isis - why is it so brutal?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Confoozed Daud and the silent supporters of iSlam approve of ISIS actions.

They certainly are not as dangerous as Modi...and in fact, notice how ISIS came into being and its timing. Modi and RSS are the reason behind the gorwth and actions of ISIS.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Confoozed Daud and the silent supporters of iSlam approve of ISIS actions.

They certainly are not as dangerous as Modi...and in fact, notice how ISIS came into being and its timing. Modi and RSS are the reason behind the gorwth and actions of ISIS.

Stop peddling nonsense please, perhaps you should take a second look at your own posts to realize that you're proliferating your own sharia kind of law with your intolerance towards other religions and races.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Confoozed Daud and the silent supporters of iSlam approve of ISIS actions.

They certainly are not as dangerous as Modi...and in fact, notice how ISIS came into being and its timing. Modi and RSS are the reason behind the gorwth and actions of ISIS.

Stop peddling nonsense please, perhaps you should take a second look at your own posts to realize that you're proliferating your own sharia kind of law with your intolerance towards other religions and races.

If you dont criticize anything about anyone - then fine. But, if you only criticize Modi, Hindus, and BJP, and NOT criticize killing by others, then you are indeed supporting others by your silence towards them.  

Just look at your response to ISIS killing - "Mauryas alone killed more than a million" - that was 1500 years ago, and not a word of criticism about ISIS.

So indeed you and your ilk are supporters of ISIS.

P.S. so if Mauryas killings justify ISIS barbarity, what do you suggest for the 3000 "occupied" temples?...???

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Confoozed Daud and the silent supporters of iSlam approve of ISIS actions.

They certainly are not as dangerous as Modi...and in fact, notice how ISIS came into being and its timing. Modi and RSS are the reason behind the gorwth and actions of ISIS.

Stop peddling nonsense please, perhaps you should take a second look at your own posts to realize that you're proliferating your own sharia kind of law with your intolerance towards other religions and races.

If you dont criticize anything about anyone - then fine. But, if you only criticize Modi, Hindus, and BJP, and NOT criticize killing by others, then you are indeed supporting others by your silence towards them.  

Just look at your response to ISIS killing - "Mauryas alone killed more than a million" - that was 1500 years ago, and not a word of criticism about ISIS.

So indeed you and your ilk are supporters of ISIS.

P.S. so if Mauryas killings justify ISIS barbarity, what do you suggest for the 3000 "occupied" temples?...???

Did you read TBT's post completely, he was suggesting ISIS's brutality is similar to moghuls and other muslim kings conveniently forgetting hindu kings brutality.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Confoozed Daud and the silent supporters of iSlam approve of ISIS actions.

They certainly are not as dangerous as Modi...and in fact, notice how ISIS came into being and its timing. Modi and RSS are the reason behind the gorwth and actions of ISIS.

Stop peddling nonsense please, perhaps you should take a second look at your own posts to realize that you're proliferating your own sharia kind of law with your intolerance towards other religions and races.

If you dont criticize anything about anyone - then fine. But, if you only criticize Modi, Hindus, and BJP, and NOT criticize killing by others, then you are indeed supporting others by your silence towards them.  

Just look at your response to ISIS killing - "Mauryas alone killed more than a million" - that was 1500 years ago, and not a word of criticism about ISIS.

So indeed you and your ilk are supporters of ISIS.

P.S. so if Mauryas killings justify ISIS barbarity, what do you suggest for the 3000 "occupied" temples?...???

Did you read TBT's post completely, he was suggesting ISIS's brutality is similar to moghuls and other muslim kings conveniently forgetting hindu kings brutality.

>>>but it is and ISIS is relevant as it is happening now. What is your point? Do you want to absolve the ISIS because mauryas killed a couple of thousand years ago? The broader point is societies develop and evolve to accommodate opposition. Can you that this is true in the iSIS neighborhood? Therein lies the difference.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Stop peddling nonsense please, perhaps you should take a second look at your own posts to realize that you're proliferating your own sharia kind of law with your intolerance towards other religions and races.

