Atheistforums.com

This is highly likely about that waste of carbon arrested on Friday. Salah Abdeslam. He is the head behind Paris attacks too.

Brussels attacks live updates: ‘Around 23 dead and 35 injured’ after three explosions around city

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-airport-explosion-live-updates-american-airlines-departure-desk-zaventem-latest-a6945391.html

Quote'The thinking here by everybody is that it is some kind of terrorist attack although that hasn't been verified by anyone here at the airport'

Around 23 dead and dozens injured after three explosions heard around the city
Two of the blasts hit Brussels Airport
Third explosion at Mallbeek Metro station
One of the explosions is feared to be the result of a suicide bomb
Terror alert raised to highest level and Metro shut down entirely
Cause of the blasts unclear
Video shows people fleeing the terminal building
Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said it was "an attack against democratic Europe".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/brussels-attacks-show-how-global-terror-networks-act-local

Brussels attacks: were they revenge for Abdeslam's arrest?

All depends on if the terrorists are taking orders from Langley and Riyadh ... as they were before.  Are they actually independent?  And what to do with Erdogan's support for ISIS oil deliveries?  We don't know what happens in the halls of power ... though I suspect they are up to no good.

It is a fact that a faction of the Elite despise the EU and want to see it destroyed, like they are doing to N America and China etc.  Who gave the orders for killing the Archduke?

It's more compilcated than that Baruch.

Abdeslam was arrested on Friday. Today is Tuesday. When he was arrested, there was also a lot of heavy weaponry found. I am saying this as he was behind of Paris attacks- considering how that was carried out, probbaly they were planing something much bigger of the sort. With mass execution. (Some perpetrators of the Paris attacks were from Belgium.) But when he was caught, any other available cells just bombed around as in "we are still here"? Well, I don't know. 

There is no need for long detour connections to ISIL or other soources. Everything was apparently already ready for another big attack. They actually just crushed an important attack of a storm chain. Probably more people would have died in one location -possibly the capital if they didn't.

Brussels is the center of fight against islamic terrorism in EU. The capital of UN-EU relations. It's highly symbolic too. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brussels-airport-explosions_us_56f0f754e4b084c6722146dc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-purgatori/belgium-has-raised-a-mons_b_9521562.html

QuoteBelgium is paying an incredibly high price for the calculations it made surrounding terrorism and fundamentalists, who over the past two years have built the network of safe houses and militants that are now bloodying the heart of Europe’s capital. It was completely mistaken to think that militant jihadists would give Belgium a reprieve in exchange for the tolerance and indifference that intelligence and secret services displayed when dealing with the neighborhood on the outskirts of Brussels, where terrorists recruited their soldiers and stockpiled weapons and explosives.

This much was perfectly clear immediately following the January 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo, when logistical collusion between the attackers and the terror cells hidden in Belgium emerged in full. There was further confirmation of this in August, with the failed attack on the Amsterdam-Paris train, fortunately (and fortuitously) prevented by three passengers. It was clear on November 13 after the Paris attacks on the Bataclan, the soccer stadium and in the streets of the city, when all evidence pointed to maneuvers organized along the Brussels-Paris axis amid the foolishness (or worse) of secret services in Belgium, who perhaps could have avoided that bloodbath.

Now, after a four-month-long, desperate and, in many ways, inconclusive manhunt for Abdeslam Salah, who was hiding just a few meters from his home in the heart of the Molenbeek neighborhood, the Belgian intelligence services hoped they’d laid to rest the threat that hung over Belgium and the rest of Europe. Once again, they were wrong. Once again, they miscalculated, as the reach and violence with which the Jihad that has nested and grown inside the Belgian capital exploded in all its vengeance. After the attacks in Paris, terrorist experts had estimated that at least 30 to 40 people were involved in the network responsible for the chain of attacks. Today it’s clear that this estimate will have to be revisited.

Considering today’s attacks as simply a hot-headed vendetta for the capture of Salah Abdeslam does not help us get a grip on the size of the monster that Belgium has let grow and expand inside its borders. These were not improvised attacks, but a preordered plan; one that requires a mind and many arms. Let us all hope that this, yet another tragic lesson, convinces the intelligence and secret services around Europe (and those in Belgium first and foremost) that in order to combat terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists, we need to move beyond nationalist egocentricity (as well as cowardly calculations about one’s own neutrality) in order to activate, starting immediately, a true, open exchange of information and a strategy that reaches beyond the borders of each individual country.

So much for reasoned and restrained response. Expect a rise of nationalism/Christian conservatism and even Nazism in response to this.

All the warnings of allowing Islamic refugees into Europe have fallen on deaf ears for decades. Cue the debate between "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims. 8% of the population of France is Islamic, beginning with Algerian refugees that were allowed in for cheap labor to stomp their wine grapes. Now you got yourself a developed infrastructure of Islamic people not just in France and the Netherlands but throughout Europe. And literally millions of Muslims to choose from, good or bad. Better start the vetting process.

Carry on.

How cute. An American -stromboli- who defends the invaison of Afghanistan and Irak proudly, sitting on his ass and posts a nicely penned bullshit drama and bitch about taking refugees in Europe and writes a post in a 'scolding' manner about a discussions of 'good' and 'bad' muslims he likes to contribute in this forum by bullshit himself. Give me a break.

American drama at its best. I like it how he puts a "Carry on". As if the mainstream knee jerk bullshit he put actually contributed the news of the death of 34 people.

Nobody 'hoped' they put anything to rest. Nobody miscalculated. Without the arrests leading to this bombing what was to come to Brussels probably would take far more , if France and Belgium didn't carry out a good job. It would be far more worse. There is a constant fight against Islamic terrorism and has always been for the more than last decade AFTER American Bush admin. screwed up the area, since the first bombing in Europe.




 

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2016, 01:49:44 PM
How cute. An American -stromboli- who defends the invaison of Afghanistan and Irak proudly, sitting on his ass and posts a nicely penned bullshit drama and bitch about refugees in Europe and writes a post in a 'scolding' manner about a discussions of 'good' and 'bad' muslims he likes to contribute in this forum by bullshit himself. Give me a break.

American drama at its best. I like it how he puts a "Carry on". As if the mainstream knee jerk bullshit he put actually contributed the news of the death of 34 people.

Nobody 'hoped' they put anything to rest. Nobody miscalculated. Without the arrests leading to this bombing what was to come to Brussels probably would take far more , if France and Belgium didn't carry out a good job. It would be far more worse. There is a constant fight against Islamic terrorism and has always been for the more than last decade AFTER American Bush admin. screwed up the area, since the first bombing in Europe.

First of all I have never said that I supported the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. And what I made was a comment on the situation. I did not vote for Bush and I did not support the wars, either one of them. If you want to call it bullshit, be my guest. Since you have gone out of your way to attack my post as "bullshit" (that seems to be your standard response to most things on here) and the scolding manner is your interpretation.

My son served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I have commented on that. He also suffered PTSD and was medically retired from severe injuries he received in the process. Wouldn't call that a reason to support. I have also made derogatory comments about the VA and general shitty treatment he received.

I don't respond to your posts anymore. This is the first one in awhile. And this is the reason. You come across like a shrill old woman shaking her finger and giving a scolding to the bad Americans. If you want to color me with the same brush as what you think is the American viewpoint, be my guest. All you have done is give me another reason to ignore your posts.

Carry on. :biggrin:

Quote from: stromboli on March 22, 2016, 11:39:53 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brussels-airport-explosions_us_56f0f754e4b084c6722146dc (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brussels-airport-explosions_us_56f0f754e4b084c6722146dc)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-purgatori/belgium-has-raised-a-mons_b_9521562.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-purgatori/belgium-has-raised-a-mons_b_9521562.html)


So much for reasoned and restrained response. Expect a rise of nationalism/Christian conservatism and even Nazism in response to this.

All the warnings of allowing Islamic refugees into Europe have fallen on deaf ears for decades. Cue the debate between "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims. 8% of the population of France is Islamic, beginning with Algerian refugees that were allowed in for cheap labor to stomp their wine grapes. Now you got yourself a developed infrastructure of Islamic people not just in France and the Netherlands but throughout Europe. And literally millions of Muslims to choose from, good or bad. Better start the vetting process.

