|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On February 24 2015 05:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2015 05:04 Jibba wrote:On February 24 2015 02:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 24 2015 02:05 pretender58 wrote:On February 24 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:I did read it. Pay close attention to the author's conclusions. They don´t match yours, if you are implying that. He acknowledges that ISIS is indeed islamic and a possibly very long "war" against ISIS is in store for us, but he doesn´t share your imagination of a fight "The West vs. the Muslim/arab world". His remarks (e.g. about Salafism as a "theological alternative" or "most Muslims aren’t susceptible to joining jihad") are also in stark contrast to your very radical statements like Killing "every Muslim" certainly isn't necessary, but many Muslims will have to be made to suffer in ways and in scope that our Western sensibilities will no longer tolerate in order to truly win this conflict. or So when you start asking the question of what is required to defeat such a population in this modern era, the answer isn't pretty: complete subjugation of the population in question with overwhelming military power that destroys both the will and capacity for resistance. Here are some of the key passages: It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.
Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.
The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else. and then at the end.... Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time. The author very clearly is concluding that radical Muslims are likely ideologically implacable, which is the foundation for my entire argument. What the author does not do, is take the next logical step and propose a solution for how to deal with radical Muslims. Clearly, such a conversation isn't something that is going to be (or should be) printed in The Atlantic. I, however, have no problem engaging in such a discussion, but given the severity of the subject matter, I certainly get why people don't want to hear it. And just to be clear, I'm not prepared to write off all Muslims and paint this as an issue of the whole of Islam against the West. However, there is no denying that there is a disturbingly large percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims that is problematic and does constitute a challenge (if not an outright threat at this time) to Western civilization. I don't think you read it carefully enough. He makes a very clear distinction between the AQ network and ISIS, both in terms of behavior and aspirations. AQ, as we've known since the beginning, is driven by secular, political goals. For that there's no clash of civilizations. Wood argues that ISIS is truly driven by religious goals, in which case there would be a clash of civilizations, except it would probably be the first time in history that an armed movement was fueled by non-political goals. You're using a (mostly) meaningless term, 'radical Muslims', and conflating at least 3 different groups as one. Pick who you mean to talk about. There are very big differences between those in AQ, those in ISIS, and those who are sympathetic on the internet towards a country we've destroyed. I thought it was clear that I was talking about ISIS and the Muslims that support ISIS. And yes, there are other bad apples out there who are expressly at odds with ISIS. Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 03:07 xDaunt wrote:
How do you want to define "nearly all?" Even presuming that only 10% are problematic (which is almost certainly conservative), that's still 160 million people. You think 10% of Muslims support ISIS? The number is surely a fraction of a percent, given all of their neighbors are also terrified of them.
Based upon available information, yeah, I do. And if you look inside countries with large Sunni populations, I'm sure that the percentage is far higher.
|
United States22883 Posts
What available information is that?
And you think Saudi Arabia, Egypt (the country that's clamoring to go to war with them), and Jordan are thrilled about a new caliphate? The Saudis supported AQ but they loathe ISIS.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in potentially relevant news al jeezera obtained some spyspy cable leaks from the likes of Mossad. potential information damaging to netanyahu's warpath mebbe.
|
I have seen some ISIS supporters just because ISIS is anti-US, not because they are fighting Assad or they want to build Caliphate, and those supporters were not Syrian but arabic, some even has flatmates or friends who joined ISIS, from Belgium par exemple. I think that is mainly because they see themselves as 3. class person when they step out of their homes, this is unlikely to change but can evolve positively, whether you like it or hate it, Germany dealt with the Turks better than any nation in Eu when it comes to the Arabs. Correct me if im wrong but, Germany has turkish politicians in their parliaments and none of those have ideas like supporting a Turkish terrorist group in Germany or establish an autonomy inside German soil but instead, new generations tend to be more and more friendly to Germans, this article is very negative but when you read it, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/essay-on-racism-growing-up-turkish-in-germany-a-932154.html you see girl calls Germany as "home", not Turkey. Apart from those, i believe their economic situation is way more better compared to other minorities in EU, with government aid of course.
