What to do about ISIS

[-Cynthia-]

I'm pretty sure they can be compared. 500000 people died in Indonesia during 1965-66 and the East Timor invasion killed 100k-200k. By comparison, the Syrian civil war killed 250k-300k.

The total number of dead people in World War II was about 50-80 million and this conflict primarily did not involve Islamic nations. Do you claim that Christianity/Shinto/atheism etc. are fundamentally flawed?

[Rapier]

Being a fascist and being the head of a totalitarian state are not mutually exclusive. One can be a religious leader and not be either of those things of course, but Catholicism was the rationale behind many of Franco's policies.

Sorry, I failed again in my wording. What I meant was, your argument did not link 'catholicism' with 'being a totalitarian leader'. It is certainly possible to be a catholic leader and not a totalitarian leader. One does not include the other automatically. Well, you basically answered it.

I see that Catholicism was the rationale behind his policies (I'll assume what you're saying is correct). Yet it is not enough to state that religion is toxic to politics. A lunatic can draw inspiration from anything to justify their atrocities. Catholicism can only be blamed if its fundaments actually agree with his policies (about that, I can't discuss well, because I know little of Christianity's fundaments aside from what is common knowledge).

Also, putting my nose between your conversation with Chiki, what the Catholic Church did can not be used to affirm Christianity is fundamentally flawed, because catholicism is but one of the many views regarding Christianity, although it is considered the main branch because it certainly had the majority prior. To prove Christianity is fundamentally flawed, you'd need to attack Christianity, and not just catholicism (in fact, many protestants do not agree with catholicism's views regarding Christianity).

And even if Christianity is fundamentally flawed, it does not serve as an argument against Chiki, because it does not address the truth value of his statement about Islam at all.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Rapier

[-Cynthia-]

Also, putting my nose between your conversation with Chiki, what the Catholic Church did can not be used to affirm Christianity is fundamentally flawed, because catholicism is but one of the many views regarding Christianity, although it is considered the main branch because it certainly had the majority prior. To prove Christianity is fundamentally flawed, you'd need to attack Christianity, and not just catholicism (in fact, many protestants do not agree with catholicism's views regarding Christianity).

And even if Christianity is fundamentally flawed, it does not serve as an argument against Chiki, because it does not address the truth value of his statement about Islam at all.

There are also many branches of Islam and many Muslims who disagree with the radical fundamentalists. My argument is that radical fundamentalism is the root cause of problems here- not Islam itself. ISIS doesn't represent Muslims overall more than say, Nazis represented Christians.

[Chiki]

The total number of dead people in World War II was about 50-80 million and this conflict primarily did not involve Islamic nations. Do you claim that Christianity/Shinto/atheism etc. are fundamentally flawed?

I could take your argument and put it as a wonderful example of what a straw man is. Christianity/Shinto etc. has no relevance whatsoever to my argument. I've made no claims about those religions; I've only made claims about Islam.

There's also a difference between atheism and Islam. Mao and Stalin didn't kill people for the sake of atheism. It was just a coincidence that they were atheists. Would you say that having a penis is fundamentally flawed too, because they both happen to have penises as well? That's what follows from your argument.

Islam is fundamentally flawed not only because of its adherents doing stuff for its sake, but because its adherents can justify what they do by citing the Quran. The Quran encourages violence, discrimination against people of different religions, women etc. It's fortunate that Muslims nowadays are peaceful and don't listen to the Quran completely. However, there are people who do (ISIS) and this is what we need to be careful of. Should we ban people from reading Qurans? Probably not, that would make them feel discriminated against and make the situation even worse. But we may want to censor certain parts of the Quran, like where it encourages discrimination against women. To do that, we have to first admit that the Quran is a problem, which is not going to be easy for some people.

[dondon151]

The total number of dead people in World War II was about 50-80 million and this conflict primarily did not involve Islamic nations. Do you claim that Christianity/Shinto/atheism etc. are fundamentally flawed?

every conflict pales in comparison to WWII; if we used only casualties as a metric, then we can only conclude that ISIS is a good thing because worse things have happened.