Carry on.

European countries are democratic, and as a democracy, each country must protect its minorities, otherwise it's no longer a democracy. And so the terrorists are exploiting this. They can easily infiltrate under the cover that they are part of a minority, and then target anything they want. It's already a humongus task to defend against that as anything can serve as a target - buses, shopping malls, subway stations, any building you name it. And Europe, unlike America, doesn't have an ocean to separate them from the source of these terrorists. And so the task of defending against terrorist attacks is gargantuan.

Quote from: stromboli on March 22, 2016, 02:02:38 PM
First of all I have never said that I supported the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. And what I made was a comment on the situation. I did not vote for Bush and I did not support the wars, either one of them. If you want to call it bullshit, be my guest. Since you have gone out of your way to attack my post as "bullshit" (that seems to be your standard response to most things on here) and the scolding manner is your interpretation.

My son served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I have commented on that. He also suffered PTSD and was medically retired from severe injuries he received in the process. Wouldn't call that a reason to support. I have also made derogatory comments about the VA and general shitty treatment he received.

Yes, I am talking about that. You have witten many bullshit along with that in those convos and I know what you wrote. I didn't go out my way to write a post to you. We are in the same thread. I write to everyone, ignoring me or not.

Yes, mainstream American view point and comments on the subject is mostly standard bullshit. As it is one of our main subjects, I get to write a lot of "bullshit!" Like you are doing with resident believers in a different way. :biggrin:

QuoteI don't respond to your posts anymore. This is the first one in awhile. And this is the reason. You come across like a shrill old woman shaking her finger and giving a scolding to the bad Americans. If you want to color me with the same brush as what you think is the American viewpoint, be my guest. All you have done is give me another reason to ignore your posts.

I really don't care if you respond to my posts are not, strom and you know that. You are not different than pr126 to me. If you see me as 'an old shrill women shaking a finger to bad Americans', why do you even talk about me brushing you with 'the American viewpoint.' My viewpoint is that I don't respect your opinion anymore. Simple as that.

Quote from: stromboli on March 22, 2016, 02:02:38 PM
First of all I have never said that I supported the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. And what I made was a comment on the situation. I did not vote for Bush and I did not support the wars, either one of them. If you want to call it bullshit, be my guest. Since you have gone out of your way to attack my post as "bullshit" (that seems to be your standard response to most things on here) and the scolding manner is your interpretation.

My son served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I have commented on that. He also suffered PTSD and was medically retired from severe injuries he received in the process. Wouldn't call that a reason to support. I have also made derogatory comments about the VA and general shitty treatment he received.

I don't respond to your posts anymore. This is the first one in awhile. And this is the reason. You come across like a shrill old woman shaking her finger and giving a scolding to the bad Americans. If you want to color me with the same brush as what you think is the American viewpoint, be my guest. All you have done is give me another reason to ignore your posts.

Carry on. :biggrin:

Yeah dunno what the fuck does being american has to do with anything. Your post is pretty common sense. If your post was so blinded by chauvinism she could easily show it's logical flaws and innacuracies but she just makes the accusation without explaining anything just denying as if that serves any purpose. It doesn't. About the huffpost article comments on the belgium intelligence service i like how anyone affirms anything as a matter of fact either way when we do not know shit about the specifics of their operations and how exactly did they fail to stop this.

R E L I G I O N    O F    P E A C E
E
L
I
G
I
O
N

O
F

P
E
A
C
E

Now
Cue in Pr126

Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 22, 2016, 02:10:20 PM
European countries are democratic, and as a democracy, each country must protect its minorities, otherwise it's no longer a democracy. And so the terrorists are exploiting this. They can easily infiltrate under the cover that they are part of a minority, and then target anything they want. It's already a humongus task to defend against that as anything can serve as a target - buses, shopping malls, subway stations, any building you name it. And Europe, unlike America, doesn't have an ocean to separate them from the source of these terrorists. And so the task of defending against terrorist attacks is gargantuan.

Basically this combined with the short sightedness and selective morality of certain individuals who allowed or advocated for a mass of immigrants to come through the borders with no effective vetting process and longterm integration plans, they just caved at the pressure of them knocking on their doors and pictures of drowned children. Feeling good they let those poor people in. Confusing the feeling of empathy with doing actual good. Just letting them in is not the good action here, much less when it's done is such disorgnized way like it happened in various of the EU borders. The actual good is preventing the ethnic war between the EU facists and the jihadists and islamists we all knew it was inevitable shitheads would start killing each other. If you did not know how to stop it and create a functional multicultural society maybe you should have not felt so good when you opened the floodgates.

Quote from: mauricio on March 22, 2016, 02:28:45 PM
Yeah dunno what the fuck does being american has to do with anything. Your post is pretty common sense. If your post was so blinded by chauvinism she could easily show it's logical flaws and innacuracies but she just makes the accusation without explaining anything just denying as if that serves any purpose. It doesn't. About the huffpost article comments on the belgium intelligence service i like how anyone affirms anything as a matter of fact either way when we do not know shit about the specifics of their operations and how exactly did they fail to stop this.

I was refering to a series of his posts written some time ago; him telling me that how proud he is of his son serving in Irak and Afghanistan, because I defined active combatants in American force abroad invading as mercenaries in uniform. Mercenaries get paid to kill people. Nothing changes when you put them in uniform and give them a flag and convince pople that they are keeping them safe. It's a fucking lie.

See you don't have it both ways, kiddo. You don't see participating in mass destruction as a proud job and and then shit on its consequences by accusing innocent people running away for their lives, swallowing every fucking piece of shit British media creates for just more money and bargaining human lives they screwed up. And then go with 'I didn't vote for Bush and I didn't support Irak and Afghanistan invasions', something that has completely changed our lives here. My life.

Oh of course you can, but don't get pissed off and strike an attitude if someone reminds of you that.

So Yeah, in this case, a certain American view point; being an American has to do a lot with making certain comments on taking refugees and islamic attacks in Europe.

Quote from: mauricio on March 22, 2016, 02:56:05 PM
Basically this combined with the short sightedness and selective morality of certain individuals who allowed or advocated for a mass of immigrants to come through the borders with no effective vetting process and longterm integration plans, they just caved at the pressure of them knocking on their doors and pictures of drowned children. Feeling good they let those poor people in. Confusing the feeling of empathy with doing actual good. Just letting them in is not the good action here, much less when it's done is such disorgnized way like it happened in various of the EU borders. The actual good is preventing the ethnic war between the EU facists and the jihadists and islamists we all knew it was inevitable shitheads would start killing each other. If you did not know how to stop it and create a functional multicultural society maybe you should have not felt so good when you opened the floodgates.

Most of the terrorists commited the attacks in Euorpe, are people WHO WERE BORN in Europe.

Who are these EU fascists? And what is this Ethnic war between them and jihadists?

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2016, 03:24:12 PM
Most of the terrorists commited the attacks in Euorpe, are people WHO WERE BORN in Europe.

Who are these EU fascists? And what is this Ethnic war between them and jihadists?

The fascists are the worst elements of the alt-right that grows and grows with every attack. They are the people that burned immigrant shelters, commit hate crimes and prepare themselves for the race war. They are the golden dawn party in greece which gains more and more votes the more the economy goes to shit and the more immigrants crowd their streets. And other similar parties across europe have also grown in this last years. The ethnic war is what could happen if this back and forth of violence continues and the fascists sects become as violently effective and as big as their jihadists counterparts. WW1 broke out with just one terrorist attack in a tense political climate. As you yourself said in another thread. What would happen if someone killed trump? What if he was a jihadist? What if the jihadists had managed to kill hollande in that stadium in paris? What if this leads to street fights between the natives and the immigrants?

Quote from: mauricio on March 22, 2016, 04:05:57 PM
The fascists are the worst elements of the alt-right that grows and grows with every attack. They are the people that burned immigrant shelters, commit hate crimes and prepare themselves for the race war. They are the golden dawn party in greece which gains more and more votes the more the economy goes to shit and the more immigrants crowd their streets. And other similar parties across europe have also grown in this last years. The ethnic war is what could happen if this back and forth of violence continues and the fascists sects become as violently effective and as big as their jihadists counterparts. WW1 broke out with just one terrorist attack in a tense political climate.

marucio, please do not forget that following British -American media is like having a facebook account with 6 friends and one feed.