ISIS supporters from Syria and Iraq are a different case that i am more likely to reason their hatred for "cross". Not because they are right to kill anyone or with their cause, but some of them -iraqi ones- spent their entire lives under US bombing / or its war legacy when they were kiddos. They are easy to be misdirected about any subject, you cant explain them Saddam was a crazy dude who was willing to cleanse "some citizens" of his own and why US had to declare war when some counter propaganda reminds them US killed more citizens than Saddam had done, while those citizens are CLOSE RELATIVES of thousands. But there is a chance to convince and shape current society, US played the war game by old rules, defeated its enemy and replaced it with a "friendly / annex" one, and that one - today we all agree - is a bad one, with its sectarian violence and fancy dancing with Persians, now IF we can help them build a better society, with better roads and schools whatever* (im not an expert on these things) but WITHOUT forcing, indoctrinating them to believe anything they dont want to, we may win their hearts and minds. Can you do this when majority of their society believes their government either US or Iranian puppet?
xDaunt wants to destroy every moderate Muslim, or any moderate muslim who is capable of doing anything radical, which will takes us into another world war, as i previously asked him and he said there is no need to such act but eventually, his ideology is declaring war to Quran, and there are countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and their possible supporters China, Russia and many, whom are also capable of turn whole Europe to ashes before totally being terminated. Is it really worth to sacrifice many to end this pile of sh*t we name terrorism? Lately he says maybe Turkey or Iran should do that, as i understood and this is an oxymoron. Not shiny with history stuff but Wahhabism/Salafism started in Ottoman times, when Arabs were under Otto-rule. United Kingdom supported those terrorist groups to revolt against Ottomans, in order to cut arabic support when turkish caliph, the sultan calls arab to army. There is even a movie about that, an oscar winner: Lawrence of Arabia, story of british agent in Arabic lands, maybe you should watch. They revolt against sunni Turks, guess what would happen if Iran intervenes.
Fun part:
- I will blame UK for this, again. lol
|
On February 24 2015 05:28 Jibba wrote:
What available information is that?
And you think Saudi Arabia, Egypt (the country that's clamoring to go to war with them), and Jordan are thrilled about a new caliphate? The Saudis supported AQ but they loathe ISIS.
You have to separate the rulers from the people in those countries. Saudi Arabia is the home of wahabism, which is the intellectual underpinning of ISIS. Egypt is basically ruled by a secular military dictatorship at this point, but Egyptians themselves are prone to radicalism as was demonstrated by their support for the Muslim Brotherhood before the military squished it. Jordan is another Sunni nation ruled by a monarch, which again, complicates assessment of the population.
|
On February 24 2015 02:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 02:05 pretender58 wrote:On February 24 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:I did read it. Pay close attention to the author's conclusions. They don´t match yours, if you are implying that. He acknowledges that ISIS is indeed islamic and a possibly very long "war" against ISIS is in store for us, but he doesn´t share your imagination of a fight "The West vs. the Muslim/arab world". His remarks (e.g. about Salafism as a "theological alternative" or "most Muslims aren’t susceptible to joining jihad") are also in stark contrast to your very radical statements like Killing "every Muslim" certainly isn't necessary, but many Muslims will have to be made to suffer in ways and in scope that our Western sensibilities will no longer tolerate in order to truly win this conflict. or So when you start asking the question of what is required to defeat such a population in this modern era, the answer isn't pretty: complete subjugation of the population in question with overwhelming military power that destroys both the will and capacity for resistance. Here are some of the key passages: Show nested quote +It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.
Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.
The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else. and then at the end.... Show nested quote +Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time. The author very clearly is concluding that radical Muslims are likely ideologically implacable, which is the foundation for my entire argument. What the author does not do, is take the next logical step and propose a solution for how to deal with radical Muslims. Clearly, such a conversation isn't something that is going to be (or should be) printed in The Atlantic. I, however, have no problem engaging in such a discussion, but given the severity of the subject matter, I certainly get why people don't want to hear it. And just to be clear, I'm not prepared to write off all Muslims and paint this as an issue of the whole of Islam against the West. However, there is no denying that there is a disturbingly large percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims that is problematic and does constitute a challenge (if not an outright threat at this time) to Western civilization.
What on earth do you mean with the bolded part? The author explains a very clear plan for dealing with the problem: either, in a tour de force, smash the Caliphate at Dabiq, which the author thinks could work, but will bring with it serious risks (namely that it is yet another western force invading the middle east), or what the author thinks is more likely to work: war by proxy through the Kurdish, Shia and any other local militia opposing it, and letting it burn itself out, as it inevitably must if it cannot keep its military victories up.
The author goes on to discuss another form of radical Islam, quietist Salafists, who form no threat to anybody at the current time. Are there other radical groups who want to wage war against us? Sure. Boko Haram, al Quaeda and the Taliban are not magically going away when we deal with IS. However, the solution is not to attempt to exterminate all radical muslims (which will only cause more polarization), but to deal with (a) the causes that radical Islam is seen as a threat to western society and (b) the causes for radicalization. Mainly poverty and social exclusion.