If you dont criticize anything about anyone - then fine. But, if you only criticize Modi, Hindus, and BJP, and NOT criticize killing by others, then you are indeed supporting others by your silence towards them.  

Just look at your response to ISIS killing - "Mauryas alone killed more than a million" - that was 1500 years ago, and not a word of criticism about ISIS.

So indeed you and your ilk are supporters of ISIS.

P.S. so if Mauryas killings justify ISIS barbarity, what do you suggest for the 3000 "occupied" temples?...???

Did you read TBT's post completely, he was suggesting ISIS's brutality is similar to moghuls and other muslim kings conveniently forgetting hindu kings brutality.

>>>but it is and ISIS is relevant as it is happening now. What is your point? Do you want to absolve the ISIS because mauryas killed a couple of thousand years ago? The broader point is societies develop and evolve to accommodate opposition. Can you that this is true in the iSIS neighborhood? Therein lies the difference.

What about the crux of TBT's point, how relevant ISIS is to what Moghuls did or did not do, centuries ago?

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

If you dont criticize anything about anyone - then fine. But, if you only criticize Modi, Hindus, and BJP, and NOT criticize killing by others, then you are indeed supporting others by your silence towards them.  

Just look at your response to ISIS killing - "Mauryas alone killed more than a million" - that was 1500 years ago, and not a word of criticism about ISIS.

So indeed you and your ilk are supporters of ISIS.

P.S. so if Mauryas killings justify ISIS barbarity, what do you suggest for the 3000 "occupied" temples?...???

Did you read TBT's post completely, he was suggesting ISIS's brutality is similar to moghuls and other muslim kings conveniently forgetting hindu kings brutality.

>>>but it is and ISIS is relevant as it is happening now. What is your point? Do you want to absolve the ISIS because mauryas killed a couple of thousand years ago? The broader point is societies develop and evolve to accommodate opposition. Can you that this is true in the iSIS neighborhood? Therein lies the difference.

What about the crux of TBT's point, how relevant ISIS is to what Moghuls did or did not do, centuries ago?

It is quite obvious. Both killed because of the same Political Islamist doctrine written in your Books which you call Holy. Divide Humanity into three sections Muslims, People of the book (jews and Christians) (who will be given be protection if they pay Jizya, but relegated as second class citizens), third is Kafirs and people like Hindus, who deserve to be converted by Force OR be Killed.

Do you deny this ? How can you defend such medieval Barbarism /Islamic Supremacism  even in a modern age ? How can defend a doctrine that seeks to relegate others as lesser human beings because they do not worship a god that you hold to be true ?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Stop peddling nonsense please, perhaps you should take a second look at your own posts to realize that you're proliferating your own sharia kind of law with your intolerance towards other religions and races.

If you dont criticize anything about anyone - then fine. But, if you only criticize Modi, Hindus, and BJP, and NOT criticize killing by others, then you are indeed supporting others by your silence towards them.  

Just look at your response to ISIS killing - "Mauryas alone killed more than a million" - that was 1500 years ago, and not a word of criticism about ISIS.

So indeed you and your ilk are supporters of ISIS.

P.S. so if Mauryas killings justify ISIS barbarity, what do you suggest for the 3000 "occupied" temples?...???

Did you read TBT's post completely, he was suggesting ISIS's brutality is similar to moghuls and other muslim kings conveniently forgetting hindu kings brutality.

>>>but it is and ISIS is relevant as it is happening now. What is your point? Do you want to absolve the ISIS because mauryas killed a couple of thousand years ago? The broader point is societies develop and evolve to accommodate opposition. Can you that this is true in the iSIS neighborhood? Therein lies the difference.

What about the crux of TBT's point, how relevant ISIS is to what Moghuls did or did not do, centuries ago?