What you are describing up there has already been going on for a long time. Fascist groups always attack and we almost never read about it. If you look for it, dig it, it is there, but never on the surface.

The media campaign about refugee crisis, pouring gas on all over is about a specific event in Bristish -American media. After UK voted EU and according to it's result, you'll see that specific media coverages will 'suddenly' disappear. Well I don't know what kind of a peak it will have or if it actually had it. But if any social explosion occurs in due time, it is even better, because then it means they can declare state of emergency; at least take drastic measures or enforce extreme policies.

This is about controling a certain political flow; making changes and making proift along with it. Like, "You want us to be included in your game? This is going to cost you money and politics." As simple as this. Exactly like the sham deal done with Turkey about taking care of refugees in exchange of certain rights or deals...etc.

:arrow: The real crisis is this: What is the best bargain that can be made out from the status quo. Everything will start to go down when this is resolved who is getting what with policy; money, perks, roles, politics...etc. However, random terrorist attacks is the biggest problem anchoring it down and they need to make a big progress with it to push this process. It's a gargantuan thing as joseph said. In any way and level.

I don't think there is a ground to brew an 'Ethnic War', anything more than what it already eixsts, but another media campaign like 'Nazism on the rise' after an event with a death toll would actually benefit EU politicians. IF they can agree on who is taking what piece from the cake, it would be the perfect breaks to CALM the shit down.

Other than that an Ethinc war of its own breaking out is a low possibility. If there weren't random terrorism attacks, I would look at differently to this. But that's not the case. Then those attacks are thought the cause, but how will the conflist occur in practical terms? Who is going to attack whom in what way? Anyway it doesn't fit in my opinion.

QuoteAs you yourself said in another thread. What would happen if someone killed trump? What if he was a jihadist? What if the jihadists had managed to kill hollande in that stadium in paris? What if this leads to street fights between the natives and the immigrants?

I wasn't thinking a jihadist shooting at Drumpf when I wrote that. I was thinking a Christian background American shooting at Drumpf and believe it or not that has worse consequences for the US.

Here's my issue... how much "Islamic" terrorism did we have before we invaded the Middle East? Before we said, "Alright, the colonial era is over! Enjoy your new countries!" and then a couple decades later said, "lol jk, we are supporting dictators and waging war in your land... but it's totally not colonialism, don't worry!". Before we didn't just "allowed in for cheap labor" Muslim immigrants but rather shipped their lower/working class citizens en mass to rebuild our infrastructure.

We are the one's who brought them here. We are the one's who install violent regimes and overthrow peaceful democracies that have led to generations being raised knowing nothing but violence. We are the one's who bomb their countries and fly drones overhead that murder civilians at appalling rates... and you really think Islam is THE cause of why they hate us? This is not saying they aren't responsible for their actions... it's just saying that we can't act like our governments (and thus us) are the victims.

There were Native American cults (I mean that in the anthropological sense, not the common term) that preached a religious war against the white man... do you think these Native Americans committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. because of their religion as well? Or is it only when it's a group we have a bias against that it MUST be because of their religion and any other possible influence be damned?

Until 1992, the arrogance of the West was held in check by the Soviet Union.  Back before 1992, the US was prepared to sacrifice 7 billion lives to destroy the Soviet Union ... because that is just how special we are.  Today the plutocracy has gone feral ... they don't think there are any prudent limitations on their over-reach.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 22, 2016, 05:23:53 PM
Here's my issue... how much "Islamic" terrorism did we have before we invaded the Middle East? Before we said, "Alright, the colonial era is over! Enjoy your new countries!" and then a couple decades later said, "lol jk, we are supporting dictators and waging war in your land... but it's totally not colonialism, don't worry!". Before we didn't just "allowed in for cheap labor" Muslim immigrants but rather shipped their lower/working class citizens en mass to rebuild our infrastructure.

We are the one's who brought them here. We are the one's who install violent regimes and overthrow peaceful democracies that have led to generations being raised knowing nothing but violence. We are the one's who bomb their countries and fly drones overhead that murder civilians at appalling rates... and you really think Islam is THE cause of why they hate us? This is not saying they aren't responsible for their actions... it's just saying that we can't act like our governments (and thus us) are the victims.

There were Native American cults (I mean that in the anthropological sense, not the common term) that preached a religious war against the white man... do you think these Native Americans committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. because of their religion as well? Or is it only when it's a group we have a bias against that it MUST be because of their religion and any other possible influence be damned?

I think it very much is Islam, or their special interpretation of it, that enables things like people blowing themselves up in a restaurant or an airport. I may be reading what you're saying wrong, but it seems to me like you're trying to make a case that these people are fighting a rebellion against the West, rather than engaging in acts of terrorism.

My only real problem with this viewpoint is that people who fight in a rebellion do it so that one day they can live in the world they create when they win the rebellion. Blowing yourself up doesn't really fit with that goal. After all you can't enjoy the new world post rebellion if you kill yourself before the rebellion is successful. To be clear, this is very different than risking your life. They aren't risking anything, they are outright throwing their lives away.

It takes fanaticism to do that. You have to believe that by martyring yourself you will receive an eternal reward in paradise. Thats Islam talking. If Islam were removed from this equation, would the conflict end? No, probably not. But the incidences of terrorism would probably drop pretty sharply and certain kinds of terrorism, namely the suicidal ones, would probably disappear.

Its not all or even mostly because of Islam, but Islam isn't helping.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 22, 2016, 07:29:03 PM
I may be reading what you're saying wrong, but it seems to me like you're trying to make a case that these people are fighting a rebellion against the West, rather than engaging in acts of terrorism.

That's exactly the case. When hundreds of innocent people, children die in PKK suicide bombings here in Turkey it is not 'terrorism' in the West, but a rebellion.

When ISIL bombs somewhere out of the West, it is not terrorism.

QuoteMy only real problem with this viewpoint is that people who fight in a rebellion do it so that one day they can live in the world they create when they win the rebellion. Blowing yourself up doesn't really fit with that goal. After all you can't enjoy the new world post rebellion if you kill yourself before the rebellion is successful. To be clear, this is very different than risking your life. They aren't risking anything, they are outright throwing their lives away.

It takes fanaticism to do that. You have to believe that by martyring yourself you will receive an eternal reward in paradise. Thats Islam talking. If Islam were removed from this equation, would the conflict end? No, probably not. But the incidences of terrorism would probably drop pretty sharply and certain kinds of terrorism, namely the suicidal ones, would probably disappear.

Suicide bombing is not just a insane kind of attack. It's also a very strategic one if you think rationally rather than religiously what it is and why it is done.

A suicide bomber doesn't get caught or get interrogated. So terrorist groups don't need to worry to train their soldiers to act like a 'wall' under torture, something they cannot trust under any circumstances. Or worry they will bargain and compromise to save themselves under torture or join/start working for the other side under breakdown. No extra pressure, point of mistake, liability, extra waste of time and resource...etc. Because of the disguise -esp. white people and females- those people can get in anywhere and detonate themselves unexpectedly which is the aim to make the most damage.


Suicide attacks are not unique to religious terrorism. Kamikaze fighters in the past, today PKK militants in Turkey ...they all use suicide attacks. Religion is not the case in these ones. Fanaticism doesn't have to be religious. They also use chemicals before attacks. These terrorist do NOT think that they will win a war in their life times. This is not a 'war' fought in battlefield a hundred years ago.


But doesn't matter however we look at it, they are fighting against a bigger and far more powerful side that destroyed them; killed mass amount of their people, created atrocities -this is enough for pushing people to be suicide bombers BEFORE religion- and that is the definition of rebellion.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2016, 08:10:21 PM
That's exactly the case. When hundreds of innocent people, children die in PKK suicide bombings here in Turkey it is not 'terrorism' in the West, but a rebellion.

When ISIL bombs somewhere out of the West, it is not terrorism.

Well I'm not sure I agree with that. It is terrorism, and I'm pretty sure that even western media describes it as such and refers to ISIL as a terrorist organization.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2016, 08:10:21 PM
Suicide bombing is not just a insane kind of attack. It's also a very strategic one if you think rationally rather than religiously what it is and why it is done.

