Slashdot Mirror
Terrorists Used False DMCA Claims To Get Personal Data of Anti-Islamic Youtuber
An anonymous reader writes German newspaper FAZ reports (google translated version) that, after facing false DMCA claims by "FirstCrist, Copyright" and threatened by YouTube with takedown, a youtuber running the German version of Islam-critic Al Hayat TV had to disclose their identity in order to get the channel back online. Later, the channel staff got a mail containing a death threat by "FirstCrist, Copyright", containing: "thank you for your personal data. [...] take care your house gets police protection!" Employee names are now on Al Qaeda black lists.
The species and its imaginary friends are full of entertainment.
There must be some massive cognitive dissonance going on in media circles at the moment..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
You mean the freedom to violate other people's freedom through DMCA? Yes, that is truly something to nurse and be proud of... Don't let them take that from you!
So someone submits a false DMCA, and Youtube accepted this without requiring any proof. They then forced the youtuber to provide proof that it wasn't a copyright violation. They then provided said youtuber's personal information to the person submitting a false DMCA.
What in the actual fuck?
I'm sure you get this all the time, but really: there's no call for the generalisation.
Thank you for demonstrating your blatant racism and ignorance.
You do realize that there is 1.6 billion of people that are muslims in the world, spread out over the most of the globe? Your comment is like saying that we should ban all Christians from having human rights, because they are Bible thumping bigots opposing gays and abortions.
Please, do educate yourself before you open your mouth next time.
Yes sure, the US govt. is super-paranoid about terrorism. But making sure Mickey Mouse gets paid is still more important.
You could consider this particular religion a race because it's virtually impossible to abandon. Unless you want your head cut off. So in this case, the label racism could apply. .
The solution is to require anyone that wishes to submit DMCA requests has to have a DMCA license number and be registered with the country that the company resides in for the lawful take down.
That way youtube can confirm that the email address and license number match the organization that is requesting the DMCA.
To confirm the validity of the email, a random string is sent back and needs to be replied, or a link sent to the email that they have to click on to complete the DMCA.
Make it cost prohibitive to get a license so that only proper organizations can do this. If people monkey around, they get their license revoked and have to re-apply and risk being banned from receiving a license.
Problem solved, DMCA requests become more sane.
Opposing gays and abortions isn't quite the same as selling them as sex slaves or beheading them, is it?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
No, but this isn't really an isolated incident now is it? This shit happens all the time, and it's always Muslims.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm
It's a problem, and a big one. Can we please stop pretending otherwise?
At what point to we accept that Islam poses problems and threats that no other major religions do?
Sure there are secular and progressive muslims, but do these really represent the majority of muslims? It's not like there is a muslim state we can point to and say "Look at X, that's a muslim state with basic human rights and freedoms".
We see this argument all the time. Just because 5% of some selection deviates from the rest of the 95% in some way ( numbers admittedly pulled out of my ass ) apparently means we are supposed to ignore the fact that 95% can be bucketed as such. That's like saying it's wrong to generalize that men are attracted to women, because a minority aren't.
Can we please be just a little pragmatic about this.
Nah, Islamic fundamentalists are as crazy and backwards thinking as Christian fundamentalists.
How does American Law apply to Europeans and people in Germany --- or do US companies carry the American flag with them when they provide services in Europe and such?
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
You could've replaced Islam or Muslim in the article with $cientology and it still would have made sense.
But, yes I agree about the human rights in both cases.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
That kind of has a "truthy" feel to it, and represents the PC dogma, but it's just straight up incorrect. I think you'll find that a significantly larger percentage of Muslim fundamentalists think it's ok to murder apostates than fundamentalist Christians.
How many times? "A majority of terrorists are Muslim" does NOT imply "a majority of Muslims are terrorists".
Muslims aren't the only violators of human rights - look at Christian African countries with viciously repressive anti-gay laws, North Korea (atheist / personality cult) with basically no rights at all, ... need I go on?
About the most that you can say is that perhaps Islam is prone to such issues because of the strong links made in the Quran between religious and secular authority / territory, but there's a similar territorial link in Judaism yet before the establishment of Israel you didn't see hordes of Jewish terrorists. And if you look at Christianity in the 14th Century there was the whole theme of trying to Christianise the Holy Land through crusading. Christians as well as Muslims have had form in the "holy war / crusade / jihad" game at one time. So the issue is not fundamentally a problem with Islam, it's a problem with the interpretation of it and the political ambivalence in many Muslim states ; if the political issues are resolved the rest will gradually die down. (But don't expect it to happen overnight, it might easily take 50-100 years.)
You do realize that there is 1.6 billion of people that are muslims in the world, spread out over the most of the globe? Your comment is like saying that we should ban all Christians from having human rights, because they are Bible thumping bigots opposing gays and abortions.
You realize that on the most conservative estimates, that roughly 25% of muslims support extremism(that's via western countries). You jump out a bit to the non-westernized countries and it jumps as high as 70% supporting extremism, that means either the acts themselves or the belief that the acts themselves are justified. So, here's something for you to think about. After the first terrorist attack here in Canada by a muslim, in Quebec a muslim group came out saying that all mosques need to be investigated and shut down for three months, all funding must be investigated. All speech must be investigated, and all immigration from muslim countries needs to be stopped for a protracted period.
I guess they're all racists right? Oh wait...muslim isn't a race now is it. Going on with that, what's the difference between Christianity and Islam? If you answered anything other than Christianity has had a reformation(several actually), then you need to dust off your history books and start reading some more. Let's not forget that in Islam, the Koran is considered the end-be-all-final work of god. As such, changing anything is heresy. Something is fundamentally broken in Islam, sticking your head in the sand is not the answer. So perhaps the person that should be educating themselves is you.
Om, nomnomnom...
Which particular religion? There are lots of different types of muslims just as there are lots of different types of Christians, within each sect there are different races, white, black, mediterranean, Persian, Arab, SE Asian, etc. This is what currently happening in Iraq, ISIS broke off from the Sunni's and is now fighting Sunni, Shia and Kurds, they all hate each other almost as much as they hate ISIS.
Aside from that, following strict apostate rules has nothing to do with race, there is nothing in your genes that makes you a muslim therefore hating a muslim just for being a muslim is bigoted and ignorant, but it's not racist.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If I were going to start such a channel. I would create a Nom De Plume (fake name). I would go to store and buy a burner phone that doesn't require a name. I would then create my channel using Nom De Plume and that phone number. Done deal!
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Your spacebar is evil.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
They are so frightened of the truth, or the freedom to spread information, that they have to scare people into not doing it.
Okay. Anti-Balaka Chrstian militias in CAR.
Those guys make IS look tame. French peacekeepers were talking about Christian mob going door to door and taking entire families apart with machetes until there were effectively almost no muslims left in the country. They either fled or were killed. They even forced Chad's peacekeepers of muslim faith to flee alongside other muslims.
Hilariously, Anti-Balaka means "no sword" or "no machete".
Oh no, that's not how it works. It's racism only if the "opressed" side are Negros or Latino, then you can yell "oh my god, racists!" and arrest them.
He is right, while the name "racist" do not fit here, he had on mind (I bet) the general problem of prejudice. You do prejudice too - "70% of group X do Y [so we can punish everyone in group X]", that's not fair.
I wonder if there will be push back against the DMCA system now that it helped terrorists. Like there has been push back against encryption.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
I dont always agree with Resa Aslan but he's right about this so ust for the sake of correctness:
FGM is not a particularly Muslim phenomenon. It's pretty much limited to those Muslims that inhabit north-eastern and central sub-Saharan Africa. It is almost unknown in most other Muslim majority countries (except for immigrants from the aforementioned regions).
It's also very common among Christian and other religious groups in the same area, so FGM really seems to be linked to the culture in just that geographical region rather than to any religious grouping.
Except DMCA claims are often totally ridiculous and not even read, they are just blindly accepted.
If this claim had actually been read by a person they would have realised it was nonsense.
The problem you mention is the opposite. This was used by the accuser to find out who the accused was.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Now compare numbers, both raw and percentage to Islam. You are also conveniently ignoring both the fact that they aren't exclusively Christian (shooting your implication that it's a religious movement) and the reason they developed in the first place - Islamic take over of CAR and terrorism. The very first sentence on the Wiki page in the History section: "The anti-balaka militias originally formed in the 1990s as village self-defense forces."
Speaking of trolls, wouldn't it be amusing if Anonymous started filing DMCA notices against anybody who uses a meme commercially?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Unfortunately there are indeed Muslim countries in which the majority of people support killing apostates, yes. (Afghanistan, for instance.)
That doesn't make Chrisq's bullshit any less unreasonable, though. Muslims in Western countries tend not to be like that.
need I go on?
Yes please do, because if you want a numbers game I think you know that by far Islam is massively guilty here, So I'll be waiting.
The crusades were a reaction to the atrocities that Islam was engaged with CENTURIES, not decades but centuries in the Mediterranean & middle east, just like we are seeing now with ISIS. You know murder, torture, slaving all the sorts of things that are considered in-human. Come on the battle of Tours was in 732 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... ]. We were trying to wipe them out and for good reason.
The problem is that the issue IS with Islam, it is the problem, because you see Mohamed is meant to be the perfect man?! Really? How can a rapist, murdering, pedophile possibly be perfect? All muslims are taught to be like him. For example some of the great examples muslims follow Mohamed forces a 17 yr old Jewish girl called Safiyyah to marry him and rapes her on the same day her husband and family are killed in the battle of Khaibar (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367).
You know everything that is being done by these muslim terrorist (Al-nasura, ISIS, Boko haram, etc.....) All of it comes from the Quran, every bit of it. Try and do that with the new testament.
Political? Islam is a political system you fool!
So the issue fundamentally IS ISLAM, is Mohamed, his teachings and more importantly his behaviour. OK here's a snip for you to think about:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/...
A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that.
Oh did you notice the freudian slip she made as well?
Or have sex slaves, or that rape is sometimes OK. People really must learn about what Islam ACTUALLY teaches, not what they think it does based on their own, usually christian, world view
Unfortunately there are indeed Muslim countries in which the majority of people support killing apostates, yes. (Afghanistan, for instance.)
That doesn't make Chrisq's bullshit any less unreasonable, though. Muslims in Western countries tend not to be like that.
You have to bear in mind that following Muhammad's example, as they have done throughout the world, they will apear friendly and attempt to undermine societies until they have sufficient forces for a violent uprising. Lets hope that when it happens it will go the way of Spain, not Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, and many more.
Look at statistics like the fact that more European Muslims have joined Islamic state than their country's armed forces (it may be true in the US also, I don't know) and you get an idea of what these "peaceful" muslims in the west think.
Sometimes a slip is just a slip.
If you are being attacked by group A, then sitting back and doing nothing because it wouldn't be fair to a minority percentage of that group who don't support the attack isn't exactly survival tactics.
Google isn't the problem here, they did exactly what was expected of them. The law itself ("safe harbor") isn't really a problem either. The problem is that there's no meaningfull check and balance. It's a very one-sided thing. The law wasn't written by all parties invoved, it was written singlehadedly with one side's interests in mind.
If someone cries "rape!" and gets a man arrested, and then we find out that it was just a girl scorned that didn't like her BF had cheated on her, SHE is now up for legal charges "filing a false statement" as well as a target for a civil suit.
No such balance exists with DMCA. Anyone can file a DMCA claim, and the recipient is legally obligated to take action. They're not [i]required[/i] to take action, but if they don't, they accept legal responsibility if the DMCA filing was lawful. So it's not really "optional" for them, even though it may appear so.
Then, if the filing turns out to be iffy, inaccurate, or even deliberaly misleading, there are NO penalties or liabilities of any kind for the person that filed the fraudulent DMCA notice.
This has several effects, and only some of them are really noticed. First, the victim has no recourse. They have no legal basis to sue the filer. No law has been broken, so law enforcement has no teeth either. But it doesn't stop there. The victim's only possible relief is a civil suit against the middleman tha received the notice. (google in this case) They have a pretty good defense since they can argue (as above) that although not legally obligated, they actually WERE obligated, indirectly. Also, google has no recourse against the filer. If they have to stage a legal defense against the victim, it's on their nickel, they can't recover any of the costs from the filer because google acted "voluntarily".
The only way out of this for google is to do research before acting on the notice. This causes all sorts of problems because not promptly taking the material down forfeits their protection, and there will be a cost to this, which is unrecoverable, regardless of the outcome.
Provisions for accountability need to be added to the law. Not so much to protect the victim, but to protect the intermediary, so they can act in the victim's best interst instead of as the filer's whipping dog. Do that, and it would (A) reduce the number of false claims, (B) make people think more carefully about filing a claim, (C) give the intermediaries some teeth to go after fraudulent filings. Once that's in place, the back end of the process will only be activated when there's a much better change it's necessary and appropriate.
Looking to change the back end of this process just isn't productive. The changes need to be made in the middle.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I agree, albeit in the general sense. There's a group of mentally deranged humans that make the other 5% look bad.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
No, but this isn't really an isolated incident now is it? This shit happens all the time, and it's always Muslims.
http://www.thereligionofpeace....
It's a problem, and a big one. Can we please stop pretending otherwise?
It is not always Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Etc.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Opposing gays and abortions isn't quite the same as selling them as sex slaves or beheading them, is it?
It is if you blow up abortion clinics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
You do realize that there is 1.6 billion of people that are muslims in the world
Actually it's closer to 1.7, so what? So you are saying because 1.7 billion follow a quite frankly immoral behaviour it makes it ok? All you can say about Christians is that they thump bibles, oppose gays and abortions!
Well at least we don't hang gays or have doctrines that justify murder, rape, deception, servitude all on a massive scale. I suggest you go and educate yourself.
http://www.alarabiya.net/artic... http://www.raymondibrahim.com/... http://www.raymondibrahim.com/...
Oh and it's not racism it's cultural-ism, get it right.
I see this in my office in the UK, some of the things Muslim co-workers have said or done is quite frankly beyond the pale, all because they are brain-washed. The broken thing in islam was Mohamed.
Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/...
Which is why at the very least I want sharia proscribed in my country and at the very most the same done for islam, because there is no truth or value to it. If I were religious I'd say it's demonic.
At the very least Islam & $cientology share a commonality. They are both baseless cults.
Who cares what they are frightened of? Their tactics work. How do you turn that against them? Heh, by finding and exploiting what they are frightened of perhaps? But something a little more, um... kinetic than a cartoon...
Now compare numbers in regards to historical and modern levels of poverty, education, and type of government. Literally the only difference between a crazy Christian commentator bashing gays on Fox and an Islamic jihadist is time and place. Yeah, most extremists are Muslim, but it's very easy to see why, even without considering that we've been interfering and killing their families since their grandparents were in diapers.
Under the European Data Protection Directive (EU LAW) personal data is protected from unauthorised disclosure.
This is a direct result of losing a jihad. Don't start any shit and there wont be any shit. This might happen anywhere when people get fed up and take up arms against terrorism and opressive religious fanatics. Might we not just leave people alone to believe what they want? I personally think the Muslim religion is a crock of shit but as long as they go bow toward Mecca and pray to Allah without trying to force me to I'm fine with it. When they start with the jihad crap I'm fine with killing the hell out of them too.
Dumb fuck.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
You were saying, dumb fuck?
I like that word. Kinetic has such a nice ring to it.
No, it's not, just mostly. By a lot. So it's mainly then.
Actually, the start was about Christian majority massively oppressing muslim minority, which caused the Seleka uprising. Anti-Balaka were the Christian answer to this uprising which brutally suppressed it in true Stalinist way - "no people, no problem".
And now I'm starting my day by picturing abortions sold as sex slaves. Thank you so much for that.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Yes 5%, 10% whatever. However the seeds for this behaviour is codified in their doctrines. Not really the same as most other religions.
“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.”Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.
That won't solve all of it though, in every case of a person carrying out a violent threat, it's a human. We should just exclude humans from human rights.
Opposing gays and abortions isn't quite the same as selling them as sex slaves or beheading them, is it?
Both of which are also A-OK in the bible.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Employee names are now on Al Qaeda black lists
This desperately needs a citation.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I'm not really convinced by that argument:
"Hey remember that one time that one guy killed some people and said that it was for Jesus? Yeah, that means Christians are as bad as Muslims, who in the meantime have committed tens of thousands of separate suicide attacks."
Today in the world, most terrorism comes from the Muslim community. Nobody gets to claim that that factual statement implies that all Muslims are terrorists, because that's not what the statement says. Anyone who makes that false claim concedes all credibility.
A majority of worldwide Muslims support death as a punishment for apostasy. If you think death-for-apostasy is bad, and if you think majority support within a group for a certain policy makes it fair to discuss that policy in terms of that group, then it is fair to say that "Muslims support death for apostates".