Kris wrote:

>>>Are they not both similar, driven by the same religious doctrine which holds the killing of "infidels" as acceptable? Maybe even a duty. Mughals did do this. Why the phrasing  "did" or "did not"? Why are we whitewashing this history? Implicit in connecting the two genocides is the point that this particular religion does not show  that it has developed tolerance or an understanding of pluralism. if you have counter examples, feel free to provide them. Ajathasathru did this or Ashoka Maurya did that become relevant as parallels only if you can show that their co-religionists are killing today for the same reasons.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>Are they not both similar, driven by the same religious doctrine which holds the killing of "infidels" as acceptable? Maybe even a duty. Mughals did do this. Why the phrasing  "did" or "did not"? Why are we whitewashing this history? Implicit in connecting the two genocides is the point that this particular religion does not show  that it has developed tolerance or an understanding of pluralism. if you have counter examples, feel free to provide them. Ajathasathru did this or Ashoka Maurya did that become relevant as parallels only if you can show that their co-religionists are killing today for the same reasons.

If they both were similar, I'm afraid India, after 500 years of muslim ruling, wouldn't have been a majority Hindu country. I'm not attempting to whitewash the history either. I only feel that it is important to repudiate this modern fallacy perpetuated by many, that all Muslims, no matter what generation or ethnicity they belong to, are all one and the same as well as their motives.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>Are they not both similar, driven by the same religious doctrine which holds the killing of "infidels" as acceptable? Maybe even a duty. Mughals did do this. Why the phrasing  "did" or "did not"? Why are we whitewashing this history? Implicit in connecting the two genocides is the point that this particular religion does not show  that it has developed tolerance or an understanding of pluralism. if you have counter examples, feel free to provide them. Ajathasathru did this or Ashoka Maurya did that become relevant as parallels only if you can show that their co-religionists are killing today for the same reasons.

If they both were similar, I'm afraid India, after 500 years of muslim ruling, wouldn't have been a majority Hindu country. I'm not attempting to whitewash the history either. I only feel that it is important to repudiate this modern fallacy perpetuated by many, that all Muslims, no matter what generation or ethnicity they belong to, are all one and the same as well as their motives.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>Are they not both similar, driven by the same religious doctrine which holds the killing of "infidels" as acceptable? Maybe even a duty. Mughals did do this. Why the phrasing  "did" or "did not"? Why are we whitewashing this history? Implicit in connecting the two genocides is the point that this particular religion does not show  that it has developed tolerance or an understanding of pluralism. if you have counter examples, feel free to provide them. Ajathasathru did this or Ashoka Maurya did that become relevant as parallels only if you can show that their co-religionists are killing today for the same reasons.

If they both were similar, I'm afraid India, after 500 years of muslim ruling, wouldn't have been a majority Hindu country. I'm not attempting to whitewash the history either. I only feel that it is important to repudiate this modern fallacy perpetuated by many, that all Muslims, no matter what generation or ethnicity they belong to, are all one and the same as well as their motives.

rawemotions wrote:
To deny, political Islamist ideology is ridiculous. First thing is that they almost succeeded, more than one third of the Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs are now Muslims (do not forget to include population of Bangladesh + Pakistan. Sum total is around 450 Million.  So your point is incorrect.

rawemotions wrote:
It started slowing down, after  the British came and also because some Hindus/Sikhs fought back (Ranjit Singh and Shivaji). Who can forget that a Sikh Guru was tortured for 3 days,  because he refused to convert trying to saving some Kashmiri Hindus.  In 1990 the same Kashmiri Hindus were ethnically cleansed, precisely because of the same Ideology.

rawemotions wrote:
Every Muslim who does NOT oppose a Political islamist ideology is living in Denial. Isn't it a fact that your so called Holy Books differentiate among Humanity into three sections, propagate Islamic Supremacism and Racism under the garb of religion,  and that is used as justification to claim titles like "Land of the Pure", 100% Muslim country OR ISIS levying Jizya ? It is obvious that you ran away and did not answer my point. 

 The core problem is your holy books carry this evil ideology and the moderates are NOT able to counter the Political islamists, because the religion and Political Islam are fused together. Unless Muslims take ownership and separate out the Political islamist aspects from your Holy books (Somewhat similar to what Tolstoy did for the Bible) and differentiate themselves from Political islamists and isolate them, nothing is going to change.

Here folks like you who are educated do not agree to this. So talking to the common Muslims listening to Owaisi talking about killing 750 Million Hindus, would not make sense.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>Are they not both similar, driven by the same religious doctrine which holds the killing of "infidels" as acceptable? Maybe even a duty. Mughals did do this. Why the phrasing  "did" or "did not"? Why are we whitewashing this history? Implicit in connecting the two genocides is the point that this particular religion does not show  that it has developed tolerance or an understanding of pluralism. if you have counter examples, feel free to provide them. Ajathasathru did this or Ashoka Maurya did that become relevant as parallels only if you can show that their co-religionists are killing today for the same reasons.

If they both were similar, I'm afraid India, after 500 years of muslim ruling, wouldn't have been a majority Hindu country. I'm not attempting to whitewash the history either. I only feel that it is important to repudiate this modern fallacy perpetuated by many, that all Muslims, no matter what generation or ethnicity they belong to, are all one and the same as well as their motives.

>>>It was a numbers game. 13-15% of a populous county (even then) would have still been a big number to convert. I wouldn't attribute the non conversion to nobility but rather to pragmatism after a point. Further, if you don't have enough jizya taxpayers, it hits you in the pocketbook. Ironically, the fallacy that you are referring to will come down to a more realistic perspective only when there is a free discussion of history, rather than papering over it or revising it. Do you see anyone casting aspersions now on Germans because of the Nazi past? Yet, that was only 70 years ago. Imagine the following alternative: everyone walks on eggshells about storm-troopers, Himmler, Goebbels, Auschwitz etc. because they don't want to give offense to the Germans. Further, let's say many Germans , maybe neo-nazis- are running around now harassing people based on the old ideology. When people point out that this is thuggery, many other germans pipe up to say this is a persecution of germans but say very little or are lukewarm on the neo-Nazi atrocities. This topsy-turvy alternative is what we see now vis-à-vis Islamic issues. This thread is a case in point. The ISIS is killing people willy-nilly as we speak and we are discussing Mauryan atrocities along the lines of 'well, other people did it too'.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>Are they not both similar, driven by the same religious doctrine which holds the killing of "infidels" as acceptable? Maybe even a duty. Mughals did do this. Why the phrasing  "did" or "did not"? Why are we whitewashing this history? Implicit in connecting the two genocides is the point that this particular religion does not show  that it has developed tolerance or an understanding of pluralism. if you have counter examples, feel free to provide them. Ajathasathru did this or Ashoka Maurya did that become relevant as parallels only if you can show that their co-religionists are killing today for the same reasons.

If they both were similar, I'm afraid India, after 500 years of muslim ruling, wouldn't have been a majority Hindu country. I'm not attempting to whitewash the history either. I only feel that it is important to repudiate this modern fallacy perpetuated by many, that all Muslims, no matter what generation or ethnicity they belong to, are all one and the same as well as their motives.

>>>It was a numbers game. 13-15% of a populous county (even then) would have still been a big number to convert. I wouldn't attribute the non conversion to nobility but rather to pragmatism after a point. Further, if you don't have enough jizya taxpayers, it hits you in the pocketbook. Ironically, the fallacy that you are referring to will come down to a more realistic perspective only when there is a free discussion of history, rather than papering over it or revising it. Do you see anyone casting aspersions now on Germans because of the Nazi past? Yet, that was only 70 years ago. Imagine the following alternative: everyone walks on eggshells about storm-troopers, Himmler, Goebbels, Auschwitz etc. because they don't want to give offense to the Germans. Further, let's say many Germans , maybe neo-nazis- are running around now harassing people based on the old ideology. When people point out that this is thuggery, many other germans pipe up to say this is a persecution of germans but say very little or are lukewarm on the neo-Nazi atrocities. This topsy-turvy alternative is what we see now vis-à-vis Islamic issues. This thread is a case in point. The ISIS is killing people willy-nilly as we speak and we are discussing Mauryan atrocities along the lines of 'well, other people did it too'.

If Bhindranwale or Bodos or Modi/Shah were provided with the same resources, arms and training by CIA, do you think they'd have behaved any differently?

truthbetold wrote:CD

This is what I am saying.   

ISISI brought to the fore what was practiced by medieval islamic invaders for centuries.  I gave example of some incidents related to india. The point made in the associated news article is that isis inflicts inhuman, unnecessary pain on opposing party combatants and non combatants and unleashes a publicity of their brutality. The strategy of fear is that isis created a fear among its rivals that it is better to quit and run.  This was one of the strategies of nadir shah and akbar. 

Were there other incidents of brutality?  Yes. There are many incidents.  Every war kills people.  But what hitler did and what khemer roughe did were beyond normal war crimes.  What happened in rwanda is not an ordinary tribal war.  They stand out. 

Similarly muslim invader brutality stands out.  ISIS is just a reenactment of medieval islamic brutality.  tamarlene, nadir shah, akbar, aurangjeb and tallakota stand out for their extreme brutality in a world of injustice. So you can figure out how much more brutal their tactics were. 

While other barbarians were there for a short period of time, islamic invaders perpetuated this extreme brutality for centuries and used religious license. That is why it is important to recognize it and fight it. 

That combination of brutal suppression and religious sanction of the brutality is the reason democracy has tough time to take root in islamic countries.  At the first sign of resistance, the obscurantist forces will kill and root out the nascent democratic forces as anti islamic. 

Go ahead and try to argue.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>Are they not both similar, driven by the same religious doctrine which holds the killing of "infidels" as acceptable? Maybe even a duty. Mughals did do this. Why the phrasing  "did" or "did not"? Why are we whitewashing this history? Implicit in connecting the two genocides is the point that this particular religion does not show  that it has developed tolerance or an understanding of pluralism. if you have counter examples, feel free to provide them. Ajathasathru did this or Ashoka Maurya did that become relevant as parallels only if you can show that their co-religionists are killing today for the same reasons.

If they both were similar, I'm afraid India, after 500 years of muslim ruling, wouldn't have been a majority Hindu country. I'm not attempting to whitewash the history either. I only feel that it is important to repudiate this modern fallacy perpetuated by many, that all Muslims, no matter what generation or ethnicity they belong to, are all one and the same as well as their motives.

>>>It was a numbers game. 13-15% of a populous county (even then) would have still been a big number to convert. I wouldn't attribute the non conversion to nobility but rather to pragmatism after a point. Further, if you don't have enough jizya taxpayers, it hits you in the pocketbook. Ironically, the fallacy that you are referring to will come down to a more realistic perspective only when there is a free discussion of history, rather than papering over it or revising it. Do you see anyone casting aspersions now on Germans because of the Nazi past? Yet, that was only 70 years ago. Imagine the following alternative: everyone walks on eggshells about storm-troopers, Himmler, Goebbels, Auschwitz etc. because they don't want to give offense to the Germans. Further, let's say many Germans , maybe neo-nazis- are running around now harassing people based on the old ideology. When people point out that this is thuggery, many other germans pipe up to say this is a persecution of germans but say very little or are lukewarm on the neo-Nazi atrocities. This topsy-turvy alternative is what we see now vis-à-vis Islamic issues. This thread is a case in point. The ISIS is killing people willy-nilly as we speak and we are discussing Mauryan atrocities along the lines of 'well, other people did it too'.

If Bhindranwale or Bodos or Modi/Shah were provided with the same resources, arms and training by CIA, do you think they'd have behaved any differently?

>>>>I am not sure how this addresses the scenario I posed. The ISIS is a reality as we speak. Who may have done what under hypothetical conditions is an academic exercise compared the actual tragedy unfolding before us. Fpr some reason, you don't want that discussed or the root causes explored.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
If they both were similar, I'm afraid India, after 500 years of muslim ruling, wouldn't have been a majority Hindu country. I'm not attempting to whitewash the history either. I only feel that it is important to repudiate this modern fallacy perpetuated by many, that all Muslims, no matter what generation or ethnicity they belong to, are all one and the same as well as their motives.