A suicide bomber doesn't get caught or get interrogated. So terrorist groups don't need to worry to train their soldiers to act like a 'wall' under torture, something they cannot trust under any circumstances. Or worry they will bargain and compromise to save themselves under torture or join/start working for the other side under breakdown. No extra pressure, point of mistake, liability, extra waste of time and resource...etc. Because of the disguise -esp. white people and females- those people can get in anywhere and detonate themselves unexpectedly which is the aim to make the most damage.

I don't deny that, from the perspective of people ordering the suicide bombings its an effective attack for all the reasons you just mentioned. But to the person actually killing themselves to execute it, its a rather shitty attack since they die in the process. There has to be something that makes it worth it in thier minds. Since, objectively, the immediate goal of every organism is to continue existing there has to be a powerful reason to deny that instinct. In this case, it is the guarantee - the religious guarantee - that sacrificing themselves in an attack will guarantee them a place in heaven. Its not real, of course, but the uneducated poor believe it is.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2016, 08:10:21 PM
Suicide attacks are not unique to religious terrorism. Kamikaze fighters in the past, today PKK militants in Turkey ...they all use suicide attacks. Religion is not the case in these ones. Fanaticism doesn't have to be religious. They also use chemicals before attacks. These terrorist do NOT think that they will win a war in their life times. This is not a 'war' fought in battlefield a hundred years ago.


But doesn't matter however we look at it, they are fighting against a bigger and far more powerful side that destroyed them; killed mass amount of their people, created atrocities -this is enough for pushing people to be suicide bombers BEFORE religion- and that is the definition of rebellion.

First of all, those Kamikaze attacks actually were religiously inspired. They believed the Emperor was literally the embodiment of god on earth, and they were fanatical enough about it to sacrifice their lives so that the god emperor could not know defeat. When someone blows themselves up to kill a bunch of people there are usually two root causes: mental illness and religious fanaticism. If you dig deep enough you will find religion at the root in most cases, even if its just on a personal level i.e. "I know God will reward me for what I do here today".

Fanaticism can exist outside of religion, of course, but its relatively unusual. Religion is a wonderful source of absurd, insane motivation. Considering what Islam guarantees to martyrs in terms of heavenly rewards, I feel like its a very tough sell to suggest that this is not religiously motivated fanaticism.

As to terrorism vs rebellion, they aren't mutually exclusive. I know rebellion lends them a romantic air, like theyre the innocents trying to fight back against a tyrannical oppressor. Actually looking at the Islamic State and what they do is the fastest way to dispel that illusion. They're victimizing people in their own countries far more frequently than they are attacking the West. It may technically be a rebellion, if you reach for it, but the reality is that they are a bunch of terrorists and their goals are reprehensible. If you want to ignore that in favor of lamenting the ridiculous mistakes the US has made since the turn of the millennium, thats your choice.

Personally I choose not to ignore anything, acknowledging the entire reality. Not just the pieces I'm comfortable with.

Quote from: mauricio on March 22, 2016, 02:33:55 PM
R E L I G I O N    O F    P E A C E
E
L
I
G
I
O
N

O
F

P
E
A
C
E

Now
Cue in Pr126

ISIS has claimed responsibility.

President Obama stated that ISIS is not Islamic, therefore this  had nothing to do with Islam or Muslims.
We must look elsewhere.

Unless, the President is lying. Why would he do that?

It is also possible that the 99.9999999 % of moderate Muslims have nothing to do with Islam.
Now there is a thought.

Saying that isis is not islamic is nothing more than politically correct bullshit, so it is to be expected of a world leader like obama. Meanwhile in the real world we understand islamism and jihadism are political movements and religious ideologies. Jihadism is like a live religion. In the sense that it is kind of like judaism in the ancient times when babylon still existed. Judaism then was very much like jihadism now: a religion filled with metaphysics but also very important political ideas about current situations with the current nations and empires. Anyone who is arguing that isis is either just a religious phenomena or just a political one is talking bullshit.

Islam is political ideology (80%) with the religious part (20%) provides the glue, the cohesive force. It also gives the ideology permanence.

The Islamic memeplex  (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html)
Pay attention to the 26 points in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C48FArTKtJA#t=170

I would agree, in general, ignoring any elephants in the room, isn't good analysis.  There are people.  There is politics.  There is religion.  All three are involved, an attempt to simplify by throwing out one or more of these ... is bad analysis.  Everyone agrees that this behavior (terrorists) is bad behavior ... but isn't that just because we aren't on the other side?  To the Germans, Hitler was right.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 22, 2016, 10:59:58 PMPersonally I choose not to ignore anything, acknowledging the entire reality. Not just the pieces I'm comfortable with.

What it is that I am ingoring here, Nonsensei? How is that bringing a rational explanation and pointing out a real life reason is ignoring the acions of these pople ? What am I comfortable with exactly about a terrorist organisation killing people around the world? Should I include here that they are also killing people in my country, that my chance to be killed in an ISIL bombing is like 20 times more than yours to fit your understanding? You haven't written one thing that I haven't written dozens of times before in this forum only yours is a religious understanding of religion; ignoring human reality; where there are tons of real life reasons available to cause all this. And your main idea; point of departure is 'drunkenshoe loves blameing 'Americans' for all this'. This is a strawman that makes more than half the people in this forum very comfortable in their conformist views.


1. Someone who is making an objective rational explanation about something based on real life events does not mean they think it is logical or rational thing to do, defend it or means that they see it as a romantic rebellion. NEITHER it means they refuse to acknowledge these people's actions. It just means they are making a rational explanation of it.

2. The function of religion in suicide bombing. You are confusing individual religious fanaticism with belonging to a group with a purpose of fighting against a power against their existence.

a. It is nothing as simplistic as one terrorist individually deciding to blow himself up to go to heaven. If that was the case, they would just blow themselves up randomly to kill people in random places, because as long as they kill infidels they are going to heaven anyway. They wouldn't be an armed organisation making politcial movements on the side; some sort of an army using military strategies. They would just recruit fanatic people, load all of them up with bombs and send them to everywhere possible.

But that's not the case. These people are not blowing themselves up randomly, nor they choose random targets to do it.

Let's think about other terrorists who was claimed to follow and support ISIL; who linked themselves to ISIL by their acts without any communication, training or taking orders.

Boston bombing in the US. Why didn't any of these brothers blow themselves up? They are actually the ones acting with individual religious fanaticism you describe. If you think about it, according to your conclusion of suicide bombing, it is an easy suited duty for them. Dzhokhar learned to make a bomb by himself from scratch, he is not trained by ISIL or any other terrorist organisation. Think about the fanaticism required to to do that. He is making a decision, learning to build a bomb by himself and he targets a marathon. IF he blew himself up he could have killed a hundred people.

But he didn't blow himself up. Because doesn't matter how fanatic he is, he does not belong to a group with a purpose. He is an individual. There is himself first, not a collective identity. A group against everyone has a collective identity and a common purpose.

There is a reason why individual bombers do not blow themselves up, but organised terrorists do. It's about being a group fighting against an enemy; an authority; a power far more stronger than themselves. It's about making themselves real. AND please do not forget that they are using chemcials when it comes to doing the deed itself.

QuoteSince, objectively, the immediate goal of every organism is to continue existing there has to be a powerful reason to deny that instinct.

b. The amount of civillians who died in only Afghanistan and Irak is measured by millions. The amount of people who had to leave their homes is 3-4 times of that. Most of them were killed like animals. People are trotured, raped. Their country does not exist anymore as the way they know it. Tell me, can you imagine that your country is invaded and millions of people killed? In the last 70 years there have been 2 attacks on American soil. The so called Pearl Harbour attack and 9/11.

But in your book this is not a powerful reason and nothing but 'drunkenshoe loves blaming Americans'. :lol:

:arrow: You are living in a country where people are allowed to walk away when they shot dead an unarmed person for being a suspicious stranger in their neighbourhood or just tresspassing their property AND you think this is not a powerful reason enough for people who have nothing to give but their lives?  What is that perspective on human nature tells you? That Zimmerman is just an asshole racist and laws are suitable for him to get away? Or a solid cultural perspective that work from one angle only?

If you think none of the existent circumstances are powerful enough for people WHO HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE to blow themselves up against a huge power that already destroyed them, that they cannot fight 'face to face', then EITHER you simply do not see Middle Easterners as human beings wether you are aware of it or not OR you are completely clueless about human nature and reality of Middle EAst.

Also, human beings have been defying that instinct you describe up there since the dawn of their species for many different reason without any particular religious sentiment. The 24 year old Ukranian man didn't have time to think for a good reason when he jumped in front of a speeding car to save two 8 year olds' lives, he just happened to see in that moment. He just did it instinctively. nd he died. what is he thinking in fraction of a second about two kids he saw for the first time in his life? That he is going to go to heaven if he does that? No he didn't. He had nothing to do with religion. See, the formulas don't really work with humans, be it for the 'good' or 'evil'. whatever it is there, human will defy it in some way.

QuoteFirst of all, those Kamikaze attacks actually were religiously inspired. They believed the Emperor was literally the embodiment of god on earth, and they were fanatical enough about it to sacrifice their lives so that the god emperor could not know defeat.

Wrong again. Kamikaze is not some exception related to war and fighting in Japense culture. It has a solid tradition of suicide for honour. Skuppe. (And you know that) It was not just something samurai did to end their lives so they wouldn't break down under torture, BUT also for when they believe they brought to shame themselves. And not just samurai either. It has nothing to do with religious fanaticisim, Japenese culture inherently ACCEPTS the action of ending one's life -of course they will use it in war- while Abrahamic religions absolutely forbid suicide. No, this is not an evidence for your case. Islamic terrorists are not 'commiting suicide' they are killing by killing themselves as a weapon.

(By the way, in Islam the person who commits suicide is not punished by eternal hell. They are not prevented from a religious burial or funeral either. They are supposed as going to hell or heaven according to their deeds in life seperate fom their acts of ending their life, but recieve a punishment for ending their own live before all that.)

(Just some time ago a Japanese aircarft engineer killed himself because a plane he worked on crashed and hundreds of people died. His action wasn't taken as a result of mental illness or depression, but welcomed as his way of redeeming himself in that culture.)

Stop analysing foriegn cultures according to the American Christian norms you grew up with and pushing cubes into circle holes.

QuoteWhen someone blows themselves up to kill a bunch of people there are usually two root causes: mental illness and religious fanaticism. If you dig deep enough you will find religion at the root in most cases, even if its just on a personal level i.e. "I know God will reward me for what I do here today".

What a comformist view. 'When people kill, they are mentaly ill. When they kill with themselves they are religiously ill'. Also catchy, isn't it? Makes a lot of sense... Yeah. No, it doesn't. But it falls perfectly in line with how American society ignores its own domestic issues with violence; gun violence, mass shootings, even the Christian right extremism and their obvious actions, bending backwards and forwards not to define it as domestic terrorism and defining ALL OF THEM one by one as MENTALLY ILL. Mainstream American viewpoint: psyhocpaths, terrorists and mentally ill people are the problem of humanity. Nothing else is there. It's almost like they are falling from the sky ffs. No rational thinking, accepting the history and the real life cause and effect poking in the eye to almost to gauge a pair. It's aaaall madness.  It's aaall in the scripture anyway.


Yeah. NO. It's only burrying your head in the sand and making yourself cosy and comfortable about some 'evil' against 'good' and that's all the story. This is a perfect example of religious thinking. How most of the people -including the most of the atheists- understand the islamic terrorism as some sort of a biblical 'story' shaped right out any Abrahamic bullshit. 'Evil vs Good'. Of course the terminology used is a bit more evolved than that. For example, what was called 'Evil' before is transformed into the 'secular' mentally ill to distant it from the 'Good' masses. But over all the same understanding nonetheless.

Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2016, 05:47:44 AM
I would agree, in general, ignoring any elephants in the room, isn't good analysis.  There are people.  There is politics.  There is religion.  All three are involved, an attempt to simplify by throwing out one or more of these ... is bad analysis.  Everyone agrees that this behavior (terrorists) is bad behavior ... but isn't that just because we aren't on the other side?  To the Germans, Hitler was right.

My problem is being accused of seeing this as a 'romantic rebellion' -whatever that means for fuck's sakes- because I am making a rational explanation about it.

If there is any simplification of islamic terrorism, it is the Western idea of chucking all this to religious fanatism, mentall illness, scripture and made up madia crisis'.

My side is with civilians. Does not really matter where they are. In a world where military conflict is the biggest industry, there is no difference between an uniformed soldier under a flag getting paid to kill traveling at the other side of the world and a terrorist. That's the ugly truth.

But capitalism has worked, hasn't it? Oh wait...

It seems to me the elephant in the room is the old, old problem of the 'haves vs the have nots'.  From the have side, suicide bombings seem counter intuitive; when you are a have you are not going to want to give that up.  But if you are a have-not, then you have nothing to lose.  Then it is easy.  The haves fight tooth and nail to keep what they have and to increase it and the have-nots fight tooth and nail to get enough to eat and drink to stay alive.  Different perceived needs seen from two different worlds.

And yes, this is a very simplistic view as I have stated it.  But this is an idea that is not talked about much and I see it as one of the driving forces.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 23, 2016, 11:14:52 AM
It seems to me the elephant in the room is the old, old problem of the 'haves vs the have nots'.  From the have side, suicide bombings seem counter intuitive; when you are a have you are not going to want to give that up.  But if you are a have-not, then you have nothing to lose.  Then it is easy.  The haves fight tooth and nail to keep what they have and to increase it and the have-nots fight tooth and nail to get enough to eat and drink to stay alive.  Different perceived needs seen from two different worlds.

And yes, this is a very simplistic view as I have stated it.  But this is an idea that is not talked about much and I see it as one of the driving forces.

Indeed. They have nothing to lose. Literally. No country, no people. Nothing. And been there for a long time.

It's not that much of a simplistic view though, Mike. It's a crucial point. The stage of having nothing to lose and reaching a drive to blow yourself up to kill people is exactly the opposite of 'simple'.

Because it is not something that occurs by itself magically by 'religious inspiration': Oh I want to go to heaven, lemme kill me some infidelsss... BOOOM!  Yeah...no.

I don't see suicide, including suicide military mission ... as religious at all.  So I would have to agree with Shoe on that.  Usually people who have nothing left to lose.  Political ideology also doesn't explain it ... that is what armies do ... and anybody in a military conflict expects that they might get hurt ... but nobody goes in expecting to be killed.  Soldiers are not suicides, even falling on grenade to save a buddy ... one must hope to survive, and some do.

OK, would someone please explain what is the cause of the global jihad, and why is it called jihad if it has nothing to do with Islam.

Then there are the Muslim fighters, -  who call themselves mujaheddin, and quote from the Quran despite the fact that  this  has nothing to do with religion.

Of course we all know that Islamic theology forbids violence against innocent people.
The Quran teaches peace, tolerance and equality to all.

If it is the result of poverty, how come that only Muslims resort to jihad?
Are there no other poor people in the world?

Quote from: pr126 on March 23, 2016, 01:17:45 PM
OK, would someone please explain what is the cause of the global jihad, and why is it called jihad if it has nothing to do with Islam.

Then there are the Muslim fighters, -  who call themselves mujaheddin, and quote from the Quran despite the fact that  this  has nothing to do with religion.

Of course we all know that Islamic theology forbids violence against innocent people.
The Quran teaches peace, tolerance and equality to all.

If it is the result of poverty, how come that only Muslims resort to jihad?
Are there no other poor people in the world?

Today, most of the wars are ME countries trying to conquer the world (not).  Every country gets multiple tries at conquering the world.  But the jihadis aren't soldiers ... they were in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and in Belgium against Nato.  Right now the jihadis happen to be Muslim-cultural-related.  This doesn't happen very often, so it is difficult to generalize, and some (yourself) don't choose to.

If Saudi Arabia would simply declare war against Iran or vice versa, and use their regular military to invade each other like proper savages ... then we would say this is a war, not jihad.  Of course language fails, jihad means several different incompatible things.  But you and I know it means terrorist.  Think Gavrilo Princip.  The assassins hired by the Serbian Black Hand, all had terminal tuberculosis ... otherwise they wouldn't have done what they did, they would have been like Hitler, and enlisted in a regular army.

So you are right, by happenstance (history is complicated, you make it too simple), jihadis today are Muslim-related folks.  Some other time, it will be someone else, as it has been in the past.  There were a lot of European terrorists trying to do terrorism in the 1880s to 1920s ... in Europe and the US.  And none of them were Muslim ... but they were all losers, loosely allied under the Black Flag of Anarchism (not the Black Flag of Isis).  I don't know why Anarchist terrorism died out after WW I.  Maybe a lot of their feed-stock was used up during the trench warfare.

Well..I suspect that if you lived in a country that was bombed relentlessly by a power that you had absolutely no chance of beating in a conventional war and a good number of your friends and family were killed along the way you might just want to lash out as well.  OK, so many no longer live in the countries being bombed,but they probably still have family and friends living in the places still being bombed and they either cannot return or don't want to, but look at it from the point of view of someone who's life has been completely turned upside down,  moved to a country where they're not really welcomed and treated like criminals 24/7 regardless of what they do or say.
I don't condone terrorism, but I also won't take the easy way out and blame it all on religion and pretend as if every Muslim is out to kill me.  There are always people who are going to make huge profit by making sure that war continues on and on with absolutely zero regard for human life. Take a look at the people who are making billions of dollars every year from never ending war and stop trying to blame it all on someone's belief in an ancient text.

Thanks for the replies.

The general belief is then that religion has no part to play in the global jihad.

However, I would like to point out a small matter.

In the affected areas of foreign interventions (Middle East, Asia) there are many people of different religions, other than Muslims.

Yet, there are only Muslims who engage in terror attacks around the world.

No Christians of any denominations found (so far) engaging in suicide bombing, beheading, slave taking, mass murders, etc.

On the contrary, those people of different religions,-  other than Muslims -  get exterminated with extreme prejudice, or enslaved.
Their places of worship are systematically destroyed. Why is that?

Could that something to do with religion?

QuoteNo Christians of any denominations found (so far) engaging in suicide bombing, beheading, slave taking, mass murders, etc.

...

How many Christians, Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, Shiks are members of, or recently joined ISIS, Boko Haram, Taleban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the thousands of other existing jihadi groups?

(Conversions to Islam don't count.)

Are terrorists only terrorists if they belong to Muslim groups? If that's your criteria then no, there are only Muslim terrorists. I'm not sure what the other terrorist organizations fall under then though.

Since it concerns Christian terrorist,  (American atheist do not bother with other religions)  how many terrorist attacks Christians have perpetrated explicitly because of their "ancient texts"?

Can they match 28 thousands + of Islamic terror attacks in the name of Allah since 9/11?


But wait. Since we do not attribute Muslim terrorism to Islam, it would be unfair to blame Christian  terrorism to Christianity.

It would be hypocrisy.
In fact, the labels Muslim or Christian in this context is totally inappropriate.
As the they say, "terrorism has no religion".

Quote from: pr126 on March 24, 2016, 01:00:30 AM
The general belief is then that religion has no part to play in the global jihad.

What a strawman.

Quote from: pr126 on March 24, 2016, 01:00:30 AM
Thanks for the replies.

The general belief is then that religion has no part to play in the global jihad.

However, I would like to point out a small matter.

In the affected areas of foreign interventions (Middle East, Asia) there are many people of different religions, other than Muslims.

Yet, there are only Muslims who engage in terror attacks around the world.

No Christians of any denominations found (so far) engaging in suicide bombing, beheading, slave taking, mass murders, etc.

On the contrary, those people of different religions,-  other than Muslims -  get exterminated with extreme prejudice, or enslaved.
Their places of worship are systematically destroyed. Why is that?

Could that something to do with religion?

There are 20,000 girl sex workers in the US ... they were all captured and exploited by Muslims?  Are you sure they weren't atheists?  How did you pole the region of these perps?

@ Baruch

Are you familiar with the term non sequitur?

@  pr126

Are you?

But it has nothing to do with Islam. Has it?

http://youtu.be/hFyhY8WVCm0

One thing I find conspicuously absent in this conversation is why attacking Belgium, who was vehemently opposed to the 2003 war, is an understandable response. America's actions during this time were overwhelmingly unpopular with Europeans in general.

I understand that ISIS probably doesn't bother to discriminate when it comes to western democracies, but how, and why, are people failing to make the same distinction on our side?

ISIS kills a lot of people, but a vast majority of them are Muslim. No one I know of has ever seen that as anything less then abhorrent. Their only lucid goal this entire time that I know of has been to establish some kind of Caliphate, and they have proven in abundance they don't really care who dies along the way.

Islam has a role within these Islamic terrorist groups...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/14/horror-at-the-beach-22-dead-in-terrorist-attack-on-ivory-coast-resorts/

Quote“They killed a child, despite him kneeling down and begging,” one witness said, according to the BBC. “They shot a woman in the chest. I swear, I heard them shouting ‘Allahu Akbar.’ They’ve killed innocent people.”

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) claimed responsibility for the attack, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors radical Islamist websites.

Maiga was not the only one to claim that the gunmen spared Muslims and targeted Christians.

Marcel Guy said he saw a gunman approach two children on the beach and speak to them in Arabic. One of the kids knelt and began to pray. He was spared. The other child was not.

“The Christian boy was shot and killed right in front of my eyes,” Guy told the AP.

Quote from: kilodelta on March 24, 2016, 04:35:14 PM
Islam has a role within these Islamic terrorist groups...

Of course it has. What brought them together; made them a powerful organisation spreading death is not Islam though. This is the issue here.

Islam is their 'nationality' and 'country'; a collective identity, a strict manual; set of rules and laws to check-control each other, set limits and use as a glue.

What did you think they would do? Sit down and write an independent constitution of their own, create another myth to support it and found a new 'system'? 

Hmm..somehow Bush's war of dropping tons and tons of bombs on Iraq was somehow so much nicer than anything any Muslim could possibly ever do? You're either with us or against us and they hate freedom,  blah fucking blah.... Oh yeah.. Bush = good Muslim = bad..  I must have forgotten the script..
And don't forget,  the janitorial staff sanitized it all for your protection.

Westerners are unhappy, sort of ... if Muslim terrorists kill other Muslims.  We really get our panties in a wad if Muslim terrorists kill non-Muslims.  We are special, Muslims are not special.  Americans are the most special non-Muslims.  Narcissism 101 can explain this.

The idea that Muslim terrorists, might be Muslim ... is considered totally unexpected.

The idea that non-Muslims like to kill lots of people, in non-terrorist ways ... but by distance weapons from drones ... is considered civilized, and non-terrorizing of our targets.  Palestinians use woefully inadequate rockets.  Israelis use very effective phosphorus.  Israelis are civilized, right?

Quote from: pr126 on March 24, 2016, 07:15:14 AM
But it has nothing to do with Islam. Has it?

http://youtu.be/hFyhY8WVCm0

You just proved that all the terrorists are O J Simpson or Michael Jordan!

ISIS has no more to do with Islam than Jim Jones had to do with Christianity. It's a cult.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 24, 2016, 06:59:18 PM
ISIS has no more to do with Islam than Jim Jones had to do with Christianity. It's a cult.

What is the difference between a cult and a religion?????

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 24, 2016, 07:33:45 PM
What is the difference between a cult and a religion?????

Numbers. And Islam has done juuuust a bit better than Jim Jones when it comes to numbers.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 24, 2016, 06:59:18 PM
ISIS has no more to do with Islam than Jim Jones had to do with Christianity. It's a cult.

ISIS is actually doing many of the things Mohammed did, he was a 7th century warlord after all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AD6Bov8Uds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxVIg4nLebc

Quote from: pato15 on March 24, 2016, 07:57:26 PM
Numbers. And Islam has done juuuust a bit better than Jim Jones when it comes to numbers.

So a religion is a bigger cult.  Or a small religion is a cult.  Or is a cult a poor religion; since Islam clearly is not poor--and it is large; so it can't be a cult.  I guess.  Or is a cult a lessor known religion?  Or maybe a cult is everything but the religion one believes in?


I really don't see a difference between a religion and a cult.  It is the classic 'the victors write history.' 

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 24, 2016, 10:15:54 PM
So a religion is a bigger cult.  Or a small religion is a cult.  Or is a cult a poor religion; since Islam clearly is not poor--and it is large; so it can't be a cult.  I guess.  Or is a cult a lessor known religion?  Or maybe a cult is everything but the religion one believes in?


I really don't see a difference between a religion and a cult.  It is the classic 'the victors write history.'

Political parties are also cults, even if they aren't religions.  We all belong to one or more cults.  There is no clean underwear here.

Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2016, 10:17:51 PM
Political parties are also cults, even if they aren't religions.  We all belong to one or more cults.  There is no clean underwear here.

Hmmmm......okay then, how would you define 'cult'?

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 24, 2016, 10:26:32 PM
Hmmmm......okay then, how would you define 'cult'?

That's easy.  Two or more people get together and cook up some bullshit.  Bullshit is always better when it is shared among friends, even better when evangelized to outsiders.  There is religious bullshit, but there is also political bullshit (they are often found together).  I no more believe in George Washington, than I believe in the Tooth Fairy.  George may be historical, but history is just another kind of bullshit ... the George we are taught about isn't the real McCoy ... his last name isn't even McCoy.

Yes, people have argued about cult vs religion based on size or social demographic ... but that is just more bullshit.

So if I say that I like Sanders more than Trump ... all I am saying is, I like one guy's bullshit better than another guy's bullshit.  Is that Jim Jones enough for you?  Don't drink the cool-aid!

Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2016, 10:45:17 PM
That's easy.  Two or more people get together and cook up some bullshit.  Bullshit is always better when it is shared among friends, even better when evangelized to outsiders.  There is religious bullshit, but there is also political bullshit (they are often found together).  I no more believe in George Washington, than I believe in the Tooth Fairy.  George may be historical, but history is just another kind of bullshit ... the George we are taught about isn't the real McCoy ... his last name isn't even McCoy.

Yes, people have argued about cult vs religion based on size or social demographic ... but that is just more bullshit.

So if I say that I like Sanders more than Trump ... all I am saying is, I like one guy's bullshit better than another guy's bullshit.  Is that Jim Jones enough for you?  Don't drink the cool-aid!

Yeah, that's Jim Jones enough for me.  Cool-aid--haven't had any of that since childhood, I think.  Used to like it.  And my mom did teach me to never accept cool-aid from ministers.  She was smart.

'Cult' is one of those meaningless words that is thrown around--meaningless in that it just can't be defined.

Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

However, pop-culture wise...

a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader..

In the West, Islam would be a cult. In the East, Christianity so. It's all what side of the fence you were born on.

People say that ISIS is murdering Muslims. How can that be?

Those Muslims have been declared by ISIS as apostates, hypocrites that according to the Islamic scriptures can be and should be killed.

See Quran 4:89 and various hadits.

4: 89: And they wish that you should disbelieve like they have, then you will be equal; so take them not as your friends until they migrate in the Path of Allah. And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or helper.

Any Muslim who disagrees in any way with ISIS (therefore with Islam) is an apostate to be killed. End of story.

 â€œWhy Do They Hate Us?” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/hugh-fitzgerald-why-do-so-many-ask-why-do-they-hate-us)

QuoteThe bombs went off in Brussels as they had previously in Paris and Madrid and Moscow and London, and dozens of other cities around the world, many of them outside the West (in India, the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Mali, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Sudan). That omnidirectional hatred that prompted all those bombs and guns is drummed into Muslims from an early age, in the canonical texts that matter. Not every last Muslim may end up subscribing to that hate, but enough of them do so that it is not unreasonable to conclude that “they hate us” because that’s what they are taught to do.

But most Muslims are peaceful. That's all we need to know.

Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2016, 06:47:03 PM
You just proved that all the terrorists are O J Simpson or Michael Jordan!

Do you turn up at funerals in a clown outfit making jokes?

Quote from: pr126 on March 25, 2016, 02:00:55 AM
“Why Do They Hate Us?” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/hugh-fitzgerald-why-do-so-many-ask-why-do-they-hate-us)But most Muslims are peaceful. That's all we need to know.

Most Muslims might be peaceful, but there are enough violent Muslims that they are in a position to take over entire countries in the Mideast, and drive out hundreds of thousands of refugees who don't live up to the same violent standards required of those trying to establish a new order of Islam.  Even with opposition from the West and the Russian Military, they are making an impressive showing, and anyone not impressed with the strength of this pitiful  "small minority" might want to think a little more on just how unrepresentative of Islam this Islamic movement actually is.

Guys I keep forgetting to ask. Why do you call it ISIS? It's ISIL.

QuoteIn Arabic, the group is known as Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham, or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. The term “al-Sham” refers to a region stretching from southern Turkey through Syria to Egypt (also including Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan). The group’s stated goal is to restore an Islamic state, or caliphate, in this entire area.

The standard English term for this broad territory is “the Levant.” Therefore, AP’s translation of the group’s name is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.

American media is rather poor.  They should be speaking in proper Arabic when referring to this topic ;-)  Also Americans like simple solutions for complex answers, particularly if it involves using guns and bombs.  I like pr126's use of "jihadi" best.  At least it is Arabic, and not a confusing and mutating acronym.

Politicians prefer to call them Daesh because it does not have the dreaded letter  "I" that it could be in any way connected with Islam.

They only fool themselves.

Shortly after the group showed up, American News actually pointed out that that the acronym ISIL or ISIS was getting mangled.  In fact, if I remember, there were actually three acronyms floating around the media at the time.  The news was pointing out that Obama "preferred" (I think that was the word used) to refer to the group as ISIS (I think that was his preference), and there was some explanation (probably lame) of why he felt his was a more proper name.  The third mangle, which I can't recall, was also given an explanation why some other person of importance preferred that version.  For a short time the three variations were used interchangeably until the need for consistency somehow gravitated to ISIS, but I have never been sure which one is correct, nor could I have told anyone what the letters stood for.

Quote from: SGOS on March 25, 2016, 06:46:58 AM
Even with opposition from the West and the Russian Military, they are making an impressive showing, and anyone not impressed with the strength of this pitiful  "small minority" might want to think a little more on just how unrepresentative of Islam this Islamic movement actually is.

Or they have never considered what's been happening in the region even once in their lives more than 'oh ME is fucked up man, crazies been killing each other forever' before it arrived to a level that affects their lives, while none of the Western governments that fucked region over and over again actually never gave a tiny bit of damn what would happen in the end to anyone-anywhere as long as IT PAID OFF good money, resource and politics?

Of course there are always alternative opinions. Gamma rays? No, God moves in mysterious ways? They fell from the sky? Oh I know, the 'scientist' -pr126 posted a while ago- is right. Some texts are 'measured' and found to possess 'high levels' of hatred and it turns people into 'monsters' when they touch or read it. Instantaneous reaction. Unbelievable phenomenon. You should read it. The 'research', not the texts.

If I am not mistaken Obama is using ISIL though. May be I hear it wrong in a second language.

Levant is the whole region. For example I am living in Levant in a broader sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levantines_(Latin_Christians)

Obama might use ISIL.  I wasn't sure, and without TV, I don't actually hear him that often.  The news cast I referred to was a long time ago, and mostly what I got out of it was "more confused" than where I was when I started out.

Quote from: SGOS on March 25, 2016, 07:36:34 AM
Obama might use ISIL.  I wasn't sure, and without TV, I don't actually hear him that often.  The news cast I referred to was a long time ago, and mostly what I got out of it was "more confused" than where I was when I started out.

OK. Just I think ISIL is a better definition for these piece of shits as the geographical definition goes.

Also I just self analysed that I think as an art historian, someone who loves ancient human civilisations, the usage of the word ISIS annoys me to no end which is actually the name of an ancient Egyptian Goddess while this fuckers destroy any historical monuments on their path. She had that name for over 5000 years -part we know- and now when someone says ISIS only thing people get is death and atrocity. :sad2: It's like letting them changing history in a sense. I hate it.

Quote from: pr126 on March 25, 2016, 07:17:33 AM
Politicians prefer to call them Daesh because it does not have the dreaded letter  "I" that it could be in any way connected with Islam.

They only fool themselves.

Daesh is also derogatory. But don't let reality get in the way of your agenda.

