Viewing 36 posts - 41 through 76 (of 76 total)
  • Can peace be made with ISIS?
  • seosamh77
    Free Member

    chew, you’re about as funny as a boot in the baws.

    bentandbroken
    Full Member

    I just skim read some of the ClarionProject site.

    The two things I noticed were;

    1) Nice imagery/photography
    2) Lots of concepts about how it is the ‘West’ that is brainwashed/indoctrinated so would be unlikely to yield/negotiate

    the teachings of Dar- win, Marx, Nietzsche, Durkheim, Weber, and Freud made their way into most Western societies through educational systems and media industries designed to produce generations void of any traces of the trah. Children – and even adults – were taught that man’s creation was the result of pure chaos, that history was the result of con icts merely over material resourc- es, that religion was the fabrication of simpleminded men, that the family social unit was adopted merely out of convenience, and that sexual intercourse was the ultimate reason behind man’s decisions and ac- tions.

    Sorry, the cut and past seems to have messed it up a bit, but you get the gist

    slackalice
    Free Member

    It’s gone all a bit Frankenstein hasn’t it? Trying to seek peace with or destroy the monster of our own creation.

    Are MI6 still arming them? And whilst on the other hand, we’re bombing them. At least the armaments industry is profiting from the wildly delusional idea of de-stabilising Syria, to create an Islamic State that would be friendly and amenable to the West.

    How far from reality does someone/government need to be to even think that would work?

    ****.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Chest_Rockwell
    Free Member

    I can lend the OP a rather fetching orange boiler suit, if he fancies a trip over there to help calm the waters?

    seosamh77
    Free Member

    Chest_Rockwell – Member
    I can lend the OP a rather fetching orange boiler suit, if he fancies a trip over there to help calm the waters?

    Should I just stop asking question and get behind the extermination programme?

    Edukator
    Free Member

    They simply MUST be eliminated.

    Forgive me if I’m wrong but haven’t you been a contributor to religious threads as a Christian, Saxonrider? And may I ask your profession.

    jimjam
    Free Member

    Edukator – Reformed Troll

    They simply MUST be eliminated.

    Forgive me if I’m wrong but haven’t you been a contributor to religious threads as a Christian, Saxonrider? And may I ask your profession. [/quote]

    Well I guess if they were asked really nicely the ones who come back to Western Europe will stay on their best behavior and hopefully not commit any mass murders like the Bataclan attack. They’re probably just pretending to commit every single conceivable atrocity imaginable.

    TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    But why not eliminate them all ? it’s what they want after all.

    nickc
    Full Member

    Can peace be made with any extremist group whose definition is a set of beliefs?

    The answer is probably not, but you can probably make what fuels the space for them to exist irrelevant. But in order to do that, we have to engage with Saudi, Israel, Iran,Iraq, Turkey, Syria (the list seems endless) as honest and impartial brokers of peace, and I can’t see that happening anytime soon. The Mid East is divided not just by borders that we drew up, but by tribal factionalism, religious intolerance, poverty, and a host of other problems (not least of which is reserves of oil and natural gas). ISIS is just the latest in a long line of ignorant poor hate filled young men with nothing else to do, and too easily filled by hate, give them jobs, a future, and a say in how their countries are run. Then the reasons for ISIS go away.

    TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    Let the US invade Syria, fulfil the prophesy, and then when it the apocalypse doesn’t happen all these idiots can stop believing in that BS.

    And get Sam and Dean in just in case to make sure the apocalypse doesn’t happen if we have miscalculated…

    jimjam
    Free Member

    ISIS is just the latest in a long line of ignorant poor hate filled young men with nothing else to do, and too easily filled by hate

    Does that include second or third generation university educated British and French citizens? Or white middle class Americans?

    TurnerGuy – Member

    Let the US invade Syria, fulfil the prophesy, and then when it the apocalypse doesn’t happen all these idiots can stop believing in that BS.

