ISIS are pure evil.

Wurzelbert

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The Taliban, and the Viet Minh before them, would disagree with you.

none of the two conflicts was militarily lost by the yanks...they just sort of packed up and left when they had enough, politically and all...and it is sad to see how the western world is represented by america these days...

Zebra3

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In an IDEAL world, I would like to see the following terrorist groups or regimes consigned to history:

ISIS (in any form)
al Qaeda (in any form)
Boko Haram (in any form)
al Shabaab (in any form)
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (in its current form)
The Islamic Republic of Iran (in its current form)
The Islamic Republic of (North) Sudan (in its current form)

ALL of the above have left their countries much worse place after they took power in them. As much as I wish to see ALL the above gone or reformed, it is careful how each plays out. For the first 4 listed terrorist organisations, it is essential these are defeated militarily before they form a state. For the last 3, it should not be a military action. Iran has taken some steps with the unelected elements at least recognising the moderate government of president Rouhani and hopefully the world can support its journey from a Saudi-style monarchy in all but name to a proper republic. Moderation in Iran needs to be supported by the West. For Sudan, perhaps the breakup was messy but at least it shows perhaps there is some reform going on in this theocratic dictatorship too. Relations between Sudan and the West have improved and hopefully this can again install a transition to moderation.

Of the 3, Saudi Arabia proves the most hardline and ignored because there is no pressure on it. As much as I'd love to see the Saudi regime overthrown, I think it would cost us all very dearly and that's why the Saudis can run a neo-Nazi regime in all but name without much criticism from anyone. The West should negotiate things with the regime and reward them for reversing fascism.

A Middle East without fascism where people can dress, drink, eat and worship as they please, a world where Islam can once again be lead by moderate, intelligent people instead of brainless bigots and a world where terrorists don't get a say in where we visit, what transport we use, what laws are implemented in countries, etc. This is what all of us bar the terrorists want to see.

Unfortunately, the choice at present seems to between either a bad military dictator and a fascism 'Islamist' regime in many places and between a bad 'Islamic' republic and a much worse 'Islamic' caliphate in other places. These should not be the only choices and the decent people of Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Arabia (Saudi and its neighbours), Sudan, and Iraq among others deserve much better than the pretenders who have tarnished these once great nations.

And the axis of evil that is israel and the U.S.

Two states built on ethnic cleansing who continue with their human rights abuses of minorities to this day while constantly bombing other countries.

Their bloodlust knows no end.

BuilderPlumber

Wurzelbert wrote: »

none of the two conflicts was militarily lost by the yanks...they just sort of packed up and left when they had enough, politically and all...and it is sad to see how the western world is represented by america these days...

Vietnam was a funny old war. Starting off on a rather small scale, it escalated into something massive suddenly.

Why did it go so wrong for the US? True, the VC and NVA were resourceful fighters but they also had American allies en masse.

The war was fought during the civil rights and 'hippie' eras. The use of Agent Orange and Napalm caused outrage too and the photo of children burning running from US strikes with napalm did not help at all for obvious reasons. Plus, plenty celebrities like Cassius Clay/Mohamed Ali were outspoken critics of the war.

As it dragged on, it was becoming more and more of a futile liability. Johnson withdrew from the presidency and Nixon wanted to wind this thing down. He had other ways of dealing with things. The South Vietnam regime was not any longer worth protecting so they withdrew. They could live with a war weary weakened communist Vietnam especially when Us relations with China improved (China was then a rival of the USSR). When the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia, China gave it support and the US did not discourage it. Vietnam defeated this regime later and times had moved on to other issues by then. Any 'unfinished business' with Vietnam was played out on screen in Rambo films and Chuck Norris films and the like!! Normally themed around missing POW rescues. By the 1990s, Vietnam was a distant memory. And now, the US and the successor communists of Vietnam have normal relations!

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

...he said, ignoring the Burmese and Sri Lankans all of a sudden, and the former insurgency in Tibet during the 1970's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tibetan_unrest

Firstly, I never said Buddhists couldn't be violent. Only that they must first pervert their religion to do so.

