margaret brennanþVerified account @margbrennan 2h2 hours ago
More
.@Centcom "cannot confirm" reports of Baghdadi's death; "strongly advise ISIS to implement a strong line of succession, it will be needed."
It won't make a difference, back to shooting AK's, cutting off heads and detonating IED's, all in the name of Islam.
What's messed up, is that it really isn't in the name of Islam. They do all this bullcrap in the name of their own personal twisted views. They say its Islam, but the religion isn't what's really important to these maniacs. They want their way to reign supreme, and they are using religion to justify their bullshit.
This is probably on par with Zarqawi in terms of symbolic and actual impact. He was the self-described caliph of a would-be state that controlled a significant swath of territory at one point. It doesn't end things, but it's probably a symbolic bookend to their role as a state (with the likely consequence being low-level insurgency and terror after the remaining territories are mopped up.
margaret brennanþVerified account @margbrennan 2h2 hours ago
More
.@Centcom "cannot confirm" reports of Baghdadi's death; "strongly advise ISIS to implement a strong line of succession, it will be needed."
This is probably on par with Zarqawi in terms of symbolic and actual impact. He was the self-described caliph of a would-be state that controlled a significant swath of territory at one point. It doesn't end things, but it's probably a symbolic bookend to their role as a state (with the likely consequence being low-level insurgency and terror after the remaining territories are mopped up.
Oh, yeah, I get that this is totally different from the stream of disposable AQ#2's
It won't make a difference, back to shooting AK's, cutting off heads and detonating IED's, all in the name of Islam.
What's messed up, is that it really isn't in the name of Islam. They do all this bullcrap in the name of their own personal twisted views. They say its Islam, but the religion isn't what's really important to these maniacs. They want their way to reign supreme, and they are using religion to justify their bullshit.
It's an old discussion here, but I'm somewhere in the middle on this. People have always used ideology to serve their own twisted desires. But some ideologies make it easier and some make it harder to do so.
This is probably on par with Zarqawi in terms of symbolic and actual impact. He was the self-described caliph of a would-be state that controlled a significant swath of territory at one point. It doesn't end things, but it's probably a symbolic bookend to their role as a state (with the likely consequence being low-level insurgency and terror after the remaining territories are mopped up.
Seems to me that when Raqqa goes losing the caliphate, very loosely described as a safe haven, is much more serious than losing al Bagdhdadi. While I'm sure isolated groups will still carry out terror attacks and they will be active on the internet, it means they are not winning, which for at least some of their supporters/cannon fodder was the reason they joined.
Holy run on sentence Batman.
Raqqa was supposed to be the site of the apocalyptic battle... Â
Pretty remarkable situation when you consider ISIS managed to get the US, most of Europe, Russia, Iran, and several other countries all fighting together against a common enemy. Not actually fighting side by side, of course, but I'm sure at the very least coordinating areas of attack via air and ground
What's messed up, is that it really isn't in the name of Islam. They do all this bullcrap in the name of their own personal twisted views. They say its Islam, but the religion isn't what's really important to these maniacs. They want their way to reign supreme, and they are using religion to justify their bullshit.
This ongoing and seemingly inextinguishable contention that the slavishly religious "don't really believe" what their respective work of fiction peddles is still more fiction.
It can be helpful for Americans to first consider Jesus freaks since it's more relatable to this audience given our location. (It also exercises those stubborn, unused portions of some brains, that is to say: liberals who happily criticize Jesus freaks but are loathe to do so of Muslims; and RW'ers who droolingly embrace the reverse).
You can pretend otherwise but, yes, they really do believe that Darwin is a kook and that Earth is a handful of thousand years old. It's shameful and continually lamentable, but it's true.
Just as, yes, Mohamed Atta really believed he was justified and en route to paradise as he guided a 767 into the WTC.