Remember that there are plenty of Jewish and Christian groups around who preach equally atrocious ideologies. It's not as if fundamentalist orthodox Jews, Quakers or Westboro Baptists have significantly different ideas from al Baghdadi regarding the treatment of homosexuals, women or secular government. They just happen to be non-militarist, and thus rather than calling for the extermination of them and their ideas, we simply let them be.
|
Wow at that list...
Quakers: Hardcore pacifist ultra-liberal Christians (with a distinct literalist bent).
Orthodox Jews: The broadest ideological group of Judaism.
Westboro Baptists: a cult basically adhered to by a single family mostly known for insane protests.
IS: bunch of murderous thugs who now, insanely, control a shitload of territory.
What ties these guys together? I mean, yeah, there's a general trend of the fact that at least some people in each group are anti-gay, but isn't that kinda true of any broad group of folks? Quakers have a hell of a lot of pro-gay stuff going on and I happen to know one pro-gay orthodox Jew personally. What a bizarre listing.
|
What ties them together is that they're religious fanatics. He literally said this, just because people are religious fanatics doesn't necessarily mean that they're a significant problem. The fact that the groups he mentioned aren't (most of them at least) violent and militant is why we sort of let them be.
|
Did you read the context? I admit that quakers are probably the wrong group. Replace with amish or one of many evangelical groups. What they have in common is religious fanaticism, and in most cases this goes hand in hand with a generally low opinion of women's rights, a dislike of gays and a generally intolerant opinion of alcohol and other narcotics.
Yet we live in perfectly happy harmony, as we can with plenty of others who have opinions and ideas radically different from our own. Why should fundamentalist Muslims be any different?
They are now, because there is a significant minority who are committing atrocities due to their interpretation of Islam. There are others who are using radical Islam as a justification for more politically motivates atrocities. However, as with most people and groups, the majority just wants to be left alone to lead their life as they see fit.
|
On February 24 2015 05:32 lastpuritan wrote:I have seen some ISIS supporters just because ISIS is anti-US, not because they are fighting Assad or they want to build Caliphate, and those supporters were not Syrian but arabic, some even has flatmates or friends who joined ISIS, from Belgium par exemple. I think that is mainly because they see themselves as 3. class person when they step out of their homes, this is unlikely to change but can evolve positively, whether you like it or hate it, Germany dealt with the Turks better than any nation in Eu when it comes to the Arabs. (1) Correct me if im wrong but, Germany has turkish politicians in their parliaments and none of those have ideas like supporting a Turkish terrorist group in Germany or establish an autonomy inside German soil but instead, new generations tend to be more and more friendly to Germans (2), this article is very negative but when you read it, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/essay-on-racism-growing-up-turkish-in-germany-a-932154.html you see girl calls Germany as "home", not Turkey. Apart from those, i believe their economic situation is way more better compared to other minorities in EU (3), with government aid of course. (4)
Having lived in Germany for 15 years already, I need to chime in here.
1. It’s funny that you say that considering that there are articles talking about Germany's failure to aid the integration of Turks on a regular basis. "Spiegel online" alone has had dozens of them over the past 4 years (since I read it). There is a whole lot of problems with a significant portion of the German population with Turkish origins. (e.g. 3rd generation Turkish Germans who cannot speak any German, segregation and establishment of Turkish only communities)
To be fair, I will mention that I think that Turks in Germany are maybe the most integrated Muslim immigrants in Europe. However, there are some major problems.
I cannot claim to understand why even after several decades many Turks behave noticeably differently than Germans (and many other immigrant groups). There is one thing that needs to be mentioned, though, especially in the context of Islamism. The Turkish government has spent a whole lot of money on religious matters in Germany. The largest Muslim institution in Germany is directly financed by the Turkish government. The mosques and services provided by this institution are in my opinion a major cause of self-enforced segregation of Turks in Germany, and a big hindrance towards complete integration. At the same time, this institution controlled by the Turkish government has a de facto monopoly on Islam in Germany, and has been stifling any grounds for radical Islamism.
2. From personal experience, I see no reason to agree. Younger generations seem to me to be more heterogeneous in their attitude towards Germans. While many perceive themselves as being as German as the blue-eyed blonde next door, there are also many that seem to have very xenophobic views.
3. Most Turks came to Germany as "guest-workers" meaning that there was basically a 100% employment rate in 1st generation Turkish immigrants. This is in stark contrast to basically any large immigrant group in Europe. However, 2nd and 3rd generation Turkish Germans have faced the same difficulties in finding jobs as everybody else in the country often with the additional handicaps of foreign appearance and language difficulties. Your statement might hold true in comparison to other large noticeable immigrant groups, but is of general validity.
