Org Mobile Site
Thread: ISIS on the offensive in Iraq
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
That's not crude, that's wrong.
You just defined pre Civil War America as a democratic state, because the "sizeable" majority had a say in who controlled the country.
If there's a country where slavery is legal, it would be totally democratic, if a "sizeable" majority still has a say. Or, if you want, the old "two wolves and a sheep voting what's gonna be for dinner" democracy.
Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy. What else would it be when e.g. a majority of the population can vote? What's the name for it?That's not crude, that's wrong.
You just defined pre Civil War America as a democratic state, because the "sizeable" majority had a say in who controlled the country.
If there's a country where slavery is legal, it would be totally democratic, if a "sizeable" majority still has a say. Or, if you want, the old "two wolves and a sheep voting what's gonna be for dinner" democracy.
No, slavery is not "totally democratic" just like any voting restriction is not "totally democratic"; but the presence of slavery does not negate an otherwise functioning democracy, just like not allowing people below x years of age to vote doesn't, either.
Is it democracy when
a) all slaves can vote?
b) slaves are captured abroad and only kept for x years before they are returned to their home country? (c.f. guest workers)
c) one part of the population is in deep monetary debt to another part of the population? (c.f. real life)
d) one part of the population is much richer than the other? (c.f. real life)
Originally Posted by Viking:
Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy.
A democracy promotes safeguarding of human rights. Slavery violates human rights.Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy. What else would it be when e.g. a majority of the population can vote? What's the name for it?
Go back to the drawing board. It was a perfectly good advice. Don't try to claw out of this. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy. What else would it be when e.g. a majority of the population can vote? What's the name for it?
Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?
Originally Posted by Viking:
Again a silly simplification. If a video contains fighting with tanks exploding, how many people would be able to upload dozens of such videos with perfect CGI and sound effects? If you can can geolocate it and the date seems right, then that town is almost certainly being fought over in the physical world, too.
Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.Again a silly simplification. If a video contains fighting with tanks exploding, how many people would be able to upload dozens of such videos with perfect CGI and sound effects? If you can can geolocate it and the date seems right, then that town is almost certainly being fought over in the physical world, too.
Originally Posted by :
If we go by that definition, then not everyone labelled an Islamist here might be islamist after all..
Like who?If we go by that definition, then not everyone labelled an Islamist here might be islamist after all..
Originally Posted by :
Well, that was specific. Just above, I was talking about the Levant Front. See if you can dig up some dirt on them.
They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.Well, that was specific. Just above, I was talking about the Levant Front. See if you can dig up some dirt on them.
Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?
I think his definition is valid in the ancient Greek sense but you are absolutely right in the quoted part. There is no reason for us to promote or support a democracy that is basically a tyranny of the majority.Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
A democracy promotes safeguarding of human rights.
Some democracies (claim to) do so; like liberal democracies.A democracy promotes safeguarding of human rights.
And of course 'human rights' can be defined in all sorts of ways. 400 hundred years ago, they might have been defined in a way that did not exclude slavery. 100 years from now they might be defined in a way that extends to certain animal species.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Go back to the drawing board. It was a perfectly good advice. Don't try to claw out of this. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
lolGo back to the drawing board. It was a perfectly good advice. Don't try to claw out of this. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
Originally Posted by :
Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?
When I said sharia is bad and that sharia and democracy can coexist, I am implicitly saying that not every democratic society is a desirable society. The equation democracy > not democracy will still hold in most situations, all other variables held fixed. Furthermore, democracy without slavery >> democracy with slavery > slavery without democracy.Even if your extremely narrow definition of a democracy is accepted, it would mean that such a democracy isn't morally acceptable in the 21st century, so why should those fighting for that kind of "democracy" be supported or called "moderates". Are we supposed to support moderates fighting for a democracy in which 50%+1 of the population has enslaved the rest?
Whether or not you should call such people 'moderates' or support them is a different question entirely.
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5:
Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.
That's something you'll find even with so-called professional reporting.Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.
Originally Posted by :
Like who?
Just saying that it is important to be clear on definitions. When I use the word islamist, I don't think it is a requirement that they want to implement sharia. When is a politician merely strongly motivated by Islam and an actual islamist?Like who?
