Quake3World

I was being sarcastic you mong.

Don Carlos wrote:Also IS members are not Muslims

and you're not an Islamic scholar in a position to make that claim

Ryoki wrote:In the same way a hedge fund manager is not really a capitalist perhaps...

strictly-speaking, business people don't give a rat's ass about ideology (activists, politicians and academics on the other hand...), so while it's possible that a hedge fund manager is a capitalist in his spare time, i doubt he lets 'doctrine' cloud his business judgement

Ryoki wrote:Jesus, they actually went and found a new level of barbaric depravity... sick bastards.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -practice/

not really new unfortunately...

ever heard of napalm?

Eraser wrote:

feedback wrote:no Scotsman would do such a thing

no true Scotsman would do such a thing

What are you trying to say?
Not all Muslims are religious fanatics. You wouldn't even notice my friend's a Muslim until you hear him ask if a dish contains pork or not.

I'm saying that the sooner everyone stops pretending they aren't Muslims the sooner this kind of bullshit will reach a conclusion. They may have a more violent interpretation of it, but to pretend that the religion doesn't have a lot of violence preached in it against other religions/atheists is ignoring reality. Ignoring it and saying "but ALL religions have bad parts" doesn't make it less true for a particular one whose bad parts result in a lot unnecessary of human suffering and rights violations. There is a "not my problem, don't look at me" attitude combined with a tacit condoning of inexcusable acts, as long as it's the west who is the recipient, as there is a prevailing attitude that we deserve it as retribution for any number of acts real and imagined from the present day back a thousand years.

In fact, one can argue that religious literalists are the "truer" version of the religion than the accepting, moderate, peaceful people with we to think about to make ourselves feel fuzzy. Someone who owns slaves, beats their wife to death and casts men who lie with other men off cliffs is a lot closer to the origins of their religion than most, strictly speaking.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/04/burning-victims-death-still-common-practice/

not really new unfortunately...

Whoa, people have died before by being burned alive, such as by use of modern weapon systems? Hold the fucking presses!

What a nonsensical article by Greenwald, whose opinion i usually value highly - the barbarism stems from not from the burning itself but from doing it to a prisoner in a cage, that's some medieval shit and i'm quite amazed Greenwald apparently doesn't see a difference. Will he defend IS drawing and quartering a prisoner next time because folks tend to get their legs blown off from high explosive granades as well?

feedback wrote: In fact, one can argue that religious literalists are the "truer" version of the religion than the accepting, moderate, peaceful people with we to think about to make ourselves feel fuzzy. Someone who owns slaves, beats their wife to death and casts men who lie with other men off cliffs is a lot closer to the origins of their religion than most, strictly speaking.

Hah, well put

feedback wrote:I'm saying that the sooner everyone stops pretending they aren't Muslims the sooner this kind of bullshit will reach a conclusion. They may have a more violent interpretation of it, but to pretend that the religion doesn't have a lot of violence preached in it against other religions/atheists is ignoring reality. Ignoring it and saying "but ALL religions have bad parts" doesn't make it less true for a particular one whose bad parts result in a lot unnecessary of human suffering and rights violations. There is a "not my problem, don't look at me" attitude combined with a tacit condoning of inexcusable acts, as long as it's the west who is the recipient, as there is a prevailing attitude that we deserve it as retribution for any number of acts real and imagined from the present day back a thousand years.

In fact, one can argue that religious literalists are the "truer" version of the religion than the accepting, moderate, peaceful people with we to think about to make ourselves feel fuzzy. Someone who owns slaves, beats their wife to death and casts men who lie with other men off cliffs is a lot closer to the origins of their religion than most, strictly speaking.

You're approaching this from the wrong angle. Rather than lumping all Muslims on one big pile you should judge people by their actions, not whether or not they label themselves using the same syntax. The semantics behind those "labels" differ greatly and I'm not sure whether or not you want this to be a discussion about semantics ("ooh, they use the same term to identify themselves") or a discussion about (the differences in) ideology. I have no problem with my friend identifying himself as Muslim. If IS members want to identify as Muslims, well, they're free to do so. When things become iffy is when you start drawing parallels between them purely based on the fact that they both call themselves "Muslim". Also, just look at the various flavors of Christianity spread throughout the world. One Christian isn't the same as the other, especially not considering the bible promotes the use of violence against gays and whatnot as well.

tl;dr "Muslim" can have various meanings. It means something vastly different when my friend calls himself a "Muslim" as when an IS member calls himself a "Muslim".