>>>It was a numbers game. 13-15% of a populous county (even then) would have still been a big number to convert. I wouldn't attribute the non conversion to nobility but rather to pragmatism after a point. Further, if you don't have enough jizya taxpayers, it hits you in the pocketbook. Ironically, the fallacy that you are referring to will come down to a more realistic perspective only when there is a free discussion of history, rather than papering over it or revising it. Do you see anyone casting aspersions now on Germans because of the Nazi past? Yet, that was only 70 years ago. Imagine the following alternative: everyone walks on eggshells about storm-troopers, Himmler, Goebbels, Auschwitz etc. because they don't want to give offense to the Germans. Further, let's say many Germans , maybe neo-nazis- are running around now harassing people based on the old ideology. When people point out that this is thuggery, many other germans pipe up to say this is a persecution of germans but say very little or are lukewarm on the neo-Nazi atrocities. This topsy-turvy alternative is what we see now vis-à-vis Islamic issues. This thread is a case in point. The ISIS is killing people willy-nilly as we speak and we are discussing Mauryan atrocities along the lines of 'well, other people did it too'.

If Bhindranwale or Bodos or Modi/Shah were provided with the same resources, arms and training by CIA, do you think they'd have behaved any differently?

>>>>I am not sure how this addresses the scenario I posed. The ISIS is a reality as we speak. Who may have done what under hypothetical conditions is an academic exercise compared the actual tragedy unfolding before us. Fpr some reason, you don't want that discussed or the root causes explored.

because we keep blaming religion, so called Islamic doctrine as root cause for every issue. How did ISIS become so powerful, on their own? without the resources that injected new life they still would've been what they were in '07, a mere online entity.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>It was a numbers game. 13-15% of a populous county (even then) would have still been a big number to convert. I wouldn't attribute the non conversion to nobility but rather to pragmatism after a point. Further, if you don't have enough jizya taxpayers, it hits you in the pocketbook. Ironically, the fallacy that you are referring to will come down to a more realistic perspective only when there is a free discussion of history, rather than papering over it or revising it. Do you see anyone casting aspersions now on Germans because of the Nazi past? Yet, that was only 70 years ago. Imagine the following alternative: everyone walks on eggshells about storm-troopers, Himmler, Goebbels, Auschwitz etc. because they don't want to give offense to the Germans. Further, let's say many Germans , maybe neo-nazis- are running around now harassing people based on the old ideology. When people point out that this is thuggery, many other germans pipe up to say this is a persecution of germans but say very little or are lukewarm on the neo-Nazi atrocities. This topsy-turvy alternative is what we see now vis-à-vis Islamic issues. This thread is a case in point. The ISIS is killing people willy-nilly as we speak and we are discussing Mauryan atrocities along the lines of 'well, other people did it too'.

If Bhindranwale or Bodos or Modi/Shah were provided with the same resources, arms and training by CIA, do you think they'd have behaved any differently?

>>>>I am not sure how this addresses the scenario I posed. The ISIS is a reality as we speak. Who may have done what under hypothetical conditions is an academic exercise compared the actual tragedy unfolding before us. Fpr some reason, you don't want that discussed or the root causes explored.

because we keep blaming religion, so called Islamic doctrine as root cause for every issue. How did ISIS become so powerful, on their own? without the resources that injected new life they still would've been what they were in '07, a mere online entity.

>>>We seem to have a round-robin act going here. Is your position that Islamic doctrine had nothing to do with any of the atrocities, notwithstanding the caliphate fantasy espoused by this group? If it is, this discussion is pointless since we are not even in agreement on the major premise. If it isn't, I am perplexed as to why you don't want to call them on the carpet on this, regardless of who helped them.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Whan an accused admits to a murder, the case is closed. They dont call up on witnesses to prove that the accused did not murder..(happens only in movies).

