LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI didn't say that.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
.
I said I'm not interested in a discussion about religion in general where one side wishes to point the finger and say "Religion did it!"
I didn't say that..
I said I'm not interested in a discussion about religion in general where one side wishes to point the finger and say "Religion did it!"
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
The underlying issue is that we are all controlled, to varying degrees, by our animal heritage. Certainty elicits positive a positive response whereas uncertainty gives rise to a negative one. With the latter being especially true in an environment of fear and hardship. Consequently fundamental beliefs become an armour against the possibility that our existence is fleeting and meaningless. It doesn't matter whether it is religion, politics or any other firmly held belief the result is the same, i.e. conflict with alternate or opposing views. Their existence is a threat to your world view, which creates a negative reaction.
Even the history of science is littered with clashes of opposing views, some eventually beneficial others not so. A classic case was the fight against polio where the two opposing approaches undermined each other that much that the release of a vaccine was delayed, especially in the UK, to the point where thousands suffered unnecessarily.
Until we accept and learn to deal with this fact then conflicts will continue to happen, and in an increasingly technologically advanced world the consequences will become more severe.
Finally as an aside perhaps the most interesting powder keg is the United States, where the rise of rationalism is likely to provoke quite a backlash in some areas... you can count on one hand the number of politicians that are openly agnostic or atheist.
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
If a Christian does something evil, it's cultural. If a Muslim does something evil, it's because they have the wrong Sky-Daddy.
Nah. There is no omnipotent God. Full stop. We're just more tolerant of some types because their adherents threaten to kill unbelievers and sycophants introduce hate-speech laws..
Last edited by peterb; 16-08-2014 at 09:06 AM. Reason: Incorrect term replaced.
Thread closed for review.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Indeed - and while such topics in the round are open for discussion, comments that are 'phobic' (homophobic, sexist, racist etc) are not. Tolerance might not be found in some geographic areas - but we expect HEXUS members to be tolerant of others, even if they may not agre with some of the views expressed.
The thread will be re-opened shortly.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
The tragedy continues with 80+ Yazidis massacred.
Analyzing the scenario and the events that lead up to it this piece is an interesting read and not too long.
"It's sometimes suggested that ideology played no real part in the invasion of Iraq - grabbing the country's oil was what it was all about. No doubt geopolitical calculation played a part, but I think an idea of what it means to be modern was more important. The politicians and opinion-formers who clamoured for the invasion believed that all modern societies are evolving towards a single form of government - the type that exists in western countries. If only tyranny was swept away in Iraq, the country would move towards democracy and the rest of the Middle East would follow. Until just a few months ago, some were convinced that a similar process could take place in Syria. As I see it, this has never been more than an ideological fantasy."
Outside of self-serving interests, what role, if any should nations seek in relating to other nations, and when there is great suffering like this or Somalia, or Syria or countless other example, what should be the role then?
This Provincial Governor from Iraq believes the UK and USA bear a responsibility in deal with the IS situation.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
You could argue it's always self-serving, just that the pay-off for a nations stance might be rather more subtle and long term than just something immediate. A peaceful world, for example, would enable more resources to be spent on things that improve the quality of life of the citizens, and either directly or indirectly other countries benefit in terms of better economic prospects and so on.
Fair enough. Alright then, "solely self-serving".
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
So, we are now supplying the Kurds with weapons, without any of their civilans killed AFAIK by ISIS. I have a question - why couldn't the same weapons be instead sent to Palestinians to free themselves from Israel ?
On a seaparate note, I was wondering - Is Queen Victoria the biggest terrorist in the history of mankind ? Well, she did spearhead taking over almost all of the world and the lotting and killings of people for centuries. And we hate Hitler .. pfff... History is biased and written by the victors
If those are genuine questions may I suggest you open a thread to pose them? I'd actually be really curious to hear some of the answers.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
The UK and US were a catalyst for sure, but they were not the cause of the problem or the only catalyst. The funding from Saudi Sunni sympathizers and from EU based Muslims was the main driver. Sensing an opportunity to fill the power vacuum and blame the west in the process.
Let nature take it cause? Is ethnic cleansing nature?
