Obama's Mistaken and Incromprehensible ISIS Strategy

[Frothingslosh]

It manifests itself in the ISIS outbreaks, but also in hyper-excited sports fans whose team just lost (or won, doesn't seem to matter). Religious zealots picketing funerals as a protest for allowing gay people to join the Army? Gimme a break! (But this is exactly what the looney-tunes of the Westboro Baptist Church do.)

Not to mention white-supremacist Virginians arrested while plotting a race-and-religion-based series of terrorist attacks yesterday.

Oh, right, they're white Christian Americans, so they can't by definition be terrorists. Make that "troubled individuals".

Since the GOP is so against allowing anyone with the faintest potential of being a terrorist into the US, I expect all 31 governors who intend to violate the law re: Syrian refugees to enact a travel ban on any and all people attempting to leave Virginia for any reason until Obama can prove beyond the slightest doubt that there is absolutely zero chance of any of Virginia-based individuals causing a single person the slightest bit of harm ever.

 

[Alc]

Since the GOP is so against allowing anyone with the faintest potential of being a terrorist into the US, I expect all 31 governors who intend to violate the law re: Syrian refugees to enact a travel ban on any and all people attempting to leave Virginia for any reason until Obama can prove beyond the slightest doubt that there is absolutely zero chance of any of Virginia-based individuals causing a single person the slightest bit of harm ever.

At what point is it okay to ignore the laws of a country?

To my mind, if you're part of a country then you're governed by its laws and obliged to obey them. If you don't agree with them, appeal against them, demonstrate, start a petition, etc. What you don't get to do is say "Yeah, everyone else has to obey these laws but I'm special, so they don't apply to me". If you DO take that option, you should expect to be subject to the rules that usually apply to criminals.

"But what about people who have changed unjust laws by breaking them?" What about them? People broke some law or other law because they thought it was unjust and, in a tiny minority of cases, it brought about some good changes. However, the majority of people who break laws achieve nothing beyond a criminal record, even if some other people agree with their decision to do so.

If the republicans were in power in the US and had insisted that gay marriage be made illegal in every state (no idea if they would, just using it as an example), I would see that as an unfair law. I would, however, expect those senators who believe in equality and fairness to appeal against it but still obey it.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I read an interesting piece in yesterday's NY Times on the Web regarding how the problem with ISIS is merely one example of polarization caused by humanity's inability to be accepting of all. Some of us can be open-minded and can forgive people for being different, but the "huddled masses" that operate more by mob psychology than by individual rational behavior are the ones to fear. They turn to religion or become politically radicalized because they feel isolated. Joining a highly exclusionary group is their answer. It gives them a sense of belonging, though when that group later becomes violent, it isn't such a good thing.

I think it is sad but true: We have not yet outgrown that evolutionary relic, the saurian tendency of strict territoriality, the supremacy of me-and-mine over you-and-yours. It manifests itself in the ISIS outbreaks, but also in hyper-excited sports fans whose team just lost (or won, doesn't seem to matter). Religious zealots picketing funerals as a protest for allowing gay people to join the Army? Gimme a break! (But this is exactly what the looney-tunes of the Westboro Baptist Church do.)

I have no doubt this is somewhat true - we have to get our home grown jihadi wanna bes, feeling part of something more benign here . Whether it be a sports team, or being an active part in the faith of Islam that is anti the atrocities of ISIS.

Hate speech is banned, but so much social networking now is done on the online social networks. They have to be more regulated. They are being radicalised online.

 

[Frothingslosh]

If the republicans were in power in the US and had insisted that gay marriage be made illegal in every state (no idea if they would, just using it as an example), I would see that as an unfair law. I would, however, expect those senators who believe in equality and fairness to appeal against it but still obey it.

Actually, implementing those laws were PRECISELY what they were in the middle of doing until SCOTUS basically went 'screw that'. Some states did it by statute, but most actually had publicly-voted-upon constitutional amendments passed that defined marriage as 'one man, one woman, nothing else'. Unfortunately, they ran afoul of the combination of the 14th Amendment and Article 6, Clause 2 of the main body of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause).

Overall, though, rational civil disobedience means not only breaking an unjust law to make a point, but doing so knowing full well that you're going to be arrested and probably charged and convicted. Hell, it hasn't happened recently, but civil disobedience used to end in death pretty often, historically. Just look at all the union organizers and supporters who were murdered in the late 1800's/early 1900's while the US government was busy trying to explain that unions were utterly illegal and a vile distortion of everything capitalism was about.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Hate speech is banned, but so much social networking now is done on the online social networks. They have to be more regulated. They are being radicalised online.