ISIS - swears by Koran aand Allah daily - killing Yazidis, Shias, and Christians in the name of iSlam, enforcing Shariat. Here we have Confoozed Daud arguing that religion and iSlam have nothing to do with ISIS actions...

Go figure.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
If Bhindranwale or Bodos or Modi/Shah were provided with the same resources, arms and training by CIA, do you think they'd have behaved any differently?

>>>>I am not sure how this addresses the scenario I posed. The ISIS is a reality as we speak. Who may have done what under hypothetical conditions is an academic exercise compared the actual tragedy unfolding before us. Fpr some reason, you don't want that discussed or the root causes explored.

because we keep blaming religion, so called Islamic doctrine as root cause for every issue. How did ISIS become so powerful, on their own? without the resources that injected new life they still would've been what they were in '07, a mere online entity.

>>>We seem to have a round-robin act going here. Is your position that Islamic doctrine had nothing to do with any of the atrocities, notwithstanding the caliphate fantasy espoused by this group? If it is, this discussion is pointless since we are not even in agreement on the major premise. If it isn't, I am perplexed as to why you don't want to call them on the carpet on this, regardless of who helped them.

The problem here is seeing Muslims as a homogenous group despite the fact that a lot of Muslim lives are lost due to radical Islam. World need to make an attempt to understand this and resist the temptation of calling all of them terrorists just as I wouldn't label all Hindus bigots or Hindu doctrine based on the views of a few fringe elements like RSS, Sangh

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>>I am not sure how this addresses the scenario I posed. The ISIS is a reality as we speak. Who may have done what under hypothetical conditions is an academic exercise compared the actual tragedy unfolding before us. Fpr some reason, you don't want that discussed or the root causes explored.

because we keep blaming religion, so called Islamic doctrine as root cause for every issue. How did ISIS become so powerful, on their own? without the resources that injected new life they still would've been what they were in '07, a mere online entity.

>>>We seem to have a round-robin act going here. Is your position that Islamic doctrine had nothing to do with any of the atrocities, notwithstanding the caliphate fantasy espoused by this group? If it is, this discussion is pointless since we are not even in agreement on the major premise. If it isn't, I am perplexed as to why you don't want to call them on the carpet on this, regardless of who helped them.

The problem here is seeing Muslims as a homogenous group despite the fact that a lot of Muslim lives are lost due to radical Islam. World need to make an attempt to understand this and resist the temptation of calling all of them terrorists just as I wouldn't label all Hindus bigots or Hindu doctrine based on the views of a few fringe elements like RSS, Sangh

>>>If there are enough of them running around and engaging in murder and mayhem in different parts of the world and all of them invoke the same religious scripture and other hindus don't speak up in a significant manner, wouldn't it be logical to question them and their value systems? Your method seems to be that you don't want offend other hindus, so let's not question any of it. I don't want to look at this problem in a simplistic fashion. I am aware that there are other political dynamics at play here. Extremist groups have railroaded the moderates, by beating them on the head with scripture. I have friends from Iran and Algeria who went back and returned out of lack of choice. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to give a free pass to these movements or societies because they can't get their act together.

Propagandhi711 wrote:and I must say douchemun for all his head-up-the-assness, will in the interest of appearing to be fair will grudgingly admit islam is 5 or 6 hundred years behind rest of the world. not mulla reddy, he lives in an alternate umma universe

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
because we keep blaming religion, so called Islamic doctrine as root cause for every issue. How did ISIS become so powerful, on their own? without the resources that injected new life they still would've been what they were in '07, a mere online entity.

>>>We seem to have a round-robin act going here. Is your position that Islamic doctrine had nothing to do with any of the atrocities, notwithstanding the caliphate fantasy espoused by this group? If it is, this discussion is pointless since we are not even in agreement on the major premise. If it isn't, I am perplexed as to why you don't want to call them on the carpet on this, regardless of who helped them.