I will be honest I am a Zionist, and I believe Israel has the right to exist, I also believe that the Palestinians have the right to exist. Finding a solution when large numbers on both sides hate each other is the problem.
If ISIS want a Sunni Islamic State, then they are welcome to apply for citizenship of Saudi Arabia, and not attempting to carve it out of another country, in the most horrific, barbaric way possible by killing as many people that are different to them as possible.
The Kurds have had there own struggle for centuries, the have some questionable tactics including hijacking, yet I don't see them suicide bombing, beheading, crucifying and other medieval style killings. Because, to me, the Kurds have more humanity.
I think your statement, is leaning towards your true feelings. You say the Yazidi are "devil worshippers" that in itself shows your true colors, and apparently you "don't give a damn what happens".
I will go out on a limb... I think you are a sympathizer of ISIS, and you support Jihad.
Errr.....
Because the Kurds are at present using it only for defense, and the Palestinians have proven time and time again they will use it for attack.
Lets look at how many Islam killed.. shall we? How many countries fell under "Islam or the Sword"?
I also went to Istanbul. That wonderful city built by the Christan's and taken over by the Muslims by force. I found it hard to swallow that women were not allowed in second most famous church of the Christan world (Hagia Sophia) without wearing a Muslim headdress.
Additionally. The US are allies of Israel so arming those that attack them would be silly.
Your wish came true for the Yazidi, they suffered a massacre and the US have retaliated. Hopefully the drones will kill every single Jihadist. I hope their deaths are quick and without suffering.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-massacre.html
Last edited by j1979; 16-08-2014 at 04:14 PM.
Humans have a tribal instinct, and it goes back a hundred thousand years. Some tribes; religious, political, geographical, seem to be able to coexist. I sure most do! But there's always a few fanatics, who think by their barbaric actions (and subsequent propaganda useage), they can create a retaliation from the West, then draw in masses of followers. I'd say help anyone they are threatening, but literally don't give them a voice, particularly a recruiting voice. Block all their propaganda. Stop selling weapons to everyone, it does all come down to money, and whatever happens certain people will profit.
I'm sure he does .... believe that, I mean.
Farhad Atrushi told the BBC's Caroline Wyatt that the countries which invaded in 2003 promised aErm, no. We promised a chance of that, an opportunity to achieve that. But the only way to guarantee that would be to take over the country and run it as a client state, all important decisions made in London or Washington, with any Iraqi "government" in Iraq being a toothless, impotent puppet. And THAT we promised not to do.stable, democratic, federal, parliamentary, prosperous Iraq.
What's got Iraq is this current IS mess is the utter inability of the outgoing Iraqi PM to operate an inclusive government, instead, firing his Sunni deputy, and denuding the armed forces of US trained Sunni officers, because they're Sunni. The result was Sunni tribes that, however much they aren't fundamentalists, regard IS (at least temporarily) as being better that the government.
At least now, with a new leader, there's a chance of pulling that round, a chance of perhaps getting those tribes to give it a try, IF the new PM can convince them it'll be a truly fair and inclusive government. If not, and I am a bit doubtful, then Iraq as a state may well be finished, and given that current national borders only ever were a western-imposed fudge of convenience, naybe that's inevitable and even for the best.
Personally, I can't help but think that either the UK or US trying to impose any sort of solution to what is essentially a cultural and religious rift stands any chance of success. So, humanitarian aid? Of course. Perhaps helping the Kurds to protect themselves? Fine. But going back again, to sort out IS? Why not let other neighbouring states step up for a change?
After all, the UK isn't going to, and probably isn't capable of, going in without the US. So all we'd really provide is political cover, by riding US coattails. And why is it that everyone seems to regard the US as interfering, except when they want help? What that governer really wants, in my opinion, is to be able to whistle like a little boy calling his big brother to come and sort out the school bully.
IMO stay well out - completely - even to the extent of being very very careful what humanitarian aid is given in case it is seen as partisan.
OR
Decide IS and ipso facto followers of Sunni Islam in that geographical area are our enemies and completely crush them. As in, not a UN-friendly proportionate pseudo-peacekeeping dabbling fluff way. Doing so just makes it worse. I don't think we have the will to stand up to them however.
You'd destroy large parts of the population of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UEA and Oman to name a few? That isn't a sensible option IMHO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