Compare that to the statement "Republicans support restrictions on abortion". Is that a true statement? I consider it to be true even though not every last Republican supports restrictions on abortion. When discussing groups, we don't have to account for every last member of the group. If we did, it would be impossible to discuss groups.
The Muslim community has problems -- moral problems. The community generally supports some incredibly horrible things. It is wonderful that some Muslims are not horrible, especially many or most of those who now live in Western countries, as well as a minority of those living in Islamic countries. I hope that that minority grows into the majority someday, but today they are still a minority, and it is fair to discuss Muslims as a group and policies supported by the majority of Muslims.
Muslims as a group support death for apostasy.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for women.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for homosexuals.
Muslims as a group support blasphemy laws.
Some Muslims don't support those things; most do.
and the reason they developed in the first place - Islamic take over of CAR and terrorism. The very first sentence on the Wiki page in the History section: "The anti-balaka militias originally formed in the 1990s as village self-defense forces."
You appear to be blaming the existence of violent Christian groups in CAR on the violent Muslim group that preceeded them. In a sense, this isn't wrong, although I don't agree with it (for a reason that will soon be apparent).
Would you be surprised to hear that Islamic State rose to power in the wake of Western military incursions into Iraq? Would you then blame Christians for the existence of Islamic State?
If you're going to be applying this type of logic, please apply it consistently.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
that we've been interfering and killing their families since their grandparents were in diapers.
In recent history the west has done some immoral, illegal things in the middle east, true. However for how long do you think that islam has done worse in those geographical errors. 1893 & in 1915 an estimated 2.5 million Armenians were killed by the Ottomans , Dhimitude was only stopped under prodding by the west in 1853 in the Ottoman empire, not nice, not moral. Islam has estimated to have killed or caused the death of some 270 million
Not for Christians there not, show me in the new testament where is says this?
Hey, so the DMCA now supports 'real' terrorism, not just the corporate kind.
Google really should stop rubbber-stamping all take down requests, at least have humans look at the more unusual ones.
If this is real, can we write to all members of congress that supported the DMCA asking them why they support Al Quaeda/Whichever group is behind this.
No, but opposing Medicaid expansion is and many Christian Governors of US states are doing exactly that. Estimates are between 7,000 and 17,000 (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Dickman-Exhibit-3-copy.gif) preventable deaths in states that declined the expansion. There's no good way to die, but dying of a treatable disease has to be one of the worst.
And these are Governors that claim to be "pro-life".
can't stomach Fox. So what bits did I fabricate please?
Then perhaps have the permits cost $35 per work, the same way registration with the US Copyright Office already does.
Make it cost prohibitive to get a license
I'd have it scale with the number of works that a copyright owner seeks to claim in notices of claimed infringement, such as 35 USD for a copyright registration on a work or a set of works published in a collection. This way both small-time individual authors and big-time work-made-for-hire publishers pay appropriate fees.
This is even better than my idea of having everyone file DMCA notices for everything. This is Al Qaeda, fighting to protect our freedoms from the oppressive American government. I hope they can get this law killed off as soon as possible.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Not for Christians there not, show me in the new testament where is says this?
Oh right, I forgot the part where Christians get to ignore half the book because they know it's full of shit. How about showing you the part where jesus says it all counts and can't be changed?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Correct, but look at the lists from the last 20-30 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
I don't know what part of the US you live in (I personally live in one of the least Christian parts of the country), but it's very much a Christian nation. Furthermore, according to DoD statistics, roughly 70% of US Army servicemen are Christian.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Yes, let's use a single letter of leader of rebels who know they're outnumbered, outgunned and will be purged to anyone willing to listen to implicate that they are the terrorists. Ignore the rest as irrelevant because, well, it doesn't fit the whole "oo, evil muslim terrorists" narrative.
Also many left over? Really? Because Human Rights Watch disagrees with you there. Pretty much the only reason why they weren't completely cleansed was because French actually got their shit together and started putting themselves in harm's way. For all their craziness, Christian mobs understood that it was best not to attack their former colonial masters. Especially with them having those mining interests in the region.
Chadian peacekeepers weren't so lucky.
Here's a direct quote from UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antoinio Gutierres talking to UN Security Council earlier this year when conflict was on:
"Since early December we have effectively witnessed a cleansing of the majority of the Muslim population in western CAR, tens of thousands of them have left the country, the second refugee outflow of the current crisis, and most of those remaining are under permanent threat."
That was before the worst hit. Bangui, the capital city had some 145.000 muslims. Today, it has effectively none. Here's France24, French English language state news site on the topic:
http://www.france24.com/en/201...
You're going to have a really hard time explaining how this wasn't a purge in true Stalinist fashion. Unless of course you're psychotic enough to claim that these aren't people, since they are muslims.
More recommended watching: http://www.vice.com/video/the-...
I believe the previous poster was referring to such lovely things as the employment of "The pear of anguish" for people "convicted" of "the heinous, unnatural" act of sodomy.
Due to religious influence, the practice of "Sodomy" (a wide umbrella for multitudinous sexual acts considered 'sinful') was considered a capital offence in more countries in europe than not. (And those that didnt have it as a capital offence, had torture as one of the major punishments, such as the afore mentioned pear of anguish.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ptop/...
"Christians" generally DID do those things (Beheading people and the like) for a very long time. The major reason we don't now, came from 3 things, one of which is vitally important for the others to have as much influence as they did.
Firstly, THERE MUST BE A NON-AMBIGUOUS MESSAGE OF FORGIVENESS AND ACCEPTANCE in their religious text.
Secondly, Literacy and availability of that religious text must be high.
Thirdly, some political figure must shatter the religious oligarchy, and make free-practice of religion safe.
The middle east has a very "medieval" worldview. The difference between modern christianity (with emphasis on catholicism and the vatican) and current islam (in the middle east), is that modern christianity is radically more "Enlightened"--- That's just on the secular front.
This happened because 1) The actual text of the new testament is one of forgiveness, (practically unending levels of forgiveness), 2) The Rennaisance enabled the common public to have access to the bible, so that they could read it for themselves, and 3) The great schism of the roman catholic church, pushed into prominence by the king of england instituting the church of england, and protecting "Heretical protestants" enabled people who free-practiced to do so without fear of political prosecution.
On the religious front, the actual tenets of the bible's new testament strongly advocate forgiveness of sin, not punishment. The entire new testament is basically devoted to this ideal. There is no such parallel in islam. The qur'an is very much like christianity's levitical law; it advocates extreme punishments for infactions of the religious code of conduct. The prescribed punishment for homosexuality in the levitical law is stoning. (same with adultery, beastiality, etc.)
That does not say that people who self-identify as musslim strictly adhere to the written text of the qur'an however. This is every bit like there are many many people who self-identify as christian, who do not strictly adhere to the biblical text. (For good and for ill.)
The major difference, is that in the middle east, there is no secular protection for people who self-practice islam, (and don't bow to a religious leader/clerical hierarchy), and literacy is poor-- coupled with no strong underlying message telling the religiously faithful that they should not be extremists.
The basic thing I am reading here are arguments that are not very logical.
One side says "Islam is a backward religion that advocates brutalism, and is in no fashion a religion of peace."
Another side says "There are more moderate Muslims than there are extremist ones, so islam is clearly not the problem."
Both are wrong, but for different reasons.
Judaism was every bit as cruel and medieval as strict Islam is now before the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. (Religiosity of this figure witheld; the individual existed, but any divine status is not substantiated.) Islam has a similarly prophesied figure, called the Mahdi, (or the hidden imam, and several other descriptors.) This figure has not yet come for Islam.
The appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, and the message he brought, changed Judaism permanently. Christianity came into existence because of it, and the message of forgiveness (even if subverted by power trippers in the medieval period for pu
The Bush military doctrine and incompetence is indeed partially to blame from the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq. Combining the weakened and divided Iraq that that doctrine produced with the dogged Russian support for Syria's Assad regime created a power vaccum where ISIS could propser. In this case I wouldn't specifically blame Christians for the Islamic State because those decisions are more accurately attributed to the neo-conservative movement in the United States which mostly pays lip-service to being Christian.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
At this point in history, it is predominantly and disproportionately Muslims. It wasn't always this way - Christianity had the dark ages, and was just as brutal back then as Islam is today. Perhaps in future it will change again - religions are defined by their followers more than their holy texts, and can shift in positions over a period of generations. But right now, Muslims easily claim the crown for systematic religiously-motivated violence.