Secondly you're partly right about the 2008 Tibet riots, I remember that very clearly.

The Tibetans finally got POed about the way the Chinese were treating them and engaged in mild riots. I also remember very clearly the Dalai Lama explicitly disavowed the violence and threatened to resign as Dalai Lama if it continued. The violence ended very shortly thereafter. The Dalai Lama has also been very quick to condemn - and unambiguous in doing so - the kind of stuff you referred to in your other posts.

I also find it interesting, from your own posts it seems theres mainly two groups that are able piss off the Buddhists enough to disregard the central tenet of their religion and go postal ...

Nodin wrote: »

The idea was put forward that somehow you wouldn't have exclusionist Buddhist nationalists.

No it wasn't. Only that you don't see quite the same level of brutality all over the world because Buddhism is an actual religion of peace that also does not prosletyse.

Next time somoene kills a Jew in Europe, it's safe to say the murderer won't be a Buddhist.

BlaasForRafa

Zebra3 wrote: »

What about all the chemical weapons dropped on Vietnam?

You know what it is when you put "What about" at the start of a sentence right?

BlaasForRafa

Zebra3 wrote: »

And the axis of evil that is israel and the U.S.

Two states built on ethnic cleansing who continue with their human rights abuses of minorities to this day while constantly bombing other countries.

Their bloodlust knows no end.

If you want to complain about those countries then go start a thread on them yourself, this thread is about Daesh.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Firstly, I never said Buddhists couldn't be violent. Only that they must first pervert their religion to do so..

...which is always the case, according to the Religions whose members get violent. Why we have to say the Muslims are an exception escapes me.

The Tibetans finally got POed about the way the Chinese were treating them and
engaged in mild riots.

"Finally" ignores the intermittent violence there since 1950 or so.

SeanW wrote: »

I also find it interesting, from your own posts it seems theres mainly two groups that are able piss off the Buddhists enough to disregard the central tenet of their religion and go postal ....

Hindus, Muslims Communists and Christians, or did you intend cherry picking one or two examples to get a dig in at a certain religous group again?

SeanW wrote: »

No it wasn't. Only that you don't see quite the same level of brutality all over the world because Buddhism is an actual religion of peace that also does not prosletyse.....

Except where it gets violent.

SeanW wrote: »

that also does not prosletyse.....

Ye reckon?

"Like Christianity and Islam, Buddhism is a missionary religion in that it has always believed that the truth it teaches should be made known to as many people as possible. After the Buddha made and trained his first disciples he gave them this commission: "Go ye forth for the good of the many, for the welfare of the many, out of compassion for the world. Let no two of you go in the same direction, teach the dharmadata that is beautiful in the beginning, middle and end, expound both the spirit and the letter of the holy life completely fulfilled, perfectly pure. There are beings with but little dust in their eyes, who not hearing the Dhamma will decline but who, if they do hear it will grow".
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd31.htm

SeanW wrote: »

Next time somoene kills a Jew in Europe, it's safe to say the murderer won't be a Buddhist.

Next time somebody kills a Tamil in Sri Lanka, its safe to say the murderer won't be a Buddhist.

reprise

Zebra3 wrote: »

And the axis of evil that is israel and the U.S.

Two states built on ethnic cleansing who continue with their human rights abuses of minorities to this day while constantly bombing other countries.

Their bloodlust knows no end.

Well, at least you don't dress up your antipathy as pseudo concern for others or tenuous relativism.

Roger Hassenforder

Nodin wrote: »

...
"Go ye forth for the good of the many, for the welfare of the many, out of compassion for the world. Let no two of you go in the same direction, teach the dharma that is beautiful in the beginning, middle and end, expound both the spirit and the letter of the holy life completely fulfilled, perfectly pure. There are beings with but little dust in their eyes, who not hearing the Dhamma will decline but who, if they do hear it will grow".
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd31.htm

anything in the Dharma about what they should do to those who reject them?
things like "I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them". Quran 008.012

Zebra3

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You know what it is when you put "What about" at the start of a sentence right?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you want to complain about those countries then go start a thread on them yourself, this thread is about Daesh.

It's all related to calls from idiots for certain states to act against IS as if those barbaric states have some sort of moral high ground.

Wurzelbert

all the “moral high ground” whataboutery around here seems somewhat inappropriate...clearly some folks have yet to understand how the world and mankind function...

Nodin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

anything in the Dharma about what they should do to those who reject them?
things like "I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them". Quran 008.012

I'd imagine there is, and multiple readings of it, much as presumably the above.

You aren't quoting all of that in full, are you?

Roger Hassenforder

Nodin wrote: »

I'd imagine there is, and multiple readings of it, much as presumably the above.

You aren't quoting all of that in full, are you?

Why, does the next bit say "Ah fcuk it lads, go handy, I was only messing about the head hacking bit. That was pure for the lolz like"?

I'll leave it with you about the Dharma having something similar.


As an aside, ISIS chap "not cut out for it" does legger saying it's awful what's been done to Muslims, but he hadn't a problem treating kafirs harshly...

http://news.sky.com/story/1433658/foreign-is-recruits-using-fake-syrian-passports

BuilderPlumber

Zebra3 wrote: »

And the axis of evil that is israel and the U.S.

Two states built on ethnic cleansing who continue with their human rights abuses of minorities to this day while constantly bombing other countries.

Their bloodlust knows no end.

Yes. I agree. While there are WAY TOO MANY 'Islamic' fascist dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa, they were often helped on by both Israel and the US. Why?

There was a time when 'Islamic' fascism was not the main enemy. IF in fact was considered a bulwark to the then most feared enemies (communism for the US, Arab nationalism for Israel). Things came to a head in 1979.

In that year and in the subsequent ones, the US could have acted differently. It could have:

-sent in support for Mohammed Reza Pahlavi's regime in Iran or allowed a socialist government to succeed him. Instead, Pahlavi was considered a spent force who was both too independent and cozying up to communists of late. A total communist or even socialist Iran was not wanted either. So, the US allowed the Revolutionary Guards and their friends to set up the so-called 'Islamic' Republic of Iran right on the USSR borders!
-ignored Afghanistan. But just like with Ukraine today, the West will never ignore a Russian invasion of a country so thus supplied the rebels. Again, the more ferocious they were the better. The USSR then had a long stretch of borders with fascist states who ideologically hated the USSR's godless attitude much more than they did the US.
-avoided arming both Iran and Iraq in the 1980-88 war. This war kept both countries poor, regressive and underdeveloped. This suited the West in many ways.

Israel on the other hand also backed up 'Islamist' fascism too. It tolerated Hamas early on as a counterweight to the then dominant Fatah and PLO. It supported Iran by supplying arms (Yes!!) in its war against Arab nationalist Saddam lead Iraq. Iran was lead by far more radical forces then btw too. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad let alone Hassan Rouhani was a total moderate compared to those who ruled Iran in the 1980-1988 period when the war was on (even though ironically many of these 1980s hardliners are very much on the moderate side and often enemies of the 'Islamic' republic now). Do not be fooled by Iran and Israel's war of words ever: both would do a deal with each other anytime to keep the Arabs at bay. Israel also supported tacitly the Afghan mujahedin and also even ISIS to a degree (as it is again an enemy of an old Arab nationalist enemy in the Assad family).

So, all this meddling lead to the worst regimes in the region. But it was undying support for Saudi Arabia from the word go by the oil companies and thus the West that set the blueprint for everything. Saudi Arabia was the cradle of militant 'Islam' and fascist 'Arab'/'Islamic' nationalism and the blueprint followed by everyone else who wanted to set up an ultranationalist 'Islamist' fascist state in the region.

Nodin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Why, does the next bit say "Ah fcuk it lads, go handy, I was only messing about the head hacking bit. That was pure for the lolz like"?

It was Allah addressing Angels, not his followers. The fact that you clipped words off the start of a sentence strikes me as a tad odd.

BlaasForRafa

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's all related to calls from idiots for certain states to act against IS as if those barbaric states have some sort of moral high ground.

It's whataboutery and you know it. Deal with the issues of attacking IS on their own merits, people who engage in whataboutery typically don't have a solid argument against those merits. If you want to complain about other states start a thread about them.

Roger Hassenforder

Nodin wrote: »

It was Allah addressing Angels, not his followers. The fact that you clipped words off the start of a sentence strikes me as a tad odd.

Ah! So its ok for the angels to do it?

Nothing in the Dharma then yet?
Odd that.

Nodin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ah! So its ok for the angels to do it?
.

The wrath of God via imaginary people with wings is a common concept. You left that bit out solely to get a dig in. There are, by all accounts, various passages in the Koran that can be read as an instruction to violence to its followers but that isn't one of them. The truth is you believe that muslims are violent and search with preconceived notions. Leaving the first 3 words of that quote is quote mining of the worst kind.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nothing in the Dharma then yet?
Odd that.

Buddhist monks actively engage in violence and in encouraging it and do so in the name of their faith. Evidently they believe it's justified based on some teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

Buddhist monks actively engage in violence and in encouraging it and do so in the name of their faith. Evidently they believe it's justified based on some teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

Since you're so interested in buddhists you really should start a thread about them.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Since you're so interested in buddhists you really should start a thread about them.

I didn't bring it up, as explained earlier. Somebody wished to paint muslims as exceptionally violent by making a statement that was not correct and I've been responding to that and related remarks, also explained earlier.

keanosbeard

5064 people were killed in " Jihadist " violence in November 2014, according to a study by International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation commisssioned by the BBC.

No doubt it hurt the well meaning folks at the BBC to even admit to the story, but they clearly were so concerned by the phenomenon that for once they were brave enough to do some reporting ( although they still can't bring themselves to call racist murdering rapists " militants " rather than " terrorists ", or hell, even racists. ) Even chief apologist The Guardian did a story on the report.

Although some folk will give us the " Moral Equivalence " I doubt the scale of that Moral Equivalence, when statistically adjusted, would not even up. How many folk did the whatabouterists old reliables The Lords Resistance Army kill in November 2014 ?

In fact it would be interesting to see how many folk were killed in the name of Bhuddist Jihad and Christian Jihad and Hindu Jihad and Sihk Jihad and Judaist Jihad and Scientology Jihad and Shintoist Jihad. ( Oops, do those ideologies have a direct equivalent of the religious duty that is Jihad ? )

There is a phenomenon in play which cannot be explained away by blaming the Decadent West.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

I didn't bring it up, as explained earlier. Somebody wished to paint muslims as exceptionally violent by making a statement that was not correct and I've been responding to that and related remarks, also explained earlier.

"I didn't start it yer honour!". Responding to someone elses point by employing whataboutery doesn't somehow not make it whataboutery.

kstand

I see the paedophile state paraded peshmerga fighters in cages through the streets of a town in Kirkuk yesterday. Any guess what gruesome fate they face at the hands of these child rapists. I'd love to know where the Muslim condemnation is of this odious state on the streets of cities in the west.

DavidRamsay99

kstand wrote: »

I see the paedophile state paraded peshmerga fighters in cages through the streets of a town in Kirkuk yesterday. Any guess what gruesome fate they face at the hands of these child rapists. I'd love to know where the Muslim condemnation is of this odious state on the streets of cities in the west.

Obviously they will just be covered in green sludge after picking the wrong answer in some hilarious TV ISIS game show?

Or else ISIS have their own version of the Dating Game?

DavidRamsay99

keanosbeard wrote: »

5064 people were killed in " Jihadist " violence in November 2014, according to a study by International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation commisssioned by the BBC.

No doubt it hurt the well meaning folks at the BBC to even admit to the story, but they clearly were so concerned by the phenomenon that for once they were brave enough to do some reporting ( although they still can't bring themselves to call racist murdering rapists " militants " rather than " terrorists ", or hell, even racists. ) Even chief apologist The Guardian did a story on the report.

Although some folk will give us the " Moral Equivalence " I doubt the scale of that Moral Equivalence, when statistically adjusted, would not even up. How many folk did the whatabouterists old reliables The Lords Resistance Army kill in November 2014 ?