So while the quest for power is obviously a contributing factor to the odious exploits of ISIS pieces of shit, they overwhelmingly really believe their actions are sanctioned by an ancient fictionalized text, and hence just.
It's okay to acknowledge it. Doesn't make you a bigot.
On the contrary, you're a defender of logic. Congrats on being part of the solution.
Without engaging the rah rah atheism of the above post... Â
it is difficult enough for believers to write others out of a shared faith, it is stupidly pretentious (not directed at anyone here) to write others out of a faith that isn't your own, with which your familiarity is understandably limited. They clearly believe they are acting in the name of the faith, and if even the entreaties of devout Muslims of unquestioned religious bonafides aren't enough to discourage them I don't think Western undergrad sophisticates telling them they aren't real Muslims is going to work either.
They clearly believe they are acting in the name of the faith
Too general a statement, IMO. Some do, sure, but I'd argue the majority in ISIS's version of extremism are people who feel displaced and found a home in their ideology. But they often weren't raised in strictly Muslim homes and often aren't, as you put it, acting in the name of faith. They're acting in the name of themselves and using a faith they likely only marginally understand as a vehicle to take out their frustrations with a society they could never fit in with.
is a different animal than Islamic radicals, however.
It has become a playground for miscreants to be able to wage violence and terror on people while hiding behind the shroud of an enemy state. They only tangibly tie to Islam - their intent from the start has been to cause chaos and to rape, murder, pillage and defy the Western World at will.
They clearly believe they are acting in the name of the faith
Too general a statement, IMO. Some do, sure, but I'd argue the majority in ISIS's version of extremism are people who feel displaced and found a home in their ideology. But they often weren't raised in strictly Muslim homes and often aren't, as you put it, acting in the name of faith. They're acting in the name of themselves and using a faith they likely only marginally understand as a vehicle to take out their frustrations with a society they could never fit in with.
If you want to understand why certain segments of the population are more susceptible to their message, sure. But it's farcical to tell someone loudly proclaiming that he's acting in the name of his faith that no, no, he's not really acting in the name of his faith.
identifying the difference between impugning religion (which is man made) and impugning theism is a fairly basic task, and not one that I'd expect someone like you to struggle with.
Also don't have much of an issue with the former - however inane it may be - so long as it is duly modernized as humanity progresses. Something so, so (so...) many have proven incapable of doing...even fat & happy Americans (i.e. can't blame "oppression".) And we are all worse off for it.
The experience of secularization over the last few hundred years... Â
is that people who seek the comforts of organized religion do not necessarily find them in the saccharine spiritualism of the nominally God-fearing modern incarnations of the same.
Guilty people have been known to loudly proclaim innocence too. Â
embrace provable fiction, I truly do not care. Many of the parables are compelling (and make great Coen bros films). Knife to my throat, I "get" the appeal.
Just don't slander Darwin or shame woman into being second class citizens or, worst of all, obsess over apostasy/sacrilege while you do it.
This of course necessarily involves recognizing (if only tacitly) the stark inanity inherent in professing fealty to centuries old texts, but I see little wrong with a healthy dose of "wink wink yeah I know it's bullshit but it makes me feel good" so as long as it's fully and forever devoid of also grabbing a Skorpian and murdering a dozen Parisian cartoonists.
embrace provable fiction, I truly do not care. Many of the parables are compelling (and make great Coen bros films). Knife to my throat, I "get" the appeal.
Just don't slander Darwin or shame woman into being second class citizens or, worst of all, obsess over apostasy/sacrilege while you do it.
This of course necessarily involves recognizing (if only tacitly) the stark inanity inherent in professing fealty to centuries old texts, but I see little wrong with a healthy dose of "wink wink yeah I know it's bullshit but it makes me feel good" so as long as it's fully and forever devoid of also grabbing a Skorpian and murdering a dozen Parisian cartoonists.