Ah, no true Scotsman, eh? I mean some might argue that the Balaka folks only pay lip service to being Muslim...
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Yes, Muslims are horrible people who arrest individuals that disagree with them without charges, hold them indefinitely without trial, and torture them relentlessly in secret prisons, all in direct and blatant contradiction to the tenants they claim to hold dear.
Oh wait, that's MY countrymen who do those things.
Well, at least the US government would never intentionally harm it's own law-abiding citizens, right? Wrong.
Since religion is a big part of this thread, I have an excuse to bust out my 2 favorite Bible quotes:
"Judge not, lest ye yourselves be judged; for the manner in which you pass judgement on others, so shall you be judged."
"Why dost thou complain about the mote in thine brother's eye, when thou hast a plank in thine own? Hypocrite, first remove the plank from thine own eye, then thou will see clearly to remove the mote from thine brother's."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Today in the world, most terrorism comes from the Muslim community.
Depends on whose definition of terrorism we're going by - if we use the US government's ever-changing definition (although they seem close to settling on "anyone who disagrees with us"), then yea, Muslims commit most of it.
However, if we are going by the actual dictionary definition, ie "using fear and threats of violence to coerce individuals into following a particular political ideology," well, nobody's a bigger terrorist than the governments themselves.
Personally, I've never seen a "Muslim terrorist." I have, however, seen US government agents threatening to take away people's freedoms, firing chemical weapons on civilians, and presenting an ominous and threatening presence in an attempt to force citizens to accept their rule.
Consider this - statistically, an American citizen is at least 10x more likely to be killed by their own government than a "Muslim terrorist." But yea, keep whining about what people half a world away choose to do within their own culture.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Opposition to Medicaid expansion isn't always a result of "poor hating," you know.
I, for one, oppose the idea because I know that the federal government treats those programs like a crack dealer treats new customers: yea, the first taste is free, but once you're hooked and your state can't live without those federal tax dollars, suddenly you start seeing the strings come into view.
'Course, if we had real universal health care, this would be a non-issue.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm not really analyzing motivations, Jihadist, the Christians in the federal goverment voting to invade Iraq, not expanding medicaid - they have the same effect, innocent people die.
I would question priorities. We have enough money for a war in Iraq and to arm ISIS (OK that wasn't quite the goal of arming the Iraqi defense force, but since the leadership of that organziation had been destroyed, the outcome is not unexpected)
Single-payer universal health care would save everyone money (that's a CBO estimate, not mine). The ACA "Obamacare" was, basically, written by the insurance industry. Single payer was never on the table and the insurance industry lobbists spent big to remove the "public option". It'll be interesting to see what happens with Republicans in both federal houses although they can probably continue to hold useless votes on repeal knowing they'll fail and so not jepordizing the campaign funds from the insurance lobby.
Muslims in Western countries tend not to be like that.
Yet.
Thank you for demonstrating your blatant racism and ignorance.
Thank you for demonstrating the same. It's not racism to blanket hate Muslims. They're not a race, it's a religion. I don't know what you call someone who hates Muslims. I see the term Islamaphobe tossed about here and there, but that more infers fear of muslims, rather that hatred. Personally, I hate all religions. But I have a special place of hatred for Muslims because of how violent they are as a group, currently. If any other religions were this violent, I'd hate them too, but they aren't, at the moment.
"Since early December we have effectively witnessed a cleansing of the majority of the Muslim population in western CAR, tens of thousands of them have left the country, the second refugee outflow of the current crisis, and most of those remaining are under permanent threat."
This is a very important distinction to make. They left the country. If the shoe were on the other foot, they'd all been executed just as we're seeing ISIS doing in Iraq and Syria with non-muslims. Convert or die. I applaud any country eradicating Islam. It has no place in the modern world.
They can argue that all they like, but the facts don't support them.
If you compare "how Christian" America is in terms of law, government, and military, and then compare "how Muslim" groups like Seleka are, only an idiot would come to the conclusion that they're about the same or that the US is more extreme. And idiots of that magnitude aren't worth talking to.
lol yeah, just like IS. I remember so clearly when the Islamic State said, "Hey Christians in Iraq, if you just want to be Christian and not bother anybody, if you want to just stay in your existing towns and not expand all over the place, that's cool."
You idiot.
Did you really forget that? It's pretty well established.
Yes show me where Jesus says it all counts and can't be changed. Then I'll tell you why it doesn't matter. Oh heck I'll just tell you now. The point of Jesus wasn't to make things that used to be sins not sins anymore. The point of Jesus was that he died for the sins of man so that we could be forgiven even though we sin.
I guess you didn't get the message that Jesus transformed Christianity from a temporal religion to a spiritual, personal religion.
only an idiot would come to the conclusion that they're about the same
Argumentum ad hominem is an informal fallacy. That is, whether or not a person that comes to this conclusion is an idiot is irrelevant to the validity of the conclusion.
Here are some statements of fact. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces are groups of individuals that have a religious majority among them. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion of their respective majority.
If the US Armed Forces are "not true Christians" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Christianity, then it stands to reason that the Balaka are "not true Muslims" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Islam. To say otherwise is to embrace a blatant disregard for reason.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Argumentum ad hominem is an informal fallacy. That is, whether or not a person that comes to this conclusion is an idiot is irrelevant to the validity of the conclusion.
My use of an ad hominem was not a fallacy because my conclusion is not based on it. I.e. I did not say "Only an idiot would say that, so it's wrong."
As you noted, my observation was irrelevant to the conclusion. However, I'm sure you realize that being irrelevant and being incorrect are two different things.
Here are some statements of fact. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces are groups of individuals that have a religious majority among them. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion of their respective majority.
Those are not all statements of fact, particularly the latter statement. Jihad for the purpose of establishing an Islamic state is in keeping with Islamic values. If you're talking about other behaviors, you'll have to be more explicit. It's a fallacy to depend on abstractions too much because it leads to false equivalences, which I think you may have done.
If the US Armed Forces are "not true Christians" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Christianity
I would never say people in the US Armed Forces are not Christians. That wasn't the question though.
The claim was that the US Armed Forces is as much a Christian group as Balaka is a Muslim group. That is a different matter. You have to look at the aims of each group, not merely the composition.
Remember, you said that some could argue that Balaka was merely paying lip service to Islam, just like some groups in America may pay lip service to Christianity.
Comparing the goals and methods of the groups, you'll see that supposedly Christian-dominated groups in the US, which are called Christian groups, do very little to promote Christianity within the armed forces or government. In fact if you have done any research on the subject you'll know how careful the US Army is to refrain from appearing "too Christian" by dint of its membership, going so far as to ban people from sending Bibles to troops in Muslim countries.
Muslim groups like Seleka in CAR, on the other hand, have a stated goal of establishing Muslim rule and sharia law over the territory they conquer.
So what evidence do you have that the USAF is as Christian in method, structure, and goals as Seleka is Muslim?
You must be joking. They left just like the current wave of refugees in Syria and Iraq. Running away from the incoming avalanche of the angry armed men. IS does the exact same thing - you can convert, or you can run before they get to you.
So in CAR, muslims who "left" left before Christian mobs got to them. Those who died were the ones who didn't make it out in time.
That is exactly what they said in fact. "As long as you accept being oppressed as lowest class citizens and pay us tax, you can stay".
Try to keep up. IS is trying to resurrect the Kalifate/Ottoman style rule. That means all the horrors of that time like slavery, public executions as entertainment and so on, but also many other things like granting actual, very rigid legal rights to all strata of society, including those who are Christians. Specifically they are required to pay tax and have significantly lower social position that muslims, but they do indeed have a right to exist as long as they conform to legally mandated oppression.
Completely agreed on all counts. I would stipulate that madrasas are equally bad to other religious schools, whereas Muslim terrorism is worse than other religious terrorism.
Hi yeah this isn't the only one but here is one poll. Other polls have had more issue-by-issue breakdowns.
You comment is reasonable and moderate, thank you. I accept your commentary.
My main response is that the right to divorce or own property is like the exceptions to the rule of women's rights. Can most Muslim women get an equal education, wear pants and join the job market like men? Can they drive, go out of the house without a man, enjoy sexual freedom and run for public office?
The Muslim world is diverse and heterogeneous like all huge communities but when you look at the broad values, they are even worse values (in my opinion) than found in other places where there are bad values (in my opinion).
Thank you, This happens in all religions, it never ceases to amaze me the people don't understand their own religion sometimes. Like so called christian fundamentalist clinging to the 10 commandments.
Did you really forget that? It's pretty well established.
Yes show me where Jesus says it all counts and can't be changed. Then I'll tell you why it doesn't matter. Oh heck I'll just tell you now. The point of Jesus wasn't to make things that used to be sins not sins anymore. The point of Jesus was that he died for the sins of man so that we could be forgiven even though we sin.
I guess you didn't get the message that Jesus transformed Christianity from a temporal religion to a spiritual, personal religion.
That's all so well and good but rapes, murders, slavery, beheadings for any one of a number of reasons were never sins to begin with and in some places are encouraged. I'm not even sure what your point is? Either follow this so called holy book or don't, you can't pick and choose which bits you like or say well what they actually meant was this because that's somewhere between blasphemy and heresy and to be frank, the rest of us are bored of it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
How many Palestinian civilians do Israelis kill on a regular basis?
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
It depends on what is defined as a terrorist incident.
Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian civilians, for example, would not be listed here - and yet it is religious violence, all the worse because it is state sanctioned and politically acceptable or at the least, tolerated.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
No. Your statements are inaccurate. Muslims do not do much of anything as a group. There are many extremists, who do atrocious things and who are, therefore, foremost in the news and thus in your mind.
You cannot possible prove that 'most' Muslims support such things.
I have lived in Muslim countries and the majority are dominated by the extreme.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Yeah yeah, we can go back throughout history and rehash it all. But let be perfectly honest here. Right now, at this point in time, Radical Islam is a global scourge. I would content that Islam is inherently evil (governed by the sword and all), but I digress. Oh, and let's not forget that the Crusades were the result of Islam; not that all the christians did were justified in any way, but just so you know of the cause and effect here of it all.
So let's see. The Crusades, waged by Europeans in the middle east...wait. What? Europeans in the middle east? What were they doing there to start with?
It's easy to say that only Muslims are violent but the truth is that wherever there is religion, there is prejudice and hate because of that religion.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
And you want to say that beheading people is somehow *representative* of Muslims? Or opposing gays is somehow representative of Christians?
If your answer is "yes", then you really need to widen your horizons, mate - you are painting people with an enormously wide brush if you dare to say that most people sharing a certain religion are murderers.
You are pathetic.
I would like to see some reliable source for that 25% and 70% quotes.
The rest is not really worth commenting on.
That's all so well and good but rapes, murders, slavery, beheadings for any one of a number of reasons were never sins to begin with and in some places are encouraged.
Sounds like Old Testament stories of barbaric pre-Jesus cultures.
I'm not even sure what your point is?
Oh okay, let me remind you. You said, "How about showing you the part where jesus says it all counts and can't be changed?"
I said, "That doesn't matter anyway, and here's why" and explained.
All caught up?
Either follow this so called holy book or don't, you can't pick and choose which bits you like
We've already done that, so you're demonstrably wrong. I guess you don't even know the story of how the Bible was created. You're stewing in your own ignorance.
because that's somewhere between blasphemy and heresy and to be frank, the rest of us are bored of it.
This is so funny. You are a religious extremist! No wonder you think things like "Christianity says to behead people." You're a bag of mixed nuts.
I think you're the one who hasn't kept up, because while that was the initial message, it changed. Even Christians who paid the tax and tried to stay were eventually threatened with death.
IS also said "If you don't want to pay the tax you can leave." Remember that? Yeah that also changed, and they tried to prevent people from leaving or kill them as they left.
Seriously, it's like you read some press releases about IS initially and then turned off your brain. You really have not kept up.
The point of Jesus was that he died for the sins of man so that we could be forgiven even though we sin.
which didn't really have anything to do with what I said. So did no one pre jesus got forgiven for anything? There were a lot more sins back then which may or may not still be sins depending on if you want them to be or not. But hey, you can be forgiven for them now so fuck you.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
My use of an ad hominem was not a fallacy because my conclusion is not based on it. I.e. I did not say "Only an idiot would say that, so it's wrong."
When you said "only an idiot would come to the conclusion that they're about the same or that the US is more extreme", I took this to mean that you were implying that the idiot (per his or her idiocy) would be incorrect, and that they (Balaka and the US Armed Forces) are not about the same and that the US is not more extreme. If this what not what you intended to communicate, then I was indeed wrong, and glad to hear that we're both idiots and agree that Balaka and the US Armed Forces are about the same.
As you noted, my observation was irrelevant to the conclusion. However, I'm sure you realize that being irrelevant and being incorrect are two different things.
Ah, or not. I guess you just favor a style of debate that makes liberal use of non sequitur arguments then?
Those are not all statements of fact, particularly the latter statement. Jihad for the purpose of establishing an Islamic state is in keeping with Islamic values. If you're talking about other behaviors, you'll have to be more explicit. It's a fallacy to depend on abstractions too much because it leads to false equivalences, which I think you may have done.
I similarly question the veracity of your first statement here. A majority of Muslims today will disagree with the claim that Jihad for the purpose of establishing an Islamic state is in keeping with Islamic values.
The claim was that the US Armed Forces is as much a Christian group as Balaka is a Muslim group. That is a different matter. You have to look at the aims of each group, not merely the composition.
Why do I have to do that? I would argue that you have to look at the claimed religion of their members, not merely the aims of each group.
Remember, you said that some could argue that Balaka was merely paying lip service to Islam, just like some groups in America may pay lip service to Christianity.
Indeed, as both Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in violent conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion adopted by their members.
Comparing the goals and methods of the groups, you'll see that supposedly Christian-dominated groups in the US, which are called Christian groups, do very little to promote Christianity within the armed forces or government. In fact if you have done any research on the subject you'll know how careful the US Army is to refrain from appearing "too Christian" by dint of its membership, going so far as to ban people from sending Bibles to troops in Muslim countries.
I didn't mean to make any claims regarding motives of the hostile parties, or tolerance of other religions in their ranks, nor do I think this is relevant to the argument I set forth. If anything, the US Armed Forces' reluctance to appear "too Christian" would seem to indicate that they're keenly aware that people might make the very comparison I'm making.
Muslim groups like Seleka in CAR, on the other hand, have a stated goal of establishing Muslim rule and sharia law over the territory they conquer.
So is that the criteria for a group being religious? Not a majority of their members proclaiming being members of a given religion, but instead a stated desire to establish a theocracy? Perhaps we just disagree on what it means to be religious, and this is the reason why we're in disagreement.
So what evidence do you have that the USAF is as Christian in method, structure, and goals as Seleka is Muslim?
I looked up religious demographics in the US Armed Forces. Roughly 70% Christian. That's my evidence for them being as Christian in membership as Balaka is Muslim (though Balaka is closer to 100% Muslim). I don't see a qualitative difference between 70% homogeneity and 100%.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Except in this case the plank is Islam and and in our eye and the mote is pretty much everything else and in our brother's eye. Or are you saying that the bad things the US has done to its own citizens outweighs the thousands of deaths going on around the world at the hands of Muslims? The rapes, tortures and murders committed by Muslims on a daily basis far outweighs any injustices we see here in our country. Now, if we deal with the real threat to peace on this world, I will gladly join with you on fixing these smaller problems.
Do you simply not know a single thing about what lead up to the the Crusades taking place? Imagine a few hundred years from now, and some ignorant jackass is verbally attacked because of the country they live in. That jackass will likely make the same connection you did when he says, "oh yea? The fucking Americans invaded Europe in the early 1900's and murdered a shitload of Germans! Without reason! Can you imagine the arrogance of such an atrocity?"
Actually they do. They are called upon by Allah to preach peace when outnumbered. As they currently are doing in the USA and in many places in Europe. They are, by the rules of their holy book, required to demand equality and peace. Then, as soon as they are capable, they are to wage silent jihad. That's what many muslims are doing around the world against non-muslims. The third thing they are commanded to do is to annihilate any non-muslims as soon as the muslim population is strong enough. Those are tenants straight out of the Koran and EXACTLY what muslim populations have done in the past when they are both the greater number and fully following their holy book. Look at what the Koran has to say about Medina. The city that welcomed them in and protected them against Christians was then annihilated by those majority of peaceful muslims as soon as they had the power to do so. The same thing plays out all over the middle east and africa on the smaller scale so people try to claim it was only tribal in nature but that's glossing over the FACT that they were acting in accordance to their faith. Many of these large muslim populations are using that first tenant to play it safe, but that doesn't mean the instant a war is waged on a massive scale that they will remain peaceful. Yes, the extremists that blow up things in other countries are the most devout followers, but the demand for blood is in the thoughts of every practicing muslim or they aren't following their holy book and are therefore not technically muslims. At worst they are pretending in order to not face death themselves, but at worst they are simply lying to themselves that its acceptable to pick and choose and still be a muslim.