    Their successors will just claim that ISIS had the date or place wrong, but they’ve got it right. With the influence Saudi Arabia has it’s only a matter of where, not if there’ll be another ISIS.

    mrlebowski
    Free Member

    Highly unlikely with out a mindset change.

    Infidels must be purged from this planet is their belief.

    There’s no compromise that can be made with that attitude sadly.

    It’s finite, its black & white with no shades of grey.

    RamseyNeil
    Free Member

    What we really need is to put in power a few hard line dictators who could be a little bit naughty at times but we’re able to keep the various tribal factions apart from each other and run the country smoothly . A bit like Sadam Hussein or Gadaffi for example . 🙂

    esselgruntfuttock
    Free Member

    It would be quite easy to turn the tables, IE ‘terrorise the terrorists’ Especially in the UK, seeing as a lot of ‘suspects/sympathisers’ are already identified.

    But far too many (on here especially) would cry, ‘oohh you can’t do that, It’s against human rights’ & ‘do you want a police state’ Etc etc etc.
    So no, in effect, we as a nation will have to carry on being ‘terrorised’ by a bunch of cranks who act in the name of a perfectly peaceful religion.
    The same goes for that silly **** from Wales last week who mowed down the people outside Finsbury mosque. Get rid of.

    TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    a perfectly peaceful religion

    We Can’t Ignore Islam’s Link To Terror

    Stop Saying Violence Has Nothing To Do With Islam

    “It’s as unhelpful as to say it is everything to do with Islam, because it is Islam. I think let’s be realistic and acknowledge that there is a connection, it’s something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something.”

    Maajid explained why the link must be first acknowledged and then understood.

    “Why this is so important is because when listeners hear Muslims like yourself say it’s got nothing to do with it, they think that you’re trying to shirk responsibility and sidestep the very important task that faces all of us to challenge extremism within our mosques and our communities.

    “Of course, that may not be what you intended, but it sounds like that to listeners who are not Muslims, it sounds like you’re making excuses so as to not go about doing the work that all of us have to do, which is to challenge extremism.”

    surfer
    Free Member

    a perfectly peaceful religion

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70SL67c02lM[/video]

    seosamh77
    Free Member

    TurnerGuy – Member
    a perfectly peaceful religion
    We Can’t Ignore Islam’s Link To Terror

    Maajid Nawaz: we don’t deny Christianity’s role in the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition – so why do we go to lengths to deny Islam plays a part in terrorism?

    George Bush: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq’

    We’ll happily ignore that bit though.

    Religion is spurious reasoning at best for any conflict. It’s symptomatic and a tool more than anything imo, never the real underlying reason..

    nickc
    Full Member

    Does that include second or third generation university educated British and French citizens? Or white middle class Americans?

    The overwhelming majority of ISIS are not these people though are they.

    surfer
    Free Member

    The overwhelming majority of ISIS are not these people though are they.

    Although the ones who flew into the twin towers murdering thousands of innocent people where.

    nickc
    Full Member

    Harris can suck my sweaty balls TBH, he and is ilk (Dawkins, and Hitchens) use the cover of Rational atheism to relentlessly attack Islam (uniquely among religions often calling it the “supreme threat to civilisation”) in a way that amounts to racism. I’m not a fan of mining for out of context quotes, but in Harris’ case I’ll make an exception.

    “the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.”

    Kinda sums him up really

    nickc
    Full Member

    Although the ones who flew into the twin towers murdering thousands of innocent people where.

    were they not Saudis, and UAE mostly? I don’t think any were european were they? Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong though. and any way were long standing members of Al-Queda and not ISIS

    surfer
    Free Member

    were they not Saudis, and UAE mostly? I don’t think any were european were they? Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong though. and any way were long standing members of Al-Queda and not ISIS

    Whatever, point was that they were “educated”

    in a way that amounts to racism

    I dont think this means what you think it means.

    I’m not a fan of mining for out of context quotes, but in Harris’ case I’ll make an exception.