Absent sincere belief, what's the point? I don't mean this ironically or meanly, I appreciate atheism for the most part, I appreciate agnosticism and indifference. I appreciate the desire to sleep in on Sunday, or to ride a bike or have brunch or what have you. What I don't really understand is nominal adherence to a faith or sect.
that people just like to be part of something. Religion is highly communal.
Expounded, the answer is largely dependent on whether one believes someone can be genuinely "religious" without embracing textual literalism.
The upwards of 50% of scientists who affirm a belief in either a God or "higher power" - who no doubt universally scoff at for instance young Earth-ism - would offer a compelling viewpoint.
I like to believe that a modernized, logical adult can legitimately (if sometimes quietly) reject the obvious nonsensical and pernicious elements - we need not list them all as it would jeopardize Eric's bandwidth limit - and sincerely appropriate the balance as a fully innocuous terrestrial conduit for a belief in a deity.
It should be the insisted upon standard. By everyone. Whether I or any iconoclast maintains still that it's silly, the key word is "innocuous" (attacking it at that point is akin to attacking a group of middle-aged nerds who get together and play Dungeons & Dragons. They're not hurting anyone...let them go nuts).
Fire & Brimstoners will invariably claim cop-out. But they are - whether in the form of Jerry Falwell or ISIS - wicked toads anyway unworthy of consideration by those of us who've embraced the 21st century.
But the alternatives aren't Jerry Falwell or Unitarianism... Â
there are wide swaths of the Christian community that are tolerant and charitable and everything both you and I admire but still believe that the New Testament is something more than a moral guide. Tradition and community are significant and I don't denigrate them in the slightest, but I can't see them holding the same sway in mainstream American Protestant denominations that they do in Catholicism or Judaism simply because the connection to the wider flock, present as well as past, is much more tenuous. Again, it's an interesting discussion and I hope you (and others) don't take it as a personal affront, I just have trouble grasping that. I attend a Presbyterian church, but the historical grasp of that church on me (distinct from the pull of its teachings) is much less than it might be for a Scotsman whose national and local history is so entwined with that of the kirk.
that people just like to be part of something. Religion is highly communal.
Expounded, the answer is largely dependent on whether one believes someone can be genuinely "religious" without embracing textual literalism.
The upwards of 50% of scientists who affirm a belief in either a God or "higher power" - who no doubt universally scoff at for instance young Earth-ism - would offer a compelling viewpoint.
I like to believe that a modernized, logical adult can legitimately (if sometimes quietly) reject the obvious nonsensical and pernicious elements - we need not list them all as it would jeopardize Eric's bandwidth limit - and sincerely appropriate the balance as a fully innocuous terrestrial conduit for a belief in a deity.
It should be the insisted upon standard. By everyone. Whether I or any iconoclast maintains still that it's silly, the key word is "innocuous" (attacking it at that point is akin to attacking a group of middle-aged nerds who get together and play Dungeons & Dragons. They're not hurting anyone...let them go nuts).
Fire & Brimstoners will invariably claim cop-out. But they are - whether in the form of Jerry Falwell or ISIS - wicked toads anyway unworthy of consideration by those of us who've embraced the 21st century.
So embracing the 21st century precludes you from taking people who believe in their religion seriously?
Comparing Jerry Falwell to ISIS is quite the stretch of anyone's imagination. When was the last time heads rolled at Liberty University (or were even threatened)?
So embracing the 21st century precludes you from taking people who believe in their religion seriously?
Comparing Jerry Falwell to ISIS is quite the stretch of anyone's imagination. When was the last time heads rolled at Liberty University (or were even threatened)?
Yeah, that's quite a stretch. The comparison I think weighs most heavily in not equating all religion is imagine what would have happened if, instead of a show called "Book of Mormon" had opened on Broadway it was a show named "Book of Mohammed".
On the contrary I, as much as anyone on this website, have highlighted the unique degree (at this point in history) to which Islam must modernize.
The difference is that I don’t do so from the vantage point of a Christian apologist – a lamentable contingent with a pathetic & enduring persecution complex, largely unwilling to recognize their own destructive flaws. Like (as if channeling the anti-progress slugs threatened by Copernicus) continually slandering one of the most influentially brilliant men in world history in Charles Darwin.
Which reminds me:
Jerry Falwell was a slithering, ignominious piece of shit. Like ISIS, he was indisputably a perpetrator of fire & brimstone preaching. His view (or at least his route to pickpocketing his followers) was that 9/11/01 was not a result of brainwashed jihadists, but rather comeuppance for Americans for removing prayer from schools, abortion, gays, and feminists. You see, we “deserved” it (in his words). Only 1 of many reprehensible comments from a ghastly snake.
The conclusion of his petty life was a huge net positive for planet Earth and anyone with any sense of decency. It's okay to say it.
Which is basically my underlying point on this and any number of other threads:
No one should ever be unwilling, hesitant, or have to be afraid to stand up for the truth & values that forward-looking humanity has hitherto earned – including and especially those suppressed by self-righteous religiosity. Many are of course indeed afraid (justifiably) because they saw what happened to Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebdo and Malala Yousafzai. That does nothing if not further damn how anti-progress the obsessively religious among us can be.
Values evolve of course and many are debatable by fair-minded people, but in 2017 things like respect for women, homosexuals, and science are in “no-brainer” territory and are too often compromised by those whose paramount concern seems to be an obsequious degree of deference toward religion at the expense of truth and human decency. I’m not sure which is worse: the anti-progress perpetrators themselves, or their apologists (often, obviously, one and the same).
but I find it odd none of the main news networks have picked this up. I even checked Drudge which I thought for sure would carry this. Reuters is only relaying a rumor here. Hope its true still.
His death has actually been reported a few times Â
More
.@Centcom "cannot confirm" reports of Baghdadi's death; "strongly advise ISIS to implement a strong line of succession, it will be needed."
Link - ( New Window )
More
.@Centcom "cannot confirm" reports of Baghdadi's death; "strongly advise ISIS to implement a strong line of succession, it will be needed."
Hehe..
'Buckle up folks, we're not done yet
Love,
Centcom'
Oh, yeah, I get that this is totally different from the stream of disposable AQ#2's
Quote:
It won't make a difference, back to shooting AK's, cutting off heads and detonating IED's, all in the name of Islam.
What's messed up, is that it really isn't in the name of Islam. They do all this bullcrap in the name of their own personal twisted views. They say its Islam, but the religion isn't what's really important to these maniacs. They want their way to reign supreme, and they are using religion to justify their bullshit.
It's an old discussion here, but I'm somewhere in the middle on this. People have always used ideology to serve their own twisted desires. But some ideologies make it easier and some make it harder to do so.
Seems to me that when Raqqa goes losing the caliphate, very loosely described as a safe haven, is much more serious than losing al Bagdhdadi. While I'm sure isolated groups will still carry out terror attacks and they will be active on the internet, it means they are not winning, which for at least some of their supporters/cannon fodder was the reason they joined.
Holy run on sentence Batman.
Pretty remarkable situation when you consider ISIS managed to get the US, most of Europe, Russia, Iran, and several other countries all fighting together against a common enemy. Not actually fighting side by side, of course, but I'm sure at the very least coordinating areas of attack via air and ground
And on another note, thought this was a good story, haven't really seen this story covered by the US media. Don't mean that as a political commentary, just wish things like this got a little more burn over here
Muslim leaders begin European tour to protest against terror - ( New Window )
This ongoing and seemingly inextinguishable contention that the slavishly religious "don't really believe" what their respective work of fiction peddles is still more fiction.
It can be helpful for Americans to first consider Jesus freaks since it's more relatable to this audience given our location. (It also exercises those stubborn, unused portions of some brains, that is to say: liberals who happily criticize Jesus freaks but are loathe to do so of Muslims; and RW'ers who droolingly embrace the reverse).
You can pretend otherwise but, yes, they really do believe that Darwin is a kook and that Earth is a handful of thousand years old. It's shameful and continually lamentable, but it's true.
Just as, yes, Mohamed Atta really believed he was justified and en route to paradise as he guided a 767 into the WTC.
So while the quest for power is obviously a contributing factor to the odious exploits of ISIS pieces of shit, they overwhelmingly really believe their actions are sanctioned by an ancient fictionalized text, and hence just.
It's okay to acknowledge it. Doesn't make you a bigot.
On the contrary, you're a defender of logic. Congrats on being part of the solution.
Too general a statement, IMO. Some do, sure, but I'd argue the majority in ISIS's version of extremism are people who feel displaced and found a home in their ideology. But they often weren't raised in strictly Muslim homes and often aren't, as you put it, acting in the name of faith. They're acting in the name of themselves and using a faith they likely only marginally understand as a vehicle to take out their frustrations with a society they could never fit in with.
It has become a playground for miscreants to be able to wage violence and terror on people while hiding behind the shroud of an enemy state. They only tangibly tie to Islam - their intent from the start has been to cause chaos and to rape, murder, pillage and defy the Western World at will.
Quote:
They clearly believe they are acting in the name of the faith
Too general a statement, IMO. Some do, sure, but I'd argue the majority in ISIS's version of extremism are people who feel displaced and found a home in their ideology. But they often weren't raised in strictly Muslim homes and often aren't, as you put it, acting in the name of faith. They're acting in the name of themselves and using a faith they likely only marginally understand as a vehicle to take out their frustrations with a society they could never fit in with.
If you want to understand why certain segments of the population are more susceptible to their message, sure. But it's farcical to tell someone loudly proclaiming that he's acting in the name of his faith that no, no, he's not really acting in the name of his faith.
Also don't have much of an issue with the former - however inane it may be - so long as it is duly modernized as humanity progresses. Something so, so (so...) many have proven incapable of doing...even fat & happy Americans (i.e. can't blame "oppression".) And we are all worse off for it.
We're not so inclined to believe them just on the value of their words.
Just don't slander Darwin or shame woman into being second class citizens or, worst of all, obsess over apostasy/sacrilege while you do it.
This of course necessarily involves recognizing (if only tacitly) the stark inanity inherent in professing fealty to centuries old texts, but I see little wrong with a healthy dose of "wink wink yeah I know it's bullshit but it makes me feel good" so as long as it's fully and forever devoid of also grabbing a Skorpian and murdering a dozen Parisian cartoonists.
Wow sensitive?
Just don't slander Darwin or shame woman into being second class citizens or, worst of all, obsess over apostasy/sacrilege while you do it.
This of course necessarily involves recognizing (if only tacitly) the stark inanity inherent in professing fealty to centuries old texts, but I see little wrong with a healthy dose of "wink wink yeah I know it's bullshit but it makes me feel good" so as long as it's fully and forever devoid of also grabbing a Skorpian and murdering a dozen Parisian cartoonists.
Absent sincere belief, what's the point? I don't mean this ironically or meanly, I appreciate atheism for the most part, I appreciate agnosticism and indifference. I appreciate the desire to sleep in on Sunday, or to ride a bike or have brunch or what have you. What I don't really understand is nominal adherence to a faith or sect.
Expounded, the answer is largely dependent on whether one believes someone can be genuinely "religious" without embracing textual literalism.
The upwards of 50% of scientists who affirm a belief in either a God or "higher power" - who no doubt universally scoff at for instance young Earth-ism - would offer a compelling viewpoint.
I like to believe that a modernized, logical adult can legitimately (if sometimes quietly) reject the obvious nonsensical and pernicious elements - we need not list them all as it would jeopardize Eric's bandwidth limit - and sincerely appropriate the balance as a fully innocuous terrestrial conduit for a belief in a deity.
