5/27/2010 10:39:05 AM
In before disco_stu tells us the world will be a happy place without religion.Also, I think its a good strategy. Get people off of thinking Islam as a whole is the enemy and focus more on the physical hand full of people that are indeed the enemy.[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]
5/27/2010 10:45:00 AM
5/27/2010 10:51:26 AM
You've got that a little mixed up there.
5/27/2010 10:58:39 AM
You're saying "jihadists and islamists" like it's a dirty word.Yes, technically the people who we are fighting a war against are suffering a spiritual crisis and are followers of Islam, but that doesn't make "jihad" and "Islam" a bad thing at all. We could also say that they're all owners of pants and wearers of mustaches.
5/27/2010 11:01:45 AM
^^^
5/27/2010 11:05:43 AM
I think they're taking exactly the right approach.I get that you don't like religion, but you're seriously suggesting that the US should be at war with Islam. No, I don't think the war on terror includes anti-Islamism.
5/27/2010 11:06:46 AM
^^I'm just providing a citation instead of saying "That's a fallacy of composition."
5/27/2010 11:07:25 AM
5/27/2010 11:07:55 AM
There's war. There's peace-time.There's criminals. There's non-criminals.That's it.There is no such thing as a "terrorist"... they are just criminals.That said, is it wrong to use the military to combat crime? Perhaps not....
5/27/2010 11:08:11 AM
The terms "jihadist" and "Islamist" do not refer to people facing inner struggles or people following Islam. They refer to people involved in outward struggles against infidels and people devoted to the spread of political Islam.
5/27/2010 11:10:40 AM
Those are words made up by the Republican party to label the people we're supposed to hate and fear, really.
5/27/2010 11:13:07 AM
That's rich.
5/27/2010 11:14:37 AM
5/27/2010 11:19:49 AM
I think we should be opposed to the doctrine of martyrdom, yes. Especially when it takes the form of massacring innocent people, mostly Muslims, all over the globe.[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]
5/27/2010 11:23:32 AM
Maybe one day in the far future, but to take that stance today would vastly undermine relations with Islamic countries.
5/27/2010 11:31:36 AM
We already do take that stance. And its a good thing we do (could you imagine supporting it? or being undecided on it?). And by the way, which countries do you think are supportive of martyrdom?[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]
5/27/2010 11:56:41 AM
Thanks to solinari's joke thread, you can't even reference Wikipedia when you're referring to something abstract like logical fallacies without some dipshit like stillrolling thinking he's clever.gg, solinari.And golovko, if you don't want me to post in a thread, stop summoning me.
5/27/2010 1:12:30 PM
^ yeap, you caught me. could barely get that post in while I was rolling on the floor at my own thought process. wikipedia "sarcasm"...clown
5/27/2010 2:05:31 PM
^^its inevitable that you will post in a thread that has something to do with religion. I wouldn't say I'm doing the summoning but more so the thread topic.
5/27/2010 2:17:29 PM
^^^^You weren't talking about opposing just martyrdom, or any specific evils of Islam in your OP. You clearly conveyed that you wanted to oppose Islam itself.
5/27/2010 5:38:30 PM
I think it's a great move that restores Reagan's ideal of the US being the "shining city on the hill."They may use religion to motivate their extremist to terrorism, but we don't have to stoop to that level to motivate our citizens to support anti-terror efforts.[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 7:24 PM. Reason : ]
5/27/2010 7:24:17 PM
Lumex:Jihadism and Islamism are not synonymous with Islam. They are elements, or offshoots (opinion varies), of Islam. One can be critical of Islamism without being critical of Islam. I happen to be critical of both, but I acknowledge the distinction.[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 8:56 AM. Reason : ]
5/28/2010 8:54:30 AM
They just hate our freedums
5/28/2010 11:04:09 AM
...and we're back to semantics
5/28/2010 11:16:05 AM
It isn't, though. You conflated the terms and made it sound like I said something completely different from what I actually said. So, if anything, you're the one playing semantics.[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:22 AM. Reason : ]
5/28/2010 11:21:48 AM
5/28/2010 11:44:48 AM
They are derivatives of Islam. They are based on the Islamic holy texts. That doesn't mean they represent the whole of the Islamic world, or Islam, which is what you are suggesting by conflating the terms. At the risk of breaking our new taboo:"Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism"Salafist jihadism (also Salafi jihadism) is a school of thought of Salafi Muslims who support violent jihad."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafism_jihadism"Islam is the Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of the one, incomparable God, and by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad's demonstrations and real-life examples (called the Sunnah, collected through narration of his companions in collections of Hadith)."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM. Reason : ]
5/28/2010 11:55:36 AM
5/28/2010 7:34:46 PM
5/28/2010 7:57:07 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/11/afghan-taliban-hang-year-old-boy-punish-family/
6/11/2010 11:23:04 AM
6/11/2010 12:33:03 PM
While we're at it:
6/11/2010 1:40:56 PM
6/12/2010 6:04:43 AM
haha
6/12/2010 6:28:21 AM
Nah... just kidding. You know I love you.... lolBut really, though -- Why do we need something other than individual criminals and enemy nations?Why create "terrorists", "jihadists" or "enemy combatants"? We don't need that crap -- it's just politics.
6/12/2010 6:50:00 AM
That's what I'm saying...you can call them what you want, and the debate surrounding how to employ our legal system against them is legitimate, but they are not just criminals. Our involvement with them is absolutely a war, and it should be viewed through the lens of geopolitics, not law enforcement.Timothy McVeigh was a criminal. These guys are something very different.
6/12/2010 7:05:37 AM
Actually, no. War is declared by Congress. Our involvement is illegal and unnecessary. And they are just criminals.(This is when you say some bullshit like, "we had other wars without acts of Congress, so blah blah...")A litterbug is a criminal. Timothy McVeigh is something very different, but still just a criminal.These guys are something even more different, but still just criminals.
6/12/2010 7:13:29 AM
OK, look, that's still a separate issue. I do agree that Congress should declare wars--I'm generally an advocate for the Constitution and limited government, remember (albeit more moderate and pragmatism-driven, and less of an ideologue, than you are). Hell, I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution...against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.Also, I've stated twice now that how we handle legal prosecution, etc, is a separate issue. If you want to call them "criminals" in order to maintain compatibility with your view on how that issue should be handled, go for it....but you are, as best as I can tell, fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of Al Qaeda and therefore how we should deal with them. Whether or not you agree with Congress' dereliction of their duties regarding the Constitution, or what stance you take on the legal debate surrounding what to do with individuals caught on the battlefield or engaging in "acts of terror" or whatever, I can understand. However, the only thing that Al Qaeda has to do with Timothy McVeigh is that they both blew up buildings, and we would be dooming ourselves to failure if took such a simplistic view of our enemy.Al Qaeda is not even a Hamas or whatever. I'll even venture to say that they have more to do with state actors in some ways. They have strategic-level outlooks and goals, capable intel/counterintel, etc. They engage in geopolitics not much unlike a state actor.
6/12/2010 7:41:12 AM
There are no terrorists or acts of terror -- there are criminals, crime, soldiers of a nation, and war. That's it. Timothy McVeigh is a criminal. Al Qaeda is a group of criminals -- organized crime, if you will. Having strategic-level outlooks and goals, having capable intel, or engaging in geopolitics doesn't make a group of criminals anything other than a group of criminals -- just more dangerous ones. Timothy McVeigh is more dangerous than a litterbug, and members of Al Qaeda are more dangerous than Timothy McVeigh, but they are all individual criminals.
6/12/2010 7:57:51 AM
So if there are some criminals that are worse than others, because of a specific set of reasons that are consistent with the definition of the word “terrorist,” why do you insist on not calling them terrorists?
6/12/2010 11:21:46 AM
He's making false distinctions (or, more accurately, non-distinctions). They are criminals, sure. They're also soldiers, militias, enemy combatants, and jihadists. These labels are not the product of some propaganda office at the Pentagon; these are the terms these organizations use to accurately describe themselves.
6/12/2010 5:43:50 PM
^^Because that word is political. It's a part of an agenda to redefine law as we know it.If it were a simple word like "arsonist", no big deal. The idea of an arsonist being "worse than others" is obviously invalid -- because all victimization is relative. But "terror" is an idea that pushes a whole new paradigm of crime that's entirely political. Don't pretend you don't know what's at stake here.
6/12/2010 7:09:20 PM
In other words, exactly what I said in my posts....except that I don't think it's about arguing that it's "worse", so much as it's arguing that at least in certain cases, it needs to be handled differently.
6/13/2010 3:32:14 PM