ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

That's not crude, that's wrong.

You just defined pre Civil War America as a democratic state, because the "sizeable" majority had a say in who controlled the country.
If there's a country where slavery is legal, it would be totally democratic, if a "sizeable" majority still has a say. Or, if you want, the old "two wolves and a sheep voting what's gonna be for dinner" democracy.

Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy. What else would it be when e.g. a majority of the population can vote? What's the name for it?

No, slavery is not "totally democratic" just like any voting restriction is not "totally democratic"; but the presence of slavery does not negate an otherwise functioning democracy, just like not allowing people below x years of age to vote doesn't, either.

Is it democracy when

a) all slaves can vote?
b) slaves are captured abroad and only kept for x years before they are returned to their home country? (c.f. guest workers)
c) one part of the population is in deep monetary debt to another part of the population? (c.f. real life)
d) one part of the population is much richer than the other? (c.f. real life)

[CrossLOPER]

Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy.

A democracy promotes safeguarding of human rights. Slavery violates human rights.

[Sarmatian]

Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy. What else would it be when e.g. a majority of the population can vote? What's the name for it?

Go back to the drawing board. It was a perfectly good advice. Don't try to claw out of this. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?

[AE Bravo]

Again a silly simplification. If a video contains fighting with tanks exploding, how many people would be able to upload dozens of such videos with perfect CGI and sound effects? If you can can geolocate it and the date seems right, then that town is almost certainly being fought over in the physical world, too.

Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.

If we go by that definition, then not everyone labelled an Islamist here might be islamist after all..

Like who?

Well, that was specific. Just above, I was talking about the Levant Front. See if you can dig up some dirt on them.

They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.

Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.

[Husar]

Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?

I think his definition is valid in the ancient Greek sense but you are absolutely right in the quoted part. There is no reason for us to promote or support a democracy that is basically a tyranny of the majority.

[Viking]

A democracy promotes safeguarding of human rights.

Some democracies (claim to) do so; like liberal democracies.

And of course 'human rights' can be defined in all sorts of ways. 400 hundred years ago, they might have been defined in a way that did not exclude slavery. 100 years from now they might be defined in a way that extends to certain animal species.

Go back to the drawing board. It was a perfectly good advice. Don't try to claw out of this. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

lol

Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?

When I said sharia is bad and that sharia and democracy can coexist, I am implicitly saying that not every democratic society is a desirable society. The equation democracy > not democracy will still hold in most situations, all other variables held fixed. Furthermore, democracy without slavery >> democracy with slavery > slavery without democracy.

Whether or not you should call such people 'moderates' or support them is a different question entirely.

Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.

That's something you'll find even with so-called professional reporting.

Like who?

Just saying that it is important to be clear on definitions. When I use the word islamist, I don't think it is a requirement that they want to implement sharia. When is a politician merely strongly motivated by Islam and an actual islamist?

They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.

Sources?

Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.

Pulitzer finalist. I don't care whether he calls them 'moderate' or bedwetters; his article is the source for their statements on democracy. That's all I am interested in (for now).

[Sarmatian]

When I said sharia is bad and that sharia and democracy can coexist, I am implicitly saying that not every democratic society is a desirable society. The equation democracy > not democracy will still hold in most situations, all other variables held fixed. Furthermore, democracy without slavery >> democracy with slavery > slavery without democracy.

Your argument was in favour of those groups as "moderate" and "democratic", under (supposedly) modern, broader meaning of the word. When showed otherwise, you said you used a very narrow, dictionary definition of democracy. Not wrong per se, but invalidates your starting point.

Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.

[Viking]

Your argument was in favour of those groups as "moderate" and "democratic", under (supposedly) modern, broader meaning of the word.

No, I did not argue that they were 'moderate' - I argued that we need to know what they mean by 'sharia' before can properly judge whether or not they are 'moderate' - after a definition of 'moderate' has been agreed upon, obviously:

Without knowing whether or not they intend to stone people to death and cut off people's hands, insisting that they are not 'moderate' seems premature.

I dispute the idea that modern usage of 'democracy' implies things like respect for 'human rights' (just look to the dictionaries), and I've also argued why such a definition is a really bad idea - regardless.

But the original point was not whether or not we could call what they wanted democracy (which is ultimately semantics), but that it offers a way for Syrians to change the way Syria is ruled (including the abolition of sharia). That's all - anything else is a straw man.

Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.

If you are as right as you seem to think you are, you don't need to rely on such hostility in order to win the argument. Think about it.

[Sarmatian]

No, I did not argue that they were 'moderate' - I argued that we need to know what they mean by 'sharia' before can properly judge whether or not they are 'moderate' - after a definition of 'moderate' has been agreed upon, obviously:

It is pretty well know what shariah means, it is a freaking system of laws. Those are generally most well defined concepts in the history of the human race.

But go ahead and research it. While you're there, check up on what they mean by "human sacrifice" and "cannibalism". It's a little vague and some people aren't sure.

If you are as right as you seem to think you are, you don't need to rely on hostility in order to win the argument. Think about it.

Whatever gave you that idea? I don't do this to win the argument. I'm having fun showing how clueless you are. The last shred of decency prompted me to try to help you for your own good.

[CrossLOPER]

400 hundred years ago, they might have been defined in a way that did not exclude slavery

8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?

[Viking]

It is pretty well know what shariah means, it is a freaking system of laws. Those are generally most well defined concepts in the history of the human race.

Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country. Isn't that strange.

I'm having fun showing how clueless you are.

In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.

8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?

Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.

It's like if death penalty only counts as death penalty if it was issued for 'non-serious crimes', where the collection of serious crimes can be defined and re-defined over and over.

"They don't practice death penalty in the US; only serious crimes can get anyone executed by the state after trial."
"They practice democracy in the US; the state there respects human rights."

See how robust either of the two statements are when it comes to preserving the deeper information they are capable of storing.

[Sarmatian]

Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country. Isn't that strange.

It isn't really. There are two types basically - sharia in personal status and full sharia. Since Syria already has sharia in personal status, what do you think armed factions mean when they say they want to enforce sharia?

In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.

Well, I couldn't have done it before now, since I've just started doing it.

Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.

So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?

[CrossLOPER]

Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?

Viking is Robert Mugabe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.

[AE Bravo]

You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.

Source?

http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855

The Levant Front’s charter, released in June, called for the establishment of Islamic government with Sharia as the sole source of law.

“Our main goal is to bring down the regime, and to achieve the aims of the people for a democratic civil state with multiple religions and sects.”

In the Arabic language it's perfectly fine to talk about democracy and consensus when describing Islamic governance, because this provides something to aspire to considering nobody knows what Islamic governance really is. Like you argue in your last few posts, there is a spectrum of democracy and this is what you'd find on the Islamist end of it. If I was fighting under a jihad banner a shura council would be the extent of democracy in my book, this is what Saudi Arabia already has for example so that's not saying much. Putting aside the fact that Islamists like to put on a pretty face for the media to attract air support against its enemies, which has been working for a long time.

No non-state actor has shown any willingness to introduce the democratic capabilities of sharia you'd find in Egypt and Iran for example. An exception *might* be Muslim Brotherhood, because they at least start with grassroots and peaceful attempts at reform rather than violent movements.

[Sarmatian]

I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.

I'm southern European. Know your geography.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm southern European. Know your geography.

Anything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?

[Sarmatian]

Anything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?

1. Croatians are also former commies

2. I'd personally like to get lumped with the likes of Brazil - samba, topless volleyball, cachaca, caipirinha, that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not an option, so I'm stuck with Italians, Greeks and Croatians. Sucks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

1. Croatians are also former commies

2. I'd personally like to get lumped with the likes of Brazil - samba, topless volleyball, cachaca, caipirinha, that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not an option, so I'm stuck with Italians, Greeks and Croatians. Sucks.

1. Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

2. Pick a country with better income equality than you, not worse.

[Sarmatian]

1. Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

2. Pick a country with better income equality than you, not worse.

1. If we can do it arbitrarily, I choose Mariana trench

2. Did you read the rest of the sentence? Topless volleyball, coctails, huge beaches - who cares about income equality? In fact, who cares about income.

[Papewaio]

How about South Eastern European?

[Sarmatian]

How about South Eastern European?

That would be wrong again. Most of Serbia is located there, but, the Danube is taken to be natural border between Southeastern Europe and Central Europe, and, since I live in Novi Sad...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

the big blue squiggly thing is the Danube, for the uninitiated

...I'm actually Central European, so in this case I'm lumped with Germans, Austrians and Swiss (not to shabby, you could do worse, you know. Yes, even worse than the Germans. It is possible.). I do travel south, across the river often, though, and let me tell you, there are all kinds of uncouth barbarians living in the Balkans.

[Fragony]

How about South Eastern European?

There are resorts mosrly, but I wouldn't call that income inequality, just people who can afford nice houses,bthe person who transports the toothpaste didn't invent toothpaste. Life isn't bad there, cheap products, nice houses, nice people. I could live in a mansion there for what I payed for a single etage here.

edit, it is SMALL

[Viking]

It isn't really. There are two types basically - sharia in personal status and full sharia. Since Syria already has sharia in personal status, what do you think armed factions mean when they say they want to enforce sharia?

That's an oversimplification. There is theory, and there is practice. As an example, the UAE seems fond of handing out the odd death by stoning sentence, but they don't appear to be carrying them out very often (if at all):

He added that Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced defendants in similar cases to death by stoning, but the sentences were never carried out.

A judicial expert said that although UAE laws are based on Sharia law, the courts exercise leniency as much as possible on people charged with such offences.

http://7days.ae/expat-faces-death-st...eating-husband

Furthermore, the legal system of different countries appear to be flirting with sharia to different degrees.

So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?

I am using it with a very common and meaningful sense of the word (like it is used e.g. here and countless other places). When one wants to specify a certain type of democracy, one uses modifiers: modern democracy, liberal democracy, Western democracy etc. Such use with modifiers is extremely common; just look around.

You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.

Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.

It's not just a matter of how you and me use the word, but also potential sources describing the situation in Syria.

http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855

I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".

[AE Bravo]

Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.

I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.

I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".

I can't find those words specifically in English. You should look into them, they are hardline Salafis who turned it down in order to attract more people with sketchy unIslamic past to confront Al Nusra. After their defeat quite a few of them turned over to Al Nusra now as well. Just a bunch of disgruntled rebel officials switching allegiances nothing to see here.

In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.

[CrossLOPER]

Using different sources I can find different definitions

How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?

[Viking]

I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.

I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.

In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.

That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.

How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?

Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.

[AE Bravo]

I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.

They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.

That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.

This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham

[Fragony]

edit, que wrong thread

[Viking]

They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.

That group has a charter (and that charter is obviously islamist), yes, but I was having Syrian rebel groups in general in mind.

This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham

Wiki says something else, and the other source does not appear to mention the Levant Front at all.