    If this is your approach then its not worth debating with you. If you cant understand that quote (in context) then maybe you shouldnt be reading his (or any other commentators on the subject)

    nickc
    Full Member

    1, yes, though that be what you meant, yep 19 people that exploded planes were educated, most of ISIS fighters in Mosul today are not 1. from anywhere other than Iraq, and 2. are ill educated

    2. Yep I know what racism means, Whether Islamophobia is a form of “racism” is a semantic issue. The vast majority of Muslims are non-white; as a result, when a white westerner becomes fixated on attacking their religion and advocating violence and aggression against them, as Harris has done, it amounts to the same thing

    3. Do debate with me, don’t debate with me, doesn’t matter either way, Harris is still an idiot

    surfer
    Free Member

    as Harris has done, it amounts to the same thing

    Repeating it doesnt make it so.

    advocating violence and aggression against them

    Can you tell me where he has done this? without quoting out of context?

    Harris is still an idiot

    I disagree

    For you and anybody else interested.

    Sam Harris responds to critics.

    nickc
    Full Member

    I disagree

    I figured

    Can you tell me where he has done this? without quoting out of context?

    yes, I can. Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily if not exclusively at Muslims, such as torture

    “there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like ‘water-boarding’ may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary”

    to steadfast support for Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries

    “In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. . . . there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah”

    to anti-Muslim profiling

    “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it”

    to state violence

    “On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that ‘liberals are soft on terrorism.’ It is, and they are”

    He just sprinkles intellectual atheism on top of the standard far right worldview of Muslims, because his atheism invariably serves – explicitly so – as the justifying ground for a wide array of policies that attack, kill and otherwise suppress Muslims. That’s why his praise for European fascists as being the only ones saying “sensible” things about Islam is significant: not because it means he’s a European fascist, but because it’s unsurprising that the bile spewed at Muslims from that faction would be appealing to Harris because he shares those sentiments both in his rhetoric and his advocated policies, just with longer words.

    surfer
    Free Member

    All of those need context. It may be challenging to read long passages and try to hold concepts in your head but Harris’s statement all need to be seen in the longer passages that they are contained. The shortcut above debunks much of what you have said and in his own words. He defends his work much better than I can 🙂

    “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it”

    In defense of profiling

    People can make up their own mind by listening to his podcast on the subject

    Why I dont criticise Israel

    “there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like ‘water-boarding’ may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary”

    Here are Harris’s views on torture in wider context. Sorry it is a long copy and past but it is an interesting read!

    I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such “ticking-bomb” scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of such thought experiments. The point is that unless you have an argument that rules out torture in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against the use of torture. As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone’s interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a person appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won’t otherwise talk about it.

    My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to “water-board” a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of “water-boarding” high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make travesties like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon the conscience of our nation.

    Some people believe that, while collateral damage may be worse than torture, these are independent evils, and one problem does not shed any light upon the other. However, they are not independent, in principle. In fact, it is easy to see how information gained through torture might mitigate the risk of collateral damage. If one found oneself in such a situation, with an apparent choice between torturing a known terrorist and bombing civilians, torturing the terrorist should seem like the more ethical option. And yet, most people’s intuitions seem to run the other way. In fact, very few critics of the collateral damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a “successful” military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever. The case of Baitullah Mehsud, killed along with 12 others (including his wife and mother in law), is a recent example: had his wife been water-boarded in order to obtain the relevant intelligence, rather than merely annihilated by a missile, we can be sure that the event would have been met by torrents of outrage.*

    It is widely claimed that torture “does not work”—that it produces unreliable information, implicates innocent people, etc. As I argue in The End of Faith, this line of defense does not resolve the underlying ethical dilemma. Clearly, the claim that torture never works, or that it always produces bad information, is false. There are cases in which the mere threat of torture has worked. As I argue in The End of Faith, one can easily imagine situations in which even a very low probability of getting useful information through torture would seem to justify it—the looming threat of nuclear terrorism being the most obvious case. It is decidedly unhelpful that those who claim to know that torture is “always wrong” never seem to envision the circumstances in which good people would be tempted to use it. Critics of my collateral damage argument always ignore the hard case: where the person in custody is known to be involved in terrible acts of violence and where the threat of further atrocities is imminent. If you think such situations never arise, consider what it might be like to capture a high-ranking member of al Qaeda along with several accomplices and their computers. The possibility that such a person might really be “innocent” or that he could “just say anything” to mislead his interrogators begins to seem less of a concern. Such captures bring us closer to a “ticking bomb” scenario than many people are willing to admit.

    While I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine. We have a capital punishment provision, for instance, but this has not led to our killing prisoners at random because we can’t control ourselves. While I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, I can readily concede that we are not suffering a total moral chaos in our society because we execute about five people every month. It is not immediately obvious that a rule about torture could not be applied with equal restraint.

    It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world.

    The best case against “ticking-bomb” arguments appears in David Luban’s article, “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb,” published in the Virginia Law Review. (I have posted a PDF here.) Luban relies on a few questionable assumptions, however. And he does not actually provide an ethical argument against torture in the ticking bomb case; he offers a pragmatic argument against our instituting a policy allowing torture in such cases. There is absolutely nothing in Luban’s argument that rules out the following law:

    We will not torture anyone under any circumstances unless we are certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the person in our custody has operational knowledge of an imminent act of nuclear terrorism.
    It seems to me that unless one can produce an ethical argument against torturing such a person, one does not have an argument against the use of torture in principle. Of course, my discussion of torture in The End of Faith (and on this page) only addresses the ethics of torture, not the practical difficulties of implementing a policy based on the ethics.

    While my remarks on torture span only a few pages in a book devoted to reducing the causes of religious violence, many readers have found my views deeply unsettling. (For what it’s worth, I do too. It would be much easier to simply be “against torture” across the board and end the discussion.) I have invited readers, both publicly and privately, to produce an ethical argument that takes into account the realities of our world—our daily acceptance of collateral damage, the real possibility of nuclear terrorism, etc.—and yet rules out a practice like “water-boarding” in all conceivable circumstances. No one, to my knowledge, has done this. And yet, most people continue to speak and write as though a knock-down argument against torture in all circumstances is readily available. I consider it to be one of the more dangerous ironies of liberal discourse that merely discussing the possibility of torturing a man like Osama bin Laden provokes more outrage than the maiming and murder of children ever does. Until someone actually points out what is wrong with the “collateral damage argument” presented in The End of Faith. I will continue to believe that its critics are just not thinking clearly about the reality of human suffering.

    * It seems, in fact, that many people do not understand what the phrase “collateral damage” signifies, and this leads them to imagine that I have drawn a false analogy. Most assume my analogy fails in the following way: torture is the intentional infliction of guaranteed suffering, while collateral damage is the unintentional imposition of possible suffering (or death). Apples and oranges.

    But this isn’t true. We often drop bombs knowing that innocent people will be killed or horribly injured by them. We target buildings in which combatants are hiding, knowing that noncombatants are also in those buildings, or standing too close to escape destruction. And when innocent people are killed or injured—when children are burned over most of their bodies and live to suffer interminable pain and horrible disfigurement—our leaders accept this as the cost of doing business in a time of war. Many people oppose specific wars, of course—like the war in Iraq—but no public figure has been vilified for accepting collateral damage in a war that is deemed just. And yet anyone who would defend the water-boarding a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad will reap a whirlwind of public criticism. This makes no moral sense (to me).

    Again, which is worse, water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him? Which is worse, water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him? There are journalists who have volunteered to be water-boarded. Where are the journalists who have volunteered to have a 5000 lb bomb dropped on their homes with their families inside? [added 5/1/11]

    nickc
    Full Member

    Sam Harris is a neo-con advocate of anti-Muslim policies, most of which are aimed exclusively at that population, and are extreme. When criticism of any religion morphs into an undue focus on Islam – particularly at the same time the western world has been engaged in a decade-long orgy of violence, aggression and human rights abuses against Muslims, Harris’ argument that Islam poses unique threats beyond what Christianity, Judaism, and any other religions of the world pose. Then yes, I think I’m justified in criticising him.

    mrmonkfinger
    Free Member

    Can peace be made?

