LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWe're sickeningly tied up in knots in this country over the issue. People are being massacred in their thousands in Iraq/Syria and we're not allowed to object to or discuss the belief system of the perpetrators? Huh?
We're sickeningly tied up in knots in this country over the issue. People are being massacred in their thousands in Iraq/Syria and we're not allowed to object to or discuss the belief system of the perpetrators? Huh?
Well 'people' don't - at least, not in educated countries - hate speech and violent actions are forbidden by law. Other Islamic groups don't either. So as far as I can tell, only the people committing these crimes are the ones allowing these views to continue, no-one else.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Again I can't see that happening in this country. Quite fair to teach that some interpretations of some religions don't believe in evolution, but that should be part of religious education, not science.the fact is that it provides a mechanism for people to refute reason, you need only look at the schools that teach evolution is not real.
Which I think most of the world agrees is wrong. But we've had similar purges for other reasons too - religion, race, sect, country of origin. As explained in that link people often act in group/gang mentality, to the detriment of other groups/gangs, and they will find whatever distinguishing factor as a reason to discriminate.In this case we've got a purge, which is being justified entirely by religious beliefs, it's ok to kill someone for not converting, because they are an affront to god.
It's interesting, and yet quite hard to explain. The bible can be the word of God, but it's not claiming every word literally comes from God. For example, a passage may be a historical telling of an event from one view point, and another passage might be telling the same event from another view point and there will be inconsistencies between the two. That doesn't mean that the event (or similar) didn't happen, just that it was witnessed/passed down by mankind and so on, so in Christian's eyes there is some God blessed reason/inspiration for it being there, but you have to take it as a whole and study it in relation to what the rest of the bible is saying.The reason I mentioned the joke, is so many take the bible to be immutable, hell the king james I was given by my god father had what amounts to a curse on the front page.
Someone once told me a neat way of describing it in regards to infallibility.. but I can't remember it. It was something like God is infallible, but we only see him through fallible words/humans. The fallibility of the bible (because it was human touched) should not take away from the infallibility of God, but it certainly makes things a lot harder.
Not quite sure I get this, is it about correlation/causation?It reminds me of a gun debate, "oh well you would use that example where a kid shot up a school", "oh well you would point out the issues with HIV, ethnic cleansing, morals lagging behind society"
Approaching this from a more pratical stand-point - a declaration has been made today of a 'significant' aid push being made. This is the sort of thing, especially as I get older, that just makes sense and is right.
There's no question that this, or any similar situation, is a deep bag of complexities with no silver bullet or magic pill. Quite frankly, I don't know that this sort of thing will ever be eradicated or solved. People are greedy, selfish buggers and there will always be something to fight over and a disregard of the rights and live others. It's why we have a police force, a military and why we don't leave our cars and homes unlocked in most cases.
As 'developed', mature, (yet still developing and maturing nations), I think the question is what do set as our aim or principle in moments of great abuse and great suffering like this - especially in a world where information and notification move almost instantaneously? The simplest option is, I supposed, to just ignore it all and let other people and nations deal with their own problems. Certainly that would be simple, but I don't think most of us would feel it's right. Then again, neither can any one nation or even group of nations deal with every single scenario on the planet, and even then we'd have to decide how to define the criteria of which situations we help and which we leave.
Today's announcement/push, is, TBH, something I think I'd like to see more often. Where an essentially 'outside' force (IS/ISIS declare themselves to be a conquering force seeking to establishing a 'state') is coming in to conquer or raid and where the defending nation/government requests outside help, I think that sitaution best warrants outside military help. However, I'd rather focus on the humanitarian side. Where there is remit to enter, or to establish areas of help outside of an area, I think Id like to see more efforts to seek to establish/maintain stability and protect the civilians in the line of fire.
Places of refuge which are protected and where people can go to be safe and survive while the outside situation is stabilised.