Don't let the fanatics on either side fool you on this one. Hate speech is NOT banned in the US, no matter how much the extreme (and usually VERY young) Left wants it to be so nor how much the the extreme right (and usually NOT young at all) Right claims it is.

There are restrictions on protests and demonstrations, and private entities can and do place any restrictions they like on it, but hate speech itself is not banned. If you (as in 'hypothetical person', not accusing you of anything here) wanted to dress up on Nazi paraphernalia and march up and down the street in your town yelling 'Heil Hitler' and 'White Power', you'd probably get busted for disturbing the peace or demonstrating without a permit, but that's not the same thing. You COULD, however, make whatever racist rants you want in a newspaper, or talking to people, or online, or even posted in your yard (although there would probably be a 'no signs' ordinance passed in no time flat).

Hell, the KKK has even been represented by the ACLU in court when their First Amendment rights were violated - and I can pretty much guarantee you the lawyers on THOSE cases utterly loathed their clients.

 

[Bladerunner]

Out of interest, does anyone know what ISIS' feelings are on admitting to being a Muslim? By that, I don't mean that al Muslims are in ISIS, I mean that if a member were in danger of being caught, do his beliefs mean that he is honour bound to admit to being a Muslim even if it blows the mission? Or could he openly insult Mohammed and claim to be a Jew or Christian, then later get forgiven?

there are 109 verses in the Koran (Quran) that spell out how an Islamist is to fight and kill non-believers. Def.... Non-believers--someone who does not believe in ALLAH.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

"Not only does the above verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot."



Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
By this last verse, I don't think they are going to denounce their beliefs,

especially if they can die and get 72 virgins.......Yes, it is in there.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
They are proud of it but will maintain secrecy to avoid being capture mainly so they can carry out their job. To kill non-believers.


p.s. I might add that not all Muslims are Islamist but all Islamist are Muslims. 99.8% of all the worlds terrorist attacks have come from Islamist.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

As their behavior is based on religion, I wondered if their beliefs would allow them to do so. Would sinking to the levels of the heathens not invalidate the whole reason for what they're doing?

It wouldn't. Far from all Muslims are members of ISIS, but as far I've heard there aren't exactly a large number of ISIS members who are Jewish, Sikh, Church of England, etc. If someone was 100% not a Muslim, it would probably rule them out of suspicion in a lot of cases.

How would you know who was not an Islamist?or which ones are Christian Muslims....etc.,

Blade

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade, on some things we agree. The Muslims I know tend to be peaceful because they are far away from the idiocy engendered by the harsh nature of some Middle East venues. They are more likely to become polarized by USA politics than by religion (admittedly, my opinion of the folks I know). If we get down to it, it is the Sunni Muslims who get exposed to Wahabbism that become violently polarized due to religion. The Wahabbists are most oriented towards the verses you quoted. Plus a few more that discuss violence against infidels.

That is one of the reasons I think religion is not always a good force in the world (and sadly, I even must include Christians in that number). Too many folks get polarized in the name of religion and suddenly forget how to tolerate others who are otherwise peaceful people. The Westboro Baptist Church-goers fall into that category, but then many other supposedly Christian religions can't tolerate basically peaceful people either.

I know MANY gays in New Orleans including that I have a same-sex married couple in my extended family. They are peaceful. They are gainfully employed at jobs well above minimum wage and pay their income and property taxes on time. They have a quiet home life with very few raucous parties. They keep their affection inside the house and are discrete about their public behavior. They have as much joie de vivre as anyone else I know. But too many religions condemn them - from Muslims and Christians alike - for being gay.

I know that the annual "Decadence Festival" in New Orleans always attracts the intolerant religions for protests. I should also make it clear that our fair city doesn't give a hoot about your lifestyle as long as you don't pee on the sidewalk, fornicate in public, or expose something that ought not be exposed. Just come on down, spend money, eat good food, listen to good music, and pay the permit so you can have a legal parade in the French Quarter. Your money talks and we still listen. We learned LONG ago that intolerance costs you a lot, and not only with regard to cash. Life is too short to harbor hatred.

 

[Frothingslosh]

*Assorted islamophobic bullshit*

According to the Bible, you are commanded to murder:

1. People who don't listen to priests. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
2. Witches (Exodus 22:17)
3. Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
4. Fortune tellers (Leviticus 20:27)
5. Anyone who strikes their father for any reason (Exodus 21:15)
6. Anyone who curses at their parents (Proverbs 20:20, Leviticus 20:9)
7. Adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)
8. Any priest's daughter who has sex (Leviticus 21:9 - specifically burning)
9. ALL NON-CHRISTIANS (Exodus 22:19, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
10. All post-Jesus prophets, aka false prophets (Zechariah 13:3, Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22)
11. EVERYONE RESIDING IN A TOWN WITH EVEN ONE NON-CHRISTIAN (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
12. Any woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
13. Anyone who blasphemes (Leviticus 24:10-16)
14. Anyone who approaches the Tabernacle (Numbers 1:48-51)
15. Anyone who works on Sunday (Exodus 31:12-15)

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Please pay special attention to numbers 9 and 11.

So according to you, Muslims are evil because some verses in the Qu'ran call for killing people? Then by your logic, Christians (INCLUDING YOU, BLADERUNNER) are just as evil, and Christianity is every bit the Religion of Evil you claim Islam to be.

Tell me, Blade. Was your wife a virgin when you married her? Did your children EVER disrespect you even once? Then why did you fail your duty and not kill them? Why have you not slaughtered every non-Christian you have met? Why have you not executed everyone who works on Sunday?

Do you get your hair cut? You ARE aware, are you not, that that is also a grave sin? (Leviticus 19:27)

See how ridiculous taking ANY holy book literally is? Because I can pretty much guarantee you will utterly misread my point, let me explicitly state it here: Neither Christianity nor Islam is a religion of evil. I am simply pointing out the idiocy of your 'argument'.

 

[Steve R.]

According to the Bible, you are commanded to murder:

1. People who don't listen to priests. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
2. Witches (Exodus 22:17)
3. Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
4. Fortune tellers (Leviticus 20:27)
5. Anyone who strikes their father for any reason (Exodus 21:15)
6. Anyone who curses at their parents (Proverbs 20:20, Leviticus 20:9)
7. Adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)
8. Any priest's daughter who has sex (Leviticus 21:9 - specifically burning)
9. ALL NON-CHRISTIANS (Exodus 22:19, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
10. All post-Jesus prophets, aka false prophets (Zechariah 13:3, Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22)
11. EVERYONE RESIDING IN A TOWN WITH EVEN ONE NON-CHRISTIAN (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
12. Any woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
13. Anyone who blasphemes (Leviticus 24:10-16)
14. Anyone who approaches the Tabernacle (Numbers 1:48-51)
15. Anyone who works on Sunday (Exodus 31:12-15)

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Please pay special attention to numbers 9 and 11.

The citations above are all from the Old Testament which pre-dates Christianity. Various Christian denominations may still ascribe to some of the admonitions cited above. However, most Christians today (I suspect) would be adhering to the New Testament. Here's a fortuitous random pick from Romans 12:921, which is in the New Testament.

Love
9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.
11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.
12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.
13 Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
20 On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)

An example of Christian revisions to the law as prescribed in the Old Testament:
Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery

 

[Bladerunner]

Look, I was just answering a question for ALC on both posts.

I will not fight this battle mainly because of the lack of knowledge from the thread about those verses. Steve R has it closer to right of all.

The bottom line is that Islam is not a peaceful religion and it actively seeks to convert, enslave or destroy those who do not Believe. A long way from Christianity.

p.s I believe it is preordained and cannot be stopped.

Blade

 

[Frothingslosh]

Steve, way to completely and utterly miss my expressly stated point. I expected it to be beyond Bladerunner's admittedly limited grasp, but not yours as well.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Between ISIS, Zionists and literal Christians its all fucked.

Some causing more problems than others, but really - all are horribly illogical and horribly selfish.

 

[Steve R.]

Steve, way to completely and utterly miss my expressly stated point. I expected it to be beyond Bladerunner's admittedly limited grasp, but not yours as well.

Since two "stupid" people have failed to grasp what you have stated you may wish to consider the possibility that you failed to express yourself appropriately.

The difficulty with what you wrote is that you are referencing (for the lack of a better term) an obsolete document (Old Testament, which is pre-Christian) as if it still applies today in an unaltered manner. It does not, from the Christian viewpoint. For most Christians today, it is the New Testament which lays out current Christian philosophy. Consequently what you wrote below does not logically follow, since you were making a conclusion by referencing an obsolete document from the Christian perspective.

So according to you, Muslims are evil because some verses in the Qu'ran call for killing people? Then by your logic, Christians (INCLUDING YOU, BLADERUNNER) are just as evil, and Christianity is every bit the Religion of Evil you claim Islam to be.
...
See how ridiculous taking ANY holy book literally is?

I am sure that you can find "ridiculous literal" statements in the New Testament, should you look. Citing those "ridiculous literal" statements would have been appropriate.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Since two "stupid" people have failed to grasp what you have stated you may wish to consider the possibility that you failed to express yourself appropriately.

Really, I fail to understand how the following is beyond even your grasp:

Because I can pretty much guarantee you will utterly misread my point, let me explicitly state it here: Neither Christianity nor Islam is a religion of evil. I am simply pointing out the idiocy of your 'argument'.

Although I do find it vastly amusing that in your later whining about how poorly stated my point was, you literally cut out the part above where I said both my point and that it WAS my point.

The difficulty with what you wrote is that you are referencing (for the lack of a better term) an obsolete document (Old Testament, which is pre-Christian) as if it still applies today in an unaltered manner. It does not, from the Christian viewpoint. For most Christians today, it is the New Testament which lays out current Christian philosophy. Consequently what you wrote below does not logically follow, since you were making a conclusion by referencing an obsolete document from the Christian perspective.



I am sure that you can find "ridiculous literal" statements in the New Testament, should you look. Citing those "ridiculous literal" statements would have been appropriate.

Aaaand you still fail to grasp the point.

At the risk of repeating myself, the point was that your Bibe that you two defend so fervently as the source of all that is good has all SORTS of commands to kill people, just like the Qu'ran, and that it's just as easy to take those commands and wave them around to prove that the Bible calls for all sorts of murder (including the murders of ALL non-Christians) as it was for Blade to do the same with the Qu'ran. That if taking those verses, alone, with no context or history, means Muslims and their religion are evil, then by that very logic, the same applies to Christians and Christianity.

In fact, you are using the very same defense that you and your ilk refuse to accept from Muslims: "But you're taking them out of context! Those laws don't apply! We really don't believe that!" In a nutshell, you're both hypocrites.

So, do you still need me to put it in kindergarten speak for you? That's about the only way it could be simplified further.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy, it is clear that neither side saw the principle at-hand.

Blade was cherry-picking the Quran, then got bent out of shape when someone cherry-picked the Bible. Obviously, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but neither the goose nor the gander appreciates being basted with sauce. (I, on the other hand, have been known to get sauced a few times in my college days...)

 

[Bladerunner]

Frothy, it is clear that neither side saw the principle at-hand.

Blade was cherry-picking the Quran, then got bent out of shape when someone cherry-picked the Bible. Obviously, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but neither the goose nor the gander appreciates being basted with sauce. (I, on the other hand, have been known to get sauced a few times in my college days...)

Into the Fire again DOC....... I was just answering a question from ALC...Did not figure he wanted me to quote all of the 6,000+ verses that are in the Koran. I said there were 109 verses specifically requiring believers to convert, enslave or destroy the non-believers. I did not say anything about the SHira' law, the enslavement (for lack of a better word, I am in a hurry) of Women, marriage, how to govern, how to pray and on and on.......

I was just answering ALC's question.

The OT is not dead and should not be because "Everything that is concealed in the OT is revealed in the NT and everything that is concealed in the NT is revealed in the OT. IN fact, Jesus is talked about on just about every page of the OT. How is that for Prophecy. Thousands of years before he was born.

Frothy showed his knowledge of the Bible when he started talking about the Trinity. He has not disappointed me since.

One other thing...Frothy said he said the Christianity and Islam was not Evil.

The ISLAM Religion IS EVIL>it wants to kill you, Period.

Blade

 

[Frothingslosh]

(I, on the other hand, have been known to get sauced a few times in my college days...)

As did I.

Hell, dealing with the hatred being spewed about after the Paris attacks (you heard about the mayor calling for internment of all Muslims in the US?) is very nearly driving me to drink right now.

 

[Frothingslosh]

The ISLAM Religion IS EVIL>it wants to kill you, Period.

And all Christians are evil and want to kill every non-Christian on the planet.

You are obviously, by your logic, no better than Adolph Hitler, who was ALSO a professed Christian. Or Timothy McVeigh. Or Ted Kaczynski. Or Torquemada.

Edit:

Frothy showed his knowledge of the Bible when he started talking about the Trinity. He has not disappointed me since.

It is certainly apparent I know the Bible far better than you! Every time you open your mouth, you prove that over and over again.

 

[Alc]

Thanks for the responses, I feel I should clarify a few points, lest I bet taken for a fervent anti-Muslim (when it's religion in general I have a problem with).

1. I KNOW not all Muslims are violent or terrorists or hate non-Muslims.
2. I was asking if Muslims were allowed to do things expressly forbidden by their religion, in the name of fighting their enemies. The logic behind my questions was:
If I know group A cannot, for example, call Allah bad names
And I know this is adhered to WHATEVER the situation
And I know all people in terrorist group B are a subset of group A
Then if I see someone call Allah bad names I know they're not in group B.

That's all.

If someone in group B IS allowed to call Allah terrible things as long as it's during the fight against their enemies, then the rest is irrelevant.