4. This is a blatantly racist statement. Turks are very hard-working people. Belittling their achievements suggest both prejudice and ignorance on your part. Unfortunately, the Turkish work ethic seems to be on the decline among the younger generations and welfare recipients are on the rise (but still on average far lower than many other minorities in Germany). Also, while in Germany nobody needs to be homeless, welfare payments are significantly lower than in the Benelux or Scandinavian countries.
|
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government.
|
On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government.
When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics.
|
There is a big warning on top, this is kinda off-topic so ill put it in spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland. Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?) After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right?
On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government.
Right now, yes. But there was a time when they were teens or children who want to play games, live safely, enjoy life. Lastly, that was not my argument. Just check the last pages and see this will be the next US policy.
|
On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government. When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics.
Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education.
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
|
On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government. When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics.
Financed by the fanatic in the mansion with the pool. It takes all stripes to make a group like ISIS. The guys running their government, laundering their money, and photoshopping their media campaign weren't exactly begging for street change a month ago.
|
On February 24 2015 11:25 lastpuritan wrote:Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland. Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?) After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right?
Do you have something specific in mind when saying: "Germany put great effort to help them economically"?
I do not claim to be an expert on the topic but the alleged German failure to aid Turks' integration has been covered extensively in German media in the recent 5 years.
"Behaing differently" is probably the wrong wording. What I have in mind are problems such as the fact that there is a significant amount of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany who were born here, and whose parents were also born in Germany and even then they can only speak Turkish.
"i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims"
I am not aware of Germany doing anything differently from other nations in their treatment of Muslim immigrants. The only different circumstance is the fact that basically every Turk who came to Germany in the 60s and 70s had a job lined up for him (even though mostly poorly paid jobs with shitty housing conditions).
"i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant"
According to the German government there are 320 Germans fighting or having fought for the ISIS. I am not aware of any statistic with their origins being published, but chances are that there are some of Turkish origin. At the very least, it is known that there are people of Turkish origin openly supporting ISIS in Germany (without having gone to a war zone).
On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government. When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics. Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education.
I obviously didn't mean only Western ISIS supporters.
I believe you will agree that the vast majority of the ISIS militants were neither "way above poverty line" nor have attended college.
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty strongly increases radical influences and criminal behaviour. In the middle East, religion happens to be an easy motivator. However, poverty can turn people into homicidal monsters even when religion is not involved e.g. Mexican drug war, US gang crime.
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well.
On February 24 2015 12:00 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government. When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics. Financed by the fanatic in the mansion with the pool. It takes all stripes to make a group like ISIS. The guys running their government, laundering their money, and photoshopping their media campaign weren't exactly begging for street change a month ago.
That's exactly what I aknowledged with "a handful of homicidal lunatics".
Fact of the matter is, pretty much all of the regular ISIS drones would have never joined them or blown themselves up if they were having say the average standard of life of a Swiss person.
|
On February 24 2015 12:15 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 11:25 lastpuritan wrote:Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland. Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?) After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right? Do you have something specific in mind when saying: "Germany put great effort to help them economically"? I do not claim to be an expert on the topic but the alleged German failure to aid Turks' integration has been covered extensively in German media in the recent 5 years. "Behaing differently" is probably the wrong wording. What I have in mind are problems such as the fact that there is a significant amount of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany who were born here, and whose parents were also born in Germany and even then they can only speak Turkish. "i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims" I am not aware of Germany doing anything differently from other nations in their treatment of Muslim immigrants. The only different circumstance is the fact that basically every Turk who came to Germany in the 60s and 70s had a job lined up for him (even though mostly poorly paid jobs with shitty housing conditions). "i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant" According to the German government there are 320 Germans fighting or having fought for the ISIS. I am not aware of any statistic with their origins being published, but chances are that there are some of Turkish origin. At the very least, it is known that there are people of Turkish origin openly supporting ISIS in Germany (without having gone to a war zone). Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government. When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics. Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education. I obviously didn't mean only Western ISIS supporters. I believe you will agree that the vast majority of the ISIS militants were neither "way above poverty line" nor have attended college. Show nested quote +
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty strongly increases radical influences and criminal behaviour. In the middle East, religion happens to be an easy motivator. However, poverty can turn people into homicidal monsters even when religion is not involved e.g. Mexican drug war, US gang crime. Show nested quote +
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well.
Your analogy is not applicable. Drug cartels and the italian mob are completely different from something like ISIS.
|
On February 24 2015 12:21 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 12:15 ggrrg wrote:On February 24 2015 11:25 lastpuritan wrote:Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland. Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?) After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right? Do you have something specific in mind when saying: "Germany put great effort to help them economically"? I do not claim to be an expert on the topic but the alleged German failure to aid Turks' integration has been covered extensively in German media in the recent 5 years. "Behaing differently" is probably the wrong wording. What I have in mind are problems such as the fact that there is a significant amount of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany who were born here, and whose parents were also born in Germany and even then they can only speak Turkish. "i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims" I am not aware of Germany doing anything differently from other nations in their treatment of Muslim immigrants. The only different circumstance is the fact that basically every Turk who came to Germany in the 60s and 70s had a job lined up for him (even though mostly poorly paid jobs with shitty housing conditions). "i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant" According to the German government there are 320 Germans fighting or having fought for the ISIS. I am not aware of any statistic with their origins being published, but chances are that there are some of Turkish origin. At the very least, it is known that there are people of Turkish origin openly supporting ISIS in Germany (without having gone to a war zone). On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government. When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics. Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education. I obviously didn't mean only Western ISIS supporters. I believe you will agree that the vast majority of the ISIS militants were neither "way above poverty line" nor have attended college.
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty strongly increases radical influences and criminal behaviour. In the middle East, religion happens to be an easy motivator. However, poverty can turn people into homicidal monsters even when religion is not involved e.g. Mexican drug war, US gang crime.
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well. Your analogy is not applicable. Drug cartels and the italian mob are completely different from something like ISIS.
All of them dwell on recruiting the poor.
|
|
|
On February 24 2015 05:32 lastpuritan wrote:I have seen some ISIS supporters just because ISIS is anti-US, not because they are fighting Assad or they want to build Caliphate, and those supporters were not Syrian but arabic, some even has flatmates or friends who joined ISIS, from Belgium par exemple. I think that is mainly because they see themselves as 3. class person when they step out of their homes, this is unlikely to change but can evolve positively, whether you like it or hate it, Germany dealt with the Turks better than any nation in Eu when it comes to the Arabs. Correct me if im wrong but, Germany has turkish politicians in their parliaments and none of those have ideas like supporting a Turkish terrorist group in Germany or establish an autonomy inside German soil but instead, new generations tend to be more and more friendly to Germans, this article is very negative but when you read it, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/essay-on-racism-growing-up-turkish-in-germany-a-932154.html you see girl calls Germany as "home", not Turkey. Apart from those, i believe their economic situation is way more better compared to other minorities in EU, with government aid of course. ISIS supporters from Syria and Iraq are a different case that i am more likely to reason their hatred for "cross". Not because they are right to kill anyone or with their cause, but some of them -iraqi ones- spent their entire lives under US bombing / or its war legacy when they were kiddos. They are easy to be misdirected about any subject, you cant explain them Saddam was a crazy dude who was willing to cleanse "some citizens" of his own and why US had to declare war when some counter propaganda reminds them US killed more citizens than Saddam had done, while those citizens are CLOSE RELATIVES of thousands. But there is a chance to convince and shape current society, US played the war game by old rules, defeated its enemy and replaced it with a "friendly / annex" one, and that one - today we all agree - is a bad one, with its sectarian violence and fancy dancing with Persians, now IF we can help them build a better society, with better roads and schools whatever* (im not an expert on these things) but WITHOUT forcing, indoctrinating them to believe anything they dont want to, we may win their hearts and minds. Can you do this when majority of their society believes their government either US or Iranian puppet? xDaunt wants to destroy every moderate Muslim, or any moderate muslim who is capable of doing anything radical, which will takes us into another world war, as i previously asked him and he said there is no need to such act but eventually, his ideology is declaring war to Quran, and there are countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and their possible supporters China, Russia and many, whom are also capable of turn whole Europe to ashes before totally being terminated. Is it really worth to sacrifice many to end this pile of sh*t we name terrorism? Lately he says maybe Turkey or Iran should do that, as i understood and this is an oxymoron. Not shiny with history stuff but Wahhabism/Salafism started in Ottoman times, when Arabs were under Otto-rule. United Kingdom supported those terrorist groups to revolt against Ottomans, in order to cut arabic support when turkish caliph, the sultan calls arab to army. There is even a movie about that, an oscar winner: Lawrence of Arabia, story of british agent in Arabic lands, maybe you should watch. They revolt against sunni Turks, guess what would happen if Iran intervenes. Fun part: - I will blame UK for this, again. lol
Two wars and a genocidal embargo are not easy to forget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
