Militant Islamists

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by ellias

"Lashing out is what children do, we have to grow up.

The threat of invasion from an alien source would really pull humanity together."


In one breath you say "we have to grow up".

In the next breath, you're hoping for an alien invasion.

My only question.... Your parents need to restrict internet usage of their 12 year old son.

I'm going to assume this is merely a jest and that you are not flaming a fellow member.

Don't give me any reasons to reconsider, please.

[Sir Honkers]

Originally Posted by Nilpy

The threat of invasion from an alien source would really pull humanity together.

Personally, and I don't mean this facetiously, I think a pregnant woman who blows herself and her children up for some cause is about as alien as it's possible to get.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by loosegoose

Personally, and I don't mean this facetiously, I think a pregnant woman who blows herself and her children up for some cause is about as alien as it's possible to get.

I always reflect of such people that paradise will be much much warmer than they thought it was going to be.

A Muslim colleague at work mentioned to me that he is eternally baffled that the perpetrators of the Sri Lanka murders and others of the same stamp can ever think that the Prophet would approve of their crimes. The reason he cited was that Islam has rules of engagement in war, a bit like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and the rules were stated in the book by Muhammed in person. These Islamo-Fascist suicide-murderers act with flagrant disregard to the rules of their Prophet and should not believe that he would ever want to acknowledge them. An unbeliever would be considered to be far superior to a purported Muslim who acted so basely, both because an unbeliever has probably not read the rules and because most unbelievers would naturally obey some standards of decency even in war without needing the Prophet to tell them to, and these people, who were taught better, have no standards at all.

Out of curiosity I did a google search to see what these Islamic rules might be. My colleague was telling the straight tale - the Quran does lay down these rules and they come straight from the Prophet, exactly like my colleague said they do. Some of them are a bit weird, but there is absolutely no doubt that Muhammed told his soldiers that there are things you do and things you absolutely do not do.

1. Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person. (Sunan Abu Dawud)
2. Do not practice treachery or mutilation. (Al-Muwatta)
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. (Al-Muwatta)
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. (Al-Muwatta)
5. If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam. (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
6. Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
7. Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle. (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
8. Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience. (Sahih Muslim)
9. No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire. (Sunan Abu Dawud).
10. Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil. (Al-Tirmidhi)

I have highlighted some points which are self evidently being ignored by ISIL and its scum followers.

Unfortunately, it is also clear from the prophet's guidelines that he encourages his followers to be full willing to engage in warfare; but I note that he also made clear that warfare should be just and for a justifiable reason, such as to defend oppressed people. The trouble with that is that it is always easy to invent justifications for the wrongful deeds we commit, which mask even from ourselves the true and evil reasons why we want to do these deeds. There are no controls over the believer when he/she decides to go to war other than his/her own judgment, opinion and conscience.

The history of soi-disant "Christians" waging so-called "just wars" is legion and disgusting. But I greatly prefer the teachings of St Augustine of Hippo on the principles of war and why we go to war to those of the prophet, without denying for a moment that the prophet's rules of engagement for soldiers already fighting in war make a lot of sense. St Augustine taught that a nation which takes seriously its moral duty to only engage in war if the war is just must therefore meet four tests of justification.

1. Just authority - is the declaration of war based on a valid legal and political decision process?
2. Just cause - What has been done against you which is so bad that going to war is an appropriate counter-action?
3. Right intentions and war aims - are your war aims limited only to righting the wrong you suffered and/or self-defence? Are you taking back what is yours or are you planning to exceed that limit - these days we call that "mission creep"?
4. Last resort - did you first use every alternative open to you to try to redress the wrong you suffered, and are you going to war because there were no other options left?

Apparently the Quran says -

"And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!”

I say bollocks to that. I absolutely will not wage war on anyone who never once did one single bad thing to me, just because I don't like them. The world is full of bad people doing bad shit and I could potentially be forever engaged in wars if I was forever rallying to defend the oppressed. The cause for action needs to be strong enough. Instead of asking "why should ye not fight..." the prophet should have asked why should we fight. The default assumption should be that it is wrong to fight and the question should be about whether the cause for action is strong enough that it is right to fight when ordinarily it is wrong to fight. That is where St Augustine is right and the prophet is completely wrong.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I have highlighted some points which are self evidently being ignored by ISIL and its scum followers.

Why is the word "scum" there?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

Why is the word "scum" there?

If that's a real question, then the answer is that ISIL are scum and their supporters are scum. Do I really need to produce a list of their loathsome crimes to prove this to you? I mean, seriously?

[seany65]

Originally Posted by Nilpy

You have to understand that the Muslim world feels it is under attack by the non-muslim attitudes to sex, the womens role, and democratic principles expounded by western cultures.

In essence, they are lashing out because they are scared that their way of life and way of thought is being destroyed. That does not make their violent actions justifiable, just as the crusaders actions in the twelfth century were/are unacceptable.

Lashing out is what children do, we have to grow up.

As long as we think of ourselves as being from a 'nation' we will always be at odds with others, not from our 'nation'.
The threat of invasion from an alien source would really pull humanity together.

But if they live in a non-Muslim country, whether born there or they move there, they really have no right to feel under attack by non-Muslim countries' attitude to sex, women, voting etc. so if they do feel that then they should leave and not kill people.

Edit: Is an "Islamist" a Muslim who feels threatened by non-Muslim countries or a Muslim who wants to turn the world Muslim?

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by seany65

B
Edit: Is an "Islamist" a Muslim who feels threatened by non-Muslim countries or a Muslim who wants to turn the world Muslim?

For the purpose of this thread they are Militant Islamist's. Which IMO means those that think ANY one who does not follow their interpretation of the Koran is anathema and can be punished even unto death by torture or what seems to be a favorite beheading.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

If that's a real question, then the answer is that ISIL are scum and their supporters are scum. Do I really need to produce a list of their loathsome crimes to prove this to you? I mean, seriously?

Seriously, it adds exactly zilch to any argument you present. It identifies an emotional state of mind which calls into question any reasoned response. By dehumanizing your enemy you reduce yourself to their level. It appeals to the mob mentality, which makes us like them. I mean seriously, I had hoped you'd get that.

But if it made you feel better, good for you.

[Adam West]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

By dehumanizing your enemy you reduce yourself to their level. It appeals to the mob mentality, which makes us like them. I mean seriously, I had hoped you'd get that.

But if it made you feel better, good for you.

People at war have been dehumanizing the enemy since war began. That's the way it's been and I believe it will continue. Not saying it's right, not saying it's wrong. Just a fact.

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

(...) It identifies an emotional state of mind which calls into question any reasoned response. By dehumanizing your enemy you reduce yourself to their level. I(...).

Hmm. Can you describe "their level" in this particular case?