So since we don't really know who these guys work for, and there are so many different groups, over the whole planet, who claim to be Muslim while doing terrorism ... how about this format "Jihadi-Lat:XXX,Long:YYY".  They have them in the Philippines and Thailand too, but I don't want to have to remember a 100 different acronyms ... that constantly change, and are created just to confuse the media.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 25, 2016, 11:31:11 AM
Daesh is also derogatory. But don't let reality get in the way of your agenda.

Do you have any idea what the Islamic texts teach about non believers?
ISIL demonstrate it daily.

Quote from: pr126 on March 25, 2016, 01:47:57 PM
Do you have any idea what the Islamic texts teach about non believers?
ISIL demonstrate it daily.

Do you know how Americans are acculturated to view anyone who isn't American ... and many Americans that we would prefer were not Americans?

Quote from: pr126 on March 25, 2016, 01:47:57 PM
Do you have any idea what the Islamic texts teach about non believers?
ISIL demonstrate it daily.

So relevant. Much on topic. Wow.

QuoteDaesh is also derogatory. But don't let reality get in the way of your agenda.

Please explain why it is derogatory. What does it mean.

And if ISIS / ISIL gives a damn whatever the kuffar is talking about.
They are winning, that's all it matters.

Quote from: pr126 on March 26, 2016, 04:57:49 AM
Please explain why it is derogatory. What does it mean.

And if ISIS / ISIL gives a damn whatever the kuffar is talking about.
They are winning, that's all it matters.

I do not share your version of reality.

Of course ISIS is winning in Europe ... Nato/EU/Warsaw Pact have kept most Europeans in diapers since 1945.

Quote from: pr126 on March 26, 2016, 04:57:49 AM
Please explain why it is derogatory. What does it mean.

And if ISIS / ISIL gives a damn whatever the kuffar is talking about.
They are winning, that's all it matters.

Since you seem to be the only person who didn't know it was a derogatory term, even though you are the resident Muslim expert, I would hate to have to do your research for you. Just seems too disrespectful to the authority.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 22, 2016, 01:49:44 PM
How cute. An American -stromboli- who defends the invaison of Afghanistan and Irak proudly, sitting on his ass and posts a nicely penned bullshit drama

They did have no fly zones in the north and no fly zones in the south to stop Saddam killing Kurds and Shia, perhaps the USA should have removed the no fly zones and let Saddam kill the Kurds and shia that would have made the leftists happy.

When is Turkey going to stop killing the Kurds?

I am sure you know that none of those people over there like each other.  Until recently they temporarily tolerated each other, but didn't like each other.  Now with all the sectarian fighting and the need for vendetta and jihad ... they really hate each other.

The no-fly zones were stupid ... we should have just continued into Iraq in 1991 and killed everyone.  Just treat them like Native Americans.

The Kurds have been fighting for at least 1000 years now (assuming they don't date back to ancient Urartu in 800 BC ... those guys might be the ancestors of the Armenians).  Killing your neighbor is a normal behavior ... soon to return to Western society.

Personally I think it is stupid to take sides.  I don't belong to any of their tribes.  It will burn itself out, as long as we don't fuel the flames.

Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2016, 07:17:20 PM
I am sure you know that none of those people over there like each other.  Until recently they temporarily tolerated each other, but didn't like each other.  Now with all the sectarian fighting and the need for vendetta and jihad ... they really hate each other.

The no-fly zones were stupid ... we should have just continued into Iraq in 1991 and killed everyone.  Just treat them like Native Americans.

The Kurds have been fighting for at least 1000 years now (assuming they don't date back to ancient Urartu in 800 BC ... those guys might be the ancestors of the Armenians).  Killing your neighbor is a normal behavior ... soon to return to Western society.

Personally I think it is stupid to take sides.  I don't belong to any of their tribes.  It will burn itself out, as long as we don't fuel the flames.

But if they were fighting for at least 1000 years now, who was fueling the flames before?
It will burn itself out? How? when?

Give them nukes, then stand back.  Otherwise don't rest on your British Empire laurels, go kill them ... and stop asking the USA to be your bitch.

Quote from: Baruch on March 27, 2016, 10:00:16 AM
Give them nukes, then stand back.  Otherwise don't rest on your British Empire laurels, go kill them ... and stop asking the USA to be your bitch.

Let me reiterate. I am an immigrant to the UK. Neither I nor any of my ancestors engaged in colonising any part of the world.
I wouldn't dream of asking the USA for anything.
Your country is also on the road to self destruction, same as the EU.
It just takes you a bit longer. Because the geographic distance from the middle east.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3511398/Riot-police-water-cannons-called-far-right-protesters-hijack-Brussels-peace-march-make-Nazi-salutes-terror-victims-memorial.html

Quote from: pr126 on March 27, 2016, 01:27:43 PM
Let me reiterate. I am an immigrant to the UK. Neither I nor any of my ancestors engaged in colonising any part of the world.
I wouldn't dream of asking the USA for anything.
Your country is also on the road to self destruction, same as the EU.
It just takes you a bit longer. Because the geographic distance from the middle east.

When you chose to become a Brit, you accepted the whole bloody history as part of your own narrative.  You are now a blue-painted Pictish savage ... and you should be damn proud of it mate ;-)  And all those other folks I am distantly related to, including your Royal family.

Your country, and I love it as I do any ancestral place ... should stop bossing the US as an un-acknowledged part of your Commonwealth.  Just because we don't put your Queen on our money, doesn't mean she doesn't rule us thru the Bilderbergers etc.  NYC finance is run thru The City Of London and the Bank of England runs the Federal Reserve (with the assistance of the Rothschilds of course).  Since 1914 at the latest, the US has been a wholly owned subsidiary of W Europe ... backup insurance just in case (in case of Germany, break glass and pull out Uncle Sam).

So England will be great again, if you do your own dirty work ... you can't do that as a 90 pound weakling who never gets a work out.  You have relied on Uncle Sugar too long.  Maybe you can politely ask the Normans to invade again, to kick things into higher gear?  It seems the manly effect of having the Luftwaffe bomb England in WW II ... didn't have a lasting effect.  First thing you need to do, is expel all your colonials back to their original colonies they came from.  If their homelands won't take them back, invade them and reestablish your colonies.  Tough love that.

QuoteWhen you chose to become a Brit, you accepted the whole bloody history as part of your own narrative.  You are now a blue-painted Pictish savage ... and you should be damn proud of it mate ;-)  And all those other folks I am distantly related to, including your Royal family.

Guilt by association? Honestly, what are you smoking?

Quote from: pr126 on March 27, 2016, 11:23:41 PM
Guilt by association? Honestly, what are you smoking?

You''re either British or not.  Doesn't matter if you were born there or not.  So are you just another non-Brit sponging off the real Brits, like those other immigrants you UKIP folks bitch about?

Up yours.

Quote from: pr126 on March 28, 2016, 08:46:51 AM
Up yours.

You forgot.......................'a rubber hose.'

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 28, 2016, 08:56:36 AM
You forgot.......................'a rubber hose.'

He can make his own choices.

Quote from: baronvonrort on March 26, 2016, 07:05:07 PM
When is Turkey going to stop killing the Kurds?

I do not give a slightest fuck about killings of PKK militants. Many Turkish-Kurdish civillians, tourists from different countries are killed in bombings by them just in the last year. But that is not terrorism to you, isn't it? You do not question a PKK suicide bomber killing over a 100 people from a dozen nation in one bombing.

Big amount of Turks -including me- voted for the Kurdish Party and so they could get into the Parliament. That was the important thing to do and it is done.

Who the fuck are you to throw me the same blaming questions about Kurds whenever you see one of my posts around, about a civil war going on here, threatening my life you fucking piece of shit?

Per Karma ... UKIP people get reincarnated as brown immigrants to GB ... karma is a bitch ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on March 28, 2016, 02:01:46 PM
Per Karma ... UKIP people get reincarnated as brown immigrants to GB ... karma is a bitch ;-)

:rotflmao:

Here's an interview with Malcolm Nance, about ISIS/ISIL/Daesh:


http://www.c-span.org/video/?405971-4/washington-journal-malcolm-nance-defeating-isis

He seems to know what he's talking about, but what do I know...