The Beheading

[Texsox]

They ARE Muslim.

 

No matter how far they distort and twist the religion?

[Jenksismyhero]

No matter how far they distort and twist the religion?

 

Yes. I think that's a matter of practice, not affiliation. And given what a lot of Muslims do in the name of their religion that we may fine distorted or twisted (treatment of women, punishments, etc) doesn't mean they're any less Muslim. I doubt you could come up with a clear definition for any religious group if you're going to hold them to some strict standard of practice. There are all sorts of variations out there. Some people ignore a lot of what's in the Bible/Quran, others don't. ISIS follows the Quran to the extreme. They're still following it though.

 

And again, I don't really care if Obama calls them an Islamic group or not. I was criticizing him more for not stating their motive, which is to kill all non-"Muslims."

[Texsox]

That just doesn't seem right to me. If Gacy said he killed all those boys because it is the Christian thing to do and he's a Christian, we'd call it a Christian killing? When you have a billion people on one side and a thousands on the other, it just doesn't compute with me.

 

I still like Bush's message, we are against evil, not Islam. That has carried forward to Obama.

 

I don't know, but we've probably have nothing left to explore with the topic. In the end it is the action we can take that will mean more than the rhetoric that surrounds it.

[Jenksismyhero]

That just doesn't seem right to me. If Gacy said he killed all those boys because it is the Christian thing to do and he's a Christian, we'd call it a Christian killing? When you have a billion people on one side and a thousands on the other, it just doesn't compute with me.

 

I still like Bush's message, we are against evil, not Islam. That has carried forward to Obama.

 

I don't know, but we've probably have nothing left to explore with the topic. In the end it is the action we can take that will mean more than the rhetoric that surrounds it.

 

If he prayed to God and followed the major tenants and practices of the religion and just used some twisted reading to justify his acts, I don't see how that stops him from being a Christian. At what point do you stop being Christian? By doing a single act against Christian teaching? That'd knock a LOT of people out.

 

 

[Texsox]

So he is still a Christian, then would you say that Christians are committing those crimes?

 

If you decide that God is telling you to kill all non Christians, is that considered a Christian act? If someone seeks revenge and kills in cold blood a murder and justifies it as an eye for an eye, are they doing it because they are a Christian or they are evil/mentally ill/ etc.?

 

 

And if he did make the statements as you want, how will that help end terrorism? The argument against is it causes some Muslims to fee, offended by the US and radicalizes more of them. Even if that is not true, how will saying that Muslims are using terrorism against non Muslims going to stop the violence?

[caulfield12]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...tyrs-72-virgins

 

For example, the whole idea of martyrs isn't attributable to the Koran.

 

Nothing in the Koran specifically states that the faithful are allotted 72 virgins apiece. For this elaboration we turn to the hadith, traditional sayings traced with varying degrees of credibility to Muhammad. Hadith number 2,562 in the collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmidhi says, "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

 

 

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

On the other hand, there's this...

 

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

 

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

[Jenksismyhero]

So he is still a Christian, then would you say that Christians are committing those crimes?

 

If you decide that God is telling you to kill all non Christians, is that considered a Christian act? If someone seeks revenge and kills in cold blood a murder and justifies it as an eye for an eye, are they doing it because they are a Christian or they are evil/mentally ill/ etc.?

 

 

And if he did make the statements as you want, how will that help end terrorism? The argument against is it causes some Muslims to fee, offended by the US and radicalizes more of them. Even if that is not true, how will saying that Muslims are using terrorism against non Muslims going to stop the violence?

 

He's a Christian. He's also an extremist/psychotic one with a warped and distorted understanding of Christian ideology. Not sure why this is so complicated. Obama isn't forced to label ISIS members broadly as just Muslims. He can say they're extremists, terrorists, etc.

 

And you're still not getting it. I want Obama to state the facts regarding their motive. E.g., like today, ISIS kidnapped 90-100 Assyrian Christians. It wasn't a "random" kidnapping. It was clearly deliberate.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/...N0LS0MH20150224

Edited February 24, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Cknolls]

He's a Christian. He's also an extremist/psychotic one with a warped and distorted understanding of Christian ideology. Not sure why this is so complicated. Obama isn't forced to label ISIS members broadly as just Muslims. He can say they're extremists, terrorists, etc.

 

And you're still not getting it. I want Obama to state the facts regarding their motive. E.g., like today, ISIS kidnapped 90-100 Assyrian Christians. It wasn't a "random" kidnapping. It was clearly deliberate.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/...N0LS0MH20150224

 

Well it was random because ISIS didn't know those exact people would be where they were when they were there, so by all accounts according to the brain trust in the White House, it was random.

[caulfield12]

Depends on what the definition or "random" is, these last 5+ pages of thread...

[Texsox]

He's a Christian. He's also an extremist/psychotic one with a warped and distorted understanding of Christian ideology. Not sure why this is so complicated. Obama isn't forced to label ISIS members broadly as just Muslims. He can say they're extremists, terrorists, etc.

 

And you're still not getting it. I want Obama to state the facts regarding their motive. E.g., like today, ISIS kidnapped 90-100 Assyrian Christians. It wasn't a "random" kidnapping. It was clearly deliberate.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/...N0LS0MH20150224

 

It's complicated because you treat religion like race or nationality, something that you are born with and can't change. I don't believe that. People are lead into religions all the time, and away from them. Christians convert to Judaism, Jews accept Jesus, and as we have seen, some people move from Muslim, to something not Muslim. Religion is a belief and when you stop believing in that religion, you stop being that religion. That doesn't seem complicated to me. When you distort a religion to the point you no longer believe in the mainline principles of that religion, you should not be labeled with that religion.

 

 

 

And once again I ask, how will Obama stating the facts as you believe them help to stop the growth of terrorism? That should be the goal. Stopping this stuff. I've stated why some people believe that by carefully not insulting mainstream Muslims for the acts by those who have distorted the religion into something else that helps to stop the some of the fringe Muslims from becoming radicalized. Keep it simple for me, what is your counter argument?

 

Also, by your definition there are no random crimes. The Colorado theater shooting wasn't random, he planned it. The Oklahoma bombing wasn't random, he planned it. You get killed in a drive by in Arlington Heights, not random because someone planned it. Other people see randomness in those crimes. They view non random crimes when someone targets a specific victim. If the Colorado shooter went into the theater to kill that b**** usher who made him turn off his cell phone, not random. If the OK Bomber wanted to kill those children who walked across his lawn, not random.

 

If a murderer wakes up this morning and decides to kill the first person he sees who isn't wearing gloves, is that random or not? Your argument is that is not a random crime, it was planned out and he selected a victim based on a criteria. There probably needs to be a better word than deliberate or random. I agree random is not exactly what it was, but the specific persons were not picked out. Anyone fitting that description could have been killed that day. So these guys killed any random person who looked like they believe in Christ. Oddly, the terrorists seem to have a way of knowing who has accepted Jesus Christ as their savior when abducting them.

 

As a Christian yourself, you certainly see the differences that other people see? You might not accept them, but at least you see where people seethe randomness in finding people on the street, thinking they are Christian, and kidnapping them.

 

 

[caulfield12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_shopping_mall_attack

 

This would an example of a terrorist attack which was random but certainly not random in the targets selected...any non-Muslims, or at least anyone who couldn't quote from the Koran/Quran. Actually, the more that you think about it, even though it seems random to people in the mall, strategically targeting upscale shopping malls and/or hotels (like the Mumbai attacks) is anything but random.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/al-shabab-threatens-...TI3XzEEc2VjA3Nj

Al Shabab threatening US/Canadian/UK malls, and countermeasures being taken.

 

 

To echo what Tex has already asked, what difference would it make if the President stated tomorrow that "we are at war with radical Muslims who are misinterpreting the Koran for their own nefarious/terrorist purposes"?

 

Maybe you would say we shouldn't imply a war, but then what terminology would be aggressive enough to satisfy? And actually make a difference?

 

In reality, "boots on the ground" really hasn't made a significant difference in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan or any region of the Middle East. Most would argue things are no better, and probably worse than they were 20-25 years ago. That Egypt, Libya and Iraq were better off. Others would mightily disagree, depending upon their agenda and political perspective.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-giuliani...-130217052.html

This debate between Stewart, O'Reilly and Guiliani's camp illustrates the issue.

 

So if Obama is responsible for ISIS/ISIL, etc., then what should he have done differently? Print more to money for yet another ground war in the region when the U.S. economy was just starting to turn around? Then he would be accused of blowing up the budget and running even bigger deficits by the fiscal hawks/Tea Party.

 

What would Rand Paul do?

Edited February 25, 2015 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

It's complicated because you treat religion like race or nationality, something that you are born with and can't change. I don't believe that. People are lead into religions all the time, and away from them. Christians convert to Judaism, Jews accept Jesus, and as we have seen, some people move from Muslim, to something not Muslim. Religion is a belief and when you stop believing in that religion, you stop being that religion. That doesn't seem complicated to me. When you distort a religion to the point you no longer believe in the mainline principles of that religion, you should not be labeled with that religion.

 

Yeah, and they REALLY believe in their religion. This isn't some made up religion or some Joseph Smith version of a religion, it's just the Islamic religion to the extreme. And they're taking a lot of "judgement" calls of the religion in ways that most of the Muslim faithful ignore (I say mostly because a lot of Muslims still treat women terribly, perform executions for apostasy, etc.)

 

And once again I ask, how will Obama stating the facts as you believe them help to stop the growth of terrorism? That should be the goal. Stopping this stuff. I've stated why some people believe that by carefully not insulting mainstream Muslims for the acts by those who have distorted the religion into something else that helps to stop the some of the fringe Muslims from becoming radicalized. Keep it simple for me, what is your counter argument?

 

Ok, first off you haven't. There are a million ways to explain how this group is targeting other religious people without condemning all Muslims and declaring war on Islam. You're coming from that starting point which is just not part of reality.

 

Second, I've told you before Obama doesn't even have to use the word Muslim or Islam in his statements. He can simply state this group of terrorists were targeting Christians and Jews. They weren't random people who just happened to walk by.

 

Third, stating motive will put cast this group in a negative light, more so than pretending like what they're doing isn't pre-meditated. Would we have attacked the KKK or the Nazi's in our propaganda/PR wars by calling their atrocities merely "random" acts of violence? Or was it pretty integral to paint them as the awful people they were, targeting blacks, jews, homosexuals, the disabled, etc. Perhaps those independent Muslims out there wouldn't be so concerned about the US offending them as they would be terrified of a group that is killing anyone that doesn't think like them, including Muslims for not being Muslim-enough.

 

There is literally nothing to be gained from poo-pooing the acts of ISIS away, as if it's no big thing. If you're going to make a statement about it, make it truthful and honest. Don't be a giant p**** about it.

 

Also, by your definition there are no random crimes. The Colorado theater shooting wasn't random, he planned it. The Oklahoma bombing wasn't random, he planned it. You get killed in a drive by in Arlington Heights, not random because someone planned it. Other people see randomness in those crimes. They view non random crimes when someone targets a specific victim. If the Colorado shooter went into the theater to kill that b**** usher who made him turn off his cell phone, not random. If the OK Bomber wanted to kill those children who walked across his lawn, not random.

 

Random is when someone flies of the handle and starts killing people in the heat of the moment. Random is someone in the moment deciding to do something terrible.

 

Random is not something that requires pre-planning, or a willful intent to do something. Are you suggesting that just because a mass-murderer didn't intend to kill specific individuals, his pre-meditated attack on a building full of people is random? Seriously?

 

If a murderer wakes up this morning and decides to kill the first person he sees who isn't wearing gloves, is that random or not? Your argument is that is not a random crime, it was planned out and he selected a victim based on a criteria. There probably needs to be a better word than deliberate or random. I agree random is not exactly what it was, but the specific persons were not picked out. Anyone fitting that description could have been killed that day. So these guys killed any random person who looked like they believe in Christ. Oddly, the terrorists seem to have a way of knowing who has accepted Jesus Christ as their savior when abducting them.

 

As a Christian yourself, you certainly see the differences that other people see? You might not accept them, but at least you see where people seethe randomness in finding people on the street, thinking they are Christian, and kidnapping them.

 

That's not random. He intended to kill someone in a certain manner. His VICTIM might be random, the act is not. When ISIS kidnaps a group of people, or attacks a synagogue, or a Christian town [again, not random places], that's a specific, pre-planned, pre-meditated act of violence. There's nothing random about it except the unfortunate victims. Under your incredibly strange definition here, 9/11 was merely a random act of violence. I dunno how you can say that seriously.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_shopping_mall_attack

 

This would an example of a terrorist attack which was random but certainly not random in the targets selected...any non-Muslims, or at least anyone who couldn't quote from the Koran/Quran. Actually, the more that you think about it, even though it seems random to people in the mall, strategically targeting upscale shopping malls and/or hotels (like the Mumbai attacks) is anything but random.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/al-shabab-threatens-...TI3XzEEc2VjA3Nj

Al Shabab threatening US/Canadian/UK malls, and countermeasures being taken.

 

 

To echo what Tex has already asked, what difference would it make if the President stated tomorrow that "we are at war with radical Muslims who are misinterpreting the Koran for their own nefarious/terrorist purposes"?

 

Maybe you would say we shouldn't imply a war, but then what terminology would be aggressive enough to satisfy? And actually make a difference?

 

In reality, "boots on the ground" really hasn't made a significant difference in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan or any region of the Middle East. Most would argue things are no better, and probably worse than they were 20-25 years ago. That Egypt, Libya and Iraq were better off. Others would mightily disagree, depending upon their agenda and political perspective.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-giuliani...-130217052.html

This debate between Stewart, O'Reilly and Guiliani's camp illustrates the issue.

 

So if Obama is responsible for ISIS/ISIL, etc., then what should he have done differently? Print more to money for yet another ground war in the region when the U.S. economy was just starting to turn around? Then he would be accused of blowing up the budget and running even bigger deficits by the fiscal hawks/Tea Party.

 

What would Rand Paul do?

 

I want him to call out the fact that they are targeting specific types of people. That what they're doing is not random, like some crazy person who goes on a killing spree. They are deliberate in what they do. They have a vision and goal for what they're doing.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Somewhat related:

 

I don't really understand this:

The Associated Press ‏@AP 20m20 minutes ago

 

BREAKING: Feds: 3 arrested in NY, Florida on charges they plotted to go to Syria to join Islamic State.

 

Isn't that pre-crime? Have you done anything wrong by planning to go support terrorists without actually supporting them yet?

 

edit: ok, looks like there were some actual plots:

 

http://mashable.com/2015/02/25/brooklyn-ar...om-Tw-main-link

Edited February 25, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

I just finished reading your responses. I assume the questions are rhetorical. Thank you.

[Kyyle23]

Somewhat related:

 

I don't really understand this:

 

 

Isn't that pre-crime? Have you done anything wrong by planning to go support terrorists without actually supporting them yet?

 

edit: ok, looks like there were some actual plots:

 

http://mashable.com/2015/02/25/brooklyn-ar...om-Tw-main-link

 

The precrime unit in NY has the best precogs

[Balta1701]

Daesh kidnaps ~100 local Sunni Tribesmen in the area around Tikrit, seemingly to keep them from allying with the army during any spring offensives.

 

Why won't Obama say that these guys are clearly targeting all Sunni muslims? Their victims are overwhelmingly muslims. The president should be ashamed for not acknowledging that constantly.

[Texsox]

Daesh kidnaps ~100 local Sunni Tribesmen in the area around Tikrit, seemingly to keep them from allying with the army during any spring offensives.

 

Why won't Obama say that these guys are clearly targeting all Sunni muslims? Their victims are overwhelmingly muslims. The president should be ashamed for not acknowledging that constantly.

 

A wee bit of green in there.

 

I'll stay consistent with my comment that every situation is different and each should be analysed for the best response. No one size fits none approach.

[caulfield12]

http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-intervi...-160100857.html

 

Rand Paul's solution....basically, is to only arm the Kurds.

[Jenksismyhero]

Daesh kidnaps ~100 local Sunni Tribesmen in the area around Tikrit, seemingly to keep them from allying with the army during any spring offensives.

 

Why won't Obama say that these guys are clearly targeting all Sunni muslims? Their victims are overwhelmingly muslims. The president should be ashamed for not acknowledging that constantly.

 

Cute.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/n..._n_6759626.html

 

"Random acts of vandalism."

[caulfield12]

American secularist writer hacked to death in Bangladesh.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/28/asia/banglad...dead/index.html

[Jenksismyhero]

Jesus, didn't read this until today:

 

http://gawker.com/graphic-execution-video-..._source=taboola

[greg775]

Did u see there have been random killings today. 30 some dead at a resort overseas. A beheading that was random. I'm telling you, the world is a cesspool right now. Anybody who travels outside this country right now is a fool IMO. You can be killed anywhere as an American target.

[caulfield12]

Did u see there have been random killings today. 30 some dead at a resort overseas. A beheading that was random. I'm telling you, the world is a cesspool right now. Anybody who travels outside this country right now is a fool IMO. You can be killed anywhere as an American target.

 

It's not that bad. Probably wouldnt want to go to the Middle East...in 2013, when I was in Kenya, I passed on Egypt but the same shopping mall (in Nairobi) we went to everyday was taken over by Somalian terrorists and all non-Muslim were executed.

 

Luckily I had already left three weeks earlier.