    No.

    If ISIS disappeared, some other thing would pop up.

    But it would help if the entire world stopped depending on some expensive mineral resource their benefactors just happened to be sitting on.

    surfer
    Free Member

    Harris’ argument that Islam poses unique threats beyond what Christianity, Judaism, and any other religions of the world pose

    I think is absolutely correct.

    When criticism of any religion morphs into an undue focus on Islam

    Wasnt his first best seller “the end of faith” a criticism of Christianity. His follow up “letter to a Christian nation” was.. well another criticism of Christianity. He is a leading critic of Islam but I wouldnt agree it is an “undue” focus.

    nickc
    Full Member

    I think is absolutely correct.

    and…all becomes clear why you’re so keen on him. Ah well, I think we’re done debating don’t you?

    surfer
    Free Member

    and…all becomes clear why you’re so keen on him. Ah well, I think we’re done debating don’t you?

    I dont think we started. You simply made a number of unsubstantiated claims which I debunked. After all you did say you were happy to quote out of context from the outset, which is what you did. Whether I am keen on him or not (I do listen to his podcasts, amongst others) I simply presented links to his work for others to follow if they wanted to. People can see his writing in full, in context and can decide for themselves.

    “debating” would be where you argue against the statement.

    nickc
    Full Member

    You simply made a number of unsubstantiated claims which I debunked

    I’ve shown what Harris thinks of Muslims, which you’ve not attempted to argue against, in fact you agree with his central claim which is that he thinks (along with fascists and racists) that Muslims (not terrorists or Islamists, or violent Jihadists but specifically all Muslims) are a unique threat to western civilisation above all other religions.

    (hint: they are not)

    surfer
    Free Member

    I’ve shown what Harris thinks of Muslims, which you’ve not attempted to argue against, in fact you agree with his central claim which is that he thinks (along with fascists and racists) that Muslims (not terrorists or Islamists, or violent Jihadists but specifically all Muslims) are a unique threat to western civilisation above all other religions.

    You have gone from quote mining to misrepresentation. Harris is a critic of Islam, not Muslims. Harris criticises the faith (as lots of people do and we all have a right to) not followers of the faith as individuals.

    Maybe Harris’s thoughts on Trumps ban will help.

    More Harris

    seosamh77
    Free Member

    I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such “ticking-bomb” scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of such thought experiments. The point is that unless you have an argument that rules out torture in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against the use of torture.

    So I got that far… to paraphrase, unless you can mitigate every single scenario that I can think of, not matter how tenuous, you don’t have an argument…

    aye, sense getting talked there! 😆 i think I’ll dodge the rest!

    jimjam
    Free Member

    nickc

    Harris is still an idiot

    It’s amazing that on a thread about ISIS – the most brutally oppressive and horrific regime on the planet today, who have committed every imaginable atrocity, justified by a literal interpretation of Islam, that people get upset about Sam Harris.

    Not only get upset about him but lie, misquote, distort and otherwise falsify his views in order to score points in some kind of internet virtue signalling competition. Try as you might to obfuscate the truth for lazy morons, anyone who cares to listen to Sam Harris or read his work will see that he’s an advocate of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of sexuality and equality.

    If you wanted your views to have any credibility at all you should at least try to have the intellectual honesty to admit that world renowned author, philosopher, and neuro scientist Sam Harris is not an idiot even if you disagree with him.

    TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    Religion is spurious reasoning at best for any conflict. It’s symptomatic and a tool more than anything imo, never the real underlying reason..

    I think I’ll go with Maajid’s analysis as it is pretty clear that he know a lot more about it…

Viewing 36 posts - 41 through 76 (of 76 total)

The topic ‘Can peace be made with ISIS?’ is closed to new replies.