ISIS on the offensive in Iraq [Archive] - Page 4

Husar

10-14-2014, 12:12

You talk a lot... a LOT... about IQ tests being made for white persons... I ask in return, where are the intelligence tests for black persons?

It's like you automatically assume they have some hidden intellectual power we just don't know of. What the heck makes you think so? They seem to fail at pretty much anything, so again... If they have some extra intellectual powers, why do these never (or so rarely) seem to pop up positively in society ?

https://www.iqelite.com/en/account/scientific-tests/

The IQ (Intelligence Quotient) test was developed by PhDs. It has been examined by the SRH University of Applied Science Heidelberg.

It is a dynamic test, yielding more than 1 million unique combinations of test questions.

The test measures three aspects of intelligence:

Verbal-Logical: Comprehension of similar words or opposites, analogies, relationships and arguments.
Mathematical-Numerical: Comprehension of mathematical equations, patterns and numerical relationships.
Visual-Spatial: Comprehension of graphical patterns, analogies and visualizations.

How can someone who has a pretty harsh life compared to our and can only go to school sporadically score well in the mathematics test if she or he has missed half the mathematics classes? And how comparable is the design of verbal logical tests in different languages, which are sometimes based on quite different concepts?

And even then it clearly says "three aspects of intelligence", so are there more, which are not measured by this test or is this the ultimate IQ test? I'm not saying Africans have some hidden intellectual power, I'm saying that IQ tests may be bad at measuring the actual mental potential of a person.

And further I also question the idea that brain development is mostly dependent on genetics. If you can prove that African children who were given to white families in the west right after birth can never reach the same standard of whatever one can measure, then maybe there is a point to different genetic potentials for their brain cells, but otherwise I don't quite see why someone who lived a jungle life should be intellectually incapable just because he cannot solve mathematical equations when he never learned what maths is.

And then what about the maker of an intelligence test? If the guy who invented the test has an IQ of 120, how can he determine what the answers are to score a 160? To know which answers make you score a 160, you have to have a 160 yourself, but if you only have an IQ of 120, how can you determine the answers for a 160? How can he come up with the answer that is more clever than he could ever think of?

We already know black people generally have a higher kinetic intelligence (how the brain interact with the body), so I'll grant you that. But what other of the 7 commonly held intelligences do you seriously think black people manifest on better levels than the rest?

I don't care quite frankly, but why do you think the three out of seven that we ask for in tests here are the only ones that count and should be used to build apartheid walls?

I never had a black guy come to me and say "You shouldn't even try to dance, you are inherently too dumb to do that."
Yet you keep using a similar argument to tell black people they shouldn't come here because they're inherently too dumb to live in our societies.

"Blacks" are better runners, "Sloped Eyed People" are better thinkers... And us "pale-faces" have women with rocking bod's.

So when was the last time you asked a sloped eyed person about what you should think of immigration?

Nature already balanced it out for us, no need to get any panties in a twist when differences are argued.

And the white man invented ships and airplanes so that people can move quickly to other places on the earth and provides it happily to everyone, and nature will balance that out over time as well, why does the difference in your IQ tests matter again?

HoreTore

10-14-2014, 12:25

Who said they are much better athletes?

Not scientists. (http://metro.co.uk/2009/10/19/ancient-man-faster-than-usain-bolt-and-stronger-than-schwarzenegger-3421373/)

HoreTore

10-14-2014, 15:33

"Evolution argues that organisms adapt to their environment.

THEREFORE

All our existing prejudices towards other humans must be true."

The wonders of right-wing logic. It's funny how none of these supposed "racial difference studies" never come up with anything new, they have an uncanny ability to only validate pre-existing notions.

Also funny to note how those proposing these ideas never seem to be bothered by how all their studies have been massively debunked by the top educational institutions of the world.

Science only matters to the right-winger when it confirms their existing worldview.

Fragony

10-14-2014, 16:30

HoreTore

10-14-2014, 16:39

Too hilarious if it wouldn't be so scary when it comes to having a total lack of understanding irony.

A true believer is never easily swayed, you are really living up to the right-wing label, Frags.

Fragony

10-14-2014, 16:54

A true believer is never easily swayed, you are really living up to the right-wing label, Frags.

Yeah, that must be why I have never voted in my life. I don't like rightwingers really. lefties see everything they don't absolutily agree with without any compromise whatsoever as wrong. Lack of brains. Not my fault.

HoreTore

10-14-2014, 17:04

Yeah, that must be why I have never voted in my life. I don't like rightwingers really. lefties see everything they don't absolutily agree with without any compromise whatsoever as wrong. Lack of brains. Not my fault.

This is just your typical nonsense.

I can use myself as an example. I rarely read "leftist" publications, and prefer to read conservative and/or liberal stuff. Wealth of Nations is a favourite, and I have adopted a lot of its content into my opinions.

Fragony

10-14-2014, 17:19

This is just your typical nonsense.

I can use myself as an example. I rarely read "leftist" publications, and prefer to read conservative and/or liberal stuff. Wealth of Nations is a favourite, and I have adopted a lot of its content into my opinions.

Call it nonsense but I am just not interested in politics. I don't mind agreeing or disagreeing with anything. Fire away.

HoreTore

10-14-2014, 17:48

I am just not interested in politics.

Completely irrelevant. You don't have to care about politics at all to be a right-winger.

Fragony

10-15-2014, 00:02

I am no rightwinger, I just am just very much not left. All I want is sensible policies and reasonable debate, and be able to call a spade a spade without getting my eyes clawed out because of assumptions that don't resonate all that well with reality, but I should take for granted regardless.

Kadagar_AV

10-15-2014, 01:39

https://www.iqelite.com/en/account/scientific-tests/

How can someone who has a pretty harsh life compared to our and can only go to school sporadically score well in the mathematics test if she or he has missed half the mathematics classes? And how comparable is the design of verbal logical tests in different languages, which are sometimes based on quite different concepts?

And even then it clearly says "three aspects of intelligence", so are there more, which are not measured by this test or is this the ultimate IQ test? I'm not saying Africans have some hidden intellectual power, I'm saying that IQ tests may be bad at measuring the actual mental potential of a person.

And further I also question the idea that brain development is mostly dependent on genetics. If you can prove that African children who were given to white families in the west right after birth can never reach the same standard of whatever one can measure, then maybe there is a point to different genetic potentials for their brain cells, but otherwise I don't quite see why someone who lived a jungle life should be intellectually incapable just because he cannot solve mathematical equations when he never learned what maths is.

And then what about the maker of an intelligence test? If the guy who invented the test has an IQ of 120, how can he determine what the answers are to score a 160? To know which answers make you score a 160, you have to have a 160 yourself, but if you only have an IQ of 120, how can you determine the answers for a 160? How can he come up with the answer that is more clever than he could ever think of?

I don't care quite frankly, but why do you think the three out of seven that we ask for in tests here are the only ones that count and should be used to build apartheid walls?

I never had a black guy come to me and say "You shouldn't even try to dance, you are inherently too dumb to do that."
Yet you keep using a similar argument to tell black people they shouldn't come here because they're inherently too dumb to live in our societies.

So when was the last time you asked a sloped eyed person about what you should think of immigration?

And the white man invented ships and airplanes so that people can move quickly to other places on the earth and provides it happily to everyone, and nature will balance that out over time as well, why does the difference in your IQ tests matter again?

First of all, black people living in western societies doesn't really fit well under the umbrella of "pretty harsh life compared to our and can only go to school sporadically".

It seems like you don't have an inkling on modern intelligence research. Last I checked we had 7 intelligences, albeit this is a field of study that can more or less change over night.

IQ tests ABSOLUTELY do not say anything more of a person than how well they score on IQ tests. However, IQ in and of itself has been linked to more advanced thinking in the logical sphere.

Basically, just because you have an high IQ you don't have to be intelligent. However, if you want to bet who is more intelligent between a guy with low IQ and a guy with high IQ - you should always put your money on the guy with high IQ.

You won't win every time, just like a turtle sometimes do beat the rabbit. In the real world however, we put our money on the rabbit.

To move on, I never said that intelligence was solely based on genetics. The very idea is preposterous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Intelligence is based on 2 things, to inform you.

1. Genetics.
2. Environment.

As culture ties in tightly with "environment", it's rather obvious that ethnicities sharing both genetic and cultural traits will eventually show differences compared to other ethnicities. In the time span of tens of thousands of years, at the minimum, this is an absolute fact.

Lucky day for you, there HAS been studies made of adoptive children.

Guess what, these studies adhere to all the other studies showing East Asians being more smart and black people being more not. IIRC Minnesota did the most famous transracial adoption study.

Yes black children put in white homes do better than black children put in black homes. However, they don't do as well as white children, and are a laugh and a half away from the Asians.

Further, as to what IQ tests really are... You seem less coherent and precise than usual here, so I question if you have read up on what exactly intelligence and intelligence tests are?

I never once said anything about building apartheid walls, have I?

I just mean that my country, among others, have to accept that some ethnicities will take more effort off of our shared energies to be able to be fully functional citizens in a modern society.

I'm a teacher, and quite frankly black people generally need more resources to be able to learn well. This should be factored in when deciding where to best use the available resources in IE schools - as well as be factored in when it comes to immigration.

I don't need to ask "slope eyed" people what they think of immigration. It's easy to tell from what the East Asian nations do. See much immigrants in Japan? Huh?

No?

I guess they don't like it then, as immigrants are quite easy to get these days, would you so like.

So yeah, if we ask the intelligent East Asians their example shows that we in the west are being stupid accepting the immigrant waves we do, and changing society to accommodate for them in the way we do.

HoreTore

10-15-2014, 08:44

Old racist stereotypes

30.000 years of living in different environments certainly is not bound to create a meaningful difference in cognitive ability. If you wish to argue this, you will need to identify the cause of this difference. So far, you have pointed to the need for clothing and food storage during the winter. This is weak, to say the least, and easily countered by pointing to the scorching sun in a desert and droughts(according to your logic, Somalians should be the smartest people on earth).

There is very little evidence that humans have evolved our cognitive abilities since our change in diet(more meat) around 50.000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity). No surprises there, given that evolution is an extremely slow process.

As for your drivel on adopted children, it's needless to say it's not (http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05202008-144755/unrestricted/AdoptStatusSocCapitalAcademAchieve.pdf) supported (http://scholar.google.no/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7994343_Adoption_and_cognitive_development_a_meta-analytic_comparison_of_adopted_and_nonadopted_children%27s_IQ_and_school_performance/file/9c960519e688d0d339.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm0XImeSrB3bLz8XI0_5IzmqDNIMZQ&oi=scholarr&ei=miU-VOObCMywPKG_gcAO&ved=0CB0QgAMoADAA) by (http://www.raco.cat/index.php/anuariopsicologia/article/viewFile/74195/94359) science (http://www.kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf).

Montmorency

10-15-2014, 09:37

given that evolution is an extremely slow process.

Which is why it's best to avoid succumbing to the temptation of saltational thinking.

There is very little evidence that humans have evolved our cognitive abilities since our change in diet(more meat) around 50.000 years ago. No surprises there,

The changes in diet, and gut-size, and muscle-protein receptor genetics, were well-underway by the time the hominid brain became human-like 200-100K years ago.

http://references.260mb.com/Paleontologia/Aiello1995.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27820880?uid=3739832&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104821055497

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/Papers/Brain%20Size.pdf

Jeez, am I really popping in sporadically just to make really pedantic out-of-context remarks about an issue I've long-since stopped following? :undecided:

HoreTore

10-15-2014, 09:44

The changes in diet, and gut-size, and muscle-protein receptor genetics, were well-underway by the time the hominid brain became human-like 200-100K years ago.

I take it you do not subscribe to the notion of a "great leap forward"? That's fine. The reason why I referred to that theory is that AFAIK this is the dominant of the two theories currently.

Husar

10-15-2014, 10:07

I take it you do not subscribe to the notion of a "great leap forward"? That's fine. The reason why I referred to that theory is that AFAIK this is the dominant of the two theories currently.

A great leap forward? 50k years ago?
Wasn't that when god created Adam and Eve?

And no Kadagar, I have no idea what intelligences are, how many of them are scientifically proven to exist in a given framework of didtinguishable differences or how well that corresponds to reality. Given that HoreTore has posted several links to debunk most of what you say, I assume it would be a waste of time to read your debunked sources now, had you bothered to link to all of them.
And of course some people require more effort, a good first effort would be to stop ignoring or treating them like outcasts in very subtle ways.

Pannonian

10-15-2014, 14:31

30.000 years of living in different environments certainly is not bound to create a meaningful difference in cognitive ability. If you wish to argue this, you will need to identify the cause of this difference. So far, you have pointed to the need for clothing and food storage during the winter. This is weak, to say the least, and easily countered by pointing to the scorching sun in a desert and droughts(according to your logic, Somalians should be the smartest people on earth).

There is very little evidence that humans have evolved our cognitive abilities since our change in diet(more meat) around 50.000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity). No surprises there, given that evolution is an extremely slow process.

As for your drivel on adopted children, it's needless to say it's not (http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05202008-144755/unrestricted/AdoptStatusSocCapitalAcademAchieve.pdf) supported (http://scholar.google.no/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7994343_Adoption_and_cognitive_development_a_meta-analytic_comparison_of_adopted_and_nonadopted_children%27s_IQ_and_school_performance/file/9c960519e688d0d339.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm0XImeSrB3bLz8XI0_5IzmqDNIMZQ&oi=scholarr&ei=miU-VOObCMywPKG_gcAO&ved=0CB0QgAMoADAA) by (http://www.raco.cat/index.php/anuariopsicologia/article/viewFile/74195/94359) science (http://www.kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf).

In any case, the human brain, unlike the octopus one which is supposed to have evolved to devise ways of finding food and avoid becoming food, is geared towards social interaction, like most other advanced brains in the animal kingdom. So better use of the brain is achieved by exposing the individual to greater social stimulation. Which is culture, not genetics.

HoreTore

10-15-2014, 15:58

A great leap forward? 50k years ago?
Wasn't that when god created Adam and Eve?

According to my sources, God created Adam and Steve around that time.

Kadagar_AV

10-15-2014, 23:28

And no Kadagar, I have no idea what intelligences are, how many of them are scientifically proven to exist in a given framework of didtinguishable differences or how well that corresponds to reality.

Well, then it might be time you got schooled, no? May I suggest you start up with Gardner's studies on intelligence. That is basically the framework the scientific society use as of today

Given that HoreTore has posted several links to debunk most of what you say, I assume it would be a waste of time to read your debunked sources now, had you bothered to link to all of them.

Given that HT is a flaming communist with often weak concepts of reality, I wouldn't lean on his contributions all too much.

I already hinted you at the Minnesota transracial adoption study... You couldn't just highlight and google it? There are plenty more examples, let me know if you want to be get informed :)

And of course some people require more effort, a good first effort would be to stop ignoring or treating them like outcasts in very subtle ways.

Oh wow...

You basically say that them blacks sure might take more effort to include in modern western society, but if we just look the other way we won't see a problem?

Husar

10-15-2014, 23:46

Well, then it might be time you got schooled, no? May I suggest you start up with Gardner's studies on intelligence. That is basically the framework the scientific society use as of today

Most certainly not, I don't trust Gardner or anyone who studies intelligence.

Given that HT is a flaming communist with often weak concepts of reality, I wouldn't lean on his contributions all too much.

I already hinted you at the Minnesota transracial adoption study... You couldn't just highlight and google it? There are plenty more examples, let me know if you want to be get informed :)

Mionnesota is in the south of the USA, you yourself keep saying how horrible these people are, why should I trust them?
Somewhere around 20 years ago (give or take two hundred years) they still held blacks as slaves there.

Oh wow...

You basically say that them blacks sure might take more effort to include in modern western society, but if we just look the other way we won't see a problem?

No, not what I said. I'm sure you can read better than that...

drone

10-16-2014, 00:05

Mionnesota is in the south of the USA, you yourself keep saying how horrible these people are, why should I trust them?
Somewhere around 20 years ago (give or take two hundred years) they still held blacks as slaves there.

And they say Americans don't know geography... ~:rolleyes:

Kadagar_AV

10-16-2014, 00:37

Most certainly not, I don't trust Gardner or anyone who studies intelligence.

Well then it's hard to help you.

If humanitys best effort just isn't good enough for you, I really don't know what to bring to the table.

Mionnesota is in the south of the USA

Dude. No.

you yourself keep saying how horrible these people are, why should I trust them?

I think USAnian foreign politics is often pure evil. That has little to nothing to do with the proud people of Minnesota. Heck, I openly grant they made good studies on racial inequality.

Somewhere around 20 years ago (give or take two hundred years) they still held blacks as slaves there.

Yeah... Let's just say this wasn't the peak of your argumentation ability. Shall we?

Husar

10-16-2014, 00:44

And they say Americans don't know geography... ~:rolleyes:

Indeed, that was not excusable, and yes, my knowledge of US geography is not that great concerning some states.
I should have just checked a map, but hey, I'm a monkey, what can I say....

Well then it's hard to help you.

If humanitys best effort just isn't good enough for you, I really don't know what to bring to the table.

I think USAnian foreign politics is often pure evil. That has little to nothing to do with the proud people of Winnesota. Heck, I openly grant they made good studies on racial inequality.

Yeah... Let's just say this wasn't the peak of your argumentation ability. Shall we?

After that geography blunder I will just give up, I'm too stupid to argue about this, sorry.
So what do you propose we do about the issue then, now that I concede that the average IQ of Africans has to be almost as low as mine?

Kadagar_AV

10-16-2014, 00:56

Indeed, that was not excusable, and yes, my knowledge of US geography is not that great concerning some states.
I should have just checked a map, but hey, I'm a monkey, what can I say....

After that geography blunder I will just give up, I'm too stupid to argue about this, sorry.
So what do you propose we do about the issue then, now that I concede that the average IQ of Africans has to be almost as low as mine?

Awww.... C'mon Husar, I still love you :)

As to what to do about it...

You have to bear in mind that I am Swedish... We are right now more or less exchanging our gene-stock with African ones. I have a problem with people who think you can just toss hundreds of thousands of people from less orderly ethnicities in, without a grasp of the concept that it might lead to problems.

The only thing I ask for is that the Africans we already have should be assimilated into our modern society before we take on more.

So yeah, quite a leap away from jumping up and down doing Sieg Heils.

Greyblades

10-16-2014, 01:27

So there was something about issa... isis... is... issl... whatever, someone seemed worried about that... thing. Seemed important. Enough to make a 10 page thread over almost. What was it?... I seem to have forgotten, having a thread hiijacked by racist bullshit just does that to me sometimes.

Kadagar_AV

10-16-2014, 01:34

Tuuvi

10-16-2014, 01:35

As culture ties in tightly with "environment", it's rather obvious that ethnicities sharing both genetic and cultural traits will eventually show differences compared to other ethnicities. In the time span of tens of thousands of years, at the minimum, this is an absolute fact.

Throughout human history people have been migrating to new lands, conducting long distance trade, and going to war with each other, inter-breeding and spreading their genes as they go. As a result there are not sharp genetic distinctions between different races.

Culture and ethnicity are not static. Culture evolves over time and ethnic identity is subject to change, so it is unlikely that culture could have influenced one group to evolve differently from another.

I googled the Minnesota transracial adoption study and according to Wikipedia, the authors of the study didn't consider the results to support a genetic or an environmental explanation for racial IQ differences, because there were too many confounding factors. The study can be interpreted as supporting a genetic explanation but that's not the only possible interpretation, the results weren't so clear cut.

Kadagar_AV

10-16-2014, 02:05

Throughout human history people have been migrating to new lands, conducting long distance trade, and going to war with each other, inter-breeding and spreading their genes as they go. As a result there are not sharp genetic distinctions between different races.

Are. You. On. Drugs.

You basically claim there are no asian or black people. This is preposterous. Of course people breed across "the lines", but when you start to count people in the number of millions you can easily see ethnical differences.

Culture and ethnicity are not static. Culture evolves over time and ethnic identity is subject to change, so it is unlikely that culture could have influenced one group to evolve differently from another.

Pretty much all of modern science would disagree with that. You basically say that culture does not impact on the evolutionary scale.

This. Is. Stupid.

Go find your school teacher and beat him up for doing a bad job.

googled the Minnesota transracial adoption study and according to Wikipedia, the authors of the study didn't consider the results to support a genetic or an environmental explanation for racial IQ differences, because there were too many confounding factors.

Well then read the actual report. East Asians did well, black people did not.

"Confounding factors" is a PC way of saying "let's not touch this".

As soon as you start to read data, instead of having some filter on how you should read data, the realization will probably be shocking to you.

The study can be interpreted as supporting a genetic explanation but that's not the only possible interpretation, the results weren't so clear cut.

You can interpret that black people do worse on modern intelligence tests in any and every way you want. Bottom line will still be that they do worse on intelligence tests.

You can make any excuses for it that you want, but it really doesn't matter, as they will still show the results they do.

Montmorency

10-16-2014, 02:47

You basically claim there are no asian or black people. This is preposterous.

Holy :daisy: guys, he's FINALLY got the :daisy: point, only to deny it outright without a second thought.

I declare you a member of the Fragony race, Kad.

Kadagar_AV

10-16-2014, 03:19

Holy :daisy: guys, he's FINALLY got the :daisy: point, only to deny it outright without a second thought.

I declare you a member of the Fragony race, Kad.

That's quite OK.. I will of course in return whiff you off as someone who hasn't understood that ethnical differences exist.

Montmorency

10-16-2014, 03:39

It's hard to take such a position seriously.

'Racial differences exist. How do we know? Because we have crude racial typologies in place. Why is that so? Because racial differences exist.'

So long as you refuse to accept basic facts of reality and continue to indulge in 0-step circular reasoning it will never be possible to have a productive discussion with you on this issue.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-16-2014, 05:36

Seamus Fermanagh

10-16-2014, 05:41

That's quite OK.. I will of course in return whiff you off as someone who hasn't understood that ethnical differences exist.
Again...all of the differences that matter most to you are more likely cultural in character than ethnic. Ethnicity has only been conclusively linked to a few physical differences -- percentage of twitch muscle fibers, melanin content, etc -- which are not particularly earth-shaking.

When you have a greater degree of variation (genetically, phenotypically, etc.) WITHIN a given "race" than you do between "races," it becomes harder to consider the category significant in a statistical or scientific fashion.

HoreTore

10-16-2014, 08:13

I already hinted you at the Minnesota transracial adoption study... You couldn't just highlight and google it? There are plenty more examples, let me know if you want to be get informed :)

No need to do that, when that study was among the ones I linked to in my above post.

Naturally, it does not support your point.

Also this (http://scienceornot.net/2012/10/23/single-study-syndrome-clutching-at-convenient-confirmation/).

Tuuvi

10-17-2014, 02:52

Are. You. On. Drugs.

You basically claim there are no asian or black people. This is preposterous. Of course people breed across "the lines", but when you start to count people in the number of millions you can easily see ethnical differences.

Some people are born in Asia and there are people with dark skin and black coiled hair. But due to the gene flow between these different populations there is not much of a genetic distinction separating them from each other. Black skin and epicanthic folds are just that, black skin and epicanthic folds. They don't say very much about the rest of the Black or Asian genome.

Pretty much all of modern science would disagree with that. You basically say that culture does not impact on the evolutionary scale.

This is exactly what I was saying. Do you have a modern scientific source that explains how culture impacts human evolution? I have a hard time seeing how something that is in a state of flux could influence the course of evolution in a short amount of time. (tens of thousands of years is not a long time time at all on an evolutionary scale). Show me a credible source (and I mean credible, not some pseudo-scientific bullshit from a non-peer reviewed open-access journal) and I will admit I was wrong and cede the point.

Well then read the actual report. East Asians did well, black people did not.

"Confounding factors" is a PC way of saying "let's not touch this".

As soon as you start to read data, instead of having some filter on how you should read data, the realization will probably be shocking to you.

You can interpret that black people do worse on modern intelligence tests in any and every way you want. Bottom line will still be that they do worse on intelligence tests.

You can make any excuses for it that you want, but it really doesn't matter, as they will still show the results they do.

But WHY. Why do Black people do worse on intelligence tests? Is it primarily because of environment or is their a genetic factor as well? I thought that's what the Minnesota study was trying to find out. I did not deny that the Black children in the study scored worse than the White and Asian children. But if several researchers, including the authors of the study, did not find the results of the study to support the existence of a genetic cause for lower Black IQ's, than the Minnesota study does not support your claim for innate racial differences in intelligence as much as you think. I'm sorry but I trust scientists' ability to interpret data more than I do yours.

Montmorency

10-17-2014, 03:31

If "black" is a credible racial classification by Kad's interpretation, then he will have to explain why "red-headed" or "lactose-intolerant" or "Rh-positive" should not be admitted as well.

See, this is the stuff that happens when you start with "fuck n*****s" and try to move from there.

Fragony

10-17-2014, 08:29

I declare you a member of the Fragony race, Kad.

If you are trying to be insulting, that is really not going to work, I am only insulted if someone who I respect insults me, and you are not one of them. You are way too normal.

a completely inoffensive name

10-17-2014, 08:34

Forget it guys, if my Starcraft analogy did not convince him, I don't know what will.

Hmmmm, I guess I could ask Kad if he thinks Scandinavians are naturally better CounterStrike players....

Kadagar_AV

10-17-2014, 23:14

Heya guys, sorry I've been busy...

I'd like to answer you all, however, have had little time lately. Anyway, my answer will be in the longer region as there are some sources I'd like to bring up and also explain.

Also, this is an ISIS thread... And as ISIS is an ongoing thing, I'm not sure we should derail this further? The main discussion is valid enough.

I think I'll just start a new thread when I have time (this weekend). Hope no one minds ~:)

Montmorency

10-18-2014, 05:10

HoreTore, just tangentially:

A Focus on Processes: Was There a Human Revolution?
There is a long-standing debate over the causes and significance of the so-called “human
revolution” in Europe—the “explosion” of expressions of symbolic behavior and complex
social relationships manifested in the Upper Paleolithic archeological record (Soffer, 1992,
1994; R. White, 1982, 1989). While some workers see the “human revolution” as cultural
change within a species (Clark, 2002; Wolpoff et al., 2004), others believe it represents the
biologically based cognitive superiority of modern humans. The problem is, that as traditionally
described, anatomical modernity predates behavioral modernity. Some advocates
of a biological basis for behavioral modernity (e.g., Klein, 2008) attribute it to a neural
change linked to human language some 50,000 years ago that doesn’t manifest itself anatomically;
others see it as a latent potential of modern humans.16 However, these innovations
of the Upper Paleolithic can alternatively be understood as a consequence of demographic
influence, expanding human populations, without requiring an explanation based on
biological changes in cognitive capacity. Moreover, there is considerable debate over whether
a human revolution actually exists at all.
Various trait lists defining “modernity” have been critically assessed by Henshilwood and
Marean (2003 and in the Current Anthropology commentary following). Recently, the very
idea of any single trait list signifying modernity has been undermined by the 2000 publication
of “The Revolution that Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human
Behaviour” by S. McBrearty and S. A. Brooks. While hold-outs reflecting Howell’s position
remain (for instance, Mellars from [at least] 1973 to Mellars and French, 2011, and many
others), this shifted much of the discussion to the African continent and emphasized the
gradual and seemingly independent African appearances of many of the modern behaviors
later found together in the European Upper Paleolithic. These African appearances differed
from the European Upper Paleolithic in that they occurred over a much longer period of
time and were ephemeral, sporadically appearing and disappearing at different times and
places within the Middle Stone Age. Whatever modernity entailed in the archaeological
record, it could no longer be considered as a single event.
If the behaviors of the European Upper Paleolithic are not so distinctly different from
behaviors of earlier Africans, the other side of the coin is that modern elements have also
been identified in the archaeological record of European Neandertals (Caron et al., 2011;
d’Errico et al., 2003; Morin and Laroulandie, 2012; Peresani et al., 2011; Roebroeks et al.,
2012; Teyssandier, 2008; Zilhão, 2007, 2011; Zilhão et al., 2006) and other archaic Eurasian
populations (Hovers and Belfer-Cohen, 2006). In the framework promoted by these and
other workers, it is far from clear whether Neandertal archaeology has always been correctly
interpreted.17 Primarily European observations of modern behavioral elements associated with Neandertals continue to appear in the literature; some show continuity with later
Upper Paleolithic industries, others indicate early, unconnected appearances of evidences
for modern behavior, often at the same time similar modern behavioral elements appeared
in Africa (as in Roebroeks and colleagues’ [2012] discovery of an early [200–250 kya] use of
red ochre pigmentation). All of this evidence also helps undercut the contention of a
“human revolution” accounting for the different behaviors of the Neandertal and Upper
Paleolithic peoples in Europe (Zilhão, 2011), a tradition of skepticism embodied in the
writings
of d’Errico and Zilhão separately (d’Errico, 2003; d’Errico et al., 2001, 2003; Zilhão
2006b, 2007, 2011) and together (Zilhão et al., 2006). Combined with the African data, this
indicates that meanings of behavioral modernity are complex and that processes accounting
for its appearance are unlikely to be biological.
It is increasingly clear that this is not the modernity of Howells (1969). The attributes
associated with modern behavior likely do not have a single origin; as cited above, they
appeared ephemerally both in African Middle Stone Age assemblages and in some
Neandertal contexts and likely will be found more broadly around the world. Wobst (1976)
argues that modernity may appear to have dispersed from a single origin, even if it actually
emerged gradually in many regions. Wobst’s view is that the perception of a single origin and
subsequent spread of modernity is a creation of the archaeological record. He demonstrates
that the appearance of punctuation is inevitable in a model predicated on gradualism: if we
assume modernity appeared gradually, we may expect to find what he calls a “cone of
modernity” created by viewing the past from the cone’s base in the present. Because of preservation
bias, more ancient time slices produce smaller and smaller samples of things that
are modern, until there is an earliest. Such a cone would give the illusion that modernity had
a single origin in Africa, where there were more people and therefore more evidence of
modern traits. But the increasing presence of modern artifacts when approaching the present
does not necessarily mean that modernity spread from a single point of origin (its earliest
appearance in the record); on the contrary, this would violate the predicating assumption
of the model that modernity arose gradually.
Wobst (1977) also discusses social reasons why stylistic changes in (or the attachment of
style to) classes of artifacts may appear abruptly once those artifacts become vehicles for
social signaling. Many of the features of behavioral modernity may be linked to information
exchange within and between groups, conveying broad information to recipients about
identity,
ownership, authorship, proscription and prescription, religion, and potentially
other variables. Intended recipients should be socially distant (so that conversation was not
common) but not so remote that they wouldn’t be able to decode the messages. Wobst argues
that style, the attachment of such cultural messages to classes of artifacts, will “appear”
revolutionary
largely because of dangers of miscommunication. Once meaning is attached,
style should quickly pervade that class of material culture, and one should expect relative
uniformity within a social group; as Wobst argues using examples from mid-twentieth-century
Yugoslavia, the dangers of being associated with the wrong social group, or inadvertently
sending the wrong message, force rapid conformity of dress (in this case headdresses)
within groups. Ultimately, as discussed below, demographic factors, especially population
expansion, would increase the number of individuals in and relations between these distant
but not-too-remote social groups, potentially leading to the intentional use of artifacts for
information exchange and the appearance of a cultural revolution.

EDIT: The upshot is:

We believe that expanding population sizes and increasing numbers, driven by great
improvements in adult survivorship, underlie the archaeological manifestations of behavioral
modernity.

Fragony

10-18-2014, 07:58

Looks like IS found it's Waterloo in Kobani. Go team Kurdistan.

Decent_Greek

10-21-2014, 10:19

Looks like IS found it's Waterloo in Kobani. Go team Kurdistan.

Waterloo or Stalingrad ?

Fragony

10-21-2014, 11:20

Waterloo or Stalingrad ?

No idea really, I don't understand what's going on. That it is s an absolute nightmare I got.

Crandar

10-21-2014, 12:23

Looks like IS found it's Waterloo in Kobani. Go team Kurdistan.
Let's not be too optimist. Kurdish propaganda (just a couple of days ago, it was discovered that the pictures of female fighters in Ayn al-Arab are two years old) is a worthy opponent for the ISIS tweets in that Middle-Eastern Goebbels competition.

Meanwhile, the Syrian and Iraqi Armies lost Saquer Island and Qara Tapa respectively.

Montmorency

10-21-2014, 12:32

Light infantry vs light infantry

So brittle...

Rhyfelwyr

10-21-2014, 12:58

I wonder if ISIS planned all along for the assault on Kobane to be a diversion. Being on the Turkish border and bringing Turkey's Kurds onto the scene was always going to concentrate international attention on that area. Has this just been giving them freedom to make more strategically important gains elsewhere?

Maybe a bit like when they stormed into Iraq where everybody was looking at Syria.

Crandar

10-21-2014, 13:07

I doubt that they planned to use the assault at Kobane as a diversion, from the begining, but the losses of Qara Tapa and Saqer Island indicate that they might have changed their strategy, when the western media started to focus solely on the Syrian Kurds.

The air bombings target almost exclusively the ISIS forces of Kobane, which might allow them to operate elsewhere much more freely.

Of course, Kobane now has got a huge symbolic value, apart from his strategic/tactical importance, which probably explains how the West chooses her bombing priorities.

Brenus

10-21-2014, 22:17

"Waterloo" Err...

HoreTore

10-21-2014, 22:24

when the western media started to focus solely on the Syrian Kurds.

I think we need to drop this "western media/western opinion"-thing.

While we do get a kick out of believing the world revolves around us, it's time to realize that it doesn't. While ISIS does send the occasional message our way, the primary targets of their communications are the Iraqi's, Syrians and its surroundings. Just like when Saddam was very ambigious about his supposed WMD's, he wasn't trying to tell us that he had them. He was warning the Iranians.

Not saying your post is wrong btw, just pointing out one issue....

Fragony

10-22-2014, 07:13

"Waterloo" Err...

Wut, that's the name of the place

Greyblades

10-22-2014, 07:19

Yeah I dont get it either, waterloo was the end of the war, last I checked ISIS is still kicking.

Fragony

10-22-2014, 07:58

Yeah I dont get it either, waterloo was the end of the war, last I checked ISIS is still kicking.

Hence 'looks like', not 'it is'. By now we know it isn't.

Crandar

10-22-2014, 10:42

I think we need to drop this "western media/western opinion"-thing.

While we do get a kick out of believing the world revolves around us, it's time to realize that it doesn't. While ISIS does send the occasional message our way, the primary targets of their communications are the Iraqi's, Syrians and its surroundings. Just like when Saddam was very ambigious about his supposed WMD's, he wasn't trying to tell us that he had them. He was warning the Iranians.

Not saying your post is wrong btw, just pointing out one issue....
I mentioned them as a connection with the bombing campaign which basically concerns the western powers, not with the infantry operations.
There is a possibility that they deliberately target the ISIS forces in Kobane, in order to get a moral victory, considering that the public opinion of their countries, because of the media coverage, is almost excusively interested in the fighting with the Syrian Kurds, ignoring the other frontiers.

Kadagar_AV

10-23-2014, 03:14

Swedish media is big on US miss-dropping army materials (guns etc) to ISIS...

Who cares, they already have Millions worth of stuff from when they shooed away the Irak Army...

Papewaio

10-23-2014, 03:39

Was Waterloo the location of the battle or the place the messages about having won the battle sent from?

Kadagar_AV

10-23-2014, 03:47

Was Waterloo the location of the battle or the place the messages about having won the battle sent from?

It's an ABBA song.

Just google it.

Fragony

11-03-2014, 09:25

People have culture in Australia it seems, non-sunni imam got shot. See there is the difference between immigrants and colonists. Immigrants leave their shit behind, colonists bring it with them.

Let things burn, and see who is left.

That would be us, lefties will realise it affects their comfortable highly moral bliss as well once they can't find a decent school or neighbourhood.

Never more true http://www.brucespeaks.com/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/are-you-blind-too.gif

Crandar

11-03-2014, 11:19

Any link for the shot imam?
The only one (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/man-shot-in-face-outside-greenacre-shia-muslim-prayer-hall/story-e6frg6nf-1227111064852?nk=d2f50852d44b5f14da11a44589057f00) I found speaks generally about a man shot in front og a shia mosque. Furthermore, only sunni mosques have imams as a leading official, in shia, imams have much more superior roles.

Finally, how do we know he wasn't shot by an upset christian-fascist, instead of the muslim version?

Fragony

11-03-2014, 11:26

No reliable one sorry, right for now it's a 'seems like', link has been removed so it's probably bull

Papewaio

11-04-2014, 04:15

Quite a few sources for this

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/11/04/10/48/is-influence-in-sydney-shooting-pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-04/tony-abbott-fears-isil-death-cult-influence-on-sydney-shooting/5864818

""Obviously we saw the attack on two policemen in Victoria a month or so back," he said.

"It seems there is an ISIL death cult influence on this shooting in Sydney in the last 24 hours or so.

"The important thing is for all of us to absolutely reject this death cult."

Mr Abbott said the Federal Government was responding to the "new and virulent threat" domestically and abroad.

"We have a potent military force which is already striking hard against ISIL in Iraq," he said.

"We've also put money aside to boost our community harmony programs."" - Australian PM

a completely inoffensive name

11-21-2014, 04:08

ISIS comes to Libya.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/isis-libya/index.html?c=&page=1

Kadagar_AV

11-21-2014, 04:20

ISIS comes to Libya.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/isis-libya/index.html?c=&page=1

I for one welcome a united Islamic State.

Mainly because it would let the world see what an absolute **** religion Islam is.

Geez, invented by a pedophile in a desert living tribe some thousand years ago... I think we in the west should just withdraw each and every support we give, and let the damn MENA-area sort itself out.

Then, when they have decided to be less savage and have organized some sort of a nation system, we can take up negotiations with them.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-21-2014, 04:49

I for one welcome a united Islamic State.

Mainly because it would let the world see what an absolute **** religion Islam is.

Geez, invented by a pedophile in a desert living tribe some thousand years ago... I think we in the west should just withdraw each and every support we give, and let the damn MENA-area sort itself out.

Then, when they have decided to be less savage and have organized some sort of a nation system, we can take up negotiations with them.

The pedophilia thing has never been conclusively proved. Nor, I might add, would all folks accept your use of the word "invented" -- though I know you, personally, don't believe that to be a uniquely Muslim religious characteristic.

Kadagar_AV

11-21-2014, 05:04

The pedophilia thing has never been conclusively proved. Nor, I might add, would all folks accept your use of the word "invented" -- though I know you, personally, don't believe that to be a uniquely Muslim religious characteristic.

Mohammed married a girl 6 years old, and consumed the marriage when she was 9. It's proven well enough.

Heck, it wasn't even eyebrow-raising in that Beduin tribe at the time.

Sure he might have been a divine being or have had divine orders... But LOTS of dudes have made that claim in history. And logically speaking, really onlyone can be right. If of course any.

So sorry for saying he invented the religion, I just mean that the statistical odds given what we know is absolutely STAGGERING against Mohammed being more than a pedophilic psycho.

Sir Moody

11-21-2014, 12:10

European Nobility were often married off at the age of 13 and were expected to consummate the marriage immediately - since these were political marriages as well a lot of the time one of the pair would be vastly older.

Mohammed was a king, he like the European Nobility married for politics not love and consummated his marriage because that was the expected thing to do - it is a stretch to prove he was a pedophile - you would need to prove he prefered young girls and not that it was merely a political union, which was normal for the time.

Sarmatian

11-21-2014, 12:17

Arranging marriages when children were very young was the norm back then pretty much everywhere. I'd be surprised if there were too many comsumation of marriage before the girl had her first period. After that, I'm pretty sure it was fair game. regardless of the age.

Fragony

11-22-2014, 07:24

Kadagar_AV

11-22-2014, 08:09

I already said that it was normal in his day and age. Had he been some random dude I wouldn't have cared...

However, it's held as belief that he is a (THE!!) divine prophet, and the voice of God. His example is meant to last forever. To then stick his pee pee inside a 9 year old... I simply find it extremely morally distasteful :shrug:

IMHO, a good and loving God might, just MIGHT, have inserted some "DUDE DON'T DO IT" clausul in the Quran, no?

Fragony

11-22-2014, 10:19

It only says that he married her, not that they had intercourse when she was nine. I believe it is forbidden to have sex before someone is sexually mature. Not sure though, Hax probably knows.

HoreTore

11-22-2014, 12:55

Should we now make a list of Swedish royals who married young girls, and then draw a conclusion that all Swedes are pedos?

Or should we just point to the thousands of Swedish girls currently abused by Swedish males?

Kadagar_AV

11-22-2014, 15:07

It only says that he married her, not that they had intercourse when she was nine. I believe it is forbidden to have sex before someone is sexually mature. Not sure though, Hax probably knows.

You are wrong.

IIRC she was 6 when she started to practise to have sex (rub herself against him I guess) and 9 when the penetrational sex happened.

Also, that argument STILL doesn't quite explain why God wouldn't just tell him it's preferable to have sex with people in a position to say no.

For the third time, yes it was common practise back then. However, God REALLY has shaky morals if he bothers telling people what to eat, drink, wear, think and do... But not a word about it possibly being unseemly to rape or have sex with children.

Rhyfelwyr

11-22-2014, 16:11

Greyblades

11-22-2014, 16:23

For goodness' sake, are people really going to try and excuse the rape of a 9 year old girl just on the basis that lots of people were doing it?

I'm surprised people are taking their moral relativism this far. There is no way it would ever be OK to sexually abuse a 9 year old. It is unnatural and perverse to have any sort of attraction to a child of that age. It will always be abusive to the girl whatever point in history it happens at.

I think the whole world has gone mad.
As has been said, it was a political marriage not one based on attraction, and muhammed had a precident of marrying older women: his first being 40 when he was 25, his second being 55 etc. It's reasonable to assume he wasnt attracted to the 9 year old and merely gritted his teeth, as for whether or not he should be blamed for doing so: it is hard to judge someone for doing something everyone in his time period+region had been raised to consider it ok. It's hard to blame a person for not knowing and abiding to the sexual morality of the 21st century when he was born in the 6th.

Kadagar_AV

11-22-2014, 17:09

As has been said, it was a political marriage not one based on attraction, and muhammed had a precident of marrying older women: his first being 40 when he was 25, his second being 55 etc. It's reasonable to assume he wasnt attracted to the 9 year old and merely gritted his teeth, as for whether or not he should be blamed for doing so: it is hard to judge someone for doing something everyone in his time period+region had been raised to consider it ok. It's hard to blame a person for not knowing and abiding to the sexual morality of the 21st century when he was born in the 6th.

Bolded A: Why is it reasonable? If he played naked games with 6 year olds already, and full on penetrated 9 year olds... What says he didn't quite enjoy it?

You seriously swear him free of the act because it's possible, just possible, that he REALLY didn't like it but felt forced into it (specially being some sort of damned King with enough power to create a damn world religion... Yeah, he CLEARLY is a victim here, not a thing he could have done to avoid it).

That's from the purely secular perspective.

Bolded B) The religious perspective is where it gets REALLY interesting to me. I have already explained my view on this some posts up, but yeah, Allah is either made up, or an absolute ****hole if he seriously don't consider pedophilia to be worth a clause in the Quaran, no?

How can anyone SERIOUSLY defend this...

Sure PEOPLE at the time might have done whatever weird things... But surely an almighty god would know just a little bit better, and be able to communicate it? He sure seems to have been able to communicate a WHOLE lot of other things very clearly.

"Don't have sex with someone not in a position to say no" is IMHO setting the moral bar so low, that it should be a damn cornerstone in each and every religion worth a ****.

Rhyfelwyr

11-22-2014, 17:12

As has been said, it was a political marriage not one based on attraction, and muhammed had a precident of marrying older women: his first being 40 when he was 25, his second being 55 etc. It's reasonable to assume he wasnt attracted to the 9 year old and merely gritted his teeth, as for whether or not he should be blamed for doing so: it is hard to judge someone for doing something everyone in his time period+region had been raised to consider it ok. It's hard to blame a person for not knowing and abiding to the sexual morality of the 21st century when he was born in the 6th.

For hundreds of years before Muhammad's time most of the civilized world set the marriagable age at 12 (including Romans and the Catholic Church). The idea of not sexually abusing children isn't some 21st century innovation. Plus, if Muhammad wasn't attracted to her then why would he consummate the marriage? It may have been normal within the culture of exploitation that Muhammad lived in, but the systematic nature of the abuse in society doesn't change the fact that individual abusers are still responsible for their actions. And whatever Muhammad's culture may have taught, the fact is that to commit the act, he had to overcome all those natural human urges to protect children and to respect the principle of consent, and he also must have fostered some sort of unnatural sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent body.

Its disgusting and against nature whatever century it happened in.

Greyblades

11-22-2014, 18:19

I'm going to ignore kadagar because 3600 posts has persuaded me that nothing I can say can ever peirce that thick skull.

For hundreds of years before Muhammad's time most of the civilized world set the marriagable age at 12 (including Romans and the Catholic Church). Of which mohammed had little contact with before marrying said 9 year old.
The idea of not sexually abusing children isn't some 21st century innovation.No, but a widespread idea of having an age of consent above 13 is less than 200 years old.
Plus, if Muhammad wasn't attracted to her then why would he consummate the marriage?Because pre modern marriages werent considered official until consumation, and mohammed was marrying her to gain the loyalty of her father, the man who among other things would become his sucessor in ruling the islamic empire.
It may have been normal within the culture of exploitation that Muhammad lived in, but the systematic nature of the abuse in society doesn't change the fact that individual abusers are still responsible for their actions. Hypothetical: In 1400 years mankind will have all but completely abolished the consumption of meat, that small population that continue the practice do so underground and are considered disgusting and against nature by 99% of humanity. Now, is it fair for the humans of 3400AD to condemn all the hundreds of thousands of people who were born and raised to consider meat eating to demonising, regardless of thier accomplisments just because what was considered innocuous at the time was reevaluated as evil millenia later?

And please dont insult our intelligence by saying meat eating is natural and paedophillia is not, both happen all over the animal kingdom.
Regardless of any disneyesque preconceptions nature can be equally disgusting at times as mankind; the only difference is that mankind is universally able and expected to restrain itself (save for the severely mentally ill), but humans will only restrain themselves if they know they should, and they are primarily taught to do so by family and society, which mohammed almost certainly was not.

And whatever Muhammad's culture may have taught, the fact is that to commit the act, he had to overcome all those natural human urges to protect children and to respect the principle of consent, and he also must have fostered some sort of unnatural sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent body.It is highly debatable that the natural human urges comes from instinct instead of following familial and societal examples. As for respecting the principle of consent, the entire political right wing puts the kibosh on the idea that it is a universal human instinct.

Fragony

11-22-2014, 18:54

You are wrong.

IIRC she was 6 when she started to practise to have sex (rub herself against him I guess) and 9 when the penetrational sex happened.

Also, that argument STILL doesn't quite explain why God wouldn't just tell him it's preferable to have sex with people in a position to say no.

For the third time, yes it was common practise back then. However, God REALLY has shaky morals if he bothers telling people what to eat, drink, wear, think and do... But not a word about it possibly being unseemly to rape or have sex with children.

Since when are we supposed to take religion seriously, you are a historian, you should know very well that Mohammed probably never existed at all.

Kadagar_AV

11-22-2014, 18:55

I'm going to ignore kadagar because 3600 posts has persuaded me that nothing I can say can ever peirce that thick skull.

Way to win arguments mate...

I have changed my mind in a LOT of questions since I joined... Gun ownership and abortions comes to mind...

That argument was just silly and make me think less of you.

Hax

11-23-2014, 00:55

What is happening here.

It only says that he married her, not that they had intercourse when she was nine. I believe it is forbidden to have sex before someone is sexually mature.

I think this is the leading theology throughout all jurisprudential schools of Islam. It's not really my area of interest, so if someone comes up with some preacher making idiot claims: okay.

IIRC she was 6 when she started to practise to have sex (rub herself against him I guess) and 9 when the penetrational sex happened.

I don't think the reports are that..ehm "explicit". I just checked the reports considered the most correct within the Islamic tradition (Bukhari and Muslim) and they just mention that Aisha says she was six when she married, and 9 when the marriage was consumed. This is the leading tradition within most Islamic communities (with some rebellious types claiming she was like 16 or whatever, it's still creepy).

I'm gonna get back on why this is not really interesting anyway.

For hundreds of years before Muhammad's time most of the civilized world set the marriagable age at 12 (including Romans and the Catholic Church).

Eh, I was under the impression that it was more-or-less set to "whenever puberty hits", which is usually around 12, but can differ of course. Guys this is starting to creep me out.

Of which mohammed had little contact with before marrying said 9 year old.

Actually this is not true at all: most reports (even within the Islamic tradition) mention that Muhammad travelled to Syria quite a lot. Additionally, the Arab peninsula was much better connected to the rest of the Middle-East than is often assumed. The myth of the "Arab in isolation" is something that we find from 11th century pseudo-nationalistic tracts onward, which had mostly to do with a kind of chauvinism ("our ancestors were pure Arabs, who spoke pure Arabic, and never heard of your fancy modern stuff and-so-on", as well as to stifle criticism towards the Quran ("but Muhammad lived in isolation, so he can't have taken anything from the Bible!"). If you're interested in this subject, cf. Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Michael Macdonald.

Since when are we supposed to take religion seriously, you are a historian, you should know very well that Mohammed probably never existed at all.

Well this is going a bit too far, but not entirely wrong I think. I don't think there's a lot in merit in saying that Muhammad didn't exist. There's probably some kind of soothsayer-poet-king-figure-person that existed in 7th century Arabia -- but then again, there were a lot of those going around.

What is much more interesting is the way people tend to decontextualise the reports on Muhammad's life, known as the hadiths (english plural, the actually Arabic would be ahadith of course). These were canonised two centuries upwards of Muhammad's death, so what is interesting is that it tells us much more about a degree of orthodoxy that was starting to exist at this point. In this period (cf. shu‘ubiyya) there was a large degree of social upheaval in Caliphate, which led to all kinds of fun stuff, like milleniarism, terror attacks, large-scale revolts, etc., as well as some serious religious criticism -- both from Muslims and non-Muslims -- on certain aspects of Islamic theology. Shi'ism is actually incredibly interesting, because it is a kind of Islam with a huge blend of Persian ideas on kingship.

In any case -- the problem with all this is that these reports (so the ahadith) can't really tell us anything useful about the historical person known as Muhammad. They only tell us something about how 10th century religious scholars liked to think about Muhammad. Keep that in mind when talking about the guy.

Edit: Oh and about ISIS: just wait and see what happens when the money dries up. the caliphate will fall apart more than a Jenga tower in hurricane season. I hope. Otherwise I will drink myself to death. the joke's on you, abu bakr.

Kadagar_AV

11-23-2014, 01:31

Wrote stuff and I am loving him for it

So, our residential Muslim is arguing I am right, more or less.

Hax, I am rather certain there is some text about how Aisha "practised" sex before she was penetrated at 9 years old... I might have been wrong about the details, maybe it was just a BJ.

Regardless, I welcome your contribution as to how it's unimportant anyway. Feel free to take however much time you need to write it :shame:

Beskar

11-23-2014, 02:41

So, our residential Muslim is arguing I am right, more or less.
psst, he is a buddhist... but he did study the middle-east and knows Arabic, hence his knowledge.

Kadagar_AV

11-23-2014, 03:41

psst, he is a buddhist... but he did study the middle-east and knows Arabic, hence his knowledge.

Oh damn... Here I was hoping for an ISIS sheepherder, not a middle-east graduate who speaks Arabic and HAS KNOWLEDGE...

Fragony

11-23-2014, 08:44

You are wrong.

IIRC she was 6 when she started to practise to have sex (rub herself against him I guess) and 9 when the penetrational sex happened.

Gotcha. Good example to follow indeed.

Tuuvi

11-23-2014, 20:11

US air strikes in Syria driving anti-Assad groups to support Isis (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/us-air-strikes-syra-driving-anti-assad-groups-support-isis?CMP=twt_gu)

Crandar

11-24-2014, 11:28

ISIS is washing her kalashnikovs on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. (http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-establishes-stronghold-derna-libya-1721425)

Derna, an ancient Greek colony recolonised by Arabs from Spain is notorious for being the first operation of the the United States of America in the old world. Perhaps, it is a sign from fate, whoever conquers Derna becomes the next superpower.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-24-2014, 14:22

Fragony

11-24-2014, 14:30

140 years yeah right, they are allready here, spread all around Europe.

Kadagar_AV

12-04-2014, 02:50

Some home-built construction... Can't say the Sergeant in me don't get a boner though...

Blame ISIS for all you want (I for one think they are a rotten cancer on society). But they do seem more organized than most groups in that region...

I think we in the west should just completely withdraw... And let them sort themselves out. When they have something resembling a political party, we should of course be open for discussions again :shrug:

14795

Fragony

12-04-2014, 05:52

But what is it. Can't leave imho, IS is truely savage. Would also greatly give confidence to would-be jihadi's here.

Fragony

01-03-2015, 12:20

Forgive for I have chuckled. There might be ebola in IS territory, but the allahu akhbard the doctors. This of course not funny at all as nobody is going to risk their necks going into IS territory to aid the locals. Good news for us though, perfect reason to deny returnees acces.

Kagemusha

02-04-2015, 15:17

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-mideast-crisis-jordan-clerics-idUSKBN0L814H20150204

Hopefully now the Muslim states of Middle East understand that it is primarily their job to get rid of the scum called IS and those supporting IS will understand what they are supporting and stop such idiotic behaviour.

Kralizec

02-04-2015, 15:30

I read a theory yesterday (I forgot where) that the footage might be several weeks old. It seems plausible, because IS and Jordan were bargaining to release him in exchange for that female terrorist on death row in Jordan. IS seemed to place a great deal of value on her, yet when Jordan demanded that they'd get evidence that the pilot was alive before agreeing to anything, they flat out refused.

Husar

02-04-2015, 15:34

I watched the video of the burning earlier today. Can't recommend it unless you have a thick skin.
It was obviously made by a bunch of sadistic former Call of Duty players who seem to take some kind of pleasure or pride (or both) in the act.

That they think of themselves as somehow being the righteous few has to be a joke considering that their deeds are something you would expect from a satanic or death cult. Yes, death cult. The burning looked like a rite or the deed of a cult that celebrates the death of a defenseless man in a most cruel manner.

It wasn't just a punishment, it was a message that said: "We can into video editing, but we're really just stupid, sadistic barbarians."

Fragony

02-04-2015, 17:48

Not going to watch it but the joke is on them, shock-fatigue is kicking in, acts like this don't work. They will have to sink even lower to surprise anyone.

I of the Storm

02-05-2015, 18:12

I'm particularly fond of the rumours spread by some arab media that Abdullah II. is going to participate personally in the retaliatory air strikes conducted by the Jordani Air Force. Has a certain "I'm the bloody king and you just crossed that line" ring to it.

Apart from that, while Jordanias outrage and a strong military reaction is understandable (and has my full sympathy), I'm afraid it's just what they wanted. A pro-west government bombing IS targets - might bring IS supporters in Jordania to the point of taking action.

Weren't the UN invented after WW2 in order to prevent territorial aggression and crimes against humanity?

Husar

02-05-2015, 19:20

Apart from that, while Jordanias outrage and a strong military reaction is understandable (and has my full sympathy), I'm afraid it's just what they wanted. A pro-west government bombing IS targets - might bring IS supporters in Jordania to the point of taking action.

You say that as though Jordania wasn't bombing IS targets before the IS burned a Jordanian pilot who was caught trying to bomb IS targets. :dizzy2:

The video I watched also showed IS fighters who got killed or wounded by the bombings. I don't understand arabic but I suppose that was meant to get sympathy for their "righteous" cause and not meant to invite more bombings. The burning of the pilot was probably an attempt to scare people who oppose the IS.

The UAE already suspended air strikes for fear that their pilots might get caught when the IS captured the Jordanian pilot. They want the US to station SAR Ospreys closer to northern Iraq to get potentially downed pilots out faster before they resume their bombings.

Crandar

02-05-2015, 19:30

I of the Storm

02-05-2015, 19:42

I haven't watched the video either, but from what I've read, he was very much alive in that cage.

Husar, I know they were already participating, but rather reluctantly (as were most of the local members of that anti-IS-coalition). Partially because of their own population being rather reluctant. Especially public opinion has changed a bit now, so I expect an increased participation of Jordanian Forces and subsequently an increase in the "production of martyrs" while the military gain might be rather marginal. So they are basically playing into IS hands, I think.

Husar

02-05-2015, 21:06

That theory is not very plausible and can only come from people who either didn't watch the video or think that ISIL is led by the same NWO-lizardpeople who already faked the videos of the moon landing. I'll refrain from describing the video for those with a good imagination.

As for the Jordanian participation, it was small and will stay small compared to e.g. the US, my point was that it was an attempt to scare all their enemies away in general, not just Jordania. Whether it's possible to play into the hands of the IS I'm not sure, I'd say no, it's not. By now it should be clear that only martyrs, sadists and stupid people join their cause while everybody who is sane supports or at least tolerates bombing them anyway. I just found this opinion peace where the guy says the solution is basically more bombing because they're obviously scared of it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/isil-hated-moaz-al-kassasbeh-air-strikes-work-jordan-150205085308300.html

Similarly, the air campaign will have had a psychological impact across all ISIL's rank and file. The constant attrition reveals how perilously exposed they are outside urban areas, and the flow of texts to families in Europe announcing the martyrdom of their relatives recently killed will have helped slow the flow of recruits.
[...]
Kassasbeh was involved in that fight. While there are no positives to be drawn from the manner of his death, its brutality highlights the impact of his mission and hence a way out of this morass: more air strikes.

a completely inoffensive name

02-06-2015, 09:22

It is 2015 and someone still thinks that if you just keep bombing, the Islamic extremism will stop.

Fragony

02-06-2015, 09:58

It is 2015 and someone still thinks that if you just keep bombing, the Islamic extremism will stop.

Got better ideas? It is what it is.

rvg

02-06-2015, 13:58

Come to think of it, it would be best not to eliminate ISIS completely. Rout them, contain them, and let them exist on a smaller scale. They are a magnet that attracts scumbags from all over the civilized world. That leaves us free to bomb those aforementioned scumbags into smithereens, something that we can't do back in their home countries. Tighter controls are of course needed to deal with those who decide to come back, but overall, having ISIS control some area in Syria or Iraq would work out to our overall security advantage.

Fragony

02-06-2015, 14:04

Agreed. Keep bombing them to keep them insignificant and a jihadi-magnet. It's just convenient, use it.

Sir Moody

02-06-2015, 15:52

Got better ideas? It is what it is.

you cant beat an idea with bombs - in order to end Islamist ideas you have to combat the philosophy - we have failed massively so far, alienating the Muslims we should be working with and playing right into the Islamist hands by constantly giving them such a high profile.

Bombs may end IS but another group will sprout elsewhere and the whole thing will start again.

Fragony

02-06-2015, 18:35

you cant beat an idea with bombs - in order to end Islamist ideas you have to combat the philosophy - we have failed massively so far, alienating the Muslims we should be working with and playing right into the Islamist hands by constantly giving them such a high profile.

Bombs may end IS but another group will sprout elsewhere and the whole thing will start again.

Not that you arsn't right, but how would you do that? The gap is too big. I understand perfectly well that muslims aren't all that happy with these guys, don't get me wrong. But they are powerless against them as long as we keep relativating islamists. Normal muslims are terrified of these guys and with good reason. They have a good reason to be afraid of them, but also of us because some just refuse to make a difference between normal muslims and islamists. Though spot if you only care about what's for dinner. In any case, keep bombing these islamist idiots.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-06-2015, 23:08

We do not need THIS caliphate. However, the world might be better served if there WERE a caliphate.

It would have to come about as a result of some well-attended 'Meccan Council' or some such. As it stands, Islam is too balkanized to reform and progress in how it manifests its philosophy. It took a reformation and a few centuries for Mother Church, but with some form of central authority, long term reform is possible.

Until Muslims marginalize these Wahabo-fascists, in such a manner that they are a demonstrable "out group" and not an attractive clique, these problems will continue.

Won't happen in my lifetime. If it did, it probably would get derailed by extremism anyway. Sad.

Ironside

02-07-2015, 09:13

There's a rumour that the Jordanian pilot was already dead and ISIS just burnt its body. The reason behind this is that they (the exported wahhabis) unsuccessfully tried to negotiate with the Jordanian government for a PoW exchange: The pilot (they pretended he was alive) with a female martyr wannabe.

When the Jordanian government insisted on being provided with a piece of evidence that the pilot is still alive, they staged that fake execution, for PR purposes.

I don't find that theory very plausible, but I haven't watched the video, yet.

That's a garble of the original rumour. That is that they already burnt the pilot before starting to negotiate for a PoW release. Based on the official information, it's plausable, but since the unofficial information is what counts... It's hard to telll.

I'm not planning to see that video, but are there any time indicators in the video? Because if they talk in generic "this is what happens to those who oppose us" rather than a more specific mention of a failed PoW exchange, it's fairly plausable.

Brenus

02-07-2015, 10:33

"However, the world might be better served if there WERE a caliphate." What? A bigger Iran, Saudi-Arabia? No.
The problem is until the Muslim masses are told/understand that the Quran is only a guide line and not the words of God itself, nothing can be done. If the Holly Book being the words of God is telling you to kill the gays as they are abomination, well, as a follower you have to kill gays. It is not even an option to say no. That is God's will.
What the Muslim Religion needs is in fact less believers, as we had in Europe/USA. More atheists, more theists, more "let live" persons. Who really care what the Pope say? Even Ireland which was the last bastion of Catholicism starts to prosecute the pedophile priests.
Generally speaking, "Christian" back-grounds populations do as they please, and good if the religions agreed with it.

You want a Religion to become softer and more human? Criticism, reason and freedom will do the job.

Pannonian

02-07-2015, 11:08

Kagemusha

02-07-2015, 11:16

I dont think what anyone needs is a Caliphate in a sense of theocracy, but it could be that only way to stabilize Middle East could be by creating a large state for Sunni arabs involving number of current states of the area. Now how to accomplish this and how to secure it would be even somewhat secular. I havent got a clue how to achieve that...:shrug:

Beskar

02-07-2015, 13:06

Abit too late to start reconstructing the Ottoman Empire.

Brenus

02-07-2015, 16:09

"I just want these nutters as far away from me as possible." And how a Caliphate would achieve this?

Pannonian

02-07-2015, 17:18

"I just want these nutters as far away from me as possible." And how a Caliphate would achieve this?

It would give them a state to go to, allowing us to remove their British or whatever citizenship. If they want to go to their utopia, they're welcome to, and as soon as possible.

Fragony

02-07-2015, 17:46

It would give them a state to go to, allowing us to remove their British or whatever citizenship. If they want to go to their utopia, they're welcome to, and as soon as possible.

Not untill you recognise the IS as a state, and IS is a state you are officially at war with. Just liquidate threats ffs.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2015, 18:02

Abit too late to start reconstructing the Ottoman Empire.

Not at all what I was intimating. I am talking about an extra-national caliphate whose power is focused upon the Muslim faith. Without some accepted central "figure" in the religion, Islam will always be splintered by reform efforts and never altered as a whole.

Neither the Saudi Monarchy nor the Iranian quasi-theocracy can maintain power and influence without an appeal to physical force. THAT is what is lacking.

a completely inoffensive name

02-08-2015, 11:14

I do not think any sort of central Islamic religious figure/council will do anything to help. This is because religious conflict is usually a political conflict or a resource conflict, where religion is simply a convenient and easy to market cover for more abstract or nefarious reasons.

Fragony

02-08-2015, 14:39

What do you think that

Fragony

02-08-2015, 15:05

Time for some lighthearted fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6hGiAwlxg IS-fail compilation.

I love the one where a hostage-taker has to hold a baby, and the jihadis who can't stop laughing while shooting the video

Warning, in some parts people could have died. Not that you see it but it's possible.

I of the Storm

02-08-2015, 16:18

Quite a lot of people dying in that video, but the intention is appreciated.

Edit: Some look like really hot candidates for the Darwin Awards, though.

a completely inoffensive name

02-08-2015, 21:46

What do you think that
Because when all parties live under a secular democracy that does not hand out political power based on religion, suddenly the Protestants and Catholics are no longer slaughtering each other.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-09-2015, 00:58

Because when all parties live under a secular democracy that does not hand out political power based on religion, suddenly the Protestants and Catholics are no longer slaughtering each other.

Well, at least not in job lots. The Irish Troubles mean your principle has a few exceptions at least

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2015, 02:20

Well, at least not in job lots. The Irish Troubles mean your principle has a few exceptions at least

The Troubles were not Protestants and Catholics killing each other. The Troubles were nationalists and unionists killing each other.

Montmorency

02-09-2015, 03:21

The term you're looking for is covariance, I think.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-09-2015, 15:30

The Troubles were not Protestants and Catholics killing each other. The Troubles were nationalists and unionists killing each other.

Some truth to that, of course. However, there was an awful lot of conflation between the two labels, as you well know, and more than a few who defined it in religious terms rather than political.

Brenus

02-09-2015, 18:24

"The Troubles were not Protestants and Catholics killing each other. The Troubles were nationalists and unionists killing each other" Well, the troubles were that 2 nationalism (unionists being as much as nationalist than Republicans you qualify as nationalists) were killing each other, and the line of partition was on the Religion. Plus real discrimination towards Catholics and Orange Marches. So, lot of economical factors, humiliations and political mistakes...

HopAlongBunny

02-13-2015, 22:05

That Muslim terrorist Barrack Obama has asked Congress for Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)
Republicans are aghast because they could end up supporting Obama; some Democrats are aghast because stopping the war was their talking point.
It looks like the Muslim King of the USA may have to continue the war through Executive Orders; have to wait and see if the hate for Obama is sufficient to have the hawks decline the president's request, with support from the doves.
Politics, it just makes your brain hurt sometimes :)

http://wonkette.com/576138/gop-rep-just-sure-obama-really-loves-those-mooslims-hes-about-to-bomb

Greyblades

02-13-2015, 22:19

Why is obama wanting to get back into the fight?

Brenus

02-14-2015, 00:12

To leave the country how he found it.

TotalGamer

02-14-2015, 14:33

Why is obama wanting to get back into the fight?

Because Obama is the world police...

Seamus Fermanagh

02-14-2015, 16:12

Why is obama wanting to get back into the fight?

Wanting to? Hardly that. For the most part, Obama has sought a domestic Presidency. His FoPo has been, at best, reactive for the entire time.

Tiring. All of it is just malfing tiring.

Fragony

02-14-2015, 18:28

Hi Denmark, love, people with culture. Happy valentines day

Thers is only one thing that has nothing to do with it, silly me. How could I think that it has everything to do with islam. RIP victims and good luck wounded. Gotta love enrichment of our values.

Crandar

02-14-2015, 18:35

After Derna, ISIS seized Sirte, the city where Gaddafi was executed.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/strengthens-presence-libyan-coast-2132528594

Meanwhile, in Syria, an officer of the Quds Force died, while bravely fighting for Syria's independence.

http://www.seratnews.ir/files/fa/news/1393/11/25/164793_516.jpg

Brenus

02-14-2015, 23:38

Frag, Danish have to stop to be rude, you'd know... First you ask if you can, if you don't, you have to prepare to die. And no, it is nothing to do with a religion, it is just hundred of lone wolves...

Kadagar_AV

02-15-2015, 14:29

Is it just me, or does muslims seem to be extremely over-represented when it comes to terrorism?

Would it be so unthinkable to argue that there is something rotten in the religion itself?

Husar

02-15-2015, 15:29

I think family fathers are incredibly over-represented when it comes to hiding young girls as sex slaves in the basement, maybe something should be done against family fathers.
Denmark has a national tragedy because two people were shot and New York celebrates if noone gets murdered for eleven days. Then again, New York has more inhabitants than Denmark, maybe that has something to do with it.
I wouldn't say I'm in favor of terrorism, but if you think the number of muslims who kill someone in the west should make you scared of muslims, then the number of family members who kill or abuse someone in the west should make you terrified of your family members.

Fragony

02-15-2015, 15:58

Is it just me, or does muslims seem to be extremely over-represented when it comes to terrorism?

Would it be so unthinkable to argue that there is something rotten in the religion itself?

Of course not, gutmensch nows, for a fact, that it has absolutilly nothing to do with islam. How could you even suggest that it is a fatatalist ideoligy of people who are stuck in 1400. Culltures wouldn't be equal wtf.

Husar

02-15-2015, 16:36

Of course not, gutmensch nows, for a fact, that it has absolutilly nothing to do with islam. How could you even suggest that it is a fatatalist ideoligy of people who are stuck in 1400. Culltures wouldn't be equal wtf.

You're in the process of creating a new language I think, if this goes on, noone will be able to read your posts in a year or two.
I'm aware that language changes over time, but you're too fast for the rest of us.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2015, 17:16

You're in the process of creating a new language I think, if this goes on, noone will be able to read your posts in a year or two.
I'm aware that language changes over time, but you're too fast for the rest of us.

Actually, I understood Frag perfectly - that's the most coherent sentence he's written in a while.

Anyway, to answer Kad, I have been saying for several years that Islam has a problem not being top dog. This is why the Pakistanis wanted their own Muslim-run country, why the president of Turkey tried to claim Muslims discovered America first and why gunmen assaulted the offices of Charlie Hebdo over some silly, and frankly unfunny, cartoons.

Brenus

02-15-2015, 18:33

"I think family fathers are incredibly over-represented when it comes to hiding young girls as sex slaves in the basement, maybe something should be done against family fathers." Sure, however there nothing in a book about family fathers saying that it is fair to have sex slaves. In fact, I am am quite sure that it is said you shouldn't have sex slaves. I know it because last week we had one grand-father who raped his grand-daughter sentenced for 18 years imprisonment at the Crown Court.
It is too easy to make parallel like this (60 % of violence against women are by their partners, mostly males. Most of pedophiles attacks are by relatives and close family friends). These are smoke screens, diversions of a real problem.
Acknowledgment of the Muslim Religion having trouble with it commands (some of them) is the first step to overcome the problem. Not by few scholars, but by the majority of the followers. Not that the vast majority of the followers would be terrorists, but they think that the terrorists have some grounds. And even some none Muslims agree on this. We shouldn't be rude, we shouldn't hurt their feelings, we shouldn't criticised or mocked their beliefs. Why?
Until these "exceptions" or "lone wolves" will not be recognised as exceptions but as products of the religions, the pure applications of religious laws coming from the book (holly one), so the recognition that the Holly Book has to be amended, the Muslims Scholars won't be able to do just that.

"and frankly unfunny, cartoons" Not relevant, as they were not made to be funny. They were against superstitions and religious claims to be exempt of criticism and untouchable to reason. I want to keep the right to say, to be able to say, that the idea of Mohamed getting on a winged horse to go to Paradise is absurd, or Jesus walking on waters, or graves opening and thousands of dead raising from them.

Papewaio

02-15-2015, 21:59

In Australia our PM is trying to distract as much as possible from domestic policy by bringing up the threat of terrorism.

However most of us are in more danger from sugar and pastries then machetes and bombs.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2015, 23:34

In other news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-31481797

Christians dyeing en masse

Husar

02-16-2015, 01:04

Actually, I understood Frag perfectly - that's the most coherent sentence he's written in a while.

It was less the sentence structure and more the letters he added to random words along the way.

And Brenus, most people don't like it when their beliefs are attacked, the problem is that some react to it in a violent way.
Proper Christians also won't like it when you mock Jesus, when I first saw the Life of Brian, I didn't want to laught about it at all.
The difference is mostly in the response. Christianity has mostly rooted out the interpretations that used to allow a violent response but Islam isn't quite there yet and the countries where most of the terrorists come from are quite a bit behind in terms of society development as they still have strong tribal structures etc. That's where I would look for the reason, not in whether people have become masochistic enough that they enjoy it when you insult and mock their core beliefs. Some atheists think the best way to proceed is to always be a butthole, but I quite frankly don't like those types a lot either. If someone says the right things to me, I'll also punch him in the face, and I never read the quran.

Brenus

02-16-2015, 08:33

Kadagar_AV

02-16-2015, 11:47

Brenus basically wrote what I intended (only better), so yeah... What he said...

What is being buttholeish for you, Husar?

I think it's butholish to, say, throw menstrual blood at people who have religious beliefs making it an incredible shame and insult... Like in Guantanamo...

However, to laugh someone in the face when he says something ludicrous, or to totally disrespect an ill funded argument... Well, that is just working for the betterment of mankind.

I suspect Husar wants people to thread carefully around religious questions, because the believers somehow earn some kind of "respect", just because they are believers...

Fragony

02-16-2015, 12:50

Most are homegrown, islam isn't just not there yet, it's just not there where it wants to be. Islamapoligists are sure to lay down a red carpet because they are also deeply religious, the multiculteralist. Nothing is ever going to change their mind, es must sein. I wish I was Jewish, at least there is somewhere to go.

Husar

02-16-2015, 13:38

"If someone says the right things to me, I'll also punch him in the face, and I never read the quran." And you will be rightly put in front of a Court for Assault by Beating. I don't suppose you will claim immunity for it, nor your right to do so. Or expect your victim to keep still during the attack, and to agree with it.
As your second statement, I agree. So the problem is within the Muslim Religion as it would be very difficult to point one action of IS to be against the Quran.

It's very hard to get me to the point where I will punch someone. And for that reason, every time I punch someone it is a justified reaction to extreme mental torture, basically self defense.

If you have no clue what's in the quran, maybe that would be hard, but why do other muslims who actually read the book tell us about all the parts of the Quran that the IS violates? If you close your ears every time a a muslim speaks, you may have missed that though.
The ones who keep saying all their actions are by the book are the IS guys themselves, do you always take the propaganda of your enemy at face value?

"Some atheists think the best way to proceed is to always be a butthole" Yeah, because the acceptation of unacceptable behavior lead to what? More demands, more "hurt in feelings" demands. I was once told you can't demand respect, you earn it. And until the Muslim Religion earn the right to be respected for other reason than fear, I won't take it any more. The followers of Islam will have to accept criticism and to have their beliefs ridiculed as all others religions, values systems and superstitions did, including mine.
Some "values" in the Quran, as inequality in gender, racism (in a broad sense) and aggression can't be accepted by modern societies. Period.

But that goes both ways, how can you demand respect from muslims when your magazines call them idiots every day?
I didn't say anywhere that we have to reinstate slavery to make muslims comfortable, did I? Can you show me how many muslims demand official gender inequality? What about most if not all christian pastors being men? The bible says women shouldn't preach. I also know a christian church where all the women wear headscarves when they go to the sunday service because there is a passage in the bible that says women should cover their heads during religious tasks or so. (I don't remember the exact quote) Do you think they are fascist pigs and should be called idiots in magazines or thrown out of the country if they do not cease doing that? Or maybe the bible is just as much a fascist book about inequalities we cannot tolerate? It also says that the wife should be subservient to her husband by the way.
http://biblehub.com/colossians/3-18.htm

It seems that just because catholics allow the pope and modern atheist society to dictate their rules further and further away from what the bible actually teaches, many now believe that this would be the norm for christianity or what christianity is actually about. There are also women who wear the hijab without being forced to do so. It may be hard to believe but when people actually do believe in their religion, they do not mind some self-imposed inequalities. If they are forced upon people, I'm always against it.

If you want to do away with freedom of religion and force everyone to live the atheist life, just say so.

Brenus basically wrote what I intended (only better), so yeah... What he said...

What is being buttholeish for you, Husar?

I think it's butholish to, say, throw menstrual blood at people who have religious beliefs making it an incredible shame and insult... Like in Guantanamo...

However, to laugh someone in the face when he says something ludicrous, or to totally disrespect an ill funded argument... Well, that is just working for the betterment of mankind.

I suspect Husar wants people to thread carefully around religious questions, because the believers somehow earn some kind of "respect", just because they are believers...

If I posted a cartoon here where the basic message was "Kadagar is a mouth-breathing idiot." would you laugh about it?
It's a cartoon and "it has to be pointed out after all" and all your arguments are ill-funded anyway. So it would be fine for me to do that and you wouldn't be angry, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, in your opinion my basic premise for that cartoon wouldn't be correct and you'd be offended by it.
And now who would tell us whose opinion on whether you're a complete idiot or not is the one that has a right to be paraded around the world? Would we just go with the local majority? So we make a poll and if most people vote that you're an idiot, I can make the cartoon? Would that be fair and not buttholish of me?
Because when you heavily mock a religion, you basically say all of its followers are idiots for following it in the first place.
And it's not like you have to be offensive to disagree with something or tell someone that you think he or she is wrong about this or that. In my opinion and experience, calling someone an idiot is usually not a good way to make them consider your argument.

Kadagar_AV

02-16-2015, 14:44

If I posted a cartoon here where the basic message was "Kadagar is a mouth-breathing idiot." would you laugh about it?
It's a cartoon and "it has to be pointed out after all" and all your arguments are ill-funded anyway. So it would be fine for me to do that and you wouldn't be angry, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, in your opinion my basic premise for that cartoon wouldn't be correct and you'd be offended by it.
And now who would tell us whose opinion on whether you're a complete idiot or not is the one that has a right to be paraded around the world? Would we just go with the local majority? So we make a poll and if most people vote that you're an idiot, I can make the cartoon? Would that be fair and not buttholish of me?
Because when you heavily mock a religion, you basically say all of its followers are idiots for following it in the first place.
And it's not like you have to be offensive to disagree with something or tell someone that you think he or she is wrong about this or that. In my opinion and experience, calling someone an idiot is usually not a good way to make them consider your argument.

That's just gibberish.

That a person calls another person an idiot is = a person laughing at another persons ludicrous fantasy? In what reality?

I would take offense if you said I was being an idiot, yes. I would not take offense if you said my argument was idiotic, and went through as to why.

Regardless, in neither of the occasions would I shoot you and anyone around you, and then some Jews, for good measure (like we just saw in Denmark).

Why? Because idiotic as I may be, I am no muslim.

Husar

02-16-2015, 15:48

That a person calls another person an idiot is = a person laughing at another persons ludicrous fantasy? In what reality?

For you it is a silly fantasy, for them it is the essence and guideline of their lives. You may call it a different reality but that won't make it disappear.
A religion is not a hobby for people who actually believe in it.

Fragony

02-16-2015, 15:57

For you it is a silly fantasy, for them it is the essence and guideline of their lives. You may call it a different reality but that won't make it disappear.
A religion is not a hobby for people who actually believe in it.

And I believe they are idiots, idiots with ideas that I can completily disregard.

Respect, forget it, wrong number

Husar

02-16-2015, 16:18

And I believe they are idiots, idiots with ideas that I can completily disregard.

Respect, forget it, wrong number

So, what exactly do you want then? A religion-cleansed atheist Netherlands enforced by the government?

Fragony

02-16-2015, 16:45

So, what exactly do you want then? A religion-cleansed atheist Netherlands enforced by the government?

Ae long as there are demands there is no problem. As long as nobody asks anything from me he/she can howl to the moon all they want. But it kinda goes wrong there no. Muslims will always be offended anyway, if there is no reason they will look for one, so you could as well mock them.

Kadagar_AV

02-16-2015, 17:31

For you it is a silly fantasy, for them it is the essence and guideline of their lives. You may call it a different reality but that won't make it disappear.
A religion is not a hobby for people who actually believe in it.

A psychosis is not a hobby for people who actually believe in it either, what's your point?

Why the heck should I respect someone who base his life on writings of a desert living tribe from the iron age? I mean, seriously?

Husar

02-16-2015, 18:45

A psychosis is not a hobby for people who actually believe in it either, what's your point?

Why the heck should I respect someone who base his life on writings of a desert living tribe from the iron age? I mean, seriously?

Why the heck should I respect someone who earns money by telling people how to slide down a hill?
I mean seriously, that's the most pointless exercise, people could already slide down hills in the middle ages.
Why should I respect anyone but myself?

Kadagar_AV

02-16-2015, 19:23

Why the heck should I respect someone who earns money by telling people how to slide down a hill?
I mean seriously, that's the most pointless exercise, people could already slide down hills in the middle ages.
Why should I respect anyone but myself?

Your attempt of angering me is endearing <3

Short answer, you shouldn't, if he tries to tell you how to live your life.

If he tries to tell you how to pointlessly slide down a hill you might want to consider his advice though...

Why you should respect anyone but yourself? Because it's the nice things to do, and you would want people to treat you the same way.

However, to respect someones IDEAS is far far far far faaaaaaar away from respecting them as person.

You seem to hold a very weak argument here, mate.

Brenus

02-16-2015, 19:24

“If you have no clue what's in the quran, maybe that would be hard, but why do other muslims who actually read the book tell us about all the parts of the Quran that the IS violates?” Well, none, if I follow what French Muslims Scholars are writing in magazines and newspapers, and they point out that it is where the problem is, and that what they want to change. Killing Jews and Gays is not only allowed but recommended in the Quran, as having slaves and killing agnostics, atheist and polytheist. Yes, some say that Jihad is the conquest of your inner self, but it is as well to wage war on others lands as mentioned in the Land of Islam (land with no war, abusively translated as the Land of Peace) and the Land of War. Islam divides the human race in the one of the top being the Muslims, the ones who can live as slaves (dhimmi) being from the religion of the book, and the others you can kill. No, sorry, the ones it is your duty to kill.

“The ones who keep saying all their actions are by the book are the IS guys themselves, do you always take the propaganda of your enemy at face value?” I think I answer this remark.

“But that goes both ways, how can you demand respect from muslims when your magazines call them idiots every day?” Here, YOU are “taking the propaganda of your enemy at face value”. Charlie Hebdo never called Muslim idiots. CH attacked the Religion, the System, as idiotic, as they did and do for all Religions. That is why the ones excusing the massacre try to mix Racism with anti-religious articles. Islam is not a Race, but a Religion, so not immune to be called Idiotic. Racism is an offense in France, not an opinion. Each time Religions try to go to the Curt against CH on these grounds they lost the case.
As the rest of your intervention, nothing to had, I fully agree on your remark.

“If you want to do away with freedom of religion and force everyone to live the atheist life, just say so.” Atheist is not a religion, so no rules to follow, no Doctor of the Faith or equivalent and no one try to enforce atheism. What atheists want is the Religions stop to try to impose their views, moral and clothing on others. Religions are opinions. Some have the opinion that Mary is a virgin, some don’t. And because their opinions are de facto blaspheming for others religions, atheists came with the idea of laicism. Keep your religion private, believe what you want in the respect of the common law voted by elected Parliaments, and please stop the strop.

Husar

02-16-2015, 20:10

Your attempt of angering me is endearing <3

If you want to believe that...

Short answer, you shouldn't, if he tries to tell you how to live your life.

If he tries to tell you how to pointlessly slide down a hill you might want to consider his advice though...

How many muslims are trying to tell you how to live your life?

Why you should respect anyone but yourself? Because it's the nice things to do, and you would want people to treat you the same way.

However, to respect someones IDEAS is far far far far faaaaaaar away from respecting them as person.

You seem to hold a very weak argument here, mate.

Really? I asked a muslim, who doesn't want to kill me by the way, why some Mohammed cartoons insult him. And he said it's because they insult something that is very dear to him, something that is sacred to him. If you say his religion is stupid, you also say that he is stupid for following it.
And I know that Christians have very similar opinions because I happen to have been in several churches in my life.

“If you have no clue what's in the quran, maybe that would be hard, but why do other muslims who actually read the book tell us about all the parts of the Quran that the IS violates?” Well, none, if I follow what French Muslims Scholars are writing in magazines and newspapers, and they point out that it is where the problem is, and that what they want to change. Killing Jews and Gays is not only allowed but recommended in the Quran, as having slaves and killing agnostics, atheist and polytheist. Yes, some say that Jihad is the conquest of your inner self, but it is as well to wage war on others lands as mentioned in the Land of Islam (land with no war, abusively translated as the Land of Peace) and the Land of War. Islam divides the human race in the one of the top being the Muslims, the ones who can live as slaves (dhimmi) being from the religion of the book, and the others you can kill. No, sorry, the ones it is your duty to kill.

So Fragony was right all along?
Good to know.

“But that goes both ways, how can you demand respect from muslims when your magazines call them idiots every day?” Here, YOU are “taking the propaganda of your enemy at face value”. Charlie Hebdo never called Muslim idiots. CH attacked the Religion, the System, as idiotic, as they did and do for all Religions. That is why the ones excusing the massacre try to mix Racism with anti-religious articles. Islam is not a Race, but a Religion, so not immune to be called Idiotic. Racism is an offense in France, not an opinion. Each time Religions try to go to the Curt against CH on these grounds they lost the case.

Again, when you say a religion is so stupid that only idiots would take it seriously, what do you expect the people who take it seriously to think?

“If you want to do away with freedom of religion and force everyone to live the atheist life, just say so.” Atheist is not a religion, so no rules to follow, no Doctor of the Faith or equivalent and no one try to enforce atheism. What atheists want is the Religions stop to try to impose their views, moral and clothing on others. Religions are opinions. Some have the opinion that Mary is a virgin, some don’t. And because their opinions are de facto blaspheming for others religions, atheists came with the idea of laicism. Keep your religion private, believe what you want in the respect of the common law voted by elected Parliaments, and please stop the strop.

Yes, the vast majority of believers of all kind do this, the others are prosecuted as criminals, where exactly is the problem apart from the fact that some religious people can also be criminals?

Kadagar_AV

02-16-2015, 21:18

If you want to believe that...

That you are endearing? Everyday of the week mate <3

How many muslims are trying to tell you how to live your life?

Well, there was this muslim bomber who blew himself up where I lived back in 2010...

Admittedly I have only mentioned one, but that was plenty enough for me, thankyouverymuch...

Oh, and my grudge against Islam isn't because of him, but because of how the action was met by other muslims... Or to go on, how all the repulsive things going on within Islam gets a silent "ok" from the muslims around where I live.

If muslims want to show they hate things like this... They should do more about it.

The Jihad clique in the sururbs where I lived before are "the cool guys", Jihadism is actually alluring, and we have countless of "Swedes" (read Arab immigrants) fighting for ISIS...

Until the general muslim community see these terrorists as an absolute pariah, I have no sympathy for them. And at least here in Sweden, the muslim community does not. Heck, our biggest muslim organization even invites Jihadi speakers...

So, well, **** them.

Really? I asked a muslim, who doesn't want to kill me by the way, why some Mohammed cartoons insult him. And he said it's because they insult something that is very dear to him, something that is sacred to him. If you say his religion is stupid, you also say that he is stupid for following it.
And I know that Christians have very similar opinions because I happen to have been in several churches in my life.

Sure, christians have done, and do, a lot of ****. They are also religious, and thus held by belief not fact.

However, in Christianitys defense... Islam is now where Christianity was somewhere before the enlightenment... Christianity has improved a LOT since... Islam on the other hand? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Brenus

02-16-2015, 21:19

“where exactly is the problem apart from the fact that some religious people can also be criminals?” In the fact the Religion is telling them they can, may be? And that is in fact recommended?

“So Fragony was right all along? Good to know.” You avoid answering: So what in IS’ actions, is against Islam? And I don’t speak of Muslims; I speak of Islam as an Ideology. Because, com’on, if any political organisations would have followers killing left, right and center in its name, giving references from the political platform telling to do so, having a totalitarian ideology, how long it would take to ban it? Are Religions immune to common laws and social basic laws?

“And he said it's because they insult something that is very dear to him, something that is sacred to him.” Well, tough. The idea that there are people believing there is a god is insult to intelligence for me, and I don’t start to shoot at followers of religion(s). That is what we call tolerance.

“If you say his religion is stupid, you also say that he is stupid for following it.” Brainwashed, delusional, or just in need of a big daddy: Depends on how aggressive the guy or woman is. And again, what is the problem? Your German Muslim didn’t even know of a French Satirical Magazine, but he/she is still hurt in his/her feelings because someone told him/her that it was insult: His/her choice. So, leave with it.

“How many muslims are trying to tell you how to live your life?” The ones willing to kill for it: At least 3 in Paris last month, 1 in Denmark, several thousands (hundreds of thousands?) in Iraq apparently.
Plus the ones demanding respect for their “hurt feeling” when someone's opinion is their belief system is medieval, racist and fascist, against modern idea of human rights. That hurts their feelings, well, change the bits of Islam that just do that. Might not leave much of the book mind you. Don't worry I think the same for the Bible and others "holly" texts.
Muslims just have to do like their brothers (not sisters, as religions don’t have a great deal of admiration for females) in monotheistic religions: don’t tell the bad parts, push them under the carpet, and forget them. With time, we forget Christianity and Judaism are pro-slavery, against gender equality and sciences, and were aggressively lands grabbers. Then job done, you can pretend that Religions are for peace and understanding.

Husar

02-17-2015, 02:54

Well, there was this muslim bomber who blew himself up where I lived back in 2010...

Admittedly I have only mentioned one, but that was plenty enough for me, thankyouverymuch...

Yes, the proper response to someone demanding that you change your way of life is to throw your previous morals away and ask people who had nothing to do with it but are loosely associated with the other guy to change their lives...
That way you, eh, win and show your moral superiority...

Oh, and my grudge against Islam isn't because of him, but because of how the action was met by other muslims... Or to go on, how all the repulsive things going on within Islam gets a silent "ok" from the muslims around where I live.

If muslims want to show they hate things like this... They should do more about it.

The Jihad clique in the sururbs where I lived before are "the cool guys", Jihadism is actually alluring, and we have countless of "Swedes" (read Arab immigrants) fighting for ISIS...

Until the general muslim community see these terrorists as an absolute pariah, I have no sympathy for them.

So I assume that you voted for a party that is loosely associated with Breivik's ideology, that's even more than a silent "ok" from you for murdering children...
I also didn't see you protesting against white supremacists in the streets, so since you're white that has to be a silent "ok" from you. :dizzy2:

However, in Christianitys defense... Islam is now where Christianity was somewhere before the enlightenment... Christianity has improved a LOT since... Islam on the other hand? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

I wouldn't say christianity has improved, most of it has just become semi-atheism and the rest returned to the roots.

“where exactly is the problem apart from the fact that some religious people can also be criminals?” In the fact the Religion is telling them they can, may be? And that is in fact recommended?

“So Fragony was right all along? Good to know.” You avoid answering: So what in IS’ actions, is against Islam? And I don’t speak of Muslims; I speak of Islam as an Ideology. Because, com’on, if any political organisations would have followers killing left, right and center in its name, giving references from the political platform telling to do so, having a totalitarian ideology, how long it would take to ban it? Are Religions immune to common laws and social basic laws?

I already said I didn't read the quran, it's just that people who did read it and live according to it say their actions are against the quran. Where is the improvement in alienating these people further by banning their religion?

“And he said it's because they insult something that is very dear to him, something that is sacred to him.” Well, tough. The idea that there are people believing there is a god is insult to intelligence for me, and I don’t start to shoot at followers of religion(s). That is what we call tolerance.

“If you say his religion is stupid, you also say that he is stupid for following it.” Brainwashed, delusional, or just in need of a big daddy: Depends on how aggressive the guy or woman is. And again, what is the problem? Your German Muslim didn’t even know of a French Satirical Magazine, but he/she is still hurt in his/her feelings because someone told him/her that it was insult: His/her choice. So, leave with it.

He does tolerate it, the point was that it's an insult by proxy, I never said he can't live with it, don't make things up.
You obviously have a problem with religious people, too, so you're just a version of him on the other side of the fence.

“How many muslims are trying to tell you how to live your life?” The ones willing to kill for it: At least 3 in Paris last month, 1 in Denmark, several thousands (hundreds of thousands?) in Iraq apparently.
Plus the ones demanding respect for their “hurt feeling” when someone's opinion is their belief system is medieval, racist and fascist, against modern idea of human rights. That hurts their feelings, well, change the bits of Islam that just do that. Might not leave much of the book mind you. Don't worry I think the same for the Bible and others "holly" texts.
Muslims just have to do like their brothers (not sisters, as religions don’t have a great deal of admiration for females) in monotheistic religions: don’t tell the bad parts, push them under the carpet, and forget them. With time, we forget Christianity and Judaism are pro-slavery, against gender equality and sciences, and were aggressively lands grabbers. Then job done, you can pretend that Religions are for peace and understanding.

Well, given how you talk about and belittle other people who disagree with you, I'm not sure I want to share your modern idea of human rights. And you don't seem to understand the point of a religion at all: http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/4-2.htm

Kadagar_AV

02-17-2015, 03:49

I wouldn't say christianity has improved, most of it has just become semi-atheism and the rest returned to the roots.

Uuuuh... Did you just take what I wrote, and decided to personally edit it, or what?

You just know that a quote falls short when it starts with "However".

Christianity at large is still evil and rotten, sure.

However, compared to Islam... Nah, I wont go into that. It feels insulting comparing Islam to modern Christianity.

Please note the word "modern".

Heck, the pope even went out PUBLIC to say that the earth, might in fact, turn around the sun...

Geez, WOW, if that isn't religious progression I dont know what is!!!

The joke turns bitter when you indulge the thought that Islam hasn't even reached this very basic level of normal modern, well, intelligence.

Brenus

02-17-2015, 08:42

“You obviously have a problem with religious people, too, so you're just a version of him on the other side of the fence.” :laugh4: my step-daughter is heavily involved in a new-born Christian movement, so your assertion is completely out of reality. My opposition to religion is intellectual. It is still religious people who killed atheist on Paris, and tried in Denmark

“it's just that people who did read it and live according to it say their actions are against the quran.” Well, they are lying, or they didn’t read the Quran (2nd hypothesis most realistic). Doctors of Muslim Faith didn’t issued any fatwa against IS because all actions of IS are not against Quran’s writing. Killing gay (and you can find the quote in your favourite research engine) is commanded as killing Jews, agnostics, atheists and other sub-Muslims. The Quran tells you when you can beat you wife and when to stop. I invent nothing, all can be checked. So, can you ask “people who did read it and live according to it” what is against Quran in IS’ actions? And I don’t want a sentence that can be interpreted as against the killing, as all religions contradict themselves. No. I want form them a clear message from the Quran showing that it does not teach that killing Jews and others. Well, they won’t be able to do so, because it does.
They pick and choose and it is good they do so. But they can't claim that IS is doing against Quran's writtings.

“He does tolerate it, the point was that it's an insult by proxy” Good for him, and it is not an insult, the fact is there is no god, no holly texts, all these are men made. If reality is insulting, well, nothing I can do. And rainbows are just the colours of light even if some wish they are not.

“And you don't seem to understand the point of a religion at all” oh, I do. Oppression, murders, racism, crusades and Jihads, useless debates about non-existent deities and I can carry on.

“I'm not sure I want to share your modern idea of human rights” I sure of this as yours seem a little bit from Bronze Ages tribes orientated, slavery, inequality, etc… By the way, having as reference a book agreeing with slavery, genocide and aggression is not a good move. Well, for me at least.

Fragony

02-17-2015, 11:38

Now they are also pissing of Egypt..

Husar

02-17-2015, 12:05

Uuuuh... Did you just take what I wrote, and decided to personally edit it, or what?

You just know that a quote falls short when it starts with "However".

No, the rest just wasn't relevant to my reply, I didn't even criticize you in my reply, just offered my view on the improvement part.

Christianity at large is still evil and rotten, sure.

However, compared to Islam... Nah, I wont go into that. It feels insulting comparing Islam to modern Christianity.

Please note the word "modern".

Heck, the pope even went out PUBLIC to say that the earth, might in fact, turn around the sun...

Geez, WOW, if that isn't religious progression I dont know what is!!!

The joke turns bitter when you indulge the thought that Islam hasn't even reached this very basic level of normal modern, well, intelligence.

See, I want to give you honest replies and then I see hints of your crazy IQ theories again and I just despair. Sometimes I just quote the parts I want to give honest replies to but then you complain that I use your stuff out of context. So here you have a quote with full context and my reply that I just don't feel like going over this stupid argument of yours again.

“You obviously have a problem with religious people, too, so you're just a version of him on the other side of the fence.” :laugh4: my step-daughter is heavily involved in a new-born Christian movement, so your assertion is completely out of reality. My opposition to religion is intellectual. It is still religious people who killed atheist on Paris, and tried in Denmark

Okay, point taken, I just haven't read a whole lot of intellectual articles yet where the people they disagree with are described with words like brainwashed and delusional, but maybe that's because I don't study a social science. ~:shrug:

“it's just that people who did read it and live according to it say their actions are against the quran.” Well, they are lying, or they didn’t read the Quran (2nd hypothesis most realistic). Doctors of Muslim Faith didn’t issued any fatwa against IS because all actions of IS are not against Quran’s writing. Killing gay (and you can find the quote in your favourite research engine) is commanded as killing Jews, agnostics, atheists and other sub-Muslims. The Quran tells you when you can beat you wife and when to stop. I invent nothing, all can be checked. So, can you ask “people who did read it and live according to it” what is against Quran in IS’ actions? And I don’t want a sentence that can be interpreted as against the killing, as all religions contradict themselves. No. I want form them a clear message from the Quran showing that it does not teach that killing Jews and others. Well, they won’t be able to do so, because it does.
They pick and choose and it is good they do so. But they can't claim that IS is doing against Quran's writtings.

Even if that is so, what are we going to achieve by banning islam? At this point I always wonder what we argue about because even if we ban the entire religion because we think that the correct interpretation is evil, by doing so we will just:
a) alienate those with the "wrong" interpretation who are/were perfectly harmless but are now turned into criminals who also hate us.
b) we basically tell the friendly ones that they do not follow their religion correctly if they do not try to kill us and btw., we also hate them now and make their core beliefs illegal, that can't possibly end badly.

As for fatwas, a quick search seems to turn up a few:
http://www.dw.de/support-for-the-british-fatwa-against-is/a-17898912
http://www.icna.org/u-s-muslim-religious-council-issues-fatwa-against-terrorism/
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351277631/prominent-muslim-sheikh-issues-fatwa-against-isis-violence
http://news.sky.com/story/1327540/muslim-leaders-issue-fatwa-against-is-britons

“He does tolerate it, the point was that it's an insult by proxy” Good for him, and it is not an insult, the fact is there is no god, no holly texts, all these are men made. If reality is insulting, well, nothing I can do. And rainbows are just the colours of light even if some wish they are not.

If you are completely unwilling to even consider someone else's view or feelings on a subject, there is really no point in arguing about it.
It is however a stance that leads to conflict IMO, because any kind of compromise usually becomes impossible.
But luckily for you, you seem to have the immovable opinion that all conflict only comes from the other side of the argument.

“And you don't seem to understand the point of a religion at all” oh, I do. Oppression, murders, racism, crusades and Jihads, useless debates about non-existent deities and I can carry on.

Not relevant to my point.

“I'm not sure I want to share your modern idea of human rights” I sure of this as yours seem a little bit from Bronze Ages tribes orientated, slavery, inequality, etc… By the way, having as reference a book agreeing with slavery, genocide and aggression is not a good move. Well, for me at least.

If you think that is what I'm about, I guess there is nothing I can do to change that, it's quite funny though, given that PVC called me an atheist recently and now you call me a bronze age age slavery supporter which I assume is your way of calling me too religious. I'm also waiting for Kadagar to point out that this quote there is just part of a sentence that you quoted out of context. You two seem to agree a lot on this topic, so maybe you'll believe him when he says that.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-17-2015, 17:03

Now they are also pissing of Egypt..

Not too much of a threat. The over-sized archers are annoying, but the chariot generals die like flies so you can route them pretty easy.

Fragony

02-17-2015, 18:56

Brenus

02-17-2015, 21:06

what are we going to achieve by banning islam?” I don’t want to ban Islam or any religions. I want people to realise that religions have it quite easy in term of the law under the pretext there are Faith.

“we basically tell the friendly ones that they do not follow their religion correctly if they do not try to kill us” That is a valid point, but it is not my point, nor the French Muslim Scholars from whom I picked my points. First is to recognise that the killings are in grain in Islam, not alien to Islam. Then, create steps in order to extract from Islam these seeds in making them against Islam. But you can’t achieve this if you keep pretending these words of hate are the words of God. I know the process is difficult, but it is necessary to do so. And according to this scholars, it is possible, as it was done in the past (annulment). The trouble is it will shake the dogma that the Quran was dictated by God and wrote immediately, which is not true as all Muslim scholars know already. But due to the fact that most of the Muslims don’t read/understand Arabic, the actual Muslim Faith is more kind of magic, a little bit like Latin was for the Christians.

“you seem to have the immovable opinion that all conflict only comes from the other side of the argument.” For the moment being, as I notice the facts, the atheists are killed by the faithful. And even if a mad atheist decides to do the same in whatever religious buildings, he/she will not be able to claim legitimacy in a holly book, as atheists by definition have none. He/she will have to claim from another spectrum, probably political, where racism is heavily involved.
And no, I will not compromise with the unacceptable. I will not compromise on the ones who want to shut me up because their feelings are hurt. Or because they feel insulted when they are not. It is my right to tell others that I think their idea are bad, wrong or plainly stupid, as it their right to answer in the same way. I was told I will burn in Hell, so what?
I spoke with a lot of Religious persons, and some of them where Priest in all monotheistic religions, and they accepted my opinion and me their beliefs, and that it. No one felt insulted. Good laughs, sometimes… And many points of agreement...

“If you think that is what I'm about, I guess there is nothing I can do to change that” Well, you decided to go for the Bible, and the bible was/is a book from the Bronze Age, historically speaking.

“now you call me a bronze age age slavery supporter” Nope, I pointed out that the book you link is supporting slavery, so, as such, not really a good reference. So, put back my remark in context and you will see that it was not what I said. I should have been clearer, I concede.

“Not relevant to my point” Yes, but very in mine.

I afraid that your Fatwas are not excepted, if we are kind, the second one. It is better than what we had before (especially if you think of Rushdie) but these are not religious orders to be followed by the faithful, but guidelines based on other texts (for the second one) from the Quran or not.

Kadagar_AV

02-17-2015, 21:57

No, the rest just wasn't relevant to my reply, I didn't even criticize you in my reply, just offered my view on the improvement part.

See, I want to give you honest replies and then I see hints of your crazy IQ theories again and I just despair. Sometimes I just quote the parts I want to give honest replies to but then you complain that I use your stuff out of context. So here you have a quote with full context and my reply that I just don't feel like going over this stupid argument of yours again.

U on drugs mate? What of what I wrote had anything to do with IQ theories? You read to much into stuff, it seems.

Regardless, it is quite charming how you wont acknowledge that IQ isn't spread equally in every part of the globe. For me it would be an absolute shocker if it WAS equal, as that would go against evolution completely...

I am happy knowing East Asians and Jews generally have a higher IQ than people of my own breed... It doesn't trouble me, and I don't see it as problematic.

The problems only come in when you dare to say that black people are on the lower end of the scale... Yeah, THAT is not ok.

But know what, some subgroup MUST be... That's just how the world works :)

Ironside

02-18-2015, 09:09

Nice, over 40 burned alive in public execution. Why do I get the feeling they are more desperate then confident. So what is next, top this, kinda hard. Fatigue kicks in when it comes to being shocked by such atrocities. Surprise me, going to burn babies, or use them at a soccer-match. Goal them into a cage and then burn them. Just an idea.

The top guys are having doomsday cult vibes. They're doing a lot of quoting the Quran equivalent of the book of relevation. They want to have some kind of retaliation so they can beat it and then create heaven on earth. That's why they don't care about pissing everyone off, because long term stability comes through magic, not reality.

Fragony

02-18-2015, 10:46

The top guys are having doomsday cult vibes. They're doing a lot of quoting the Quran equivalent of the book of relevation. They want to have some kind of retaliation so they can beat it and then create heaven on earth. That's why they don't care about pissing everyone off, because long term stability comes through magic, not reality.

Could be, but I suspect they are just sadistic maniacs who's shock-value wears off, I wonder what they will come up next. Thd nevitable next shooting in a European town isn't going to have the same effect either anymore as everybody already knows it is comming, and mentally prepared. They are nerfing their only weapon, fear.

edit, this guy thinks you are spot on http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Kagemusha

02-18-2015, 16:13

Apparently they also amputated hands from people in Iraq for using cellphones. I think best thing would be to send every last one of these IS fellows to afterlife, which they so sorely miss already.

Kadagar_AV

02-18-2015, 19:36

Could be, but I suspect they are just sadistic maniacs who's shock-value wears off, I wonder what they will come up next. Thd nevitable next shooting in a European town isn't going to have the same effect either anymore as everybody already knows it is comming, and mentally prepared. They are nerfing their only weapon, fear.

edit, this guy thinks you are spot on http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

That was a very interesting read, thanks Frags :)

I can only recommend others to read it... It's well crafted :)

Kralizec

02-18-2015, 21:25

Indeed, a good article.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-19-2015, 19:07

Asymmetric warfare at its finest.

They have little to nothing in the way of high tech weaponry and their logistic train could not sustain such tools for long if they did possess them. Their numbers are comparatively few compared to either the local populations or the populations of the various nation-states who oppose ISIS. In any conventional conflict in the style of Iraq 2003 they will lose.

So why the hyper violent acts?

A demonstration of will. If they demonstrate that there is no level to which they would be unwilling to resort, it forces any and all potential opposition to recognize that ISIS can make their soldiers and civilians bleed and die. Some will look at the whole thing and say "____ it, the whole area is just not worth it."

That is how asymmetric warfare works. You hit the soft, doable target and create a sense of unease or terror on the part of the opposing forces. If you can keep it up long enough, the opposition force quits the field in disgust or war weariness. At which point you have won, regardless of the resources you started with.

Into the balance, such televised atrocities appeal to the radicalized or near radicalized persons who are ripe for induction into ISIS service. So it also functions as a "The Few, The Proud, The Marines" recruiting advertisement at the same time. One action generating payoffs in two categories for a little film time focused on gore.

We will see more of this. After ISIS it will be the next group of fringers. This is the contrapuntal harmony to the music of human history. Oh brave new world....

Pannonian

02-19-2015, 20:39

Fragony

02-19-2015, 20:48

They don't need to do these acts to prove that their land isn't worth it. The fact that they live in it is proof that their land isn't worth it. My only wish is to make it possible to dump our nuts there as well so we don't have to live with them.

Yeah, as the mayor of Rotterdam said (muslim himself):If you don't like it here just go, but never come back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNcOEOXH9cU

Had a chat with him once he's a really nice guy. More of these please. Or should I say PLEASE!

Seamus Fermanagh

02-21-2015, 01:55

They don't need to do these acts to prove that their land isn't worth it. The fact that they live in it is proof that their land isn't worth it. My only wish is to make it possible to dump our nuts there as well so we don't have to live with them.

I admit that having whackoids self-identify and initiate separation from the rest of us carries a certain appeal....

Tuuvi

02-21-2015, 08:27

They don't need to do these acts to prove that their land isn't worth it. The fact that they live in it is proof that their land isn't worth it. My only wish is to make it possible to dump our nuts there as well so we don't have to live with them.

I don't know man, it doesn't really seem fair to me to let millions of people live under a theocratic version of North Korea just so Europe can have a place to send its angsty muslim youths...

Husar

02-21-2015, 11:04

I don't know man, it doesn't really seem fair to me to let millions of people live under a theocratic version of North Korea just so Europe can have a place to send its angsty muslim youths...

I'm not sure whether they will keep millions alive given how they kill people every day for the smallest of reasons. I'm also not sure whether this comparison is fair towards North Korea, so far they don't seem to go out of their way to make people suffer and they haven't revealed expansion plans for the entire planet either.

Pannonian

02-21-2015, 12:56

I don't know man, it doesn't really seem fair to me to let millions of people live under a theocratic version of North Korea just so Europe can have a place to send its angsty muslim youths...

It's entirely fair for us to let anything happen. It's not us actively making these things happen, so why should we be held accountable for things that other people do? If we do go out of our way to make the world a better place, then we should be praised for it, but we shouldn't be expected to do it. And if those people are hating us for doing that, then I see no point in doing so, and they can have their own dump of a place to rule. No skin off my nose if they decide to have their own hellhole on earth, as long as they don't interfere with my life.

And after our wonderful efforts to topple the brutal dictator in Libya, that place is now awash with Islamists chopping the heads of Christians. I wish Saddam and Qaddafi were still in power to keep these nutters down, and thank goodness Assad managed to hang on despite the best efforts of our wonderful Liberal Democratic evangelists.

Tuuvi

02-21-2015, 21:29

I'm not sure whether they will keep millions alive given how they kill people every day for the smallest of reasons. I'm also not sure whether this comparison is fair towards North Korea, so far they don't seem to go out of their way to make people suffer and they haven't revealed expansion plans for the entire planet either.

If Islamic State manages to survive the civil war and establish itself as a fully fledged nation than it will resemble North Korea in a lot of ways. Both IS and North Korea are ruled by ideologically based regimes which allow very little human rights and punish dissent with death.

IS is interested in governance as well as jihad. It's establishing courts and civil institutions, coining money, and it even gives welfare to the poor. According to its propaganda housing and healthcare in the caliphate are free. If you are Sunni and you follow their laws ISIS will not kill you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94&list=PLDbSvEZka6GEwx95Rj4wfW34wBgs6pcHZ&index=10

https://ia802704.us.archive.org/17/items/TheIslamicState2015-FullEbook/TheIslamicState2015FullEbook.pdf

It's entirely fair for us to let anything happen. It's not us actively making these things happen, so why should we be held accountable for things that other people do? If we do go out of our way to make the world a better place, then we should be praised for it, but we shouldn't be expected to do it. And if those people are hating us for doing that, then I see no point in doing so, and they can have their own dump of a place to rule. No skin off my nose if they decide to have their own hellhole on earth, as long as they don't interfere with my life.

And after our wonderful efforts to topple the brutal dictator in Libya, that place is now awash with Islamists chopping the heads of Christians. I wish Saddam and Qaddafi were still in power to keep these nutters down, and thank goodness Assad managed to hang on despite the best efforts of our wonderful Liberal Democratic evangelists.

I'm sorry it was late and that post wasn't written very well. I didn't mean to suggest we need to intervene in Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS, I just strongly disagree with the notion that most Iraqis and Syrians want or deserve to live under ISIS rule, which your post seemed to imply.

Husar

02-21-2015, 23:48

If Islamic State manages to survive the civil war and establish itself as a fully fledged nation than it will resemble North Korea in a lot of ways. Both IS and North Korea are ruled by ideologically based regimes which allow very little human rights and punish dissent with death.

IS is interested in governance as well as jihad. It's establishing courts and civil institutions, coining money, and it even gives welfare to the poor. According to its propaganda housing and healthcare in the caliphate are free. If you are Sunni and you follow their laws ISIS will not kill you.

That's a joke, right? North Korea is a country that was established where there was already a country and it wants to stay that way. The caliphate was established where no comparable country was before and it plans to integrate the entire world into the "country". North Korea does not want to come here and kill me for not being Sunni, the caliphate does. The difference is almost an entire planet. That ISIS is interested in government makes it as much similar to North Korea as it makes it similar to Belgium. The major difference is in who they want to subdue/kill. Belgium comes out ahead in that comparison by the way.

CrossLOPER

02-21-2015, 23:53

Seamus Fermanagh

02-22-2015, 16:23

It's entirely fair for us to let anything happen. It's not us actively making these things happen, so why should we be held accountable for things that other people do? If we do go out of our way to make the world a better place, then we should be praised for it, but we shouldn't be expected to do it. And if those people are hating us for doing that, then I see no point in doing so, and they can have their own dump of a place to rule. No skin off my nose if they decide to have their own hellhole on earth, as long as they don't interfere with my life.

And after our wonderful efforts to topple the brutal dictator in Libya, that place is now awash with Islamists chopping the heads of Christians. I wish Saddam and Qaddafi were still in power to keep these nutters down, and thank goodness Assad managed to hang on despite the best efforts of our wonderful Liberal Democratic evangelists.

So, at the end of the day, you see little alternative to a series of brutal thugs clamping a lid on things?

Fragony

02-22-2015, 16:51

So, at the end of the day, you see little alternative to a series of brutal thugs clamping a lid on things?

For the time being, yeah that would be better for the people there. Living in a dictatorship must be horrible but what we see now is the new Heart of Darkness. Better to keep your head down than having it cut off.

Brenus

02-22-2015, 17:22

“So, at the end of the day, you see little alternative to a series of brutal thugs clamping a lid on things?” We could have helped if, prior our military intervention, we didn’t help the dictators to get rid of their opposition.
We trained the dictators’ police against the “Communists” (I use communists in a broad sense, as communists were from farmers protesting against the land grabbing, unionists asking for pay rise to real communists, even if democratically elected), we helped all the wars against movement requesting little autonomy from Central government from Indonesia to Guatemala. We invaded without any thinking any country that didn’t line-up with our policy, or resisted against our interests. In the name of anti-communism, we forgot that the 1st enemy of communism are Nazism and fascism.
So, the only way, path, road for protest in dictatorships was the one we didn’t see as dangerous: religious. We thought that Islam could melt in democracy as Christianity did, like the good Social Democrats Parties in Europe.
In clamping the wheel of democracy by fear of unwanted political developments, we just created a monster, and as the Dr Frankenstein, we don’t know how to stop our creature.

"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies" Maximilien Robespierre, 2 January 1792, opposing the Revolutionary Wars in order to free the rest of Europe from Tyranny.

Pannonian

02-22-2015, 18:46

So, at the end of the day, you see little alternative to a series of brutal thugs clamping a lid on things?

Given that a liberal democracy installed by us isn't a practical option, a dictatorship of their own kind is preferable in all aspects, most importantly for us. At least the neocons had the excuse of pipedreams prior to Iraq. However, those who wanted interventions in the same region post-Iraq ignored the clear example set by Iraq. What's that definition of madness again?

Fragony

02-22-2015, 19:38

Husar

02-23-2015, 02:30

I got a nice thought for ya, what if the guys who died in Syria aren't really dead but just declared dead, and among te numerous amount of refugees the EU wants us to let in. Can somebody explain to me why that is a really stupid thing to say.

Only if you can explain why it is a stupid thing to say that really clever lizard shapeshifters rule our planet.

Fragony

02-23-2015, 04:17

Only if you can explain why it is a stupid thing to say that really clever lizard shapeshifters rule our planet.

It's true though, we are importing sleepers who come here with fake ID's

Husar

02-23-2015, 11:39

It's true though, we are importing sleepers who come here with fake ID's

Can you explain what the Islamic State would gain from that? They need a lot of fighters in their own state and the goals of their state are probably not going to advance a lot if they terrorize Europe. Why would they invite fighters to come there in the first place instead of telling them to bomb things here? I mean they already have sympathizers here, why go to the trouble of importing people who already are here to the caliphate and exporting others with fake IDs through the refugee system? It's not impossible, but it seems like more trouble than it's worth. It sounds more like a scare tactic from people who don't like refugees.

Fragony

02-23-2015, 12:41

Can you explain what the Islamic State would gain from that? They need a lot of fighters in their own state and the goals of their state are probably not going to advance a lot if they terrorize Europe. Why would they invite fighters to come there in the first place instead of telling them to bomb things here? I mean they already have sympathizers here, why go to the trouble of importing people who already are here to the caliphate and exporting others with fake IDs through the refugee system? It's not impossible, but it seems like more trouble than it's worth. It sounds more like a scare tactic from people who don't like refugees.

training

Sigurd

02-23-2015, 15:01

They believe he was a prophet, no?

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
In fact... the whole of Matthew 5.

Tuuvi

02-23-2015, 22:50

That's a joke, right? North Korea is a country that was established where there was already a country and it wants to stay that way. The caliphate was established where no comparable country was before and it plans to integrate the entire world into the "country". North Korea does not want to come here and kill me for not being Sunni, the caliphate does. The difference is almost an entire planet. That ISIS is interested in government makes it as much similar to North Korea as it makes it similar to Belgium. The major difference is in who they want to subdue/kill. Belgium comes out ahead in that comparison by the way.

No. I was trying to compare human rights and political freedoms, not foreign policy objectives. The point was, IS is a brutally repressive regime, like that of North Korea, and I wouldn't wish a regime like IS upon Iraq and Syria.

Also, do you have a source for the claim that IS wants to conquer the entire world? I thought they only want to rule Muslim lands, but I could be wrong.

This is a non sequitur.

How?

Brenus

02-23-2015, 23:01

"training" For suicide attack?

Husar

02-24-2015, 00:12

Also, do you have a source for the claim that IS wants to conquer the entire world? I thought they only want to rule Muslim lands, but I could be wrong.

I linked that video interview with an IS fighter earlier who said they will come and conquer Europe and more of the world. They also made propaganda videos about that relatively early on.

training

How to strap on a vest 101? Does it require a terror camp to teach that or do they want to secretly smuggle an entire army as asylum seekers into the rest of the world? If they train someone to be a soldier, they probably need him in Iraq given the bombings and the support the surrounding factions receive from outside. The Iraqi army is currently brokering a deal with the German and Czech governments to procure old DDR infantry fighting vehicles (BMPs I assume) that Germany sold to Czechoslovakia after the reunification. The Kurds received weapons from the West and I assume Russia isn't really going to let Assad down although I haven't really heard much about that/him lately. And don't say training to learn how to appear European, the people and converts who are already here would still be much better suited for that. Everybody is worried about people going from Europe to the IS and now we're supposed to be worried about them coming back as asylum seekers?

Again, sounds like a scare tactic to keep asylum seekers out, as though their lives weren't hard enough already. Besides, it'd be much easier to give them some money from those huge terror funds and make them migrate as businessmen or come as tourists since rich people can come here far, far easier than asylum seekers who are often poor and endangered and have to make a convincing case for the latter part.

Fragony

02-24-2015, 09:12

Here is how it goes http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/isis-operative-this-is-how-we-send-jihadis-to-europe#.twWWk9V39

Husar

02-24-2015, 12:58

Here is how it goes http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/isis-operative-this-is-how-we-send-jihadis-to-europe#.twWWk9V39

Thanks for the link. So they are doing it, but what about this part?

An official with the Turkish foreign ministry said in an emailed statement that authorities were working to combat refugee-smuggling generally. He pointed out that Europe accepts relatively few refugees through legal channels — a fact that likely increases the demand for smuggling. “Illegal migration has been an important issue and Turkey is effectively fighting against it,” said the official, who declined to be named.

You said the EU wants us to take all these refugees, but maybe you forgot how the EU has a private company that patrols the borders, is not exactly known for being nice and how the governments of several countries do not stick by EU rules regarding immigration. The rules are constantly broken by Italy and Spain who sometimes expell asylum seekers who make it onto their land. Just watch some documentary about the Spanish exclaves in Africa where the few Africans who make it over the three fences are often sent back against the law after they got beaten up by border police. Those who don't make it are beaten up by the Morroccan police (who get paid for that by Spain) and even those who are let in are sent to some sort of internment camps which often operate above capacity. To say that Europe is somehow this welcoming land of naive leftists is completely off the mark.

And illegal immigration is basically illegal, that's why it is called illegal immigration, how does that lead to complaints of we should do something against it when we already have a border patrol force that is constantly accused of committing atrocities? Should we build a wall through the mediterranean sea?

Fragony

02-24-2015, 13:22

Maybe we just shouldn't be nice? Send back ships, and use development aid for regions where it is required, refugees could go there without us hauling in a risky bunch. Attacks in Europe are going to happen if we allow Syrian refugees, nobody but an idiot still doubts that. It is not necesary to take that risk.

Husar

02-24-2015, 13:46

Fragony

02-24-2015, 13:56

If they come in illegally, basically avoiding our law enforcement, how would it help not to be nice to the ones we catch? The ones we don't catch would still get in even if we behead or burn the ones we catch...

Send back the ships while they are in international waters. And make sure refugees get a good treatment regionally so there is no reason to come to Europe. Filter out the scum and help those in need of help.

It's never going to be foolproof of course thanks to the EU with their open borders policy but at least it's a better idea.

CrossLOPER

02-25-2015, 00:49

How?
The same way that me eating a banana will bring about the dragon kingdom, or the Roman Empire magically coming back with all its provinces intact by next Thursday.

Husar

02-25-2015, 03:44

the EU with their open borders policy

I agree that solving problems abroad would actually be a good idea, but why do you keep saying this?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/28/fron-o28.html

The European Union (EU) has responded to the refugee crisis in Lampedusa by hermetically sealing off its borders and expanding the police apparatus used to repel refugees.
On October 10, just a week after over 360 refugees were drowned off the Italian island of Lampedusa, the European Parliament adopted its so-called Eurosur Regulation, which provides for the use of drones, satellites and offshore sensors to detect refugees in the Mediterranean.

Frontex are accused of all sorts of things, including turning the mediterranean into a mass grave and all sorts of human rights abuses, yet they keep getting more money and more rights by the EU while you claim that the EU is in favor of open borders. :dizzy2:

Fragony

02-25-2015, 09:46

Once they are in they can go everywhere. National borders must return.

The EU also wired millions euros to Mugabe, because... uhhh, don't know, surely that could have could have been better spend to make life a bit easier for refugees out there in the IS-hell.

Husar

02-25-2015, 12:58

Now they're gaining more support in ultra-liberal Sweden and as usual the mega-liberal police aren't doing anything about it.

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201502241203-0024580

Fragony

02-25-2015, 13:20

Now they're gaining more support in ultra-liberal Sweden and as usual the mega-liberal police aren't doing anything about it.

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201502241203-0024580

What's your point. I could make the point that IS-tactics just work. Ridiucle is normal after all, just like to socalled Stockholm syndrome people will mentally block everything they know is going on at the moment. And yes I got a degree in it but I don't find it all that interesting as people are dumb anyway.

Fluvius Camillus

02-26-2015, 13:19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WMOyGVV_gc&feature=youtu.be

This is the most shocking video IS has released to date IMHO... Absolutely revolting. This hurt me right in the antiquity lover that I am...

~Fluvius

Fragony

02-26-2015, 13:46

Nice ain't it, what a waste. Savages. These mentally challenged inbreeds probably didn't even know what they were destroying, I bet our house-Assyrian wants a word with them.

Husar

02-26-2015, 13:46

There's no place for offensively shaped stones in the religiously cleansed caliphate.
All the culture they need are beards and men rapping (since singing is a sin, no?) quran verses or whatever the background music is.

And Fragony, why does there always have to be a point? This is not the point you are looking for...

Also, bored rich kid? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/media-outlets-identify-jihadi-john-150226110541697.html

Media outlets have identified "Jihadi John" - the suspect featuring in several Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheading videos - as Mohammed Emwazi from London.

The Washington Post newspaper named Emwazi and said he was a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming.
The BBC later said it too had learned that Emwazi was the suspect in question.

Fragony

02-26-2015, 14:01

Did I make a point. But was a lot of cultural heritage you see being destroyed there by some inbred mongrol who's brains was fucked out his skull by centuries of keeping it in the family. This is really such a waste. And yeah, bored rich kid, they have the money to pay for the plane after all.

CrossLOPER

02-27-2015, 04:57

some inbred mongrol who's brains was fucked out his skull by centuries of keeping it in the family
I realize that the point has already been made for you regarding Jihad Johnny, but you have to realize that there are plenty of people who will do this stuff because they are bored/don't care/psychotic/edgy to the max. You can be very well educated and just feel like sawing a dude's head off one day. You don't have to be from a specific culture. You don't need to be from a specific race. You don't have to follow a certain belief.

Every single human being on earth has the capacity to become a walking abomination. It does not seem to take much to sway them in either direction.

rvg

03-03-2015, 04:36

Nice ain't it, what a waste. Savages. These mentally challenged inbreeds probably didn't even know what they were destroying, I bet our house-Assyrian wants a word with them.

Indeed. We need to do the same thing the Jews did back in 1947, otherwise we're finished as a people.

Fragony

03-03-2015, 12:23

Indeed. We need to do the same thing the Jews did back in 1947, otherwise we're finished as a people.

Look at the bright side, there is a fatwa to destroy the pyramids, that should keep them busy for a while.

They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.

You just got to respect that, don't we lefties.

Pannonian

03-03-2015, 15:33

Seamus Fermanagh

03-03-2015, 19:06

Look at the bright side, there is a fatwa to destroy the pyramids, that should keep them busy for a while.

They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.

You just got to respect that, don't we lefties.

Well, the Pharaohs are a "false idol" to more or less exactly the same extent as the Assyrian gods. Nobody is worshipping them at all these days -- to the best of my knowledge -- but in their eras they were worshipped as gods and any memorabilia or images thereof might constitute an icon of false worship. Absent the power of belief, I think these artifacts pose no threat, but apparently some Islamic religious leaders disagree with my point of view.

Should ISIS suborn Egypt and actually wreck the pyramids, Karnak and the like, they would take a big chunk of the Egyptian economy with them. In years when Egypt is NOT engaged in civil war/infighting, tourism represents over 10% of the GDP and 14% of foreign currency transactions.

drone

03-03-2015, 21:18

Rumor has it that many of the destroyed artifacts were actually replicas. Originals were moved to Bagdad, taken by the British years ago, or just recently sold by ISIS for cash on the black market.

Hax

03-03-2015, 23:37

They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.

mfw Fragony is doing Islamic jurisprudence

Fragony

03-04-2015, 00:00

Er, why are you blaming the left again? I'd have thought the ultra-religious would be classed as far right, not anything to do with the left. It's the evangelistic left who were all for intervening in the middle east to bring liberal democracy to their benighted masses. If they had their way, we'd be in there right now to bomb the crap out of IS.

Of course we can blame the left, as they have their own religion called 'multicultteralism'. Not allowed to fail, so always more concessions to rediculous demands. Now that we are in Egypt discussionwise, they are holding a snake to their chest, only difference is that this is a creeping poison. These small concesions always seem reasonable, but they are not when taken as a whole.

Pannonian

03-04-2015, 02:35

Of course we can blame the left, as they have their own religion called 'multicultteralism'. Not allowed to fail, so always more concessions to rediculous demands. Now that we are in Egypt discussionwise, they are holding a snake to their chest, only difference is that this is a creeping poison. These small concesions always seem reasonable, but they are not when taken as a whole.

Egypt was Muslim long before the idea of multiculturalism came into being. Long before the idea of political right and left came into being, for that matter (more than a thousand years before). Or does Frag school teach a special brand of history that blames everything bad in history on lefties?

Fragony

03-04-2015, 06:35

With holding a snake to your chest I refer to Cleopatra it is just an expression.

a completely inoffensive name

03-04-2015, 07:25

Indeed. We need to do the same thing the Jews did back in 1947, otherwise we're finished as a people.

You want a piece of land in the middle of a hostile region?

Crandar

03-04-2015, 11:10

Rumor has it that many of the destroyed artifacts were actually replicas. Originals were moved to Bagdad, taken by the British years ago, or just recently sold by ISIS for cash on the black market.
Not all of them (http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/28022015). The destroyed Winged Bull and the God of Rozhan were the original ones.
Probably, they were destroyed due to their enormous size, because ISIS was unable to move them, in order to sell them to a private collector.

rvg

03-04-2015, 14:49

You want a piece of land in the middle of a hostile region?

Damn right I do.

Kagemusha

03-04-2015, 15:29

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31727470

Good news. Apparently Iraqi Shia militants together with Iraqi army are encircling IS forces at Tikrit.

Crandar

03-04-2015, 16:28

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31727470

Good news. Apparently Iraqi Shia militants together with Iraqi army are encircling IS forces at Tikrit.

As soon as that Iraqi Scotsman, the Clubs King, abandoned the Calpih, ISIS began to crumble.

CrossLOPER

03-05-2015, 02:05

You want a piece of land in the middle of a hostile region?
He has bizarre ideas like that, yes. Sort of like a Lamarckian inheritance approach to foreign policy where if you ram your head against a wall repeatedly, that your offspring will eventually have hard heads or something, not taking into account that the wall's offspring will be a lot more harder to knock down.

Is this making any sense?

Kadagar_AV

03-05-2015, 02:16

Fragony

03-05-2015, 06:40

ya bad idea, suppossed a lot of former elite troops they are up against

Brenus

03-05-2015, 08:51

IS combatants are the same than the Iraqis' ones. If the Iraqis'ones got the right motivation (having family in the ISIS controlled area, or their relatives sold as slaves), they will kill them all then ISIS will just crumble.
That will be a shame for the foreign volunteers, to find out they will be abandoned to their Faith, and I am not expecting the locals to be merciful.
The Jihadi brides... will pay a high price for stupidity...

Kagemusha

03-05-2015, 16:10

Swedish news report that the Iraqi army is about to do a major offensive...

Swedish media also report that the US is against it, as it's to weak as is, and will most likely lead to a loss for Iraq, and a huge propaganda win for ISIS...

From what I have learnt of the Iraqi army... I wouldnt bet any money on them being able to do much...

Its the same attack i posted about. US is against it, because there is a Iranian general overseeing the offensive and lot of Iranian "advisors" are operating many of the more advanced weapon systems. My concern about this is how the Shia militants will behave towards Sunni civilians. Apparently 28K people have fled the fighting already.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31753727

Kadagar_AV

03-05-2015, 20:32

So... Anyone want to bet?

I know its hard in Arab vs Arab fights, as it's hard to fully grasp the military incompetence if you come from the western world with it's mindset...

ONE of the forces will flee like rabbits and leave all their equipment for use by the other side, I am sure. I put my money on it being the Iraqi army...

So... Anyone want to play?

Kagemusha

03-05-2015, 20:54

Pannonian

03-05-2015, 21:39

My bet is that the forces of "Iraqi Army", while the actual force is made mostly of Shia militants and Iranian forces is going to win the battle over Tikrit.

IS has lost its momentum and is starting to grumble, they are only making more and more enemies with their conduct and simply cant win with the odds stacked against them. Which for the best for everyone. Im not sure if IS can actually run anywhere from Tikrit, as their supply routes are being cut off and they might find themselves surrounded soon enough.

I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.

GenosseGeneral

03-05-2015, 22:16

Brenus

03-05-2015, 22:43

Hmm, as much as I know, none of the killers had at least the guts to go for a real fight against the Peshmerga. Their "professionalism" was good enough to kill unarmed civilians and 2 poor cops equipped with handgun, this with the surprise on their side.
I think, but I have indeed no substance to really be certain, that most of the ones who will succeed to escape (in between caught and handed over), most of them will be to busy to escape Justice and responsibilities for their actions...
The fanatics are the ones who in fact never lived in the "holly" country, as they have a "dream" in their head, seeing themselves as the SS saw themselves. However, at the end, German SS melted in the crowd, burning with red poker their blood group tattooed under their arm when the Foreign SS, being French and Belgium, had no choice than to die in Berlin...

Fragony

03-06-2015, 07:41

Husar

03-06-2015, 13:00

or have nothing to come back to should they manage to come back anyway.

Burn down our cities! ~;)

Fragony

03-06-2015, 17:47

Burn down our cities! ~;)

I was more thinking about taking out their lifelines, freezing all bank-accounts, no chance to settle anywhere, every civil-right gone. All human-rights respected but nothing more than that, no favours, total rejecfion, and assasination when it's needed.

Fragony

03-07-2015, 07:55

Ironside

03-07-2015, 11:21

I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.

Well ISIS seems to have goals that can be broken, so breaking the caliphate in particular should be a priority. And crush their funding sources and propaganda network.

Barbarians http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/world/middleeast/isis-attacks-iraqi-archaeological-site-at-nimrud.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=fb-nytimes&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&smtyp=aut&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&_r=0

How do they justifie this, surely allah must have existed before mohammed

Some sort of demonstration of their fanatical devotion. Zealots like it big and public. After deciding this, you only need to read a passage the "original way" (that none else in power has ever done before for more than 1000 years), you you're set.

In the case if ISIS, pissing everyone off might also be a point. Since they have this yarn to crate the final battle.

Husar

03-07-2015, 11:36

Barbarians http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/world/middleeast/isis-attacks-iraqi-archaeological-site-at-nimrud.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=fb-nytimes&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&smtyp=aut&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&_r=0

How do they justifie this, surely allah must have existed before mohammed

Those statues are idolatry and represent the worship of false gods, they are some kind of abomination for hardline christians as well I would think. Though most christians wouldn't really care, I just say I can see where they're coming from on this.

Rhyfelwyr

03-07-2015, 11:42

Those statues are idolatry and represent the worship of false gods, they are some kind of abomination for hardline christians as well I would think. Though most christians wouldn't really care, I just say I can see where they're coming from on this.

As the resident Christian fundie, I can say that we have no problem with such statues. We would disagree with worshipping them obviously, but our answer would not be to go on an iconoclastic rampage and destroy thousands of years or heritage.

Hax

03-07-2015, 11:44

our answer would not be to go on an iconoclastic rampage and destroy thousands of years or heritage.

Hahaha, like, of course Christians wouldn't do that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm).

EDIT: Also the Saudis have been destroying early Islamic heritage sites since the 19th century, so it's not really all that new. Sadly.

Husar

03-07-2015, 12:37

As the resident Christian fundie, I can say that we have no problem with such statues. We would disagree with worshipping them obviously, but our answer would not be to go on an iconoclastic rampage and destroy thousands of years or heritage.

Maybe you're not fundie enough.
All idolatry and occult like these statues is part of the devil's devious plan to distract people from god, just like TV and the internet (except the bible channel). Maybe most fundies wouldn't go and smash them but that's because they're not in their own country and they're not in the government. ISIS have them in "their country" and ISIS are the de-facto government, so they set out to destroy the occult idols that distract from the one true faith. The bible has this advice about cutting off your hand if it prevents you from serving god, why would a pagan statue/false god/demonic idol be saved?

Fragony

03-07-2015, 13:23

Hahaha, like, of course Christians wouldn't do that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm).

EDIT: Also the Saudis have been destroying early Islamic heritage sites since the 19th century, so it's not really all that new. Sadly.

Surily enough, the 'beeldenstorm' happened. There is a difference though, the catholic church was a political power. It's easy to shoot holes in that reasoning when only taking the fact that stuff was destroyed, but you wouldn't be considering why that happened.

Husar

03-07-2015, 13:47

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-monotheistic-tradition-of-smashing-the-idols

The Bible itself is full of condemnations of idols and idolatry. Exodus 20:3-4 commands the Israelites to forgo any idols, and the Golden Calf hardly comes in for praise. In Exodus 32:20, Moses smashes the Golden Calf, grinds it to dust, mixes it with water, and forces the Israelites to drink their false god. The Bible praises those who smash the idols, like Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:3-4, where he “did right in the sight of the Lord” by smashing a serpent idol. God himself even destroys the idol of Dagon in 1 Samuel 5:1-5.

In the fourth part of the sixth-century Book of the Cave of Treasures, a Christian text, the author asserts that Satan lives in idols and pretends to be pagan gods. God, the author said, destroyed these idols:

The fact is, since the rise of monotheism nearly everyone smashes idols. (Polytheists were a mixed lot, just as likely to capture an idol and take it home as to destroy it.) The Byzantine iconoclasts and Protestant reformers both attacked Christian imagery, destroying statues and icons for violating God’s commandment. Charlemagne legislated the destruction of Germanic pagan sanctuaries. The Spanish obliterated the idols of the Mexicans and Peruvians during the Conquest of the New World. Francisco Burgoa tells in his Geographica descripcion de la America setentrional, Chapter 28, how a missionary destroyed a Mixtec idol made of nearly priceless translucent green stone by following the example of Moses, grinding it to dust, mixing it with water, pouring it onto the earth, and stomping on it to show that the Mixtec gods were powerless. Two centuries after that, the Revolutionary French smashed the stained glass images of Jesus and the saints to demonstrate the triumph of reason over religion. Two centuries later, the peoples of Eastern Europe tore down the statues of Lenin and Stalin and broke them into pieces to symbolize the destruction of Communist ideology. Early in this century, the Taliban infamously destroyed medieval statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan.

The last paragraph says that this reason is illogical since these old statues hardly qualify as idols anymore now that noone believes in their religious symbolism anymore, but one also has to take into account that one just has to be fundie enough to think that they may still be "possessed" or something and therefore deserving of destruction. The idea that human belief alone gives an idol power is an atheist idea that does not fly for religious people who believe in an invisible world beyond the one we live in.