I know that's an overly simple way of putting, but I'm just trying to express an intention, an ideal. Not just in Iraq, but the Congo or places like that, where there are gross violations of human rights, murdering, raping etc. With an invitation inside, go in and provide some security, some defense. Provide some stability and aid.
Yes, it's simple, but it's a direction which I think I could get behind. A move I could support. Heck, if tomorrow it was announced that the UN or similar were going to be setting up something like that in Iraq or the Congo, a defensive city or refuge, to help meet people's needs and they needed help, I would, quite frankly, consider volunteering.
The older I get, the older my family gets, now with two kids, the more I begin to understand this level of suffering, and the more I'd like to see responsible and capable nations speaking softly and yet wielding a big stick, truly defending the weak, and seeking to bring stability and peace.
Just a thought.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
The real reason why the US invaded
I can never agree with this considering what the war has cost the US. I'm too lazy to type it all out but this covers it pretty well.The real reason why the US invaded
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finan...f_the_Iraq_War
I'm a bit concerned about the West's policy of hurriedly arming the Kurds to fight IS. Kurds with a load of guns sounds like something that could backfire badly later. The temptation for them to fight for areas for themselves rather than purely to repel IS could be too much to resist?
Definitely. Whilst a 'cheaper' option up front I think we've all seen and heard enough of the problems this approached has caused. Depending on how it's done I'd call it irresponsible.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Kurds have already taken over cities like Kirkuk that were abandoned by the Iraqi army. Give them the chance and they will take whole of Iraq
I just think the Kurds would also like to be fully recognised as a seperate State. They have been promised it, but feel they still have to fight for it. One thing that bothers me is the way the West, particularly the new autocracy, The Middle Classes, thinks they can moralize about other cultures, and try to impose their limited beliefs on others. I think US and UK should keep out of the affairs of other countries. If the UN wants to go in as peace keepers, that's different. But alot of this moralizing to the world, seems to be a throw back to colonization!
From Reuters One man, the village chief, said he would not convert, so 80 men were killed and all the women and girls taken captive.
This is the sort of thing that generates the question - should those who can help not get involved, if they have permission from the defending nation to do so?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
I think it's very hard for us in the West to imagine how Muslims feel, or to understand the mindset of IS. I can only imagine that they feel repressed, invaded, slaughtered. It's hard for us to imagine being part of a religious tribe fighting back. Alot of their behaviour is typical of tribal warfare. A sort of historical/religious vengeful blood lust! It's strange they see us as pagan, we are in alot of ways, but in others we've transcended the need for religion. I heard a useful quote,'If General Petraeus, with 120,000 trained men and a budget of 120 billion dollars, couldn't subdue that area of Iraq, what do you propose we do?' I think we let the Arab Nations decide.
And, they will do nothing. They only worry about their own houses.
Maybe we should offer some sort of trade off; all Muslims(who want to) in West can return to an Islamic Country, and Christians in Arab countries move West. They then have clearly defined borders which we respect, and vice versa. I just think that Islam and Christians are at different places culturally at present, and aren't very compatible. We could indite those incl Blair, who invaded Iraq, and those that invited radicals here. I think alot of what IS say is 'sabre rattling', I think ignoring them would really pee them off!!
Suppose they are not what we are hoping for though, can they really be more terrifying than the IS? We already know what the IS want (it is not just about taking over Iraq and Syria then living happily with the rest of the world) and what they are capable of.
That reminds me of an image I recently saw on FB suggesting that the state of Israel be moved to the US. Pragmatic, yet unrealistic.
Besides, that would be offering what people can already do: those want to move, can already move.
Last edited by TooNice; 19-08-2014 at 07:38 PM.
Killing many thousands of people is not sabre rattling. Nor can it any longer be brushed off as a few radical extremists like the Western media want.
There's nothing we can do, except either attempt something like a partition, or loose thousands of US and UK men and women in a war that isn't ours. We should concentrate on our own countries, increase our own defences. Use twenty first cent tech, and realise it's mostly a media battlefield. Use their own barbarity and propaganda to make the rest of the Arab Nations react against them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote