This doesn't have anything to do with our hesitancy in the subject. With a deeply sectarian and divisive leader of Iraq (Maliki) it isn't a good tactic to promote said individual when the IS garners most of its support by relying on that sectarian imagery and threat from Maliki.
How will ISIS get support when it is threatening to destroy the Kaaba? I do not defend Al Qaeda, or anything like that, but Al Qaeda disagrees with ISIS because they say that if they are not at war with someone or being invaded by someone, like the Yazidis, or the Iraqi Christians, then they leave them alone. Also, Al Qaeda wants to take the Kaaba from Saudi Arabia but they do not support destroying it the way some members of ISIS do. Also, ISIS is unnecessarily barbaric. Al Qaeda only believes in beheading those who they are at war with or who they feel is occupying their land. I'm not defending Al Qaeda, but ISIS is even too extreme for Al Qaeda. It isn't currently relying on theological support. It is relying on the fact that the Maliki government is viewed as a hostile government to Iraqi Sunnis and represents itself as the means for which Iraqi Sunnis can protect themselves from said hostile government. It has essentially tapped into that sectarian argument and political oppression to organize and direct Sunni Tribal groupings and former Saddam loyalists against the Maliki government. Most fighters attacking the government are not members of ISIS. |
|
|
|
|
This doesn't have anything to do with our hesitancy in the subject. With a deeply sectarian and divisive leader of Iraq (Maliki) it isn't a good tactic to promote said individual when the IS garners most of its support by relying on that sectarian imagery and threat from Maliki.
|
|
|
|
People blame Maliki as if his 'sins' justify what ISIS are doing. Wahhabism is the root of the problem. It's politics. Give them time to commit their atrocities, so the US will look like the great saviour.That being said, I fully support any country that will bomb these fucks out of existence.
Considering the IS hates Saudi Arabia, simply blaming Wahhabism is a bit reductionist, and not very accurate. And yes, Maliki is a large part of the current problem. the IS aren't the majority actors in this fighting and Maliki had a direct role in killing the momentum of the Awakening movement against Al Qaeda. |
|
|
|
|
Not everyone agrees on what constitutes murder - what makes your interpretation the correct one, out of curiosity?
|
|
|
|
|
ISIS are worse than the Nazi's. As evil as the Nazi's were, they tried to cover-up their brutality but this lot seem to gloat in it. The world cannot stand back and let this group commit unspeakable crimes and grow in numbers. How they can do this in the name of Islam i don't know, they are savages, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5547635.htmlReported ISIS Member Says They Will Destroy The Kaaba In Mecca, 'Kill Those Who Worship Stones' [UPDATE] UPDATE 4:14 PM-- The Twitter account https://twitter.com/nm8smyh, which sent the original message, has been suspended. The authenticity of the account as belonging to an ISIS member has not been verified. A reported member of the militant group Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which recently dubbed itself simply as The Islamic State, has declared that they will destroy the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, which is Islam's most holy site. APA quoted alleged ISIS member Abu Turab Al Mugaddasi based on reports from Turkish media, who said on Twitter: If Allah wills, we will kill those who worship stones in Mecca and destroy the Kaaba. People go to Mecca to touch the stones, not for Allah. ISIS reportedly is planning to take over the city of Arar in Saudi Arabia, which is very close to the Iraq border. It is a fifteen-hour drive away from Mecca, the site of the Hajj pilgrimage which all observant Muslims are expected to do at least once. If indeed the statement is from an ISIS member, it's a shocking one even for them, considering that ISIS has been attempting to increase recruitment from Muslims worldwide by declaring the restoration of an Islamic Caliphate. According to John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, "In terms of legitimacy- unless you're someone who's ready to join a terrorist group at this point, for the vast majority of Muslims there is no legitimacy with this group." This most recent threat reinforces Esposito's point, particularly as it comes during the holy month of Ramadan. This piece has been updated to reflect the lack of authentication behind the reported tweet. Wow if that is accurate this could get really ugly. We definitely do not want to get dragged into fights between Muslim sects. I have been waiting for something like this to happen. A group of Savages to really take their savagery too far and want to destroy Mecca or even the Dome of the Rock. Either way the other Savages will find a way to blame America or "Tha Jews" for it. And I've been waiting for moderate Muslims to stand up for themselves rather than join then or turn and run. Moderate Muslims have to stand up to ISIS or ISIS may even destroy the Kaaba. Does Maliki use Twitter? Maybe The Regime can start a new hashtag and that will get him to step down .I bet that will work. You could get a job in the admin for that one. Your comment was dumb, not because I think you lack for intelligence, but rather because it was obvious that you made it in the absence of any knowledge of what is going on in Iraq. Simply put, you literally don't know what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I don't know your position on the DP, and while given your general political stance, the odds are you are against it, for some reason I though there were circumstances that you thought it was just to use.