In fact it would be interesting to see how many folk were killed in the name of Bhuddist Jihad and Christian Jihad and Hindu Jihad and Sihk Jihad and Judaist Jihad and Scientology Jihad and Shintoist Jihad. ( Oops, do those ideologies have a direct equivalent of the religious duty that is Jihad ? )

There is a phenomenon in play which cannot be explained away by blaming the Decadent West.

But..but...Father Brendan Smyth...

(Head explodes as incapable of denying ISIS threat any longer)

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

"I didn't start it yer honour!". Responding to someone elses point by employing whataboutery doesn't somehow not make it whataboutery.

It isn't "whataboutery".

Nodin

kstand wrote: »

I see the paedophile state paraded peshmerga fighters in cages through the streets of a town in Kirkuk yesterday. Any guess what gruesome fate they face at the hands of these child rapists. I'd love to know where the Muslim condemnation is of this odious state on the streets of cities in the west.

You missed the bit where various imams issued a fatwa against joining Isis? Or are we going to have the usual 'that's not enough/they don't mean it/etc' bit of goal post shifting?

Zebra3

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It's whataboutery and you know it. Deal with the issues of attacking IS on their own merits, people who engage in whataboutery typically don't have a solid argument against those merits. If you want to complain about other states start a thread about them.

I'm no fan of IS. Also I'm no fan of the murderous, barbaric states lining up another "humanitarian intervention". How did the ones in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya go?

kstand wrote: »

I see the paedophile state paraded peshmerga fighters in cages through the streets of a town in Kirkuk yesterday. Any guess what gruesome fate they face at the hands of these child rapists. I'd love to know where the Muslim condemnation is of this odious state on the streets of cities in the west.

I never heard of the UK doing this. That glorious state that has its secret service recording politicians raping kids, peados in the royal family and a trove of kiddie fiddlers in its national broadcasting company

Roger Hassenforder

Nodin wrote: »

The wrath of God via imaginary people with wings is a common concept. You left that bit out solely to get a dig in. There are, by all accounts, various passages in the Koran that can be read as an instruction to violence to its followers but that isn't one of them. The truth is you believe that muslims are violent and search with preconceived notions. Leaving the first 3 words of that quote is quote mining of the worst kind.



Buddhist monks actively engage in violence and in encouraging it and do so in the name of their faith. Evidently they believe it's justified based on some teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

Dhera, that's a catalog of right shits visiting atrocities on other peoples. I'm not denying Buddhists engage in such atrocities.

Still nothing from the Dharma though advocating this violence? I'm not aware of any videos on liveleak of Muslims being beheaded by Buddists with cries of "Up Budda" or whatever they say. In fact most of the videos are of Muslims beheading other Muslims with cries of "Allah Achbar, Taqbir?
We might have to park that one up for later?

Even Budda himself (as one particular incarnation) killed someone, apparently to save another's life, and as a result wasn't able to achieve enlightenment, a fail for him. According to the fat one: "Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Full stop.

A bit at odd with "the Messenger of Allah's antics:
“Then they [the Qurayza Jews]surrendered and the apostle [Muhammad] confined them in Medina…Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches".


You're aware of the context of that passage from the most perfect book. You'll also be aware of the significance of angels in Islam,, their lack of free will etc.. However, surprisingly, it seems that's not even the passage used by some Islamic scholars to justify beheading which is:

"o when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their]necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either confer favor afterwards or ransom [them]until the war lays down its burdens. (47.4)
Is there any other context for that? And the conveying of the head thereafter is of greater debate.

And no, I'm not predisposed to be prejudiced against Islam. I merely think there is a serious issue with it, that can only be addressed by internal reform; that it is not racist or islamphobic discussing it; that someone is entitled to practice whatever nonsense they want in privacy, but keep it out of the public domain.

In fact, I've a problem with all religions, but this particular thread is about Muslim fcukwits in Syria/Iraq.

BlaasForRafa

Zebra3 wrote: »

I'm no fan of IS. Also I'm no fan of the murderous, barbaric states lining up another "humanitarian intervention". How did the ones in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya go?

Why ask me? Show me one post where I said Western states should intervene.