Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

Middle Eastern Conflict [General]


Recommended Posts

 

 

Yeah, and it doesn't even have to be religious ideology. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all secular, and they were some of the worst killers of the 20th century. They happened to adhere to ideologies that do call for oppression directly. But all religions are peaceful in their common interpretations, or they would have been abandoned a long time ago. Some of them have been around for thousands of years, whereas the ideologies of the secular villains I named above were effectively abandoned mere decades after they were thought up.

That's why its called extremism. If every person viewed religion as most people do, there would never have been the Crusades, Islamic Terrorists or any other religious based violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yeah, and it doesn't even have to be religious ideology. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all secular, and they were some of the worst killers of the 20th century. They happened to adhere to ideologies that do call for oppression directly. But all religions are peaceful in their common interpretations, or they would have been abandoned a long time ago. Some of them have been around for thousands of years, whereas the ideologies of the secular villains I named above were effectively abandoned mere decades after they were thought up.

That's why its called extremism. If every person viewed religion as most people do, there would never have been the Crusades, Islamic Terrorists or any other religious based violence.

 

 

That's true and it further reinforces D-Ice's point that it's really the fault of the individual and not the religion. The worst you can accuse a religion of is allowing the possibility of an interpretation that justifies atrocities, and not that it encourages it, because that's dependant on the interpretation. I do however think that this is a reasonable and serious accusation and I think the world would be better off without religion, because some people do have such interpretations.

 

edit: Actually come to think of it, religion might also prevent some immoral behavior and we don't know how much, so I can't really say that the world would be better off without it. I suspect it would, though.

Edited by CenMan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I somehow agree with the fact that a violent doctrine is not inherent to religion and that religion is usually misinterpreted and/or misused to fulfill a political agenda, we can't deny that the main 3 monotheistic religions have something within their nature that make them prone to be misinterpreted and/or misused to carry on persecutions, massacres and all sort of crimes against humanity.

I'll make a stupid example: if you teach me that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", I, the power, can easily use that teaching to tell to the masses that all non believers should be eliminated cause God said so.

It is easy for the ignorant and for the fanatic to justify violence in the name of religion cause it is easy to find in the main 3 monotheistic religions examples of intolerance and even violence.

The fact these examples are misinterpreted and/or misused for political reasons doesn't give a completely free pass to religions when it comes to historical responsibility in wars, persecutions and crimes.

I might be wrong but as far as I know the Romans and the Greeks rarely or almost never used their religion as a reason for violence.

That's how I see it.

Edited by Doc Rikowski
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not solely confined to the three large monotheistic religions but present in pretty much all religions. You have Hindu extremism and Sikh extremism present to varying degrees in India which has overflowed into international violence like the bombing of Air India Flight 182. You've also got an ongoing Buddhist campaign of violence against Muslims in Myanmar.

 

Not so much a religious phenomenon as a human one IMO.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you, that's exactly what I meant when I said "The worst you can accuse a religion of is allowing the possibility of an interpretation that justifies atrocities, and not that it encourages it, because that's dependant on the interpretation. I do however think that this is a reasonable and serious accusation and I think the world would be better off without religion, because some people do have such interpretations."

 

As for what sivispacem said, I think that's completely true, but I do think that it's also true that some religion are easier to interpret in such a way than others. Or at least, violence can be easier justified in some religions than in others, and especially with the Abrahamic religions, you don't have to look far for verses that you can use to justify violence.

 

edit: I want to add that I don't like it when people have too much of an unwavering belief in a certain ideology, religious or not. Show some humbleness and recognise that you could be wrong. It's much harder to justify violence in the name of your ideology when you do so and it makes you seem a lot less self-righteous.

Edited by CenMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

True. I guess I restricted the scope too much.

 

Yes, it is definitely human but somehow it seems that holy wars are very popular in history.

Fighting in the name of God is a catchy slogan. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

True. I guess I restricted the scope too much.

 

Yes, it is definitely human but somehow it seems that holy wars are very popular in history.

Fighting in the name of God is a catchy slogan. ;)

 

Well if I believed that there was an almighty God who decides whether I spent eternity in heaven or hell, and I believed that he wants me to fight a war for him, I would obey too. God isn't someone you simply disagree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Quran, where does it call for Sharia Law? If that is their "bible" in the religion of peace, why is their law system so violent? Or is it something that was created by the Jihadis?

 

And to Doc, it always sounds goo when you say "God is on our side." The Brits and Americans and Nazis did it during WWI and II. The Terrorists do it today. If only people would understand that war is down to skill and luck, not God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the Quran does fairly clearly call for Sharia law. I think many muslims (and followers of other religions) are at a bit of an internal conflict between the supposed holiness of ancient and outdated writings, and modern conceptions of right and wrong. I think that's where these many different interpretations come from, as attempts to reconcile outdated views with modern ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and it doesn't even have to be religious ideology. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all secular, and they were some of the worst killers of the 20th century. They happened to adhere to ideologies that do call for oppression directly. But all religions are peaceful in their common interpretations, or they would have been abandoned a long time ago. Some of them have been around for thousands of years, whereas the ideologies of the secular villains I named above were effectively abandoned mere decades after they were thought up.

That's why its called extremism. If every person viewed religion as most people do, there would never have been the Crusades, Islamic Terrorists or any other religious based violence.

 

 

That's true and it further reinforces D-Ice's point that it's really the fault of the individual and not the religion. The worst you can accuse a religion of is allowing the possibility of an interpretation that justifies atrocities, and not that it encourages it, because that's dependant on the interpretation. I do however think that this is a reasonable and serious accusation and I think the world would be better off without religion, because some people do have such interpretations.

 

edit: Actually come to think of it, religion might also prevent some immoral behavior and we don't know how much, so I can't really say that the world would be better off without it. I suspect it would, though.

 

I'm very glad that I'm not the only one who thinks like that.

Personally, I can definately see some reason behind religious doctrines in context of the ancient societies in which they developed. However, I believe the teachings aren't suited to modern society, and the supernatural stories fictional.

 

It's not solely confined to the three large monotheistic religions but present in pretty much all religions. You have Hindu extremism and Sikh extremism present to varying degrees in India which has overflowed into international violence like the bombing of Air India Flight 182. You've also got an ongoing Buddhist campaign of violence against Muslims in Myanmar.

 

Not so much a religious phenomenon as a human one IMO.

QFT. I find it hard to list many ideologies - religious, political, or otherwise - that haven't been used to justify violence, war, or oppression.

 

True. I guess I restricted the scope too much.

 

Yes, it is definitely human but somehow it seems that holy wars are very popular in history.

Fighting in the name of God is a catchy slogan. ;)

Military and political leaders throughout human history understood that you need a popular justification to get people join and support the fight, as well as a motivation to get them to willingly give up their lives once in the fight.

Religion can provide both of these - endorsement by what the people believe is the embodiment of goodness provides a great justification that can seldom be argued against. Promises of an eternal existance that is infinitely better than the people's current situation provides the motivation to fight to the death.

However, the same can also be provided via non-religious means. The motivation to get fighters to willingly give up their lives in battle is probably more difficult, but definately achievable. An example would be the Japanese Banzai charges, which were motivated more by notions of honour than religion.

 

In the Quran, where does it call for Sharia Law? If that is their "bible" in the religion of peace, why is their law system so violent? Or is it something that was created by the Jihadis?

 

And to Doc, it always sounds goo when you say "God is on our side." The Brits and Americans and Nazis did it during WWI and II. The Terrorists do it today. If only people would understand that war is down to skill and luck, not God.

I'm not an expert on the Quran, but even the harsher Sharia laws out there (stoning adulterers) aren't any more brutal than what's outlined in the Old Testament - in fact many are copied straight out of there.

From my own Muslim upbringing, many people simply don't believe in those laws exist in Islam.

I was having a discusson with a Muslim friend about this several months ago, and he believed that the mention of these laws acts solely as a warning. The conditions associated with the proper utilisation of such harsh punishments makes it impossible. The example he gave was the stoning of adulterers - you need (I think) at least four witnesses to the actual act, who weren't committing sin at the time. Having four witnesses actually seeing the adulterers havng sex is difficult as it is, unless the witnesses were at an orgy or peeping through the window, which would mean they were committing sin, and thus don't count. Even if the adulterers were banging in the middle of the streets, simply looking at them is sin, and thus none of the witnesses' accounts would be acceptable. So such a catch-22 makes stoning adulterers impossible.

I'm not really sure what most Muslims believe however.

Regardless, most implimentations of Sharia law worldwide seem to be based on voluntary courts resolving civil (as opposed to criminal) matters, similar to the Sharia, Catholic, and Jewish courts currently operating in the UK.

Edited by D- Ice
Link to post
Share on other sites

If people need holy books and believe in Gods to act and live in society like a civilized human being they are clearly not sane enough. I don't either agree with the fact that some religions don't support violence when their original books are filled with it. If you worship a religion you are supposed to follow its original principles, not to "interpret" them as you want.

 

Anyway, back on topic, they've beheaded an American freelance reporter. There's a second reporter captive that will follow the same fate. He was kidnapped in the Northern Syria.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28862268

 

This reminds me to the first years of the Iraqi invasion or Afghanistan war when they started to kidnap and execute foreign people...

Edited by RoadRunner71
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess that everybody's seen the James Foley video. If not, he was executed by ISIS and they have another US citizen ready to be executed depending on what the US government decides to do. The executioner literally called out Obama as the guy responsible for what happens to the other hostage. That's bullsh*t. The only people that are responsible are his captives. If they want to be left alone, they need to show the world that they're not rabid animals that need to be put down. But that's exactly what they are. I wouldn't think twice about this. No negotiation. That guy is as good as dead in their hands anyway. Bomb the living crap out of ISIS as far as I'm concerned. They did this because they're afraid of being wiped out.

Edited by The Yokel
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

These f*cking savages need to be exterminated as soon as possible. I hope the fact the jihadist who butchered the journalist spoke with an English accent will intensify the UK government's security on British Muslims travelling and returning from fighting for these animals. I wonder if we'll get a statement from Baroness Warsi on the appalling acts of IS? Probably not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucchese, please calm down or you could become a f*cking savage!

 

Can you exterminate people without it affecting your own moral compass? Obama gave a pretty good speech during a White House press conference when he said ISIS is obviously a foe to everyone, even the Sunnis it says it represents. The people need to recognize that and reject the group. Nations can do a few strategic airstrikes, but can't expect to exterminate all the f*cking savages. Obama then transitioned into the Ferguson unrest, which was pretty smart because people are saying U.S. police are becoming militarized. It was almost that he was saying a militarized police force encourages unrest, just like ISIS, because that means you're at war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess that everybody's seen the James Foley video. If not, he was executed by ISIS and they have another US citizen ready to be executed depending on what the US government decides to do. The executioner literally called out Obama as the guy responsible for what happens to the other hostage. That's bullsh*t. The only people that are responsible are his captives. If they want to be left alone, they need to show the world that they're not rabid animals that need to be put down. But that's exactly what they are. I wouldn't think twice about this. No negotiation. That guy is as good as dead in their hands anyway. Bomb the living crap out of ISIS as far as I'm concerned. They did this because they're afraid of being wiped out.

 

James Foley? Wasn't that the guy who was beheaded years ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

James Foley? Wasn't that the guy who was beheaded years ago?

No. It happened yesterday. Dumb ISIS created a martyr. If the US wanted to invade Iraq again, they would probably have the support of the people after this. And this time they wouldn't have to lie about WMD's or count on people's ignorance about Iraq's involvement in 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, I haven't seen it on the news yet so I don't know what America's reaction has been so far. They did sort of create this mess and Islamic terrorism has been their prime "enemy" for over a decade. I don't think invading Iraq again would really solve anything though. This should be about getting the various groups in Iraq to make peace, and not about diffusing short-term threats to the US. The previous invasion certainly didn't achieve that goal, so I don't see why another one would. As long as the religious sects and tribes do not feel fairly represented by a government, nobody with sane politcal behavior will take full control of the country. And that's what's really important. Iraq needs to be able to police itself, or it becomes a money sink and a death trap for the US. This is already the case, and it's unsustainable.

 

I really hope the IS will be bombed to smithereens by someone, but what happens afterwards is where the real challenge is. I hope that Iraq itself can defeat the IS. Maybe the central government would gain some credibility from those it failed to represent by liberating them from IS savages. If it does that, and then starts behaving inclusively and not along sectarian lines, I think that would be an enormous step in the right direction. I also hope the Kurdish state settles firmly and that the Iraqi government doesn't try to retake it. The formation of a Kurdish state has been badly needed for a really long time, at least that has happened now. Sadly, I don't think things will go as smoothly as this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's never been about solving anything. It's always been about more money and more power for defense contractors, weapons manufacturers and the oil industry. The country is basically run by a bunch of psychopaths. I want ISIS gone, and I think that could be accomplished without another invasion. But it probably won't be. The US needs to wage wars.

 

This is pretty much the US foreign policy

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx6Eo1k_QfI

Edited by The Yokel
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's never been about solving anything. It's always been about more money and more power for defense contractors, weapons manufacturers and the oil industry. The country is basically run by a bunch of psychopaths. I want ISIS gone, and I think that could be accomplished without another invasion. But it probably won't be. The US needs to wage wars.

 

Yeah very true. I should have said that's what it should be about. It's disgusting how people who have nothing to do with the conflict are profiting from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is who is financing ISIS?

Germany officially accused Qatar today.

We should stop to consider as allies that bunch

of absolute monarchies that are sitting on oil, corruption and lack of democracy.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is who is financing ISIS?

Germany officially accused Qatar today.

We should stop to consider as allies that bunch

of absolute monarchies that are sitting on oil, corruption and lack of democracy.

It is well known that Saudi royalty funded Al-Qaeda in the 90s. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the other counties in the region are indirectly or directly funding terrorists like ISIS or Al- Nusra or Al-Qaeda

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this was discussed earlier on the thread. There's little, if any evidence to suggest direct and intrntiinal state funding from Qatar, Saudi et al but a fair amount of evidence suggesting that they have turned a blind eye to wealthy and powerful members of their citizenry funding them.

 

There's also a large source of funding in the West, both direct and indirect through Islamic charities which have in some cases have basically operated as fund-raising fronts for militant organisations. Plus of course the large amounts of resource captured from the FSA, Syrian and Iraqi governments, oil sold on the black market, ransoms...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, one of the things that I wish I could see before I die, is the downfall of those despotic-terrorist funding-fundamentalist Gulf monarchies.
If only, and IF ONLY, there is an evidence/evidences that can directly tie them to the Muslim insurgents, it will surely be enough to overthrow them, or at least greatly tarnish their reputation.

 

Incidentally, there's this story going around that Israel is sending weapons to ISIS, and here's a picture of the alleged weapon, supposedly taken by an Iraqi troop :

14072172517.jpg

 

Personally, I'm taking it with a grain of salt, knowing that this story probably came from the same sources which claimed that al-Baghdadi is a former Mossad agent named "Shimon Elliott",
But I'd like to know your thought on this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If people need holy books and believe in Gods to act and live in society like a civilized human being they are clearly not sane enough. I don't either agree with the fact that some religions don't support violence when their original books are filled with it. If you worship a religion you are supposed to follow its original principles, not to "interpret" them as you want.

 

Anyway, back on topic, they've beheaded an American freelance reporter. There's a second reporter captive that will follow the same fate. He was kidnapped in the Northern Syria.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28862268

 

This reminds me to the first years of the Iraqi invasion or Afghanistan war when they started to kidnap and execute foreign people...

It's irrelevant what any of us believe ancient holy books meant and how we interpret them. When the question is whether their ideologies are the cause of violence, how believers interpret the teachings becomes more relevant.

Regarding what you say about the need of religions and gods so that people act civilised, I can't agree any more with you. I actually believe society would act far more ethically if it weren't for the imposition of archaic laws drawn up by far more ignorant people in completely different ancient societies.

 

I personally see the beheading as a desperate and ineffectual (and IMO pathetic) attempt by the IS to stop the arial campaign against them by the US. Like I said previously, the IS are like sitting ducks to US fghter jets, as they completely lack any significant air defences. They are also using conventional tactics which would make them clear and obvious targets.

If they switch to underground insurgent tactics, they'd lose control of their "Caliphate". If they continue the way they are going, they'd continue to lose fighters, equipment,morale, and pretty much anything they built thus far. They also lack much support outsde of Iraq and Syria, so I doubt they'd be able to mount any significant attacks on US/Western assets anywhere else.

So IMO we should see the IS losing now. Worse of allfor the IS is the fact that they have quickly alienated the vast majority of people in the areas they control - their strength and fearsome reputation is keeping the people andlocal militants from fghting them. I expect a whole swathe of different militant factions in Iraq and Syria to become active and appear on the scene to fight the IS once it is weakened.

At the end, the IS hasn't learned enough from ther prevous failures in Iraq - namely that you shouldn't alienate the people by blowing up their mosques and imposing overly harsh interpretations of Sharia law, and that they are completely defenceless against American (or any) air-power.

 

The question is who is financing ISIS?

Germany officially accused Qatar today.

We should stop to consider as allies that bunch

of absolute monarchies that are sitting on oil, corruption and lack of democracy.

That's a very interesting development.

Qatar has been trying to become a major Arab-world - and even wider regional - player for some time now. It is not too difficult to imagine them funding militants like the IS to gain more influence.

I wonder what Qatar's reaction would be, and whether stronger allies like the US and UK will follow suit.

 

EDIT: Is it this story about the German Development Minister who accused Qatar of fundng the IS? Is this Germany's official line now, or just the opinion of this one minister?

Edited by D- Ice
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Europe has funded fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda with the ransom cash they've been paying in exchange of the kidnapped citizens of their respective countries. It's believed that up to $125 million since 2008.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/world/africa/ransoming-citizens-europe-becomes-al-qaedas-patron.html?_r=0

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, one of the things that I wish I could see before I die, is the downfall of those despotic-terrorist funding-fundamentalist Gulf monarchies.

If only, and IF ONLY, there is an evidence/evidences that can directly tie them to the Muslim insurgents, it will surely be enough to overthrow them, or at least greatly tarnish their reputation.

 

Incidentally, there's this story going around that Israel is sending weapons to ISIS, and here's a picture of the alleged weapon, supposedly taken by an Iraqi troop :

14072172517.jpg

 

Personally, I'm taking it with a grain of salt, knowing that this story probably came from the same sources which claimed that al-Baghdadi is a former Mossad agent named "Shimon Elliott",

But I'd like to know your thought on this.

 

I've seen this theory too, haven't really dug into it thoroughly but the only evidence I've seen is a picture of some apperantly Jewish guy who sort of resembles a very grainy mugshot of Al-Baghdadi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Is it this story about the German Development Minister who accused Qatar of fundng the IS? Is this Germany's official line now, or just the opinion of this one minister?

 

 

That's the story I read. Well, a minister is quite "official" even though he doesn't represent the whole German government.

Although using a less important Minister could have been a way to send a semi-official message to Qatar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like when I SAW-Obama's face at leaving Statement- :dontgetit:

Edited by Ezekiel_RN
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.