Can the West Live with ISIS?

[+and-then]

How this ISIS group gets people to join is beyond my imagination. And according to what I read recently, ISIS only has 15,000

Yet look at what they accomplish

I think it's because they are tapping into a real reservoir of hate within the Sunni community in Iraq. And THAT can be traced back to the raw deal Maliki has given them while WE just looked on impotently under this current admin. Had the power and wealth in Iraq been equally shared (as was the ostensible plan) then this all might have been avoided. But when the wheels came off Oby was on the back nine I guess and couldn't be bothered. I hope Americans realize now that it really DOES matter who you vote for.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I think it's because they are tapping into a real reservoir of hate within the Sunni community in Iraq. And THAT can be traced back to the raw deal Maliki has given them while WE just looked on impotently under this current admin. Had the power and wealth in Iraq been equally shared (as was the ostensible plan) then this all might have been avoided. But when the wheels came off Oby was on the back nine I guess and couldn't be bothered. I hope Americans realize now that it really DOES matter who you vote for.

It was supposed to be - yes, a democratic platform, where all peoples shared the power, including Suni. And Maliki took scuttled that shortly in.

Just recently I read that US diplomats are trying to get Iraq go back to that original platform. Too late, idiots!

[jeem]

How is ISIS anti-Quranic?

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

This verse was "revealed" before Muhammad and his followers had attacked Meccans. There is no record of Meccan aggression against the Muslims at Medina prior to this.

Sounds pretty much like ISIS to me.

I wonder why didn't you quote verse 190.Is it because your explanation would change?

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."-Noble Quran 2:190

[+and-then]

I wonder why didn't you quote verse 190.Is it because your explanation would change?

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."-Noble Quran 2:190

But to "fight" a Muslim was understood to be the same as not agreeing with and converting to, Islam. The language was meant to deceive... but the internet flays all that

[Yamato]

First of all, Western policy has nothing to do with religion. Strategic/national interests? Yes.

Guilty consciences for the anti-Semitic genocide of Jews in WW2? Perhaps. In Europe, certainly. So they offloaded their Jewish problem onto Palestine quite handily. Britain was crumbling already anyway. If these Zionists wanted to have their state that badly, the UK was more than happy to hand it off to them. A caring owner. Just write some "declarations" just to make sure. I'm sorry I find the whole history there nothing shy of contemptible.

All three of the Abrahamic religions can have multiple interpretations, and all three including a militant one . Militancy is militancy. Whether the militancy is x, y, or z doesn't make any difference. You still have to justify militancy on a case by case basis no matter what motivates it. Indeed, whether militancy is justified depends on the circumstances.

[Yamato]

and then, our country is BROKE. let's save our pennies and bombs so that in the event America is attacked, we can defend

Ooooh you're an extremist peaceful person! That's sick, dog!

[Yamato]

It's possible they are more powerful than I think. But US/UK can't put out every fire in the world, or *shouldn't* try

Each of the fires are opportunities, little profit centers for our Corporatocracy. US foreign policy in the Middle East seems to be a good practice of the Broken Window Fallacy. Make checks payable to the oil and defense industries, and our best buddy Israel.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

disillusioned, extremist isolationist, Yam

[Yamato]

disillusioned, extremist isolationist, Yam

With the tables this tilted, I welcome the isolationist counter-tilt even if I'm not an isolationist myself. Reason being, I do think talking to other countries and trading with them are essential to good relations.

[Phaeton80]

How is ISIS anti-Quranic?

This verse was "revealed" before Muhammad and his followers had attacked Meccans. There is no record of Meccan aggression against the Muslims at Medina prior to this.

Sounds pretty much like ISIS to me.

Apologies, but it might not be wise to read religious scripture like an encyclopedia.

2:190-194 Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves.

These verses [2:190-194] were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be repeated… Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Qur’an clearly prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence.

Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight. A Muslim is also mandated not to destroy plant life of livestock. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49, emphasis added)

http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/329-quranmisquotes

[TSS]

So is it okay for one poster? Can I do that with Judaism and get away with it being that I'm only one poster? No, of course I can't. And no, you guessed that poster wrong too.

You seem to swerving off in another direction to the point I responded too. Which is fine but just to add that the above has nothing to do with the claim you made, and to which I replied.

[libstaK]

I feel sick: http://www.nbcnews.c...reuters-n177121

If only that were the worst they have done. On tonight's ABC 730 report the journalist cited the case of an Australian father who went over there with his 7 year old son. He posted online his 7 year old son proudly holding a severed head of a victim. I just don't know what to say to that .....

[RoofGardener]

This has been picked up by the mainstream media.

The fathers name is Khaled Sharrouf (an obviously traditional Australian name).

Mr Sharrouf's brother told the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday that Australia should 'forget' the image of his young nephew that has caused outrage among authorities.

'He's gone, forget about it. He's forgotten about youse. I'm sure you've seen much worse than that,' Mostafa Sharrouf said.

I'm sure Mostafa Sharrouf would LOVE us to forget about it.... but we have no intention of doing so.

Both Sharrouf's should be evicted from the country, and the young boy put into care.

[Eluus]

Apologies, but it might not be wise to read religious scripture like an encyclopedia.

2:190-194 Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves.

The explanation is not consistent with the verse. It says " kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out" in the verse but the below explanation claims that Muslims were prohibited from attacking aggressors. Is there any historical evidence to support the claim that Muslims were being attacked? I don't think there is.

Historically it was the Meccans who were generally acting in their own defense during that time. However, the verse clearly tells Muhammad and his followers to kill Meccans wherever they catch them with the added condition that they accept Allah.

It also says "but do not transgress limits" but killing is obviously not transgressing limits.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Eluus

[libstaK]

This has been picked up by the mainstream media.

The fathers name is Khaled Sharrouf (an obviously traditional Australian name).

[/background][/left][/color]

I'm sure Mostafa Sharrouf would LOVE us to forget about it.... but we have no intention of doing so.

Both Sharrouf's should be evicted from the country, and the young boy put into care.

Wait, what? They are back in the country? Take that boy away from his monster of a father, like right NOW. God knows if he can overcome what he has been taught about the value of human life but he is still just a seven year old boy.

I am in a RAGE right now, need to calm down.

Oh, and YES Evict the men, PERMANENTLY.

Edited August 11, 2014 by libstaK

[libstaK]

Ok, no he is not in Australia - he is travelling with his 3 sons, which is even worse

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

With the tables this tilted, I welcome the isolationist counter-tilt even if I'm not an isolationist myself. Reason being, I do think talking to other countries and trading with them are essential to good relations.

Yam, I am not happy with isolationism BUT, I just don't trust the pigs in Washington to do anything "justly".

I used to be a hawk back in the day but I see what they do with our armed forces, and I don't like it.

It's not the principle, it's the philosophy of the deal makers in Washington that ruin everything and we the taxpayer, actually pay to get this stuff done. yup. bitter.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

If only that were the worst they have done. On tonight's ABC 730 report the journalist cited the case of an Australian father who went over there with his 7 year old son. He posted online his 7 year old son proudly holding a severed head of a victim. I just don't know what to say to that .....

Holy cow.

What would anyone from Australia be doing anywhere near the Caliphate - especially with a tot?

Don't get that at all.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

The explanation is not consistent with the verse. It says " kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out" in the verse but the below explanation claims that Muslims were prohibited from attacking aggressors. Is there any historical evidence to support the claim that Muslims were being attacked? I don't think there is.

Historically it was the Meccans who were generally acting in their own defense during that time. However, the verse clearly tells Muhammad and his followers to kill Meccans wherever they catch them with the added condition that they accept Allah.

It also says "but do not transgress limits" but killing is obviously not transgressing limits.

It depends om who you listen to.

You know that the deaths of the three Yeshiva students was supposedly in retaliation for the deaths of some Hamas leaders?

It's called the "cycle of violence".

[Uncle Sam]

Holy cow.

What would anyone from Australia be doing anywhere near the Caliphate - especially with a tot?

Don't get that at all.

He is an Islamic disciple who was lured by ISIL to join their organization, he then fought along side these barbaric organization and is exposing his child to it. Really Islamic religion can have any religion or country man join, the goal of ISIL is to convert everyone to their religion, they succeeded in converting this individual into the Islamic religion and his poor son doesn't have an choice of the religion he wants. That poor child is going to be seriously messed up thanks to his father, my question where is his mother and is she letting this happen? Why didn't she take custody of her child and keep him away from this manic?

ISIL needs to be eradicated immediately, no mercy towards the individuals that actively fight in this organization and counter their recruitment drive by individuals online.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Uncle Sam

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

USam, I see where someone posted that he was not actually Australian. We'll see as more comes out.

[Uncle Sam]

USam, I see where someone posted that he was not actually Australian. We'll see as more comes out.

So he was an Immigrant who didn't have Australian citizenship. Explains how easily it was for him to actively join the organization and go there to fight, bringing his child with him to expose him to barbaric organization and their practices.

I feel sorry for his son, he is going to be messed up and won't be able to live any life in peace. He will be deceived and probably die doing the bidding of ISIL on the battleground or grow up to become an mentally unstable individual who will never be able to be part of an civilized country ever again.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Uncle Sam

[Dan'O]

I am in a RAGE right now,

Ah yes the rage. hmmm. Where was it the last decade? I'm curious, why now? Cause this kinda stuff has been happening for awhile.

[libstaK]

Ah yes the rage. hmmm. Where was it the last decade? I'm curious, why now? Cause this kinda stuff has been happening for awhile.

It was always there but it wasn't in a sphere I had influence over, being that this is an Australian, I feel a little more personal about it. We can't change the world because we can't get to the whole world but we can change what we can reach - our own little corners of the world, if we all work on that level, we got the world covered.

Edit to add: I think the world would be right to be disappointed if we did not take this a little personally too, I'm glad the PM made a statement on it and that it has outraged us all.

Edited August 11, 2014 by libstaK

[Dan'O]

World complacency towards similiar behaviour/actions/events for the last decade, in a way, makes this and other atrocities possible. Better late then never perhaps. Although I may come off as a bit bitter and critical I appreciate your thoughts on this.