There are also many branches of Islam and many Muslims who disagree with the radical fundamentalists. My argument is that radical fundamentalism is the root cause of problems here- not Islam itself. ISIS doesn't represent Muslims overall more than say, Nazis represented Christians.

not this argument again. fundamentalism derives from the fundamentals of an ideology... that's so obvious.

i sincerely believe that people are only so apt at distancing a certain belief from its fundamentalist variant because they've forgotten the definition of "fundamental."

Edited April 26, 2015 by dondon151

[-Cynthia-]

So if it's the ideology of Islam that's to blame- what about it specifically is the problem? Do these problems also exist in the other Abrahamic religions? Do they share these problems but radical Islamic fundamentalists are 'worse' because of various political and economic factors?

I'm not asking these questions to 'win the argument' or anything, I'm curious as to what people think overall. I think 'Islam is the problem' is overly simplistic.

[Chiki]

Oh, and by far the most important thing about combating ISIS and Islam in general: education. Giving people a good education with basic ethics, science and such from an early age would help. They would be taught that discrimination is wrong, have reasons to be skeptical about religion, etc.

A rational man has no reason to be religious in the first place, and much less reason to join ISIS.

I remember the Bible having some nasty quotes as well, but not nearly as much as the Quran's. I would say that it is flawed to a lesser degree. I'm not an expert on it however.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Chiki

[dondon151]

I'm not asking these questions to 'win the argument' or anything, I'm curious as to what people think overall. I think 'Islam is the problem' is overly simplistic.

i think it's simplistic in the sense that a watered down, secularized version of the religion is perfectly acceptable. that basically describes the evolution of christianity in the west. if you were to make a statement such as "christianity is the problem" with respect to an unethical practice that is justified by scripture, then i would agree with that statement as well.

[eclipse]

Oh, and by far the most important thing about combating ISIS and Islam in general: education. Giving people a good education with basic ethics, science and such from an early age would help. They would be taught that discrimination is wrong, have reasons to be skeptical about religion, etc.

You'll have to get around familial efforts to the contrary, too. Schools can only cover so much.

political and economic stability is necessary to have a chance at secularizing islamic ideology. i have no idea about how that would occur, though.

I think this is probably the best solution. Why bother with something radical if it clashes with something that's comfortable (as in, most people in that region don't have to worry about meals/their life being in danger/shelter)?

[Vestige]

Everyone is just so soft these days, what needs to be said is rarely actually said. I think that Islam in and of itself is part of the problem, simply because of the content of the Quran. I'm actually not very well versed with the Quran, but much of it says that nonbelievers should be forced to convert or killed. At the same time, I've heard some people provide arguments contrary to that, so I'm curious about it.

This also raises another issue. The government is trying to monitor potential ISIS recruits/sympathizers here in the US, and this is probably happening in Western Europe some as well. Many people are concerned about losing their privacy, but they want to be secure as well. People want the best of both worlds, but they can't have that. We as Americans need to just man up and accept that we will lose one or the other. And personally, when it comes to a group like ISIS and a religion like Islam, I'd rather go with losing a freedom or two than losing my life.

So you admit to not being well versed on the subject of a religious text, but then you go on to declare with no evidence what the book says? That's such an asinine thing to do, I can hardly believe it. I really hope that's just poor wording on your part. And trust me, if Islam really preached to "convert all non-believers, or punish them by death" America would already be a warzone with the 2 million some odd Muslims already living here. It's not though. Do you know why? Because we really have better things to be doing, than coming to your home to kill you. It boggles my mind how some people are so easily willing to gobble up sensational media garbage, and then plant a label on thousands, upon thousand, upon millions of people.

"Oh, you believe in Islam? Guess you're out to kill me, huh?"

Oh, and by far the most important thing about combating ISIS and Islam in general: education. Giving people a good education with basic ethics, science and such from an early age would help. They would be taught that discrimination is wrong, have reasons to be skeptical about religion, etc.

A rational man has no reason to be religious in the first place, and much less reason to join ISIS.

I remember the Bible having some nasty quotes as well, but not nearly as much as the Quran's. I would say that it is flawed to a lesser degree. I'm not an expert on it however.

Why do rationality, and piety have to be mutually exclusive? Just because I believe in a God, means that I am unable to make a rational decision?

The Quran encourages violence, discrimination against people of different religions, women etc. It's fortunate that Muslims nowadays are peaceful and don't listen to the Quran completely.

You say this, but you've yet to provide any context. What is this discrimination you're talking about, exactly? What violence does the Quran encourage? Don't go around spouting things as absolutes without providing evidence to back your claims. You speak as though you're rather well educated on the text, so please, enlighten me here.

[blah the Prussian]

About ridding the Middle East of the ISIS ideology: in my mind, the region is not ready for democracy. Every attempt at democracy has ended with dictators like Saddam in power. I think that the most important thing that we can do now after we defeat ISIS is to installation a strong dictator, not a democracy. Democracies are weak and unable to handle radical organizations. It really is a similar problem to Juche; there can be no peace until it has been eradicated from the minds of every North Korean. To that end, I think it would be appropriate to set up a program similar to denazification, where the occupying authorities try and imprison or execute anyone suspected of having connection to ISIS. It worked pretty well for us in Germany.

Moving on, people seem to be saying that Islam wasn't always this bad, pointing to the Ottoman Empire. Yesterday marked the 100 year anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, where the Ottomans killed 1.5 million Armenians in arguably the first organized genocide. Then again, Christianity definitely had its own "being assholes" period, so what do I know?

My interpretation is that the Middle East is experiencing its own Dark Ages. If you think about it, we have brutal dictatorships and religious fundamentalism. What we need is an Islamic Renaissance.

[eclipse]

Moving on, people seem to be saying that Islam wasn't always this bad, pointing to the Ottoman Empire. Yesterday marked the 100 year anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, where the Ottomans killed 1.5 million Armenians in arguably the first organized genocide. Then again, Christianity definitely had its own "being assholes" period, so what do I know?

Apparently, human nature.

Give people with no other hope a way out, even if it's a long shot, and they'll follow. Twist the words of a higher power to your ends, and you'll end up with atrocities, committed by a group who has justified it to themselves.

[blah the Prussian]

Apparently, human nature.Give people with no other hope a way out, even if it's a long shot, and they'll follow. Twist the words of a higher power to your ends, and you'll end up with atrocities, committed by a group who has justified it to themselves.

It wasn't really twisting the words of a higher power. The Ottoman Caliph Abdulmejid ordered the genocide. To the Ottomans, the Caliph was the descendent of the Prophet Muhammed, and thus they might of well have been following Allahs orders.

[dondon151]

So you admit to not being well versed on the subject of a religious text, but then you go on to declare with no evidence what the book says? That's such an asinine thing to do, I can hardly believe it. I really hope that's just poor wording on your part. And trust me, if Islam really preached to "convert all non-believers, or punish them by death" America would already be a warzone with the 2 million some odd Muslims already living here.

dude, no need to feign anger, you can just look this stuff up.

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

muslims with common sense who are not interested in provoking needless conflict obviously don't go about trying to convert non-believers, even if their holy text compels them to.

Why do rationality, and piety have to be mutually exclusive? Just because I believe in a God, means that I am unable to make a rational decision?

rational: proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning.

piety: a belief or point of view that is accepted with unthinking conventional reverence.

faith: belief that is not based on proof:

there exist rational people who believe in irrational things, but a rational person on the whole is likely to believe in fewer irrational things and does not need to build his understanding of the world on a basis that involves the intervention of a supernatural being.