Originally Posted by :
They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.
Sources?They're basically a coalition of Islamists, former Al-Nusra people, and mujahideen with the same ideals but with a pragmatic name.
Originally Posted by :
Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.
Pulitzer finalist. I don't care whether he calls them 'moderate' or bedwetters; his article is the source for their statements on democracy. That's all I am interested in (for now).Moderate on whose book besides the pulitzer prize winner? Why did he label them so? Moderate by jihadi standards that's for sure.
Originally Posted by Viking:
When I said sharia is bad and that sharia and democracy can coexist, I am implicitly saying that not every democratic society is a desirable society. The equation democracy > not democracy will still hold in most situations, all other variables held fixed. Furthermore, democracy without slavery >> democracy with slavery > slavery without democracy.
Your argument was in favour of those groups as "moderate" and "democratic", under (supposedly) modern, broader meaning of the word. When showed otherwise, you said you used a very narrow, dictionary definition of democracy. Not wrong per se, but invalidates your starting point. When I said sharia is bad and that sharia and democracy can coexist, I am implicitly saying that not every democratic society is a desirable society. The equation democracy > not democracy will still hold in most situations, all other variables held fixed. Furthermore, democracy without slavery >> democracy with slavery > slavery without democracy.
Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Your argument was in favour of those groups as "moderate" and "democratic", under (supposedly) modern, broader meaning of the word.
No, I did not argue that they were 'moderate' - I argued that we need to know what they mean by 'sharia' before can properly judge whether or not they are 'moderate' - after a definition of 'moderate' has been agreed upon, obviously:Your argument was in favour of those groups as "moderate" and "democratic", under (supposedly) modern, broader meaning of the word.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Without knowing whether or not they intend to stone people to death and cut off people's hands, insisting that they are not 'moderate' seems premature.
I dispute the idea that modern usage of 'democracy' implies things like respect for 'human rights' (just look to the dictionaries), and I've also argued why such a definition is a really bad idea - regardless.Without knowing whether or not they intend to stone people to death and cut off people's hands, insisting that they are not 'moderate' seems premature.
But the original point was not whether or not we could call what they wanted democracy (which is ultimately semantics), but that it offers a way for Syrians to change the way Syria is ruled (including the abolition of sharia). That's all - anything else is a straw man.
Originally Posted by :
Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.
If you are as right as you seem to think you are, you don't need to rely on such hostility in order to win the argument. Think about it.Go back, rethink your strategy. Yes, your e-penis will shrink a little, but at least you won't look like a fool.
Originally Posted by Viking:
No, I did not argue that they were 'moderate' - I argued that we need to know what they mean by 'sharia' before can properly judge whether or not they are 'moderate' - after a definition of 'moderate' has been agreed upon, obviously:
It is pretty well know what shariah means, it is a freaking system of laws. Those are generally most well defined concepts in the history of the human race. No, I did not argue that they were 'moderate' - I argued that we need to know what they mean by 'sharia' before can properly judge whether or not they are 'moderate' - after a definition of 'moderate' has been agreed upon, obviously:
But go ahead and research it. While you're there, check up on what they mean by "human sacrifice" and "cannibalism". It's a little vague and some people aren't sure.
Originally Posted by :
If you are as right as you seem to think you are, you don't need to rely on hostility in order to win the argument. Think about it.
Whatever gave you that idea? I don't do this to win the argument. I'm having fun showing how clueless you are. The last shred of decency prompted me to try to help you for your own good.If you are as right as you seem to think you are, you don't need to rely on hostility in order to win the argument. Think about it.
Originally Posted by Viking:
400 hundred years ago, they might have been defined in a way that did not exclude slavery
8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?400 hundred years ago, they might have been defined in a way that did not exclude slavery
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
It is pretty well know what shariah means, it is a freaking system of laws. Those are generally most well defined concepts in the history of the human race.
Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country. Isn't that strange.It is pretty well know what shariah means, it is a freaking system of laws. Those are generally most well defined concepts in the history of the human race.
Originally Posted by :
I'm having fun showing how clueless you are.
In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.I'm having fun showing how clueless you are.
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?
Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.8000000 years ago, there were guinea pigs the size of SUVs. What is your point?