It should be the insisted upon standard. By everyone. Whether I or any iconoclast maintains still that it's silly, the key word is "innocuous" (attacking it at that point is akin to attacking a group of middle-aged nerds who get together and play Dungeons & Dragons. They're not hurting anyone...let them go nuts).
Fire & Brimstoners will invariably claim cop-out. But they are - whether in the form of Jerry Falwell or ISIS - wicked toads anyway unworthy of consideration by those of us who've embraced the 21st century.
Expounded, the answer is largely dependent on whether one believes someone can be genuinely "religious" without embracing textual literalism.
The upwards of 50% of scientists who affirm a belief in either a God or "higher power" - who no doubt universally scoff at for instance young Earth-ism - would offer a compelling viewpoint.
I like to believe that a modernized, logical adult can legitimately (if sometimes quietly) reject the obvious nonsensical and pernicious elements - we need not list them all as it would jeopardize Eric's bandwidth limit - and sincerely appropriate the balance as a fully innocuous terrestrial conduit for a belief in a deity.
It should be the insisted upon standard. By everyone. Whether I or any iconoclast maintains still that it's silly, the key word is "innocuous" (attacking it at that point is akin to attacking a group of middle-aged nerds who get together and play Dungeons & Dragons. They're not hurting anyone...let them go nuts).
Fire & Brimstoners will invariably claim cop-out. But they are - whether in the form of Jerry Falwell or ISIS - wicked toads anyway unworthy of consideration by those of us who've embraced the 21st century.
So embracing the 21st century precludes you from taking people who believe in their religion seriously?
Comparing Jerry Falwell to ISIS is quite the stretch of anyone's imagination. When was the last time heads rolled at Liberty University (or were even threatened)?
So embracing the 21st century precludes you from taking people who believe in their religion seriously?
Comparing Jerry Falwell to ISIS is quite the stretch of anyone's imagination. When was the last time heads rolled at Liberty University (or were even threatened)?
Yeah, that's quite a stretch. The comparison I think weighs most heavily in not equating all religion is imagine what would have happened if, instead of a show called "Book of Mormon" had opened on Broadway it was a show named "Book of Mohammed".
The difference is that I don’t do so from the vantage point of a Christian apologist – a lamentable contingent with a pathetic & enduring persecution complex, largely unwilling to recognize their own destructive flaws. Like (as if channeling the anti-progress slugs threatened by Copernicus) continually slandering one of the most influentially brilliant men in world history in Charles Darwin.
Which reminds me:
Jerry Falwell was a slithering, ignominious piece of shit. Like ISIS, he was indisputably a perpetrator of fire & brimstone preaching. His view (or at least his route to pickpocketing his followers) was that 9/11/01 was not a result of brainwashed jihadists, but rather comeuppance for Americans for removing prayer from schools, abortion, gays, and feminists. You see, we “deserved” it (in his words). Only 1 of many reprehensible comments from a ghastly snake.
The conclusion of his petty life was a huge net positive for planet Earth and anyone with any sense of decency. It's okay to say it.
Which is basically my underlying point on this and any number of other threads:
No one should ever be unwilling, hesitant, or have to be afraid to stand up for the truth & values that forward-looking humanity has hitherto earned – including and especially those suppressed by self-righteous religiosity. Many are of course indeed afraid (justifiably) because they saw what happened to Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebdo and Malala Yousafzai. That does nothing if not further damn how anti-progress the obsessively religious among us can be.
Values evolve of course and many are debatable by fair-minded people, but in 2017 things like respect for women, homosexuals, and science are in “no-brainer” territory and are too often compromised by those whose paramount concern seems to be an obsequious degree of deference toward religion at the expense of truth and human decency. I’m not sure which is worse: the anti-progress perpetrators themselves, or their apologists (often, obviously, one and the same).
It’s all so God-damned ridiculous.