Edited April 26, 2015 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

*cough*

Excuse me, but what the heck is going on here? I will not speak for the rest of the world but in America one of the very things that keeps us going is that we have large amounts of freedoms that the government seeks to protect. Yes, some things are issues, but outright censorship? This isn't even over something morally repugnant or considered universally bad like showing porn to kids, but outright censoring parts of the Quran? Doing that is the exact sort of thing ISIS feeds off of as it allows them to portray the west as a crusader nation bent on destroying Islam and they are their 'righteous defenders'. Such a thing would be outright destructive towards any non-ISIS group.

Ultimately the simple problem is this. Many people in the Middle East feel like they are being invaded and set-upon by western, Christian and Jewish, powers who seek to exploit and destroy them. That's how ISIS gets so much support despite being willing to kill fellow muslims. They have a history of things that they can easily present as 'invasions'. The formation of Israel, the multiple wars in the middle east that involved major non-middle-eastern powers, even the attempts to spread ideas then outright turn around and call them horrible when they don't take to them like divine mandate. Things like this give them a common flag that they can hoist up. Pay attention to what they're saying. For them this is about forming a new, 'islamic', nation free from western influence and things like figuring out how to keep the power flowing simply don't matter anywhere near as much as ensuring that their own 'way of life' is preserved. It's pretty much the exact same thing as with North Korea. A culture seeing itself as being invaded and set-upon by all sides by powers willing to exploit it and defended by towering representatives who bravely 'fight the fight' to keep themselves safe. Training their children to know parables about how their great leader gave up his shoes to play with his friends is more important to them than ensuring wide-spread education. Making sure that they have nuclear weapons matters more than that they can keep the power on 24/7. All because they feel that a pacifist nation and a nation more intent on sending over copies of 'The Interview' than fighting them is a bigger threat than starvation.

There are several things that need to be realized.

1) There will never be peace in the middle east so long as the people there feel a need to fight. So long as they can see something, anything, as threatening their way of life they will have a cause to rally around. Take note that many of the people who come in from western lands either know that they are giving up a lot or find out just how much they're giving up very soon after yet stay. They have a cause to rally behind and feel that they're fighting for something more important than being able to live a happy, peaceful, life in nations where sewage systems work properly

2) Democracy is not the answer. This is a stupid notion that seems to be forced around constantly. This isn't to say that democracy is bad or not even not the 'best' form of government, but every culture has its own ways of doing things and, even if democracy is the best form of government, they need to arrive at it themselves in their own way. Even then it won't be perfect as even America, probably the closest thing to a true shining beacon of democracy, had a civil war over how it should be handled that tried to split the nation in two and, even today, suffers some heavy political corruption and gridlock.

3) The most important part of the war is the aftermath. I'm certain that, should America get serious, or any developed nation with a standing army for that matter, they could curbstomp ISIS. They may have the hearts of the people in their land but they lack things like an air force and tank production capabilities. Even WWII tech could likely 'best' ISIS in an actual conflict if it had a developed nation backing it. Afterwards, though, the pieces need to be picked up and it will not be an easy job to make things clean, stable, and the like and few nations would be willing to get involved in anything more than a token effort, never mind footing the bill, and ESPECIALLY with splinter groups and minor insurgencies popping up all the time. If a nation wants to win against ISIS without bothering with rebuilding it would need to do a complete purge of the nation on a scale that would probably constitute war-crimes today and, even if it didn't, would be unlikely to keep the homefront supporting them.

4) There really isn't much beyond 'feelgood' measures that can be taken. Since the start of the airstrikes America seems to have killed about 6,000 ISIS soldiers. This may sound impressive and it's no minor number, but ISIS has already lost over 15,500 fighters and it's still going strong. Over time these numbers may, indeed, wear down forces but the only reason that they're being made is because many nations feel they need to stop ISIS but are unwilling to actually commit beyond airstrikes. In the end actually destroying ISIS cannot be done without destroying what they took with boots on the ground and the airstrikes are a means to make the citizens feel like we're helping without becoming fully involved.