It's like if death penalty only counts as death penalty if it was issued for 'non-serious crimes', where the collection of serious crimes can be defined and re-defined over and over.
"They don't practice death penalty in the US; only serious crimes can get anyone executed by the state after trial."
"They practice democracy in the US; the state there respects human rights."
See how robust either of the two statements are when it comes to preserving the deeper information they are capable of storing.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country. Isn't that strange.
It isn't really. There are two types basically - sharia in personal status and full sharia. Since Syria already has sharia in personal status, what do you think armed factions mean when they say they want to enforce sharia? Yet the actual application of sharia varies from country to country. Isn't that strange.
Originally Posted by :
In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.
Well, I couldn't have done it before now, since I've just started doing it. In that case, you have done a rather poor job until now. Perhaps you meant to say that you are just trolling.
Originally Posted by :
Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.
So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?Should be rather obvious. A system that might be called 'democracy' today might not be called one tomorrow, rendering the word rather useless through inherent volatility.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?
Viking is Robert Mugabe.Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?
I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.
You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.
No non-state actor has shown any willingness to introduce the democratic capabilities of sharia you'd find in Egypt and Iran for example. An exception *might* be Muslim Brotherhood, because they at least start with grassroots and peaceful attempts at reform rather than violent movements.
Originally Posted by :
Source?
http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855Source?
Originally Posted by Your Buzzfeed article:
The Levant Front’s charter, released in June, called for the establishment of Islamic government with Sharia as the sole source of law.
The Levant Front’s charter, released in June, called for the establishment of Islamic government with Sharia as the sole source of law.
Originally Posted by :
“Our main goal is to bring down the regime, and to achieve the aims of the people for a democratic civil state with multiple religions and sects.”
In the Arabic language it's perfectly fine to talk about democracy and consensus when describing Islamic governance, because this provides something to aspire to considering nobody knows what Islamic governance really is. Like you argue in your last few posts, there is a spectrum of democracy and this is what you'd find on the Islamist end of it. If I was fighting under a jihad banner a shura council would be the extent of democracy in my book, this is what Saudi Arabia already has for example so that's not saying much. Putting aside the fact that Islamists like to put on a pretty face for the media to attract air support against its enemies, which has been working for a long time.“Our main goal is to bring down the regime, and to achieve the aims of the people for a democratic civil state with multiple religions and sects.”
No non-state actor has shown any willingness to introduce the democratic capabilities of sharia you'd find in Egypt and Iran for example. An exception *might* be Muslim Brotherhood, because they at least start with grassroots and peaceful attempts at reform rather than violent movements.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.
I'm southern European. Know your geography.I love it when Eastern and Northern Europeans argue over Islam.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
I'm southern European. Know your geography.
Anything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?I'm southern European. Know your geography.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Anything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?
1. Croatians are also former commiesAnything east of Croatia are just former commies, hence eastern. Besides, would you really want to get lumped with the likes of Italy and Greece?
2. I'd personally like to get lumped with the likes of Brazil - samba, topless volleyball, cachaca, caipirinha, that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not an option, so I'm stuck with Italians, Greeks and Croatians. Sucks.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
1. Croatians are also former commies
2. I'd personally like to get lumped with the likes of Brazil - samba, topless volleyball, cachaca, caipirinha, that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not an option, so I'm stuck with Italians, Greeks and Croatians. Sucks.
1. Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 1. Croatians are also former commies
2. I'd personally like to get lumped with the likes of Brazil - samba, topless volleyball, cachaca, caipirinha, that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not an option, so I'm stuck with Italians, Greeks and Croatians. Sucks.
2. Pick a country with better income equality than you, not worse.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
1. Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
2. Pick a country with better income equality than you, not worse.
1. If we can do it arbitrarily, I choose Mariana trench1. Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
2. Pick a country with better income equality than you, not worse.
2. Did you read the rest of the sentence? Topless volleyball, coctails, huge beaches - who cares about income equality? In fact, who cares about income.
How about South Eastern European?
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
How about South Eastern European?