Well, not sure why you refuse to answer, so let me then ask this:
Would you agree that in the past half century (or so?), there is a growing number of folk who see the death penalty as not only cruel and unusual punishment, but that its use constitutes murder by the state, regardless of what it is used for?
|
|
|
|
|
And, actually, we are talking about the Death Penalty here, according to the context.
Now, whether it was a just use of the DP is the question; but, no point even going there, if you think there is no valid use of the DP.
What then is your position on the DP?
|
|
|
|
|
1.) President Obama absolutely should not have bombed ISIS when they entered Iraq. That would have only made them stronger in the long run on an ideological level where they are currently, the weakest. A ground expansion can be afforded, and contained, ideological spread is much harder to reign in.
2.) Moderate Muslims have always fought against AQI, ISI, ISIS, and now IS. They have also fought on their side as well. Most fighters that are "invading" Iraq aren't religious radicals, nor are they IS.
3.) Twitter is relied upon heavily by terrorist and militant organizations like the Taliban, the IS, Al Nusra, AQAP, Boko Haram, and Al Shabaab. Ignoring or downplaying the presence of Jihadis in these spaces to try to engage in domestic petty politicking is rather douchey, and intellectually dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should allow any US Citizen willing to pay 1 billion or more dollars to have their likeness printed on our currency, at least for a limited run. Hell of an ego boost to be able to legally buy shit with money that has your own face on it.
|
|
|
|
What dance? Unexpectedly, you yourself provided evidence of you belief in the existance of a Creator in trying to make your point.
Rather unexpectedly, I have to admit, but I am inclined to let go explaining the 'context' just for that little nugget.
By saying "god-instructed" genocide you conclude I admit a belief in a creator?  No that was not it; I guess you missed what I said in an earlier post.Ok, lets take some smaller steps on this. What is your position on the use of the Death Penalty? |
|
|
|
|
What dance? Unexpectedly, you yourself provided evidence of you belief in the existance of a Creator in trying to make your point.
Rather unexpectedly, I have to admit, but I am inclined to let go explaining the 'context' just for that little nugget.
|
|
|
|
More accurately it's called, genocide.In the case of the Israelites murdering non-Israelites, some may prefer the term, "Ethnic Cleansing".
Actually, if you read the account, it was not for having a 'different faith'. But, lets go with your error and again ask - what determines that something is murder? Some folks think aborting babies is murder - not all. Some folk think the government executing murderers or rapists is murder - other folkd do not. What makes your interpretation of murder the correct one? True. If the nations the Israelites allegedly murdered had converted and worshiped the Hebrew "god", the Israelites would have murdered them anyway. Is there a point to this? After all, it's just a fairy tale. Again, not true, if one reads the history of the Israeli nation there, be it Joshua, or before or after (Samuel). The Hebrew "god" just ordered the Israelites to kill them, including women and children, and all their animals because their animals were "unclean". It is no different than militant Muslims in the 21st century believing they are obeying their "god" by killing everyone who is not Muslim, except that Muslims will allow people the opportunity to convert to Islam and live as second-class citizens (slaves) to Muslims. Your objection makes no sense unless you are claiming that morals are absolutes.Which, deep inside, you do believe - the very thing Paul discusses in Romans chapter 1. |
|
|
|
Here's whats true......your God told Moses that people who worship other gods should be put to death...aka murdered. Awesome God.
Yes, though you purposely avoid the context in which that happens.But, in doing that, you have again admitted to the truth of Romans chapter 1, interestingly enough. |
|
|
|
|
So basically they were lucky the aircraft itself wasn't the strike package. Too little, too late. He should have done this the minute they first started marching East across that wide open desert.
If we ever have to go back to Iraq, he owns that. And Maliki refusing to step down just makes things perfect.
|
|
|
|
More accurately it's called, genocide.In the case of the Israelites murdering non-Israelites, some may prefer the term, "Ethnic Cleansing".
Actually, if you read the account, it was not for having a 'different faith'. But, lets go with your error and again ask - what determines that something is murder? Some folks think aborting babies is murder - not all. Some folk think the government executing murderers or rapists is murder - other folkd do not. What makes your interpretation of murder the correct one? True. If the nations the Israelites allegedly murdered had converted and worshiped the Hebrew "god", the Israelites would have murdered them anyway. Is there a point to this? After all, it's just a fairy tale. Again, not true, if one reads the history of the Israeli nation there, be it Joshua, or before or after (Samuel). |
|
|
|
Killing people for believing other things has always been murder. It will always be murder no matter what people used to think. It is also genocide. We are not talking about capital punishment, we are not talking abortion...all interesting topics that you might want to start another thread about. We are talking about a biblical command to put adult human beings to death for no other reason than they worship differently. This is murder.
We are talking about the nations and the people destroyed, yes? Look at the context. You need to work on that. There were nations with different faiths that God instructed Moses and Joshua to leave alone, for example. What was different about the nations they met once they crossed the Jordon river? If it was simply due to having a different faith, why were not Edom, Moab, etc, included? And the nations who did worship other gods - what did that worship include? |
|
|
|
More accurately it's called, genocide.In the case of the Israelites murdering non-Israelites, some may prefer the term, "Ethnic Cleansing".
Actually, if you read the account, it was not for having a 'different faith'. But, lets go with your error and again ask - what determines that something is murder? Some folks think aborting babies is murder - not all. Some folk think the government executing murderers or rapists is murder - other folkd do not. What makes your interpretation of murder the correct one? Believing in a different god is having a different faith. Believing anything differently means having a different faith. It is not an error. Deuteronomy says (God to Moses) kill people who worship other gods. Worshiping other gods means your faith is different. How many ways do I have to explain something so simple to you? Ah, you are saying this is an objective truth that transcends what humans think? Hmm, interesting.So, what is this source of absolute truth? |
|
|
|
The thing is that in the case of sarin gas in Syria, it wasn't the government using it but the "rebels".
One thing about sarin is that it is relatively easy to work out its origins and the stuff in Ghouta was from Turkey who would never supply Assad.
there's not a shred of evidence that the sarin came from Turkey. That both sides have used it is undoubted, but to try and make the exact instance to which Obama responded the fault of the rebels is just more of his anti-American fantasizing. No matter what America does. The facts are the facts. Much of the chemical weapons used in Syria did NOT originate in Assad's arsenals. That some of it did is not conclusive, because the rebels got control of many of the weapons stockpiles. |
|
|
|
More accurately it's called, genocide.In the case of the Israelites murdering non-Israelites, some may prefer the term, "Ethnic Cleansing".
Actually, if you read the account, it was not for having a 'different faith'. But, lets go with your error and again ask - what determines that something is murder? Some folks think aborting babies is murder - not all. Some folk think the government executing murderers or rapists is murder - other folkd do not. What makes your interpretation of murder the correct one? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