5) There is no 'gentlemens war'. People seem to hold this notion that war is something committed by armies on battefields and any civilian casualties come from either monsters or horrible accidents. The simple fact is that this is not true and has never been true. Cities were not walled up in olden times because they looked pretty, but because enemy armies were more than willing to sack a city and destroy and pillage everything inside it to win. In medieval times this was true. In the Renaissance times this was true. Even now it's true with the only real difference being that walls are a lot more pointless now. Civilians will die. People will use them as shields. People will commit things we consider criminal now. Cities will be bombarded and destroyed. Innocents who want nothing to do with the war will be killed. This is why the world is even in the state it's in. The Cold war didn't end up in a 'mutually assured destruction' bit because Russia and America could destroy each others armies, but because if one attacked the other the result would be the entire purging of almost every large city, many smaller ones, and many towns, with the fallout killing even more. Bomb shelters weren't feel-good places for people to go if a bomb fell near them, but places where civilians huddled because they were terrified that leaving them could result in being blown apart and praying that, should things come to the worst, they can hold out or at least be recognized as civilians and not shot by the invaders afterwards. War is hell. It is not like Warcraft where even the peons are there to win the battle. It is not like CoD where everything is certain to be a foe and nukes can be detonated with no fear of civilian casualties in multiplayer. If America, or any nation, gets involved in a war things will get ugly because that's what war is. America cannot really win in the middle east so long as it keeps thinking that destroying the armies is okay but the moment a civilian dies people need to answer for their crimes. No nation can win so long as they're willing to chastise and shun a nation for being in a war. ISIS does not fear war; they know what it brings and are comfortable with its ugly face. Americans are not nor are many other first-world nations. The population cares more about if 3-year-olds use transphobic language and maintaining a blog than that war entails civilians dying.

If ISIS attacked America today I believe that, while America could trounce them, England could trounce them, France could trounce them, India could trounce them, Australia could trounce them, or generally any nation could trounce them; America would split at the seams with galvanized Americans eager to expunge ISIS and willing to go as far as attacking innocent muslims at him on one side and apathetic teens willing to hurl insults over the internet and willing to side with ISIS out of a misplaced sense of 'equality' on the other.

[blah the Prussian]

Snowy hit the nail on the head with Democracy. Democracy that was forced on people led to monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Robespierre, and now ISIS coming to power. Democracy, if it exists at all, must be,thoroughly moderated in regions of great instability, like the Middle East. Of course, I'd suggest Constitutional Monarchy as the best solution for the region.

[eclipse]

It wasn't really twisting the words of a higher power. The Ottoman Caliph Abdulmejid ordered the genocide. To the Ottomans, the Caliph was the descendent of the Prophet Muhammed, and thus they might of well have been following Allahs orders.

. . .you just proved my point. Since the belief was that the Caliph was a descendent of Muhammed (this is where the twisting occurs), his word was law, and thus, those who believed would follow him. The justification was that the person who they thought was following Allah's orders told them to do it.

[blah the Prussian]

. . .you just proved my point. Since the belief was that the Caliph was a descendent of Muhammed (this is where the twisting occurs), his word was law, and thus, those who believed would follow him. The justification was that the person who they thought was following Allah's orders told them to do it.

Well, the Koran says that the Caliph is a descendent of Muhammad, so I would say it would be part of Sharia to follow them. I think it is important to note that fundamentalists are not misinterpreting a religion. This argument does seem pointless, however. We seem to agree in General.

[Chiki]

Why do rationality, and piety have to be mutually exclusive? Just because I believe in a God, means that I am unable to make a rational decision?

No, that's poor reasoning on your part. Plenty of rational people (in fact all of them) have at least one irrational belief.

And it's irrational to believe in God. There's no rational reason to think that some guy in Heaven with the morality of a 2 year old loves you and is watching you, it's just laughably stupid.

And some proof on what the Quran says:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.

Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them women"

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (33:59) - "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..."

Edited April 26, 2015 by Chiki

[-Cynthia-]

I know there are definitely parts of the Old Testament+ Bible that modern day Christians and Jews almost never follow (raping your wife is acceptable, selling your children into slavery, seemingly random stuff like not eating shellfish or wearing clothes of different fabrics etc.) Perhaps the difference is that some people follow the Quran too closely.

[Blaze The Great]

I know there are definitely parts of the Old Testament+ Bible that modern day Christians and Jews almost never follow (raping your wife is acceptable, selling your children into slavery, seemingly random stuff like not eating shellfish or wearing clothes of different fabrics etc.) Perhaps the difference is that some people follow the Quran too closely.

I'm all for religion, I'm a Christian myself. However, there are some parts of the OT that I don't quite understand. Christians are not bound to the full Jewish law, fortunately. There are 7 laws which "Gentiles" are supposed to follow, called the Noahide Laws. They are don't murder, don't be sexually immoral, do not deny God, do not blaspheme God, do not steal, don't eat live animals, and create courts. Following everything on the surface to a T can be weird, even dangerous. In Islam, this is even more so, as radical Muslims are going to go around killing those who disagree with them.

Also, in response to Vestige, yes, part of my statement was poorly worded. But I did not mean that I have never seen anything in the Quran, what I meant was I have not intensively studied it. If you want evidence, here you go:

Quran 9:29:Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture-fight until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Quran 8:12-13:..."I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike them upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger-indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.

Quran 2:191:And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places where they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter...and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah.

There is evidence, straight from the main religious document of the Quran. This is the founding document of Islam, and it encourages followers of Allah to kill nonbelievers. There are many verses I didn't put in here which I could have included, and they do say that Muslims need to fight those not sharing their beliefs. You say that Islam does not actually say this, but here is the evidence, taken straight from the Quran! I'm glad that many Muslims do not follow this doctrine, but some take it literally and tell people to convert or die.That is essentially the basis of ISIS, with their deadly ideology. I never placed a label upon all Muslims, you obviously didn't even read my post in full. I wrote that this was written in the Quran, though I should have provided evidence in the first place. I don't believe that most Muslim people are monstrous killers, but there are crazy people in every religion who will stop at nothing to get people to convert to their system of beliefs. In Islam, with a central document not only allowing but approving of killing those who do not agree with you, this is especially true.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Blaze The Great

[Snowy_One]

Quoting Old Testament stuff really isn't the best way to attack Christianity as the whole point to the Old and New Testament's is that the Old one is what was and the new one is what is now. When Jesus arrived on Earth he forged a new promise different than the one previously made. The Old Testament is, basically, the history while the new one is the actual pact.

Also, there are a lot of things in the Bible which are simply... well... weird. Read Song of Solomon closely for example and realize what he's talking about.

[blah the Prussian]

The problem is that there is no longer a fundamentalist Christian theocracy that is not literally a single palace. Islam, meanwhile, has not moved past the Middle Ages in some places. I do not deny that Christianity and Judaism are just as despicable as Islam if taken literally. There is not, however, a nation that takes everything said in the Bible or the Torah literally, while ISIS aims to establish a state that seeks to do just this.

[-Cynthia-]

Quoting Old Testament stuff really isn't the best way to attack Christianity as the whole point to the Old and New Testament's is that the Old one is what was and the new one is what is now. When Jesus arrived on Earth he forged a new promise different than the one previously made. The Old Testament is, basically, the history while the new one is the actual pact.

Also, there are a lot of things in the Bible which are simply... well... weird. Read Song of Solomon closely for example and realize what he's talking about.

A lot of Christians still hold the old pact as truth though, note the quoting of Leviticus in many Christian arguments about gay rights for instance.

[Rapier]

A rational man has no reason to be religious in the first place

Why not? Many people (if not all, I am unsure) have faith in something, even atheists do to some degree because it is impossible to disprove God and therefore it requires belief in God's inexistance. Some just choose to direct their faith toward religion.

And reason does not necessarily contradict faith. Many reasonable men were faithful, or even contributed to the foundations of modern science that we know. Francis Bacon, Immanuel Kant and Leibniz come into mind as great men who were clearly religious and influenced by their faith.