That would be wrong again. Most of Serbia is located there, but, the Danube is taken to be natural border between Southeastern Europe and Central Europe, and, since I live in Novi Sad...How about South Eastern European?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
...I'm actually Central European, so in this case I'm lumped with Germans, Austrians and Swiss (not to shabby, you could do worse, you know. Yes, even worse than the Germans. It is possible.). I do travel south, across the river often, though, and let me tell you, there are all kinds of uncouth barbarians living in the Balkans.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
How about South Eastern European?
There are resorts mosrly, but I wouldn't call that income inequality, just people who can afford nice houses,bthe person who transports the toothpaste didn't invent toothpaste. Life isn't bad there, cheap products, nice houses, nice people. I could live in a mansion there for what I payed for a single etage here.How about South Eastern European?
edit, it is SMALL
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
It isn't really. There are two types basically - sharia in personal status and full sharia. Since Syria already has sharia in personal status, what do you think armed factions mean when they say they want to enforce sharia?
That's an oversimplification. There is theory, and there is practice. As an example, the UAE seems fond of handing out the odd death by stoning sentence, but they don't appear to be carrying them out very often (if at all):It isn't really. There are two types basically - sharia in personal status and full sharia. Since Syria already has sharia in personal status, what do you think armed factions mean when they say they want to enforce sharia?
Originally Posted by :
He added that Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced defendants in similar cases to death by stoning, but the sentences were never carried out.
A judicial expert said that although UAE laws are based on Sharia law, the courts exercise leniency as much as possible on people charged with such offences.
http://7days.ae/expat-faces-death-st...eating-husbandHe added that Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced defendants in similar cases to death by stoning, but the sentences were never carried out.
A judicial expert said that although UAE laws are based on Sharia law, the courts exercise leniency as much as possible on people charged with such offences.
Furthermore, the legal system of different countries appear to be flirting with sharia to different degrees.
Originally Posted by :
So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?
I am using it with a very common and meaningful sense of the word (like it is used e.g. here and countless other places). When one wants to specify a certain type of democracy, one uses modifiers: modern democracy, liberal democracy, Western democracy etc. Such use with modifiers is extremely common; just look around.So, there's really no point in using the word at all. Why did you use it then? Or are we all supposed to assume that democracy means whatever you want it to mean at that specific moment to suit the point you're making?
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5:
You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.
Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.You seem confused over the definition of an Islamist - wanting to impose one's own interpretation of Islam on a state-level.
It's not just a matter of how you and me use the word, but also potential sources describing the situation in Syria.
Originally Posted by :
http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855
I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=59855
Originally Posted by Viking:
Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.
I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece. Using different sources I can find different definitions; and no matter which definition is agreed upon, there will be borderline cases.
Originally Posted by :
I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".
I can't find those words specifically in English. You should look into them, they are hardline Salafis who turned it down in order to attract more people with sketchy unIslamic past to confront Al Nusra. After their defeat quite a few of them turned over to Al Nusra now as well. Just a bunch of disgruntled rebel officials switching allegiances nothing to see here.I see nothing about them being "former Al-Nusra people".
In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Using different sources I can find different definitions
How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?Using different sources I can find different definitions
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5:
I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.
I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter. I find it hard to believe that Islamists are hard to identify, especially when all their charters share a centerpiece.
Originally Posted by :
In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.
That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.In any case, they don't matter because they've pretty much disbanded. This is old news, so no moderates in Syria this is the point.
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?
Considering that that sub-thread concerned definitions right from the get-go, the word you are looking for is amnesia.How many definitions can you find of the word "pedantic"?
Originally Posted by Viking:
I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.
They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.I doubt every tiny rebel group will have an official charter.
Originally Posted by :
That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.
This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that. That's indeed the old news, the they're back now.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham
edit, que wrong thread
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5:
They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.
That group has a charter (and that charter is obviously islamist), yes, but I was having Syrian rebel groups in general in mind.They do. They're also not that tiny because they're a coalition of various salafi rebel groups.
Originally Posted by :
This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham
Wiki says something else, and the other source does not appear to mention the Levant Front at all.This is a problem that most of these news outlets have. Even in the link you provided, the flag of the so-called "Levant Front" doesn't even say that, it's now officially Ahrar Al Sham aka Levant Liberators or something like that.
This is them now: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...yond-455405201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO