Shit is happening

[psychospacecow]

I suppose these are relevant to the discussion.


Context

[~Axis~]

I dunno about you guys, but something about ISIS is not right. Of course, they're terrorists, which isn't right at all.

But something is just a bit "fishy". I feel like its connected to a lot of things, like the 9/11 incident.

Like some really bad, hidden, underground stuff...

It's probably nothing. You should just forget about it, if something was up our governments would surely tell us. Why would they not?

Yeah I'm with Ray on this one. ISIS seems like a pretty ok guy. eh scare the general public and doesn't afraid of anything

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, BlueBlur

but Daesh is up to a bunch of no-good shit and is like, disregarding human life and violating shittons of war crimes left and right

[/quote]

I'm not being sarcastic.

Being the curious being that I am, I read a lot of stuff,and I happen to stumble upon some conspiracy theories along the way. I also saw a video of another look at 9/11a while back, which kinda implies that bin laden had nothing to do with it. I also read something else that said 9/11 was just a reason to get oil in the middle East. Not that I believe all that, I'm just open to all types of ideas. But from history we know that governments of the world sometimes take drastic measures to get what they want.

Perhaps "ISIS" is just another "reason" for something? I dunno. I'm not really into politics to know much. Just throwing in my perspective on this and wondering if you guys thought about it this way.

[Lemonray]

The Islamic State exists because the western governments knowingly enabled and armed jihadist fighters hoping they would destroy Bashar al-Assad's government so we wouldn't directly have to. That is pretty much the story.

9/11 is more complex and I'm too tired to type anything else out. Maybe you'll get your redpill tomorrow.

[Lexou Duck]

Well one thing i find obvious is along the lines of what kosh was saying

we've been bombimg the middle east for this "war on terror" for 14 years now
if such a war was the solution, it wouldve been won by now.
except this is a war against an idea, and the more victims we create with our bombs, the stronger the idea grows
To add to that, our governments, invasion after invasion, kept creating government-less safe havens for terrorists

im angry that regular commonfolk died because of something they had no part in
we gave in to massive spying, but that didn't seem help us much (ISIS wants to kill pawns to scare the king, and they're right its hard to keep watch over each pawn)

So i dont know what we should do exactly, but i do know that waging the same war weve been having all this time hasnt worked till now and wont randomly start working now
i think the war on terror is not a war fought with bombs, its a war that will end once we stop giving the middle east so many reasons to hate us

[Helmo]

Not that we haven't wronged them, but they will always hate us. They're not exactly a big fan of what we call "progress".
Like it or not the overwhelming majority of the middle east looks at things like gay rights/women's rights etc. with absolute disgust. It's pretty easy for them to hate us when our society's have such vastly different beliefs.

[Kosheh]

jesus i could write paragraphs about this

Perhaps "ISIS" is just another "reason" for something? I dunno. I'm not really into politics to know much. Just throwing in my perspective on this and wondering if you guys thought about it this way.

I hate to admit that Ray's a little right, but he is - well, most of it ;P

After the end of the US' war on Iraq, they removed Saddam from power. Which was nice...from a political standpoint. However, unlike the end of World War II where we assisted the Japanese in setting up their government and rebuilding - instead, we hastily left and didn't do all that much. Yeah - we trained policemen and their military, but we didn't really go into much detail as to what'll happen after we left. So things more or less went to hell and it was generally a big clusterfuck and the economy is beyond wrecked. Oh yeah and at a people-level, their authorities did jack shit. Keep in mind there's ethnic groups throughout Iraq that function kinda like "tribes" - and Iraq's appointed leaders always showed favor for one and discrimination towards others, so nothing was ever fair.
(The Iraqi military didn't really have much to fight for - no promises of bettering their country or anything, so that's why you heard news stories of the Iraqi soldiers "literally dropping their weapons and running away", because they don't really have the belief that being a member of the military means you're willing to die for your country)

Enter ISIS, which has the mission of establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East with practices that date back to the Middle Ages. They're trying to establish a very hardline Shariah law in the area (like, a SUPER fundamentalist government) They also provide anyone who joins their cause with lots of money and "safety" from their wrath - which is what a lot of Iraqi men are looking for: most of ISIS' soldiers don't even fully believe in its hardline Islamic principles: It pays the bills, and with that they have something to fight for.

(Also, as Ray's saying, at the same time there's shit going on in Syria with the current politics, and there's freedom fighters that were fighting to overthrow Assad [their current president]. We, of course, couldn't tell the difference and knowingly armed them with what they need to fight the opposition...aaaand it turned out that some of the people our politicians met with are actually ISIS nobodies. We fell right into their trap)

Sorry for arguing with you, Ray: Turns out ISIS isn't ACTUALLY religiously motivated (though it's under the GUISE that it is) It's mainly political, with money being the main driving force (there you go, BlueBlur)
Before continuing, there's reports of a lot of foreign fighters going to Syria, and then coming back and causing...well, terror.
Something interesting here is that ISIS isn't actually looking for people who are spiritually devout: they're looking for people who are helping them to further their cause (I think a British person who left for Syria was caught by authorities and during investigations, found that he purchased "Islam for Dummies" off Amazon a week prior. lmao) When drafting in these people, they're just letting these people fight for what they think their idea of jihad is.
Also, they're kinda misdirected, too: Foreign fighters are promised the prospect of shooting cool guns or hooking up with a GUARANTEED WIFE wowee.
na you're basically the bottom of the bottom. hope u like drivin the car filled with explosives because that's gonna be your first task. o yea and the detonator's in the car. u cant leave the car u gotta blow it up and ur in it. sry

aloha snackbar

The thing is Daesh (which is what many countries have began calling them; it's descriptive and trivializes at the same time. Thanks, Arabic!) is 1) a master at social media and 2) hardcore controlling the economy in that area.
They're going into towns and destroying ancient relics under the guise that it's idyllic worship - but they're also putting some of those same relics on the black market. We've got video footage of them destroying these relics, too but the majority of the structures they're destroying are ones that they can't actually move. In turn, selling those relics on the black market under the guise that it's been "rescued from ISIS' destruction" allows them to drive the price WAY UP and it's now not just a jacked price - it's more like ransom money.
On top of that, they also smuggle oil and sell the oil from refineries they've captured in Iraq and Syria. In turn, they're making MILLIONS OF DOLLARS here.
Oh, did I mention they're also actively slave-trading? Yeah, that's a huge humanitarian violation. They're doing that too - "marrying off" the women and teenage girls they've seized from towns and killing the elderly.

Daesh is actually a cover for a fuckton of dirty, dirty money.

---

Actually the real reason I posted lol was because what I mentioned a few days ago...and now, Hillary Clinton's weighed in on it.

"This is no time to be scoring political points. We must use every pillar of American power, including our values, to fight terror," Clinton said.

She said airstrikes by an international anti-ISIS coalition "will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS," the former secretary of state said Thursday in a speech in New York City.

I don't...think she quite gets it lol.
I don't remember who said it, but fear is the oxygen of terror. The more fearful we are, Daesh wins.
Our Republican party more or less agrees that we should deny Syrian refugees from entering the US, in the fear that some of them may actually be linked to Daesh. Terrorists win. (the reason they feel like this is that one of the attackers in Paris posed as a Syrian refugee - but it turned out to be a fake passport he was carrying)
Our Democratic party says "Go over there, and bomb the fuck out of 'em" - that perpetuates our practice of indiscriminately killing off Syrians so that we still end up on top. We're not actually going to do anything about changing their political influence over the region. Terrorists win (again)

Daesh is actually really weak, but their actions and news coverage makes them seem like they aren't...and with that, they're winning their current battle (to instill fear in our lil baby bellies) There's got to be a way to cut off their funding and change the ideas of the people who are losing their country to them.

But they're not :/

[Lemonray]

Turns out ISIS isn't ACTUALLY religiously motivated (though it's under the GUISE that it is) It's mainly political, with money being the main driving force

The motivation here isn't entirely religious, or entirely political. Plenty of the IS/IS-allied individuals  across the various tiers of power aren't just in it for worldly gain and do have true faith. I would compare the IS to the Waffen-SS in this aspect, because as with the islamic state, the members were not all equally fanatical. I actually used to know someone who was a member of the Waffen-SS during the final years of the war, who despite being quite nazified at the time was not one of the cold-blooded ones. Gradients, remember.

I'd also compare the IS, particularly at the higher levels, to the arabian nobility, in that there are certainly secret atheists/deists etc. within the organisation posing as devout muslims for their own reasons. They're probably not incredibly rare either. See also: The many western leaders who pose as god-believing christians for acceptability.

Oh, and something else worth remembering. From the islamic viewpoint, religion and politics are not seperate but intertwined. Muhammed's intent was for this connection to be impossible to break apart. Meaning, the religion is the state, and the state is the religion. And the muslim state/nation itself, the Umah, is not though of as being restricted by land or manmade borders, instead it is a worldwide collective every muslim is supposed to be a member of. This is something Muhammed lifted from the ancient jewish concept of a nation, although ever since Muhammed kicked the bucket, the muslims have been doing a not-so-great job of holding it together in comparison to the chosen people.
_____

Update: Mayhem in Mali. Jihadists took nearly two hundred hostages and apparently executed some people who weren't able to recite quranic verses. The local forces have already entered the hotel but it looks like they're still not sure how many jihadists are involved. Some hostages are now confirmed safe thankfully. It's not IS, but a different group of pro-sharia fighters.

[Kosheh]

Oh, and something else worth remembering. From the islamic viewpoint, religion and politics are not seperate but intertwined. Muhammed's intent was for this connection to be impossible to break apart. Meaning, the religion is the state, and the state is the religion. And the muslim state/nation itself, the Umah, is not though of as being restricted by land or manmade borders, instead it is a worldwide collective every muslim is supposed to be a member of. This is something Muhammed lifted from the ancient jewish concept of a nation, although ever since Muhammed kicked the bucket, the muslims have been doing a not-so-great job of holding it together in comparison to the chosen people.

Soooo back then, what I'm taking from this is that Muhammed viewed church and state being on equal terms - they work in tandem (which I guess Shariah law comes into play to enforce the rules in a Muslim fundamentalist country) ...but the Ummah is basically the "nation" or a "community" that every Muslim is a part of. Around the time of Islam's conception, most of it was practiced in the Middle East/Africa so it was entirely possible for "ummah" to be understood as a borderless nation then.

ok

and then we have countries like Turkey and Indonesia that are predominantly Muslim, but have a separation of church and state (as most modern goverments do)
but they're not harshly following Islamic law (it was abolished in Turkey in 1924, and is regionally exercised in Indonesia) to the extent of which Middle Eastern radical fundamentalist groups do.
Also as there's several people who practice religion alongside Islam - namely Christians and Jews, known in Islam as "people of the book". Since they recognize the God of Abraham, [YHWH] (like Muslims do!) and practice faiths based on a set of divine rules...they're usually given a pass in places which practice Sharia law (like places who practiced early Islam) Muslim people in theory are OK with them.
It's just we had asshole Christians who refused to accept that title (because "y'know, we don't just worship things from a BOOK" and uh, the whole fact that Christians were total radical shitheads during the Crusades and whatnot. I'm p.sure that's what Daesh uses as political ammunition tho)

am I missing something here? I feel like I'm missing something here

Update: Mayhem in Mali. Jihadists took nearly two hundred hostages and apparently executed some people who weren't able to recite quranic verses. The local forces have already entered the hotel but it looks like they're still not sure how many jihadists are involved. Some hostages are now confirmed safe thankfully. It's not IS, but a different group of pro-sharia fighters.

I HEARD ABOUT THIS. Did anyone take credit for it? Like, not Daesh or Boko Haram or anyone? Or is it literally just random pro-sharia fighters?

EDIT:

Al Mourabitoun, an Islamist militant group, claimed it was jointly responsible for the attack, according to Mauritanian news agency Al Akhbar. The group announced it carried out the attack with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the news agency reported.

o-oh. I didn't realize al-Qaeda had that kind of reach o.o

[Lemonray]

am I missing something here? I feel like I'm missing something here

soon

Since they recognize the God of Abraham, [YHWH] (like Muslims do!) and practice faiths based on a set of divine rules...they're usually given a pass in places which practice Sharia law (like places who practiced early Islam)

I wouldn't call it a "pass". Under islamic law, the "people of the book" deal pretty much works this way: Followers of the abrahamic god are required to pay protection money to the state in return for not being exiled or killed or what have you. As the quran says, they must be made to feel subdued, and must pay the extortion. In return, they can live within the caliphate and privately practice their faith. Trading with muslims is also allowed.

Muslim people in theory are OK with them.

In practice, perhaps. In theory? No. The quran teaches that all non-believers (including jews and christians) are bad and immoral people, and, in Muhammed's words, they are animals. Muslims are even directly forbidden from having non-muslim friends- Muslims who do this, in Allah's eyes, are counted as being among them and are hellbound. Basically, non-believers are untermenschen.

Now, most muslims in the world actually deviate from this, and will stop short of calling people literal subhuman animals. However the underlying supremacy is still very present. Just as supremacy was very present in Hitler's Germany, a relatively recent 80~ years ago.

But, speaking of deviation...

and then we have countries like Turkey and Indonesia that are predominantly Muslim, but have a separation of church and state (as most modern goverments do)

but they're not harshly following Islamic law (it was abolished in Turkey in 1924, and is regionally exercised in Indonesia) to the extent of which Middle Eastern radical fundamentalist groups do.

This is primarily the result of western influence, and also atheistic soviet influence to a lesser extent. Secularism, to an islamised mind, is a deviation. Very haram. But an improvement, to be sure.

Which is what I've been getting at. The good characteristics present in muslim people do not exist because of the doctrine, or because of Muhammed or whatever. They exist because good muslim people are good, empathy-capable people, who are also muslims. Are you feeling it now?

o-oh. I didn't realize al-Qaeda had that kind of reach o.o

Well, they have a lot of cells in a lot of countries. Add to that the affiliate groups and individual loyalists they control, and yes, they still have power.

[Maxpphire]

I may be a little late to the party but as someone who's rich in Syria Culture without being Muslim, I think I can say a thing. (My great grandfather was an immigrant from Syria! I think I know plenty from my family about their culture, particularly in how it compares to ours.)

There is no Muslim nation. The countries in the Middle East are all very unique in their own way but very similar. Is like comparing America to Canada. Different, but similar.

Also being a Muslim over there is like being a Christian over here. It's the most common religion, but it's not the only religion celebrated in those parts. They have Christians and Atheists like we have Muslims and Atheists.

What gets me the most though, is while they have Isis, we have the KKK. Why does Isis represent all Muslims, but the KKK doesn't represent all Christians? Both groups are roughly the same size and do heinous acts of violence. Oh wait I know, because our media outlets suck!

Oh btw, the Christian bible is about as bad as the Koran so please don't claim that Muslims are bad without realizing that Christians are just as bad. That being said, both groups of people are not made entirely out of bad people. Do not judge what you don't know. A different culture isn't a bad thing despite what the media tells us.

[Kosheh]

What gets me the most though, is while they have Isis, we have the KKK. Why does Isis represent all Muslims, but the KKK doesn't represent all Christians? Both groups are roughly the same size and do heinous acts of violence. Oh wait I know, because our media outlets suck!

Yeah, I've always kinda felt like this whenever I've seen videos of people being absolute shitlords to Muslim people lately for little reason besides "Muslims - they're evil!!"

Like seriously, if you can distinguish between Christians and the KKK, you should be able to tell the difference between people who practice Islam and a member of Daesh. <_<



I think the thing is, though that like Klan members just have a "reputation" - being adamantly racist and leaving burning crosses on your lawn. They don't make long, threatening videos threatening to attack the economic centers of nations that don't agree with their ideologies or even denounce other people of the same uh...big religion? 
This is more like...uh, if Klan members sat outside of mosques on a pile of dead pigs with a shotgun in hand, and ran public access shows where they talked about how much they hate everyone who isn't white.


Which at that point our government would somehow find an excuse to bomb Klan meeting places to eradicate the threat. I mean, it's working in Syria, right? :V

[Maxpphire]

Well we do have KKK members in the government, as police officers, and other things of that nature.

This also comes into play where the cultures are different.

The way that they are the same is that men in general are allowed to be more out spoken and women more soft spoken, this is even more extreme in the Middle East, where being a man you're OK if you yell in public, even if it is about nothing. No one bats an eye. Because of this the extremest are even worse.

Sure if extremest here got public access television they have a bit to fear because I think that someone would shut them down. Like the studio they are hosted in or something. They don't have big guns and threaten to kill silly nilly. Extremests there on the other hand.... Well everyone who isn't them is OK to kill.

Extremests there are more like how TV shows protray drug lords. Extremests here kinda keep it under wraps and just verbally express dislikness.

[psychospacecow]

We should kill the terrorists before they kill us

I wish things were so simple as that. Its unrealistic to assume that you could just kill the problem away. Killing more often than not has led to a problem growing.

[Maxpphire]

Also TomSawyer1 please point out the terrorists to kill. Please show us the bad guys (not that easy, now is it?)

[Kosheh]

Also TomSawyer1 please point out the terrorists to kill. Please show us the bad guys (not that easy, now is it?)

dont worry i got this cool tool


itll show us where the badguys are. easy