You seemed to overlook the thousands of rockets a year fired into Israeli villages,(at citizens), or the hundreds of suicide bombs that have killed Israeli citizens as well as the fact that the terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinians was official policy of their state. Even though they publicly denounce these crimes today they still fund it so its the same old shit for them. The bigger issue is that for Israel, the people waging this war against them are not a uniformed army. It is against people hiding among the citizens, and when those citizens refuse to turn them away or fight them they mark themselves as helping these terrorists. I get that its a shitty thing to talk plainly about, but when you are attacked by the citizens of a nation, you attack the citizens of that nation if the government is unwilling to control its population. At some point, these so called innocent Palestinians will either all enter the war against Israel, (if they agree with the terrorists), or they will tire of being lumped in with the terrorists and do their part to fight them. So far, they have decided that getting killed by Israilis, (which the Israeli government warns them in advance when they are going to bomb a neighborhood), is somehow the better choice than fighting against these terrorists causing the problems in the first place. I wonder if these things could be because the government and the people support these terrorist actions? And if they do, they aren't innocent in this process. If they don't, then what possible reason could they ever have for this blind support they give?
If there is no group status for Muslims then it is not possible to talk about Muslims as a group (by definition). If that is your position then I can respectfully disagree with that; I think Muslims have group status, but it's not a point I'm interested in debating. If you reject the notion that Muslims are a coherent group which can be discussed as a whole, then all of my discussion of Muslims as a group cannot be relevant to you, and the rest of what you said makes sense. We simply disagree about a premise.
Of course they were. Because the terms set by IS are awful. They are medieval period lowest caste level of awful. And when people tried to negotiate a better deal, they were told that punishment for such disobedience is death. Which you interpret as "people having being threatened with death". This is completely in line with saying that "US threatens its people with death because it has death penalty".
The fact is that they have a very rigid code of law in IS, which they follow to the letter. Because they are fundamentalists. When you consider that the code was created back in Medieval ages, and that this region is already one of the poorest regions in the world, you begin to understand why it's so hard to live being the lowest social caste in what already is a horrible place to live even as top tier caste. And why tribal leaders generally try to negotiate a better deal, at which point rigid rule of law puts a death sentence for "heresy" on them.
Or alternatively you're whining about people in parts where civil war is still raging being threatened with death. In which case, sit down, as the following statement will shock you to the core. Essentially everyone in the current civil war has been threatened with death by at least two-three factions participating in the conflict. That's how civil wars work. Brother against brother, father against son. Brutality is far more extreme than in nationalist wars because of it, as are "death threats".
And shortly after I type out the answer, here's the evidence:
http://www.euronews.com/2014/1...
Quote:
"The French charity Fraternity in Iraq says that, since August, 120,000 Christians — but also Muslim Yazidis, Kakaïs and Shabaks — have fled ISIL, among them 18,000 children.
They became refugees when ISIL seized control of the area around Mosul on the 10th of June — helping themselves to everything that was left behind.
ISIL threatened the Christians with death unless they paid a tithe for their religion or embraced Islam within a month."
This is today's news from one of the more reputable sources in mass media. Their report is in direct agreement with my point, as bold line shows.
I'm not sure how you got any of that out of what I wrote. Muslims are fine as long as they practice their religion in accordance with secular law. The parts that say kill the unbelievers they'll either ignore or there will be problems.
Actually, I hadn't heard about the beheadings by the Hubbardites, but the torture, even ending in death along with starvation, experimentally wacky medical practices, kidnapping and draining of assets, put them in the ballpark.
I know what is going on, do you have a clue? You sound like you just barfed up a Newsweek blurb.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
No, many religions including the Judeo-Christian types, Buddhists and Vedic -Karnatic types came from a base. Islam may claim the Judeo- Christian base, but it is evident in its origins and philosophies to have fallen out of Mohammeds butt on a bandit/power binge. $cientology happened when Hubbard quit distinguishing between reality and his own fantasies. ( Although I lend some credit to the story of its inception coming from a drinking binge between Hubbard and Heinlein, in which Heinlein sobered up afterward, but Hubbard took the ball and ran)
Nope, many religions have a base. Loads of study, fields of research, mountains of publications are dedicated to this.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
There is no secular law in the region. At all. This is one of the most religious parts of the world in existence.
The only thing you had before in the region was more moderate interpretation of the very same same religious law. Last time you had anything close to secular law in the region was when Assad was in control of it, and even then, religious law basically de facto ruled the land even if it wasn't de jure.
Your entire argument espouses massive ignorance of situation that can only come from living in a completely insulated media bubble which imagines world from Western point of view and assumes that Western style culture is universal. You should really listen to what people who actually live in the region tell about the situation beyond what mass media in the West shows. You'll very quickly realise why IS enjoys so much local support, which is what made so easy for it to conquer and control the huge area they are currently in control of with numbers as small as they have. Because they are quite close to what most locals find not only acceptable, but even desirable - far closer than what Allawite rule of Assad and his quite secular law brought them.
I want to emphasize this point: the concept of secular law is very alien to local culture in the region and is viewed by most locals to be either Assad's a sign of Western corruption and decadence.
Here, take a look at footage that Vice news outlet shot inside IS itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And while your angle of "we'll kill if you if you don't accept our style of secular law" points them as acting in self defense to protect their beliefs against you. Which is exactly how our media is currently painting our fight against IS - they are saying that "we must accept their religious law of they will kill us". As a result, your argument is directly comparable to that of IS. Both your angle and your threat of consequences mirror each other.
What are you smoking? I want to be left alone and leave others alone. They want to be left alone to fuck others over. I can see the difference even if you refuse to. And, you and they will leave me alone or there will be negative consequences. I'm not like the people over there that lay down before these cocksuckers.
I am "smoking" reality. This is an interconnected world. They are the ones currently being bombed by us - not the other way around. And it's us that reject their culture to the point where their culture had to reject us just to be allowed to exist at this point.
You clearly think that living in a bubble is a correct way to live. That is your choice. I'm merely pointing out that so far, we are the ones who enabled IS to become what they are. Continuing with those policies is highly unlikely to bring anything other than more IS style organisations around the world gaining even more power. In other words, your stated intent and obvious consequence of your suggested actions have been exact opposites throughout recent and less recent history.
And the infamous quote still goes that definition of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect different outcome. As you are apparently doing.
I reject your argument in it's entirety. I'm easy to live with. I generally ignore things that offend me and I make reasonable efforts not to offend others. If everyone practiced that most of these problems would go away. Where I draw the line is when others try to force their beliefs on me. This works well and I believe if places like Iraq adopted this practice their country would cease to be a battle ground. Novel idea I know. Probably never catch on. If ISIS stops killing people do you imagine we'd still drop bombs on them?
No, because states kill people. Would you stop killing people in far greater numbers, far outside your borders if people started to drop bombs on you?
I imagine I'd just ramp up the violence. Right now it's nothing but a small police action to try to get ISIS to stop slaughtering and raping their neighbors. Personally I don't agree with my President's actions. Trying to fix a problem that's been going on for centuries in less than a generation is not possible. ISIS is more of a problem for Iran than it is for me at this time. I'm about fed up enough with the entire situation to say to hell with all of it. Unless we post a permanent force there to keep the peace it will immediately revert the moment we depart. Enough. Equip the Kurds with modern weaponry since they appear to have the balls to fight for themselves and to hell with the rest.
In other words, your preferred solution is go the route of Stalinism. No people, no problem.
It's certainly an attractive solution, until you realise that the entire world is against you now and you're the one about to go the way of the dodo as a result and that your own people are rising against you because they view you as a far worse kind of a monster than those you argued such means were necessary to fight against.
What the fuck is wrong with you? I said no such thing. You keep making up things so you can argue with yourself. I said it's time to let them handle their own fucking problems. They've been slaughtering each other for hundreds of years and we can't fix it in one generation. Stalinism my ass you fucking idiot.
Your idea is to arm people who have been oppressed for centuries if not millenia with weapons far better than what their ethnically divergent opposition has and then sic them on this opposition.
Your pretentious attempt at not seeing the obvious consequence of such actions in no way absolves you of fault.