The problem here is seeing Muslims as a homogenous group despite the fact that a lot of Muslim lives are lost due to radical Islam. World need to make an attempt to understand this and resist the temptation of calling all of them terrorists just as I wouldn't label all Hindus bigots or Hindu doctrine based on the views of a few fringe elements like RSS, Sangh

>>>If there are enough of them running around and engaging in murder and mayhem in different parts of the world and all of them invoke the same religious scripture and other hindus don't speak up in a significant manner, wouldn't it be logical to question them and their value systems? Your method seems to be that you don't want offend other hindus, so let's not question any of it. I don't want to look at this problem in a simplistic fashion. I am aware that there are other political dynamics at play here. Extremist groups have railroaded the moderates, by beating them on the head with scripture. I have friends from Iran and Algeria who went back and returned out of lack of choice. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to give a free pass to these movements or societies because they can't get their act together.

Then why are those political dynamics are insignificant when those politics literally I mean literally hit them with fake Koranicscripture on their heads and created & fostered these extreme elements. Another case in point, till recently Iran was the thug nation but now per same politics not so much as they don't seem to be in favor of Isis and need their help

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>We seem to have a round-robin act going here. Is your position that Islamic doctrine had nothing to do with any of the atrocities, notwithstanding the caliphate fantasy espoused by this group? If it is, this discussion is pointless since we are not even in agreement on the major premise. If it isn't, I am perplexed as to why you don't want to call them on the carpet on this, regardless of who helped them.

The problem here is seeing Muslims as a homogenous group despite the fact that a lot of Muslim lives are lost due to radical Islam. World need to make an attempt to understand this and resist the temptation of calling all of them terrorists just as I wouldn't label all Hindus bigots or Hindu doctrine based on the views of a few fringe elements like RSS, Sangh

>>>If there are enough of them running around and engaging in murder and mayhem in different parts of the world and all of them invoke the same religious scripture and other hindus don't speak up in a significant manner, wouldn't it be logical to question them and their value systems? Your method seems to be that you don't want offend other hindus, so let's not question any of it. I don't want to look at this problem in a simplistic fashion. I am aware that there are other political dynamics at play here. Extremist groups have railroaded the moderates, by beating them on the head with scripture. I have friends from Iran and Algeria who went back and returned out of lack of choice. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to give a free pass to these movements or societies because they can't get their act together.

Then why are those political dynamics are insignificant when those politics literally I mean literally hit them with fake Koranicscripture on their heads and created & fostered these extreme elements. Another case in point, till recently Iran was the thug nation but now per same politics not so much as they don't seem to be in favor of Isis and need their help

1) But the "koranic scripture" is not fake.

2) Because Iran was a thug nation but there is a bigger thug in the picture now.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
The problem here is seeing Muslims as a homogenous group despite the fact that a lot of Muslim lives are lost due to radical Islam. World need to make an attempt to understand this and resist the temptation of calling all of them terrorists just as I wouldn't label all Hindus bigots or Hindu doctrine based on the views of a few fringe elements like RSS, Sangh

>>>If there are enough of them running around and engaging in murder and mayhem in different parts of the world and all of them invoke the same religious scripture and other hindus don't speak up in a significant manner, wouldn't it be logical to question them and their value systems? Your method seems to be that you don't want offend other hindus, so let's not question any of it. I don't want to look at this problem in a simplistic fashion. I am aware that there are other political dynamics at play here. Extremist groups have railroaded the moderates, by beating them on the head with scripture. I have friends from Iran and Algeria who went back and returned out of lack of choice. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to give a free pass to these movements or societies because they can't get their act together.

Then why are those political dynamics are insignificant when those politics literally I mean literally hit them with fake Koranicscripture on their heads and created & fostered these extreme elements. Another case in point, till recently Iran was the thug nation but now per same politics not so much as they don't seem to be in favor of Isis and need their help

1) But the "koranic scripture" is not fake.

2) Because Iran was a thug nation but there is a bigger thug in the picture now.

Well the ones distributed by the sponsors were. In any case what's the next logical step?  abrogate Islam, Do an ISIS (in reverse) i.e. force every muslim to convert, if they resist threaten with beheadings?