The Iraqi Nightmare

[OilSheikh]

Everything was good until US and UK decided to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Now, the country's a mess.
Well done, Bush and Blair.
In the Arab countries, you need someone powerful to keep everyone else in check, for Egypt, it was Mubarak, for Libya, it was Gaddafi , and for Iraq it was Saddam.

So, what now ? the damn US and UK need to stop interfering , no airstrikes, no supplying the Kurds with weapons. Let nature take it's course.

If ISIS can bring stability after getting rid of the weak puppet govt, then so be it. At least, this will stop innocents dying everyday.
And, US-UK need to stop helping the Kurds, they are trying to break apart Iraq and already have one foot out of the door. You have messed up enough

And, personally I absolutely don't give a damn what happens to devil worshippers. How can you be something like that in this day and age ? Even an Atheist is better than a devil-worshipper.
However, I do not condemn mass execution of them.

[TheAnimus]

A lot of the reasons people were keen on intervention was because of success in the late 90s, UN peace keeping forces in Bosnia/Serbia for example.

In-action with tacit support of some regimes was after all the precursor to 9/11.

[kalniel]

Deutoronomy 17 would appear to disagree. And Surah 9:5 in the Quran

And you think by reading one verse you're suddenly an expert? No wonder there are so many wars if people are so ignorant about what other people believe. These books are not textbooks or instruction guides. Do you even understand the context of that verse, let alone what was happening at the time etc?

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know enough to say that I can't possibly tell someone else that I can interpret their holy book better than they can. Why do you think Christians and Jews the world over aren't at war with everyone else if you think that's what their religion is telling them to do?

We need more communication and understanding, not ill-informed assertions of what other people should and should not think.

[TheAnimus]

We need more communication and understanding, not ill-informed assertions of what other people should and should not think.

But that is the problem with Religion, it's by definition a set of beliefs which are not based on evidence or open to rational or critical thought.

Classic issues, slavery, homosexuality, blended fabrics!

All of these we expect (and often demand with force) people to behave differently to how was previously interpreted from the bible.

Part of this is human understanding, people pretend we aren't monsters, but a lot of us are, or at least go along with it the experiment must continue, so if they can have an excuse, they will walk round carrying the head of the person they just killed, posing for photos. Religion is one of the oddest things, as we tolerate people behaving badly, because it's their belief. We don't challenge them to justify it, explain why it's moral, they just claim it to be so.

If you get people, just being mean because they find gay men 'icky' or casual sex to be not to their licking or whatever, they immediately say "my religious beliefs" as if that is somehow an excuse. Imagine you had it in any other context that a couple were turned away from a guest house. You'd just think that they are crazy.

[kalniel]

But you do indeed get debate and challenge - that's the whole point of institutes like the general synod, or the MCB, etc.. And if you were to study theology you would subject religion to a great deal of rational and critical thought.

Likewise we don't tolerate bad behaviour on the grounds of religion, as the courts keep showing time and time again, and indeed as the action against these extremists shows.

[TeePee]

And you think by reading one verse you're suddenly an expert? No wonder there are so many wars if people are so ignorant about what other people believe. These books are not textbooks or instruction guides. Do you even understand the context of that verse, let alone what was happening at the time etc?

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know enough to say that I can't possibly tell someone else that I can interpret their holy book better than they can. Why do you think Christians and Jews the world over aren't at war with everyone else if you think that's what their religion is telling them to do?

We need more communication and understanding, not ill-informed assertions of what other people should and should not think.

The reason that not all Christians are at war all over the world, is that many of them live in secular countries. In the West, it was the Age of Reason, that led to a political shift and ultimately ended or reduced religious control over government.

In many countries that aren't so enlightened, Christians are still fighting religious wars. The Lord's Resistance Army is, of course, well known (and from all of the rage online, probably the least Scottish group of people in history).

The first post loses me where it claims Elimination/exile of Christians. ISIS is eliminating anyone that isn't a Sunni Muslim. Singling out Christians as the group being persecuted shows nothing but bias. Anyone being killed for religious reasons is wrong.

[peterb]

Everything was good until US and UK decided to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam.

The Kurds who were used for Saddam's war gas experiments might disagree, as would those that weren't in the B'ath party.

[kalniel]

The reason that not all Christians are at war all over the world, is that many of them live in secular countries. In the West, it was the Age of Reason, that led to a political shift and ultimately ended or reduced religious control over government.

Why would that make a difference, if Christians believed they had a duty to kill non-believers? A sympathetic govt. is of no relevance. IS doesn't have governmental support.

In many countries that aren't so enlightened, Christians are still fighting religious wars. The Lord's Resistance Army is, of course, well known (and from all of the rage online, probably the least Scottish group of people in history).

Again I'd argue that's out of lack of education or typically using religion as a cover for other goals - we've seen that in many other conflicts.

The first post loses me where it claims Elimination/exile of Christians. ISIS is eliminating anyone that isn't a Sunni Muslim. Singling out Christians as the group being persecuted shows nothing but bias. Anyone being killed for religious reasons is wrong.

I'd go further - anyone being killed is wrong. The 'non-religious' wars of sudan, Syria etc. are far worse than this nightmare, which is bad enough.

[TeePee]

Why would that make a difference, if Christians believed they had a duty to kill non-believers? A sympathetic govt. is of no relevance. IS doesn't have governmental support.

Because with a secular government, children are educated. With an education comes the ability to ignore the sections of a particular holy book that don't fit in with your society. The Age of Reason began hundreds of years ago, yet it took more than a generation to eliminate slavery in the US, as education replaced the religious dogma that continued it. The last person imprisoned for Blasphemy in the UK was less than a hundred years ago. It's the same for racial equality. It was the 1960's before reason overcame the religious dogma which perpetuated inequality. The latest issue is homosexuality, and there are plenty of hate crimes associated with that one. A secular government isn't an instant fix for religious control of society, but it's the first step toward changing society for the better.

[kalniel]

Because with a secular government, children are educated.

Hang on a minute, wasn't education in the UK pretty much championed and enabled by the Christian movement in the first place? They were (and are) huge proponents of education of everyone, regardless of wealth.

[TooNice]

At least, this will stop innocents dying everyday.

Considering their approach, I find that highly doubtful. And, unlike many regimes in their past (e.g. Saddam's - though I should point out that while I do not doubt ), their actions (atrocities) aren't only reported by the media (where one may question if the truth isn't being bent), this is a group that is very open and proud in their gruesome acts. I will give them credit for being straight and honest about what they do, but I don't think that the group will stop once they have taken over the presidential office. Two things can happen: 1. A rebel group appears (no stability, innocents die), 2. They successfully "stabilise" by making sure there is no one who can stand up to them (a lot of innocent die). And if their name change is anything to go by, they are not just aiming at Iraq and Syria. Of all the groups you want to leave unchecked, they come across as the scariest to me.

But instead just in another form like militia or sectarianism, tribalism or so on.

As for solutions, it's the usual - education & reduction of poverty, disease etc.

I also tend to take the view that religion is just one of the many means of control and commit horrible acts against humanity.

But we also have reports of people in Europe, US, Australia joining them. Most if not all those countries have compulsory education up to a certain age, not heavily plagued with disease, and the people who joined do not appear to be living in poverty. And even over there, we have seemingly ordinary parents whose seemingly normal teenage son ending up joining ISIS (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/09/wo...-isis-recruit/). I really wonder what their kind of recruitment methods they use, and whatever it is, they really need to be rather incredible salesmen.

[TeePee]

Hang on a minute, wasn't education in the UK pretty much championed and enabled by the Christian movement in the first place? They were (and are) huge proponents of education of everyone, regardless of wealth.

No. The Church of England certainly ran schools, but they were for religious education. Teaching kids to read the bible is still teaching kids to read, but the church tried very hard to oppose Secular education. Mandatory education came around in the 1870's, thanks to an excommunicated Quaker. Education in England sadly still isn't entirely secular, but that's likely to happen in the future. Hopefully the recent Islamic schools debacle will be the tipping point.

[kalniel]

I'm not sure I agree - the religious mandate was to explore and understand the whole of God's creation, not simply matters pertaining to faith (which was at the time just a given). Science in this county at least wouldn't have come on nearly as well as it did had it not been for the influence of religion.

[TeePee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ag...toriography%29

[Galant]

...aaaaaaaaaand the plot is lost.

I, personally, won't be responding to posts which want to talk about religion in general or the supposed stupidity of religious belief. It is an entirely separate subject and isn't the slightest bit helpful in this issue unless people wish to believe that individuals are not capable or judging between different beliefs and different actions. Personally, I believe we can all be held responsible for our choices and actions. Some may have been raised believe such violence is a good thing or the only way, however, the idea that all religion - and therefore all who adhere to religious thinking/belief - is equal lumps everyone together and that is nonsense. I contend that actions can be judged and should be.

Furthermore, on a forum such as Hexus where we have posters of an above average level intelligent and education, the idea that all religions are the same and equating Christian (or other) beliefs and practices with those like we see in Iraq, or that beliefs can't be compared or that religious thought isn't open to rational discussion is intentional ignorance. The reality is there for anyone who wishes to see it and study it.

As for the question about singling out Christians - first of all - I didn't. If you read the post you'll see I mention the Yazidis, first, as well as other minority groups. I have not denied it or ignored it, there are plenty of news links posted there addressing the plight of minorities if you'd care to read them. If not, please don't accuse me without having the decency to read and acknowledge what I've actually said. The reason I specifically mentioned Christians is because they are being specifically singled out. That picture which is my avatar is the arabic letter 'N'. It has been and still is being spray painted on the sides of Christian properties and business because it stands for Nazarene - i.e. Christian. I happen to be a Christian and I am both moved and challenged to take a stance of solidarity with my Iraqi brothers and sisters who are suffering, fleeing or dying for no other reason than their faith in Christ right now. If that offends you, well tough. In my original post I tried to present a summary of everything going on in Iraq at present - including everyone. I believe I achieved that. Even if I didn't, though, so what? What is that to you? Where is the rule that says I have to post about everyone equally (even though I did)? This is a post about the situation in Iraq. Shortly after the OP I respectfully requested that the discussion try to focus on that specific issue. You accuse me, somehow, of ignoring minorities, while you yourself choose to ignore the specific issue at hand and go on about religion in general. Perhaps it is you who are ignoring things and not I?

Personally, I'd rather address the questions about the real needs of those who have had to flee from a vast area, and are still fleeing, and also the question about a potentially very long conflict with an ideology that essentially seeks world domination, as indicated by the Australian military officer and the story of the 7-year old boy. I'd rather address those specific issues and beliefs, and raise awareness about them. If you don't want to, then fine, but I won't be participating in some off-topic discussion.

[TheAnimus]

How on earth can you say religious beliefs aren't relevant to a purging of anyone by ISIS who doesn't have their exact subset or religion?