Eraser, did you get the mistaken impression that either Feedback or i said something along the lines of 'all muslims are IS members'? Because i thought we were arguing that it's nonsenscial to say that IS members are not muslims, which is another discussion.

Maybe your muslim friend doesn't feel that gay people should be killed per se - and let me just say that's awfully nice of him & i appreciate it - but i fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Yup it's vastly different comparing an IS member to an average muslim living in the UK or USA. But not as different as comparing an IS member and an average Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, or non-religious person. Why is that so hard to admit?

Ryoki wrote:Eraser, did you get the mistaken impression that either Feedback or i said something along the lines of 'all muslims are IS members'? Because i thought we were arguing that it's nonsenscial to say that IS members are not muslims, which is another discussion.

I don't think that claiming IS members aren't Muslims is worth discussing, because I'm not sure who determines what the definition of "a muslim" is. In that sense I'm on your side, it's kind of nonsensical indeed. But if that's all you're pointing out, then I don't understand why Islam's supposed violent nature and everything needs to be pointed out. Sounds to me like you are lumping all Muslims together because they're all supposedly formed from the same evil, violent and hateful roots.

Because it's a meme that they aren't Muslim, that's all.

Glad we cleared that up then. Concensus, hurray!

One last thing; it's a meme because wondering about it causes some hard questions for believers, such as why are these cunts who kill people in the name of my god actually correct when i look at my holy book when all these other values i treasure tell me it's completely wrong? It's a lot easier to frame the extremists as unbelievers who somehow missed the message than wonder if the holy book is maybe a little fucking crazy to begin with.

Grow up chumps...

How To Fake An ISIS Beheading In 5 Easy Steps!: http://youtu.be/sUyo8H5brgk

And have u dipshits even seen the video of the Jordanian being burned? It's 22 minutes of network quality editing and producing... Ain't no Isis propaganda... Straight up CIA propaganda... Unless ur a moron...

You don't believe that.

Nope, he doesn't...

Have u seen the video? Looks like they hired some one from Hollywood's to make it... ...

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Ryoki wrote:Jesus, they actually went and found a new level of barbaric depravity... sick bastards.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -practice/

not really new unfortunately...

no, not new - but contrast the way the perpetrators talk about it: denial by western militaries and governments, open flaunting by ISIS. 'we' deny it when 'we' do it, because we know it's evil and we're ashamed; ISIS however think they're doing good, and are proud of it

Lol... Just came across on gawker... Notice the third one....

They do all this in a war zone crawling with drones etc...and apparently with great internet connections... ...

I could record and edit a video like theirs on my iPhone. It doesn't take Spielberg...

I don't see how these videos could recruit Isis fighters... I do see how it could draw support for western military intervention in the region...

Don't be obtuse... Moron....

seremtan wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -practice/

not really new unfortunately...

no, not new - but contrast the way the perpetrators talk about it: denial by western militaries and governments, open flaunting by ISIS. 'we' deny it when 'we' do it, because we know it's evil and we're ashamed; ISIS however think they're doing good, and are proud of it

This is really interesting to me because I think you've hit upon something here. I do think the filming/boasting aspect is a special part of what appalls people about this because it throws it in one's face. It makes it more real in a sense.

I reject the idea that "us" being ashamed of our atrocities makes us different though. Bottom line is we do those bad things too.

We just don't have any 'reasons' why filming* and distributing our horrors would do us any good or surely we would do the same. It could be argued that IS have 'reasons' to terrorize in this fashion; I'm hearing UAE is pulling out of the coalition because of these terror tactics so arguably they are working.

* Apparently the U.S. did film much of the torture they inflicted

edit: Back in the Vietnam War, it was photos of burned napalm victims that helped sway U.S. opinion against the war. Now images are secreted away and press is strictly controlled. This eases the course of the narrative that says these people are somehow more barbaric than us.