Middle Eastern Conflict [General]

[Smith John]

"Those who know the least, shout the loudest"

Thanks for that, but of reading through this thread, it clearly appears to be a select few others- yourself included- who are doing the loudest of shouting. Particularly loud when shouting down Palikari. But let's not tread down the path of unnecessary spite, shall we?

 

Max, Brad, believe me when I say I'm not in any way underestimating IS; it's exactly BECAUSE of their savagery and complete lack of empathy that I believe they pose such a high threat. I don't think we can any longer say this is simply a case of disgruntled tribespeople rebelling against their government, but a full scale militant group who have taken advantage of the rebellion and of whom I certainly don't underestimate.

 

As for sitting back whilst we try to "understand" them: isn't this complete lack of action exactly what allowed this group the expansion and prosperity it achieved with the slaughtering of thousands along the way, in the first place? It seems to me that no matter what we do, this group will be radicalising and recruiting. How about we do more to get imams living in the West to reach out to the young in their flock with dissuasion. The internet isn't going any where, so radicalisation via that platform isn't going to stop any time soon. I agree the slurs splashed over the front pages isn't very productive or helping- sometimes a spade just needs to be called exactly that- but we should also be careful not to legitimise the cause of this group either...wouldn't that be just as effective in radicalising and recruiting?

 

But I suspect I'm going to be accused of making a "text-book strawman argument" again simply because some can't accept conflicting views to their own on the subject, and instead insist on sitting aloft their mountain tops, beating their chests and screaming "I'm right and you're wrong...now go away".

[Brad]

 

"Those who know the least, shout the loudest"

Thanks for that, but of reading through this thread, it clearly appears to be a select few others- yourself included- who are doing the loudest of shouting. Particularly loud when shouting down Palikari. But let's not tread down the path of unnecessary spite, shall we?

 

Max, Brad, believe me when I say I'm not in any way underestimating IS; it's exactly BECAUSE of their savagery and complete lack of empathy that I believe they pose such a high threat. I don't think we can any longer say this is simply a case of disgruntled tribespeople rebelling against their government, but a full scale militant group who have taken advantage of the rebellion and of whom I certainly don't underestimate.

 

As for sitting back whilst we try to "understand" them: isn't this complete lack of action exactly what allowed this group the expansion and prosperity it achieved with the slaughtering of thousands along the way, in the first place? It seems to me that no matter what we do, this group will be radicalising and recruiting. How about we do more to get imams living in the West to reach out to the young in their flock with dissuasion. The internet isn't going any where, so radicalisation via that platform isn't going to stop any time soon. I agree the slurs splashed over the front pages isn't very productive or helping- sometimes a spade just needs to be called exactly that- but we should also be careful not to legitimise the cause of this group either...wouldn't that be just as effective in radicalising and recruiting?

 

But I suspect I'm going to be accused of making a "text-book strawman argument" again simply because some can't accept conflicting views to their own on the subject, and instead insist on sitting aloft their mountain tops, beating their chests and screaming "I'm right and you're wrong...now go away".

 

 

Again, you are saying that understanding and idleness are mutually exclusive of one another. They are not. One can be a supporter of military intervention but still also take the appropriate amount of time to inform themselves of their enemies ideology, purpose and as a consequence where they power appears to act within the group (i.e. a Clausewitzian interpretation of destroying an enemy is by destroying its centre of mass/source of strength). Indeed, in this case, attacking the source of strength relies primarily in the ideological narrative and disenfranchisement of a vast amount of Sunni tribes within Iraq coupled with consolidating power by exploiting a power vacuum in eastern Syria. By action, you are insinuating military action is proactive and productive. I will agree with you to the extent that military action can contain ISIS's expansion, however, I do not agree that military means will achieve the destruction of ISIS as this falls in the political domain.

 

Thus, in the political domain, we have seen that the ideological narrative among disgruntled Sunni populations across Iraq and Syria are the source of ISIS's strength, how can you destroy a narrative without understanding it in the first? As I repeat, in order to inform a strategy, you must have an understanding of the enemy to provide the assumptions in which facilitate the ways and means to thread a political end. This requires understanding.

 

And yes, it was a text-book strawman argument as you completed misrepresented Max's view in the first place and you have done so with mine as I never argued that you are underestimating ISIS. More so, I would like actual quotations from yourself as to where Max and I have either a) underestimated ISIS, b) shown apathy towards ISIS, c) argued that inaction is better than action.

 

If you think I'm beating my chest, you either find my argument intimidating or you are out of your depth because I have not even taken my trousers off.

[sivispacem]

Unnecessary spite? Shouting down? I'm afraid you are going to have to expand on that. For the record, the "those who shout" comment wasn't really directed at any of the thread participants but more toward the general outpouring of poorly focused aggression and sensationalist rhetoric that accompanies almost every discussion of the subject in the mass media.

 

I don't think that anyone has made the claim that IS are simply "disgruntled tribespeople". Tribespeople aren't usually religious fundamentalists; in fact, the rural tribes of Iraq and Afghanistan were as much a tool used by NATO/the Coalition to deter the aggression of the Sunni militants, Shi'a death squads and Taliban insurgents as they were a threat to Western forces. IS is made up of several distinct groups- the hardened Jihadis who fought the Syrian government under the banner of al-Nursa and the various other Islamist groups, foreign full-time fighters from Yemen, Mali, Dagestan, Libya, the Sinai et cetera, new foreign recruits drawn in by aggressive rhetoric, distrust of Western society and a lack of proper theological understanding, disenfranchised Sunni fighters, often ex military or tribally aligned, who see IS as a preferable alternative to a Shi'a dominated Iraq and large numbers of people effectively forced into conflict slavery and given the choice between fighting for IS or dying. Some of those groups will melt away if the ability for IS to operate effectively in the cities and towns is negated; some will be drawn away by the respective governments making concessions towards Sunnis, others will be susceptible to counter-radicalisation and others need to be destroyed outright.

 

No-one has claimed that "sitting back" is a valid response to the threat of IS, but by the same token simply facing them with aggression isn't going to work unless our strategic goal is to empower them to attack abroad. The mistake that is often made is the claim that IS are a homogenous group with a truly shared ideology. They aren't. Sunni citizens of Syria who have been subject to three years of indiscriminate bombing, gas attacks, summary execution, the threat of torture, disease and famine whilst the rest of the world looks on and does nothing can be rather forgiven for siding with the likes of IS in Syria given that, from their perspectives, they're probably the lesser if two evils and as the only really coherent fighting force in the south of the country probably many people's best hope at staying alive.

[Smith John]

I'm using my phone, so this will be brief:

 

If you think I'm beating my chest...

...you either find my argument intimidating or you are out of your depth because I have not even taken my trousers off.

Yes, yes you're beating your chest. And no, no I don't find your argument intimidating, although I did find your wrap-up to your above post a little pretentious if it helps.

 

First of all, a) I never claimed Max or yourself underestimated IS, so I in turn would like quotations from yourself as to where I made this claim. It was YOU who claimed I was underestimating them, b) I also never claimed Max or yourself had showshown apathy towards IS, but was rather concerned with how IS were being legitimised to an extent because its rise stemmed from "an array of Sunni populations who are disgruntled with the government of Baghdad", c) I know neither of you claimed this; I'm saying sitting around trying to establish the ideology of IS- an ideology which seems pretty clear to me- while the group is expanding is inaction.

 

And yes, I admit I misread Max's comment on the previous page (I must learn to stop skimming sometimes) which is why I tried to correct myself on this page.

 

Sivis, that makes things a little clearer, but are you suggesting to me that the ultimate goal of IS is one which is not shared on a majority basis?

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

I'm gonna put it in simple terms. If you really think IS is actually following the true idelogy of Islam and you want to study why they have created a caliphate and using violence, then you will find absolutely nothing except the definition of a group of violent terrorists that want to give the religion a bad name. If that is what you are suggesting. Yeah, sure we need to find out important things that led to this group, but the logical thing is that they need to be destroyed ASAP. The group is simply a fallacy to religion and humanity.

[sivispacem]

Sivis, that makes things a little clearer, but are you suggesting to me that the ultimate goal of IS is one which is not shared on a majority basis?

