top priority.

                    So when the Jim Costas of the world ask “why can’t we take out these bastards?”, the answer is that if if we did, one of the main forces destabilizing the Assad regime would be gone and not only that, the US would no longer have an excuse to be in Syria, which would leave the country’s political future entirely up to Russia and Iran and that is a decidedly unpalatable outcome not only for Washington, but for Riyadh and Doha as well.

                    It’s Occam’s Razor Jim: look for the simplest possible explanation and go with that.

                    Of course that explanation is simply too bad to be true for most Americans and so the public and the mass media will continue to exists in a state of perpetual bewilderment as to why 13 months of aerial bombardment hasn’t done anything to degrade the group.

                    In case any of the above isn’t clear enough, Sergei Lavrov has commentary which may help to drive the point home, presented below without further comment:

                    "Despite announcing ambitious plans for its coalition against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), the analysis of those [US-led] airstrikes during over a year lead to conclusion that they were hitting selectively, I would say, sparingly and on most occasions didn’t touch those IS units, which were capable of seriously challenging the Syrian army."

                    “Apparently, it’s a kind of a ‘honey is sweet, but the bee stings’ situation: they want IS to weaken Assad as soon as possible to make him leave somehow, but at the same time they don’t want to overly strengthen IS, which may then seize power."

                    "The US stance seriously weakens the prospects of Syria to remain a secular state, where the rights of all ethnic and religious groups will be provided and guaranteed,”

                    "Russia’s assessment of the US-led anti-terror operation in Syria is based on observations of specific results and there are little results, not to say there are none – except the fact that during this period [since August 2014] the Islamic State has grown on the territories they control.”


                    Clear enough?


                    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...nt-defeat-isis

                    IT IS ALL RELIGION FOLKS!

                    Comment


                    • I was listening to some CBC talk radio this morning in the car. A lot of people are really rattled by the December refugee timelines. It sounded like some were for, some were against but they all agreed the timeline was unsafe.

                      Comment


                      • Apollo wrote: View Post
                        I was listening to some CBC talk radio this morning in the car. A lot of people are really rattled by the December refugee timelines. It sounded like some were for, some were against but they all agreed the timeline was unsafe.
                        Were they security-check experts?

                        Comment


                        • Something more understable and more insidious than the religion argument for this iteration of the terror groups...It's a pill!


                          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rs/?tid=magnet

                          Comment


                          • But yes, it is all religion afterall...... note the title: Russia Explains To Clueless US Public Why Obama Can't Defeat ISIS
                            Well, thank fuck the Russians are here to explain how the world works to everyone. I mean, they've done such a bang up job recently in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Ukraine, Syria, the ex-Soviet bloc. Isn't it about time they started starving their own people again over there? Or is that on the agenda for the 2020s?

                            Comment


                            • mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                              Good for you.

                              But yes, it is all religion afterall...... note the title: Russia Explains To Clueless US Public Why Obama Can't Defeat ISIS


                              IT IS ALL RELIGION FOLKS!
                              I think we can agree that it's not "all" on religion. You've listed the many geo-political reasons that allow groups like ISIS to flourish. But let's not minimize the impact religious doctrine has to play:

                              Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
                              Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."
                              Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"
                              Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
                              Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

                              Comment


                              • Apollo wrote: View Post
                                I was listening to some CBC talk radio this morning in the car. A lot of people are really rattled by the December refugee timelines. It sounded like some were for, some were against but they all agreed the timeline was unsafe.
                                Just as with twitter/social media I dont believe talk radio is the best place to understand the core of the matter. As Calgary mayor Nenshi recently said...please study the entry requirements and vetting performed by Canada before making quick judgements. My understanding is that the refugees coming to Canada are from refugee camps in Turkey & Jordan and have been there for years possibly and have already been processed by multiple agencies.

                                It is understandable to be concerned but only after due consideration of the facts surrounding the action.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X