I'm talking about arming people who are getting slaughtered by an oppressive group who think rape and torture of helpless people is a good thing. You seem to think it's every fanatical follower of Mohammed's God given right to kill, rape and torture with impunity. If anyone dare to object they are oppressing the muslims. I admit it, I think it's okay to arm people to defend themselves from a rapacious, fanatical bunch of blood thirsty jihadists. Guilty as charged.
I love your assumption that Kurds are somehow different and that when they get the power, they won't just start grabbing land and killing those who oppose them. Though considering the angle pushed in Western mass media, I can understand where this misunderstanding would come from.
There's a reason why Turkey is so afraid of even allowing Kurds through to give them combat experience and why it's so adamantly thinking that Kurds are a lesser threat to it than IS. Same goes for Iran, and even Iraq is weary, even though it has been basically split apart by IS. Kurds are the old school terrorists when they got the upper hand, who slaughtered non-Kurdish civilians from time long before 9/11 if they got the chance to do so on the lands they claim to be theirs. Just like Turks, Iranians and Iraqis did to them when they got the upper hand. There's enough bad blood running in the region to ensure that arming any entity to fight against another will cause a genocide. Just like arming Shiites against Sunni cause effective genocide in Iraq over last ten or so years, which resulted in IS taking the pro-Sunni mantle and taking over Sunni lands in Syria and Iraq with most of the locals' blessing.
Obvious mistake: "why Turkey thinks that Kurds are a greater threat than IS".
And P.S. Kurds are fanatical followers of that same god. They just rarely got to be the top dogs who needed religion to base brutality on, when they had their statehood as a suitable driver for men to join their military.
I doubt they could be any worse than the current nastys. It'd sure take a lot of effort. At this moment the Kurds look like angels compared to the bastards running ISIS.
"Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe; and others see them as confident, aggressive, papal-led expansion attempts by Western Christendom."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
The crusades were just a continuation of continual battles for land, power struggle with religion as an excuse and motivator for the lower masses, along with the possible increase in wealth for the poor by the prospect of pillage and a certain increase in the wealth of the already wealthy buy just not giving back the lands conquered.
All sides committed atrocities, the Christians included.
From the same source:
"The crusaders often pillaged the countries through which they traveled in the typical medieval manner of supplying an army on the move."
"Nobles often retained much of the territory gained rather than returning it to the Byzantines as they had sworn to do"
"The Peoples' Crusade prompted Rhineland massacres and the murder of thousands of Jews"
So stop acting like the Christians were the good guys. They were just as bad as everyone else in those days.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Actually they do. They are called upon by Allah to preach peace when outnumbered. As they currently are doing in the USA and in many places in Europe. They are, by the rules of their holy book, required to demand equality and peace. Then, as soon as they are capable, they are to wage silent jihad. That's what many muslims are doing around the world against non-muslims. The third thing they are commanded to do is to annihilate any non-muslims as soon as the muslim population is strong enough. Those are tenants straight out of the Koran and EXACTLY what muslim populations have done in the past when they are both the greater number and fully following their holy book. Look at what the Koran has to say about Medina. The city that welcomed them in and protected them against Christians was then annihilated by those majority of peaceful muslims as soon as they had the power to do so. The same thing plays out all over the middle east and africa on the smaller scale so people try to claim it was only tribal in nature but that's glossing over the FACT that they were acting in accordance to their faith. Many of these large muslim populations are using that first tenant to play it safe, but that doesn't mean the instant a war is waged on a massive scale that they will remain peaceful. Yes, the extremists that blow up things in other countries are the most devout followers, but the demand for blood is in the thoughts of every practicing muslim or they aren't following their holy book and are therefore not technically muslims. At worst they are pretending in order to not face death themselves, but at worst they are simply lying to themselves that its acceptable to pick and choose and still be a muslim.
And how many times have Christians annihilated Muslim and other populations throughout history? Have you forgotten the Inquisition, perhaps, where Catholics tortured and killed how many of even their own faith? You look only from your perspective and you see only the good that your people do, never the bad.
How many Muslim countries have you actually lived in, among the people?
I have lived in several and none of the people there tried to kill me even though I was very clearly neither of their religion, nor likely to become so. Obviously they outnumbered me and if they had wished me harm they could easily have done so.
"Yes, the extremists that blow up things in other countries are the most devout followers, but the demand for blood is in the thoughts of every practicing muslim or they aren't following their holy book and are therefore not technically muslims."
The exact same has been said of US citizens who voted for or failed to prevent the rise of the government that bombs and kills innumerable Muslim civilians.
With regard to you saying that those who are not demanding blood not being real Muslims...you are being irrational in your hatred.
What about Christians who do not follow the violence proscribed in the bible? Are they not 'real' Christians?
In all cases, not only in Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, etc, etc, etc, religious doctrine is used and misused to incite hatred and violence to manipulate people into attacking others so that those in power will benefit.
I do not justify or glorify that done by Muslims in their hate against others (including other Muslims), but neither am I blind to the violence done by Catholics, Christians, Protestants, Jews and all the rest when it suits them.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
You seemed to overlook the thousands of rockets a year fired into Israeli villages,(at citizens), or the hundreds of suicide bombs that have killed Israeli citizens as well as the fact that the terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinians was official policy of their state. Even though they publicly denounce these crimes today they still fund it so its the same old shit for them. The bigger issue is that for Israel, the people waging this war against them are not a uniformed army. It is against people hiding among the citizens, and when those citizens refuse to turn them away or fight them they mark themselves as helping these terrorists. I get that its a shitty thing to talk plainly about, but when you are attacked by the citizens of a nation, you attack the citizens of that nation if the government is unwilling to control its population. At some point, these so called innocent Palestinians will either all enter the war against Israel, (if they agree with the terrorists), or they will tire of being lumped in with the terrorists and do their part to fight them. So far, they have decided that getting killed by Israilis, (which the Israeli government warns them in advance when they are going to bomb a neighborhood), is somehow the better choice than fighting against these terrorists causing the problems in the first place. I wonder if these things could be because the government and the people support these terrorist actions? And if they do, they aren't innocent in this process. If they don't, then what possible reason could they ever have for this blind support they give?
Of course I don't overlook it, and I do not condone attacks against any civilian population.
A uniformed army? Do you really see that as an option? :-D If you were fighting a guerrilla war against a vastly superior military force who oppresses your people to the point where food and medicine have to be smuggled in by tunnel would you be stupid enough to wear a uniform? Don't be ridiculous.
The Palestinians are killed out of hand by the Israelis, who would prefer to kill 100 Palestinian children by shelling than to let one of their own soldiers die in a ground war and I don't condone that either.
Do you understand just how small the area is that we are talking about? 3 kilometers wide. How in the world do you expect civilians to actually be able to get far enough from the fighting that spans the entire breadth of the occupied territory?
Israel warns in advance...yeah maybe, and maybe not - and then attacks where they have been told there is a UN school in a UN compound. You eat propaganda like a starving child eats anything available. Not to mention that Israelis are as likely as non-Israelis to break ceasefires. In fact the best that I read was the ceasefire that would take effect except where Israeli soldiers were operating. That's really very useful!!! Total and completely useless propaganda is what it is.
You blame the civilians for not overthrowing their government. You say they are not innocent (presumably the babies are just as guilty!!) for this reason and so are justifiable targets.
Doesn't that make you a justifiable target in the eyes of those losing (innocent in many cases, babies, for example) loved ones to American or Israeli attacks?
You see only one side. That is racism and you are as guilty as any of them.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Not even hard. Western media doesn't talk about it, but Shiite militias in Iraq are currently doing the exact same thing IS is doing. There are reports of entire Sunni villages wiped out by them all over the Iraq that is still controlled by the Iraqi government in revenge to IS. And before IS came, same militias were wiping out entire villages in the Northern and Western Iraq, which is what made it so easy for IS to take over. Sunni in the region were widely oppressed and welcomed pro-Sunni IS with open arms.
Kurds would do the exactly same thing if they got guns and manpower. The only reason they look reasonable now is because they are relatively powerless. For example, their military is called "Peshmerga". Literally "those in front of death". Western interpretation of the translation has been "those who face death" to give it a positive spin.
In reality however, same term can be applied to suicide bombers of IS, and it is in fact well documented that Kurds have used suicide bombings to achieve their objectives in Turkey, just like IS did in Syria and Iraq. And Kurds already have carried suicide attacks against IS, even using women. Last such attack occurred last week.
In case you're doubting it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
I guess they prefer blowing themselves and their enemies up to being raped and tortured. Can't say I blame them.
And yet, you are blaming Sunnis in the region for that very same thing.
Which gets us to my final inevitable point, which is always were the discussion about "evil terrorists" with your average uninformed person arrives. Hypocrisy and double standards.
First off, I was in Israel and Palestine and have seen both sides. You are so full of shit. There are so many wrong statements in your response its actually difficult to keep it all in mind while responding. You are the pathetic mouth piece of ignorance. You consider people who stand by while rockets and mortars are stored inside of and fired from the roofs of their homes as innocent? If rockets are fired from a building, that building will be blown up. Just how stupid are you claiming these people to be if they choose to keep their children there on the exact day they are told its going to be bombed? The government and the people there want their civilians to die in order to further their propaganda machine. You consider actions justified when they fire purposefully on civilian targets? Sorry asshat but I watched rockets fall into a neighborhood of nothing but civilians. The rockets that Israel fired back? They were fired at houses where the rockets came from. You are so fucking blind its sad. Why was the UN school devoid of UN workers? That's right, because it had been taken over and was being used as a base of operations. These people aren't targeting Israeli military targets they are targeting civilians. That's the difference. One side purposefully targets civilians and the other hits civilians while targeting the people who fired the rockets. Is it Israel's fault that they are so far beyond Palestine in their ability to fight? Should a six foot tall, well built man stand their and keep taking slaps from a smaller person? Should that larger man feel bad when he finally slaps back and it breaks the smaller persons' jaw? Bummer for the smaller person for being too fucking stupid.
You really need to pull your head out of your ass and head on over to Palestine. Find out exactly how little innocence there is. You call me a racist? Racist is teaching your children that an entire people must be murdered for there to be peace in the world. I never heard Israeli kids spouting that type of garbage.
I don't support rape and torture which apparently you do. I don't support either side doing it while you support your favorite group for doing it. You support ISIS in their campaign to rape and murder those who don't see things their way and object to anyone attacking ISIS to try to get them to stop. I don't really support attacking ISIS, I just want to arm the Kurds so they can protect themselves from people who obviously can not be reasoned with. Why you continue with this nonsense I have no idea. When and if the Kurds start raping and murderning innocent Sunnis then I think we should abandon them but it appears the Kurds can at least pretend to be civilized which ISIS fails at.
Ah yes, the standard strategy of US based populists who lose the argument. Ignore the argument entirely after losing it by accusing your opponent of being pro-rape. After all, if he/she is pro-rape, no one would listen to them and everyone would forget your spectacular failure in the argument.
In this case, you clearly demonstrated that your only interest in the matter is to be able to ignore your own hypocrisy and ignorance and not have your nice black and white world shaken with facts and reality. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that we walked full circle, you have admitted to the fact that you don't actually mind rape, murder, terrorism and suicide bombings at all as long as "these people who I think are good guys that are blowing the bad guys up". And then, you go back to "well, I don't like rape, murder, terrorism and suicide bombings, and those guys I like, they probably won't do them".
In spite of being showed concrete examples that they have been doing this for decades, long before the current "bad guys" even formed their group.
More lies upon lies. For decades Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron boot. I don't think the Kurds did much but die on his watch. Your continued lies and support of rape and murder show who and what you are. I never said I didn't mind rape and murder, not one time you lying pissant. I said arm the Kurds so they could defend themselves. While Saddam was in charge the only one doing the rape and murder were Saddam and his Sons and their lackeys. You can't justify what ISIS is doing to anyone sane. Give it up.
Fair enough, I think there's a varied level of law and order within ISIS. The things you're posting are bad but lawful. But I've also read reports of things like forcing people to convert and then proving they have really converted by doing things like giving their daughters or sisters to fighters.
Regardless, look back at what you said: "As long as you muslims stay oppressed and nomadic, Christians are cool with you. Try to settle down and you'll be run out of town. Try to demand to have the same rights and you'll be called jihadists.
Gotta say, you sure sound a lot like IS."
Now contrast that message with what ISIS is doing (convert, pay tax, or flee/die). Christians were already oppressed in Iraq and Syria. They are not nomadic because that's their culture. They did not demand the same rights as Muslims. They just wanted to be left alone. But ISIS is not "cool with them" over that barebones existence.
And that was in response to "I personally think the Muslim religion is a crock of shit but as long as they go bow toward Mecca and pray to Allah without trying to force me to I'm fine with it. When they start with the jihad crap I'm fine with killing the hell out of them too."
I just don't see how you are reconciling what that person said with what ISIS actually does. They are very far from being fine with things as long as the Christians don't try to impose their religion on them... they are seeking out Christians and putting extreme pressure on them to drop their religion.
Who is doing that to Muslims, either in comments here or in reality?
So, let me get this straight, pre jesus Christianity doesn't matter and what jesus said doesn't matter?
What??
Are you being deliberately dense? I actually feel sorry for you because I think you have a problem.
To Christians, what Jesus said matters more than what the Old Testament said. That's what we're talking about, remember?
which didn't really have anything to do with what I said. So did no one pre jesus got forgiven for anything?
Pre-Jesus, many sins had physical, temporal punishments prescribed for them. So if you did X, you got Y. Example: if you commit adultery, you get stoned.
Post-Jesus, it's "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus changed it up so that punishments for sins are meted out by God himself, after you die. So yeah, basically there's no punishment. And yeah, in post-Jesus times, Christians believe you can live a life of 100% sin and be completely evil, and then at the last minute you truly repent and ask forgiveness, and you are actually forgiven by God and nothing bad happens to you! As long as the repentance and stuff is real... but don't worry, only God knows if it's real. It doesn't matter if other people believe you or not.
This stuff is really basic. You clearly know jack squat about Christianity, or you have an actual mental problem like I said above.
How do you not know this stuff? Do you not live in a Western culture?
In reality?
Off the top of my head: Buddhists (Sri Lanka, India, smaller nations in East Asia), Hindus (mostly India), Christians (all across Africa like in CAR and Nigeria)
Translation: you no longer have an argument, you got caught in your circular logic and you refuse to get your head out of the sand.
As noted before, when US and Russia armed Saddam, he was raping and murdering. When US armed Shias, they did the exact same thing - went to rape and murder Sunnis and Kurds. They do it to this day by the way, which is the main reason why Baghdad is barely holding and majority of Sunnis around Baghdad are welcoming IS and joining its ranks.
And now, you are suggesting we do it to Kurds.
Definition of insanity is to do the same thing while expecting different results. Clearly, you are insane.
I never heard Israeli kids spouting that type of garbage.
How very surprising, when it is exactly that which you are screaming.
And yes, I call you a racist.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
You've got no argument so you substitute lies. It's a pointless discussion. You still support ISIS in it's program of rape and murder of the helpless which tells me who and what you are. Go away and try to get someone else to swallow your pathetic lies.
I love how by your suggesting we should arm more people for raping and murdering, I'm the one who supports rape and murder.
Truly, the initial diagnosis appears to be spot on. You are insane.
Never once have you condemned ISIS for their actions. All I hear is excuses. It's someone else fault they murder and rape. And you think I'm insane? Peddle your lame lies elsewhere.
Ah yes, this is about placing blame. Not about solutions or problems, but blame. Because blame matters, while problems and solutions don't.
You are getting more and more off your rockers with every post.
Your solution is to let ISIS continue it's ways with no interference. To let the Kurds be exterminated by keeping them helpless. Sure, that's a solution. I like how you never answer but just shift the subject a little. Still you refuse to acknowledge the murder and rape that ISIS perpetrates. That's your solution.
I offered a solution?
Quote me doing so. Please note that your hallucinations do not count. I understand that it may be hard to differentiate with you being insane, but try.
Sure you offer a solution. Nothing. Doing nothing means the rape and murder you support continues. And that....is your solution. Trying to convince people that ISIS are the victims and yet you call me insane?
Irrelevant. You clearly stated that "Your solution is to let ISIS continue it's ways with no interference." I'm still waiting for that quote where I suggested any kind of a solution at all.
I've had enough of your bullshit, lying and insanity. Quote me or admit you don't have a clue.
And still you just ignore what I say and say I said something else. Your circular logic just goes round and round. This started with you saying the whole thing is our fault and I stated to hell with it all just arm the Kurds so they could defend themselves. I guess you're still where you were and I'm still where I was. I think we should arm the Kurds to let them protect themselves. All your bullshit aside, that's my position, feel free to disagree and good night.
You're still not providing the quote and trying to dodge the subject.
Quote me on what you claimed I said or admit you are lying.