Yes, I am. The mistake many people make is to assume that organisations like IS are manned solely by individuals who subscriber to the core beliefs of the organisation. This is seldom the case in any irregular fighting organisation. The Viet Cong was not solely manned by individuals who supported the aspirations of Ho Chi Minh; in fact most of the VCI (the people responsible for sheltering and supporting Viet Cong fighters) weren't even sympathetic to the regime. They just resented the incursion of the South Vietnamese government and the military might of the US to more. Same story in Afghanistan (both times), Iraq and Syria. From the perspective of those fighting Assad's forces, I can see why they've decided to fight with IS as the most powerful opposition military force; they're probably interpreted by many Sunnis who have been the indiscriminate targets of the violence perpetrated by the government was the lesser evil.

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

Right, just to clarify again, are you seriously saying that ISIS are Muslims after witnessing all the violence and destruction they are causing along with other petty crimes? Because it's simple really, in Islam, none of this retarded sh*t is not in any humane way allowed nor does it even make sense to do in the slightest. This is where extremism and moderate Muslims come into. ISIS fall into the extremism category, meaning they are literally taking the context of Islam to a next level and making sh*t up along the way to make excuses for killing people. Moderate Muslims are literally the way to go, obviously not perfect because a lot of them do make mistakes and through ignorance and stupidity ignore many things the religion says. As humans, far far from perfect to. But moderate muslims have the right knowledge of Islam therefore you do not see them committing atrocities or crimes against people both religiously and humanely. Okay, in simple terms, extremisits/terrorists see Islam as an ingredient for violence where in fact this has been manipulative towards the public and the media are hyping it up to generalise the whole religion. That is what the media are doing and have been doing for a long time, focusing on these digusting animals for a long time. This is why so many people do not understand the situation Islam is facing right now. But the fact is Muslims don't need to worry because it is one of the fastest growing religions in the world and arguably the biggest, depending on how you view it and will continue to be so if people do proper research and find the facts. To find the facts though, you don't go on the internet and go wherever you want and just collect a bunch of false and misguided quotes or verses you see. I think I'm talking too much now but you get the point I'm trying to make. Like I said before, I'm not trying to create a heated debate or anything.

[sivispacem]

I just wrote our a fairly substantial response but my phone decided to lose it so I'll just summarise what I was going to say.

 

The movement, at its core, is structured in a similar way to AQI from which it is based. The political aspect is just window dressing; great for claiming religious dominion as a recruiting too and helpful at validating the integrity of the organisation to those swayed by their rhetoric, but the fighting force is complex and harnesses local religious and tribal tension, draws in support from other loosely affiliated groups and isn't afraid to operate alongside other elements in the rebel movement, especially the likes of al-Nursa when they feel appropriate.

 

IS have, for the most part, not actually fought in particularly large scale battles against either the Syrians or the Iraqis. Neither of those fighting forces is in great shape and neither exactly enjoys support in the Sunni heartland, so given the choice between backing local fighters embedded with islamist fighters as an alliance of convenience, or the Syrian or Iraqi government, you can see why they end up providing tacit support for IS. It's also worth pointing out that much of the actual land IS claim territorial ownership over is largely uninhabited- the numbers living in areas under their control number in the tens of thousands rather than the millions.

 

You're right that the key to mitigating IS is in the moderates, but most of them have been displaced by the fighting. Generally it is the wealthy (and usually educated) who have the capability to flee conflict zones early; the military command structure of IS is composed largely of foreign career Jihadists and experienced Syrian fighters with a substantial proportion of the foot-soldiers being either recruited and radicalised from poor neighbourhoods and rural areas or conscripted by force under the threat of death, including fairly substantial numbers of young teenage soldiers. They derive morale from the fanaticism of the central command structure; degrading and destroying the core foreign contingents will result in large portions of the rest of the fighting force melting away.

 

The only problem is that the people who really need to be involved in destroying that command structure and rejecting the message IS are spreading are the moderate armed Sunni groups, and by and large they are too busy bogged down in a war of attrition with the Syrian government in the north of the country. In Iraq, there isn't really a moderate Sunni fighting force to speak of but the Kurds are doing a damn fine job of containing IS expansion.

[Frank Brown]

But moderate muslims have the right knowledge of Islam therefore you do not see them committing atrocities or crimes against people both religiously and humanely.

 

Eh? Says who?

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

Well surely you can't be questioning that if you don't know what moderate means. I'm talking about the normal muslims, the casual one's. Now there might be a number of them committing crimes and such, but those crimes are not linked to the religion itself that I can assure you and MAJORITY of the moderates no way commit anything at all. Of course though, there's always going to be a bunch of disgraceful people no matter where you go though. I can guarantee you majority of the norms in every religion are absolutely peaceful, it's always a certain number of them that completely sideline themselves from their faith and commit crimes which is stupid. So yeah, the only problem here is extremists.

Edited October 15, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Doc Rikowski]

Christianity also always taught peace and love but we've seen devoted Christians doing some nasty things in the past 2000 years often directly sponsored by the Church, haven't we?

This just to point out that being Christian or being Muslim doesn't automatically mean that violence will not be used.

 

In other news Amnesty International reports about war crimes by Shia militias backed by Iraqi government.

One more reason why the average Sunni would probably join ISIS as soon as he could to avoid being killed by governmental militias.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iraq-s-shia-militias-kill-sunni-civilians-in-retaliation-against-isis-amnesty-says-1.2797637

Edited October 15, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[Frank Brown]

Well surely you can't be questioning that if you don't know what moderate means. I'm talking about the normal muslims, the casual one's. Now there might be a number of them committing crimes and such, but those crimes are not linked to the religion itself that I can assure you and MAJORITY of the moderates no way commit anything at all. Of course though, there's always going to be a bunch of disgraceful people no matter where you go though. I can guarantee you majority of the norms in every religion are absolutely peaceful, it's always a certain number of them that completely sideline themselves from their faith and commit crimes which is stupid. So yeah, the only problem here is extremists.

 

No, no. I was specifically asking about this:

 

 

But moderate muslims have the right knowledge of Islam

 

Most of the Abrahamic religions are fairly violent in their scriptures. It's also quite arrogant to say: this group has the right knowledge and this group does not, especially when it concerns a 1000+ year old book which has been studied by theologians and interpreted many different ways since it has appeared.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Vlynor

[sivispacem]

Most practising Muslims, particularly in the poorer areas of the developed world, consider themselves fairly pious but don't actually have any real understanding of Islam aside from what local leaders teach. Movements such as IS displace (read execute) the moderate local leaders, replacing their teachings with much more fundamentalist Salafism. I don't think too many locals argue with the black-robed jihadi claiming to be a Mullah whose just beheaded the local leader and informed everyone that he was kafir and that everyone must follow him or face execution for apostasy.

[Creed Bratton]

Alright, this is f*ckin' awesome: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/isis-new-enemy-terrifying-dutch-biker-gang

[Kampioen]

Alright, this is f*ckin' awesome: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/isis-new-enemy-terrifying-dutch-biker-gang

 

I think they're probably just Kurdish guys who happen to be in this biker gang (or club, as they like to be called) and going to defend their homeland, as many Dutch Kurds are doing. But yeah, anybody going to help the Kurds in their fight deserves respect from me.

[Der_Don]

Alright, this is f*ckin' awesome: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/isis-new-enemy-terrifying-dutch-biker-gang

Members of the German biker gang Median Empire MC are also fighting in Syria against ISIS.

http://www.thelocal.de/20141017/german-motorcycle-gang-joins-kurds-against-isis

[Zondar]

Here's a related question, why does Turkey not give Kurds autonomy or independence? Is the Kurdish area Turkey mineral rich or is there not a majority of Turkish Kurds who want independence?

At the very least, from a Turkish point of view, a Kurdish state to its East would create a buffer between them and the more unstable countries of the Middle East.

[poklane]

 

Alright, this is f*ckin' awesome: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/isis-new-enemy-terrifying-dutch-biker-gang

 

I think they're probably just Kurdish guys who happen to be in this biker gang (or club, as they like to be called) and going to defend their homeland, as many Dutch Kurds are doing. But yeah, anybody going to help the Kurds in their fight deserves respect from me.

Nope. Here's a picture of one biker with a Kurdish fighter

[Stephan90]

Here's a related question, why does Turkey not give Kurds autonomy or independence? Is the Kurdish area Turkey mineral rich or is there not a majority of Turkish Kurds who want independence?

At the very least, from a Turkish point of view, a Kurdish state to its East would create a buffer between them and the more unstable countries of the Middle East.

 

Erdogan dreams of reviving the Ottoman empire. He will never give the Kurds an independent state.

[Frank Brown]

What are their intentions? Getting a better image? Is this even legal to go to war zone and shoot terrorists?

 

According to a state prosecutor it is:

 

 

 

"Joining a foreign armed force was previously punishable, now it's no longer forbidden," Wim de Bruin told AFP on Tuesday. "You just can't join a fight against the Netherlands."

 

I doubt it's to improve their image. Not many biker gangs, or people in general for that matter, are willing to put their lives on the line so their organization looks 'cooler'. Regardless whether or not it is legal probably doesn't matter to these folks.

[Stephan90]

Interestingly the IS has even managed to attract Kurds to join them.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-attracts-kurds-from-germany-to-join-jihad-a-997062.html

Edited October 17, 2014 by Stephan90

[Melech]

Interestingly the IS has even managed to attract Kurds to join them.

 

In France the IS has managed to attract Jews:

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/french-jewish-girl-flies-to-syria-to-join-jihad-fighters/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/more-french-jews-among-is-ranks/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/how-is-recruits-jewish-girls-in-france/

 

Why does the IS attract so many people? This is insane.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The cartoonist Latuff is an anti-Semite and a despicable person, but on this cartoon he nailed it:

 

Edited October 17, 2014 by Palikari

[ddyoung]

I guess IS must pay its fighters pretty well. What is interesting to me though, is how can an extremist Sunni movement which murders everyone accept non- hardline Sunnis to fight for them? Doesn't that go against what they want to establish in the world? To me, this just shows that IS is a band of "people" who want to cause as much mayhem and destruction as possible, with no reason or rationale.

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

 

Well surely you can't be questioning that if you don't know what moderate means. I'm talking about the normal muslims, the casual one's. Now there might be a number of them committing crimes and such, but those crimes are not linked to the religion itself that I can assure you and MAJORITY of the moderates no way commit anything at all. Of course though, there's always going to be a bunch of disgraceful people no matter where you go though. I can guarantee you majority of the norms in every religion are absolutely peaceful, it's always a certain number of them that completely sideline themselves from their faith and commit crimes which is stupid. So yeah, the only problem here is extremists.

 

No, no. I was specifically asking about this:

 

 

But moderate muslims have the right knowledge of Islam

 

Most of the Abrahamic religions are fairly violent in their scriptures. It's also quite arrogant to say: this group has the right knowledge and this group does not, especially when it concerns a 1000+ year old book which has been studied by theologians and interpreted many different ways since it has appeared.

 

Group? I wasn't actually seperating the groups in terms of the right knowledge. But even then, different groups are not exactly the same and have different methods of teaching and are taught to believe in different things. I made it very obvious by saying Moderate Muslims, as in the peaceful one's, especially the peaceful one's that study their whole lives dedicated to learning more and more about their religion. Again, every group has a certain number of people who are extremist and do NOT understand the religion in so many ways, not taught properly or are absolutely NOT muslims at all, that's the reason why they exist. Sorry to say, but ISIS are literally making sh*t up as they are on their violent crusade and the reason they've killed local leaders and such is because they don't want peace. They do NOT know things about Islam that they should apart from the basic stuff of course. And just to clarify, do you know how different islamic groups formed? It happened thousands of years ago. I could actually go into a bit of detail but it's not needed.

Edited October 17, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Frank Brown]

 

 

Well surely you can't be questioning that if you don't know what moderate means. I'm talking about the normal muslims, the casual one's. Now there might be a number of them committing crimes and such, but those crimes are not linked to the religion itself that I can assure you and MAJORITY of the moderates no way commit anything at all. Of course though, there's always going to be a bunch of disgraceful people no matter where you go though. I can guarantee you majority of the norms in every religion are absolutely peaceful, it's always a certain number of them that completely sideline themselves from their faith and commit crimes which is stupid. So yeah, the only problem here is extremists.

 

No, no. I was specifically asking about this:

 

 

But moderate muslims have the right knowledge of Islam

 

Most of the Abrahamic religions are fairly violent in their scriptures. It's also quite arrogant to say: this group has the right knowledge and this group does not, especially when it concerns a 1000+ year old book which has been studied by theologians and interpreted many different ways since it has appeared.

 

-snip-

 

 

No, again, you're avoiding my question.

 

Why is your version of Islam correct or - why is the Moderate's version of Islam correct - and the extremists' version isn't?

 

 

• not taught properly or are absolutely NOT muslims at all
• every group has a certain number of people who are extremist and do NOT understand the religion in so many ways

 

You're making arrogant statements by claiming that someone doesn't have the right knowledge of Islam. There have been arguments about the correct interpretations of Islam for centuries and they are still ongoing. To claim that one person or organization has their interpretation wrong, or that their knowledge is incorrect is incredibly arrogant.

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

You're not a Muslim, you wouldn't know. Stop trying to preach your arrogance all over me because I don't want to listen to your bullsh*t. Like I said, extremists do not have the right knowledge of Islam because everything they are doing goes against the religion. How many times do I have to say this? It's been PROVEN over and over and over that Islam ONLY allows Muslims to fight only on the defensive and war. Are ISIS doing this? HELL NO.

 

In fact, the biggest proof is that in the Qur'aan, there is a verse where it says if you kill a person, it's equivalent to killing everyone in the world. There is MORE proof that will seriously make anyone doubting this look like a fool. Seriously, that quote tells you everything. And me being a Muslim myself, have studied a lot of things about Islam, especially about Jihad and violence and that's just the basic stuff. But I'm not a perfect religious guy, and no one in the world is.

 

The fact is, Islam has been going down under every generation, and each generation is getting worse in so many ways. It's exactly why you see these extremists doing whatever they want because they think they have great knowledge about Islam. In fact, the only thing they even know about it is the very very basic stuff that are part of the people's daily lives.

Edited October 17, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Brad]

You're not a Muslim, you wouldn't know.

 

Awful logic.

[Frank Brown]

-snip-

You're not a Muslim, you wouldn't know. Stop trying to preach your arrogance all over me because I don't want to listen to your bullsh*t.

Ah, that's the same lines Christians use! That makes sense! I need to join the club to criticize it!

 

It's been PROVEN over and over and over that Islam ONLY allows Muslims to fight only on the defensive and war.

 

 

In fact, the biggest proof is that in the Qur'aan, there is a verse where it says if you kill a person, it's equivalent to killing everyone in the world.

You've contradicted yourself there.

I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."

 

Now, you need to realize... if I believe you're not a Muslim because you don't believe the exact same thing I do, then according to this it's okay for me to kill you and not be punished.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Vlynor

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

So what are you suggesting, use the internet where misinformed bullsh*t is always spread? Fine. Do whatever you want, as long as you've got reliable and the right sources that suggest otherwise what I've said. It's a fact that its been proven so many times that Islam doesn't allow violence unless you need to defend yourself or you are going to holy war, which again is a VERY misunderstood subject. Other than that, killing is absolutely a disgrace to the religion.

 

@Vlynor: It's exactly why I don't listen to idiots like you. It's not like I can stop you from actually hating the religion when you know nothing about it. Also, post the source where you found that giant quote from. And do NOT say the Qur'aan because if that was extracted through the internet, I guarantee that some idiot thinks he can read arabic or just misinterpreted something. And to answer that question, it doesn't even make sense. If that was the case, everyone muslim from every group would be doing that. Use some common sense please.

 

Oh and I didnt contradict myself. It seems you didn't even read what I said properly

 

The ONLY time you are allowed to use Violence is when you are defending yourself or you are going to holy war. OTHER than that, then it's a crime no matter what, and it's equivalent to killing the human race. I mean that's pretty much the same logic the basic laws that the human race uses for God's sake.

Edited October 17, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Frank Brown]

Thank you for proving your statements with facts rather than anecdotal evidence.

 

Edit: Oh you sneaky bastard, you ninja-edited after I posted.

 

 

In fact, the biggest proof is that in the Qur'aan, there is a verse where it says if you kill a person, it's equivalent to killing everyone in the world.

 

You said only in times of defensive war, then equated killing one man or woman at all to killing everyone. This statement goes directly against your previous one. That's a contradiction. But, I'm assuming English isn't your first language, which is fine, especially since you seem to be able to speak Arabic. Kudos to you.

 

 

It's not like I can stop you from actually hating the religion when you know nothing about it. Also, post the source where you found that giant quote from. And do NOT say the Qur'aan because if that was extracted through the internet, I guarantee that some idiot thinks he can read arabic or just misinterpreted something.

 

That's not from the Qur'an, it's from the Sahih al-Bukhari, a Sunni Hadith. Islamic State is Sunni, unless something shifted overnight. So, I figured it was fitting.

 

Here.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Vlynor