ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[CrossLOPER]

Why - what's the problem? How can anyone talk about death penalty and democracy at the same time? (is it democratic to kill potential voters?) How can anyone talk about voting restrictions and democracy at the same time? (aren't people under 18 humans too?).

Do you honestly think that those things are comparable with full-scale introduction of shariah law? Your best defense of this is

There is no such thing as a perfect democracy.

You are right. There is no perfect democracy. Clearly, we should just do whatever since we can't live up to perfection.

[Viking]

Do you honestly think that those things are comparable with full-scale introduction of shariah law?

They are not supposed to be comparable. What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.

Clearly, we should just do whatever since we can't live up to perfection.

Maybe in some parallel reality this comment will make sense.

[AE Bravo]

YouTube videos, primarily. They can be geolocated. Fake videos do exist; but I am not aware that this is a huge problem (and do not typically focus on location anyway, AFAIK). Biggest problem is establishing that the date is correct.

Videos prove nothing, anyone can dress up in a hockey mask and throw an orgy saying this is IS it's not that difficult. I can link you to how happy the people of Mosul are since they've been liberated by the Islamic state, whoopwhoop. Youtube videos are to be categorically dismissed yes and it's silly to bring them up in a discussion, leave that shit to facebook.

But does every islamist want to introduce sharia?

Absolutely.

What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.

Seeing as how rebel movements denounce these as desecration of Sharia I don't see how they can be reconciled. There is no framework for Sharia, just fragments you either follow or you don't, no middle ground to the Salafi.

"Moderate" rebel movements in Syria = myth. Also don't link to Buzzfeed dude!

[Viking]

Videos prove nothing, anyone can dress up in a hockey mask and throw an orgy saying this is IS it's not that difficult. I can link you to how happy the people of Mosul are since they've been liberated by the Islamic state, whoopwhoop. Youtube videos are to be categorically dismissed yes and it's silly to bring them up in a discussion, leave that shit to facebook.

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.

Absolutely.

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

rebel movements

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

Also don't link to Buzzfeed dude!

Yeah, linking to an article written by someone who has been a Pulitzer finalist several times for coverage of the Middle East is probably no good idea.

[CrossLOPER]

They are not supposed to be comparable. What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.

So the definition of what qualifies as a "democracy" should be made more accessible? Does that mean that Russia is A-OK? Zimbabwe?

Maybe in some parallel reality this comment will make sense.

Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".

[Viking]

So the definition of what qualifies as a "democracy" should be made more accessible? Does that mean that Russia is A-OK? Zimbabwe?

It's not about being "OK" - democracy should be a neutral (technical) term that describes how the government is, in effect, chosen. I've already indirectly defined democracy (crudely) as "[...] that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country".

The greater the part of the population can have a say, the more democratic. Rigged votes are not democratic because they bar the population from having a say. Oppressing political opposition is not democratic since it limits the choice.

Once moral judgements are made part of what constitutes a democracy (like requiring 'human rights'), the definition will likely become fleeting and change according to common opinions on how a state should be run.

Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".

Just stop reading all kinds of weird things between the lines.

[Sarmatian]

that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country".

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.


Go back to the drawing board.

[Viking]

That's not crude, that's wrong.

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

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

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

Is it democracy when

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

[CrossLOPER]

Of course a state allowing slavery can be a democracy.

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

[AE Bravo]

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

Lots of hoaxes, you'd be surprised.

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

Like who?

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

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

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