Beheaded by ISIS

Godfather.

mattsl1983 said:

After reading this thread, it's scary. It's scary because people want to get away from the fact that "Isis, or Is, or Isf" or whatever you want to refer to them as, have in cold blood cut people's heads of and justified it in the name of Islam. And many here seem to justify their actions with other actions. Educate yourselves on history. This whole "self appointed I'm an intellect I know all" mentality is ruining this world. Just because you ignore a fact doesn't mean it's not a fact....

agreed.

Godfather.

benjs

mattsl1983 said:

After reading this thread, it's scary. It's scary because people want to get away from the fact that "Isis, or Is, or Isf" or whatever you want to refer to them as, have in cold blood cut people's heads of and justified it in the name of Islam. And many here seem to justify their actions with other actions. Educate yourselves on history. This whole "self appointed I'm an intellect I know all" mentality is ruining this world. Just because you ignore a fact doesn't mean it's not a fact....

I'd like to think that every single person in this thread finds it horrific and unjustifiable that IS bastardizes the names of Islam and commits such heinous and brutal acts on a regular basis. No one is ignoring that fact whatsoever - but to read the rhetoric of "impending threat" and react by supporting the decision to intervene when history (which, as you said, we should educate ourselves on) suggests that this leads to regional instability in the very regions Western powers claim to be assisting, is not an alignment we should be making with any haste (my apologies for the run-on sentence; it's early).

Just because you present a fact doesn't mean it's the most important one, and history/military tactics are nothing more than complex webs of cause and effect: here, many of us believe IS is a byproduct of something else. For me personally, I question why Western powers spend time, money, energy, lives to strip IS of their bullets - let's get to the bottom of why they're holding their guns (just a metaphor - I'm well aware that they typically use other weapons for their beheadings).

callen

mattsl1983 said:

After reading this thread, it's scary. It's scary because people want to get away from the fact that "Isis, or Is, or Isf" or whatever you want to refer to them as, have in cold blood cut people's heads of and justified it in the name of Islam. And many here seem to justify their actions with other actions. Educate yourselves on history. This whole "self appointed I'm an intellect I know all" mentality is ruining this world. Just because you ignore a fact doesn't mean it's not a fact....

Of course lobbing peoples heads is wrong. Nobody has justified ISIS. And a coalition should probably stop them. But why the US? Because of oil. Why we got into this shit in the first place. For our ability to buy cheap gas.

Yes decapitation is vile.

Now, our bombs burn humans. We blow them to small little pieces. Our bombs maim. Our bombs miss their intended target and kill kids. So we can justify how evil ISIS is all we want but can't ignore what we do. State run news don't show graphic pictures of what our bombs do. He'll read thread on Colorado school system cleaning up US history. That's fucked

Realize it sucks to read posts that directly contradict what news, media, politicians, friends and family state everyday. Go back to our justification for invading Iraq.

rgambs

mattsl1983 said:

After reading this thread, it's scary. It's scary because people want to get away from the fact that "Isis, or Is, or Isf" or whatever you want to refer to them as, have in cold blood cut people's heads of and justified it in the name of Islam. And many here seem to justify their actions with other actions. Educate yourselves on history. This whole "self appointed I'm an intellect I know all" mentality is ruining this world. Just because you ignore a fact doesn't mean it's not a fact....

Which history is that which you think we need educated on? The one where you paint Islam as the scourge of humanity or the one where the American empire continually destabilizes the region by dropping bombs and merry-go-round funding terrorist groups...including Al Queda and IS?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.

I also agree that deflection tactics tend to minimize the brutality on display by some groups. I'm not American and typically despise their foreign policies, but it's fair to say that the US has 'deservedly' received its share of criticism in countless threads.

Why the brutality of ISIS cannot stand alone without attempts to legitimize their motivation is curious to me as well. It's fair to make attempts to explain their motivation, but I feel that some of these attempts almost read like they are defending ISIS.

At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.

Drowned Out

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.

I also agree that deflection tactics tend to minimize the brutality on display by some groups. I'm not American and typically despise their foreign policies, but it's fair to say that the US has 'deservedly' received its share of criticism in countless threads.

Why the brutality of ISIS cannot stand alone without attempts to legitimize their motivation is curious to me as well. It's fair to make attempts to explain their motivation, but I feel that some of these attempts almost read like they are defending ISIS.

At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.

Again, no one is defending what they do. Silly to suggest. How can the brutality of the IS stand alone? Especially in relation to political debate? Would you prefer this topic was dedicated to beheading videos and we all sit around in a big groupthink session bitching about how evil they (but not all muslims) are? The point to political debate is to educate and look for solutions. ISIS was not conceived in a vacuum, and if we're trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening, we need to examine why it began and what is feeding it. Hence, US foreign policy becomes a major focus.
And I think there are plenty of 'special type of people' on both sides of the debate. I'm sorry, but I think the guy sitting behind a desk with a drone on remote control, or a general giving orders to carpet bomb a village are just as special as a guy who beheads someone. Video game detachment and different reasons for righteousness don't excuse actions with the same result. I think THAT (legitimizing our own violence) is a WAY bigger problem than people 'sympathizing' (as you seem to see it) with the IS.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Drowned Out said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.

I also agree that deflection tactics tend to minimize the brutality on display by some groups. I'm not American and typically despise their foreign policies, but it's fair to say that the US has 'deservedly' received its share of criticism in countless threads.

Why the brutality of ISIS cannot stand alone without attempts to legitimize their motivation is curious to me as well. It's fair to make attempts to explain their motivation, but I feel that some of these attempts almost read like they are defending ISIS.

At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.

Again, no one is defending what they do. Silly to suggest. How can the brutality of the IS stand alone? Especially in relation to political debate? Would you prefer this topic was dedicated to beheading videos and we all sit around in a big groupthink session bitching about how evil they (but not all muslims) are? The point to political debate is to educate and look for solutions. ISIS was not conceived in a vacuum, and if we're trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening, we need to examine why it began and what is feeding it. Hence, US foreign policy becomes a major focus.
And I think there are plenty of 'special type of people' on both sides of the debate. I'm sorry, but I think the guy sitting behind a desk with a drone on remote control, or a general giving orders to carpet bomb a village are just as special as a guy who beheads someone. Video game detachment and different reasons for righteousness don't excuse actions with the same result. I think THAT (legitimizing our own violence) is a WAY bigger problem than people 'sympathizing' (as you seem to see it) with the IS.

I said some posts seem to read as if they are defending ISIS. This is far from silly to present as I did. That's how they read whether you care to admit it or not. I read them that way. Matts obviously did as well which motivated him to write what he did.

I said I typically despise US foreign policy- I'm glad we can agree there (even though I think you think we don't). The guy who keeps his hands clean as he blows up children is just as reprehensible as the guy on the ground with the knife. How you got me legitimizing this form of violence perplexes me a little- it seems like you have tried to make something out of nothing there?

In the interest of 'examination':
I won't get into too many details, but like many other places, we have had a young man, spoiled with all the western luxuries we all share, leave our community to take up arms with ISIS. Trust me when I say people are shocked- this has been a bizarre event. Can you (or someone) explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?

callen

Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.

Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.

Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?

When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.

The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.

Godfather.

rgambs said:

How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?

) ) Geno who ?


Godfather.

Godfather.

benjs said:

Godfather. said:

wipe em all out I'm tired of reading about thier shit

chadwick said:

or if not by isis how about beheaded by whackjob meat processing plant worker in oklahoma

who happens to be a muslim and an isis supporter......


Godfather.

rgambs said:

benjs said:

rgambs said:

How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?

I wish I knew.

Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.

The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.

evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t


Godfather.

benjs

Godfather. said:

benjs said:

Godfather. said:

wipe em all out I'm tired of reading about thier shit

chadwick said:

or if not by isis how about beheaded by whackjob meat processing plant worker in oklahoma

who happens to be a muslim and an isis supporter......


Godfather.

rgambs said:

benjs said:

rgambs said:

How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?

I wish I knew.

Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.

The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.

evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t


Godfather.

Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?

Drowned Out

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Drowned Out said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.

I also agree that deflection tactics tend to minimize the brutality on display by some groups. I'm not American and typically despise their foreign policies, but it's fair to say that the US has 'deservedly' received its share of criticism in countless threads.

Why the brutality of ISIS cannot stand alone without attempts to legitimize their motivation is curious to me as well. It's fair to make attempts to explain their motivation, but I feel that some of these attempts almost read like they are defending ISIS.

At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.

Again, no one is defending what they do. Silly to suggest. How can the brutality of the IS stand alone? Especially in relation to political debate? Would you prefer this topic was dedicated to beheading videos and we all sit around in a big groupthink session bitching about how evil they (but not all muslims) are? The point to political debate is to educate and look for solutions. ISIS was not conceived in a vacuum, and if we're trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening, we need to examine why it began and what is feeding it. Hence, US foreign policy becomes a major focus.
And I think there are plenty of 'special type of people' on both sides of the debate. I'm sorry, but I think the guy sitting behind a desk with a drone on remote control, or a general giving orders to carpet bomb a village are just as special as a guy who beheads someone. Video game detachment and different reasons for righteousness don't excuse actions with the same result. I think THAT (legitimizing our own violence) is a WAY bigger problem than people 'sympathizing' (as you seem to see it) with the IS.

I said some posts seem to read as if they are defending ISIS. This is far from silly to present as I did. That's how they read whether you care to admit it or not. I read them that way. Matts obviously did as well which motivated him to write what he did.

I said I typically despise US foreign policy- I'm glad we can agree there (even though I think you think we don't). The guy who keeps his hands clean as he blows up children is just as reprehensible as the guy on the ground with the knife. How you got me legitimizing this form of violence perplexes me a little- it seems like you have tried to make something out of nothing there?

In the interest of 'examination':
I won't get into too many details, but like many other places, we have had a young man, spoiled with all the western luxuries we all share, leave our community to take up arms with ISIS. Trust me when I say people are shocked- this has been a bizarre event. Can you (or someone) explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.

Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?

When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.

The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.

I have a feeling this is going to circle the bowl pretty quickly....we're both saying the same thing to each other. You've not provided specific examples showing what you've perceived as defense of ISIS, just reinforced your 'accusation' (that word seems to strong but you know what I mean), by saying 'it's generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation'. Again - how would you like this thread to play out? Just "I hate ISIS - see link"....and that's it? That's what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are for. We can do better. There is nothing wrong with providing perspectives on the reasons for the proliferation of extremism, and what we feel can be done about it without stooping to the levels of violence we see from the IS and western militaries.
As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.

As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.

benjs

Drowned Out said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Drowned Out said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.

I also agree that deflection tactics tend to minimize the brutality on display by some groups. I'm not American and typically despise their foreign policies, but it's fair to say that the US has 'deservedly' received its share of criticism in countless threads.

Why the brutality of ISIS cannot stand alone without attempts to legitimize their motivation is curious to me as well. It's fair to make attempts to explain their motivation, but I feel that some of these attempts almost read like they are defending ISIS.

At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.

Again, no one is defending what they do. Silly to suggest. How can the brutality of the IS stand alone? Especially in relation to political debate? Would you prefer this topic was dedicated to beheading videos and we all sit around in a big groupthink session bitching about how evil they (but not all muslims) are? The point to political debate is to educate and look for solutions. ISIS was not conceived in a vacuum, and if we're trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening, we need to examine why it began and what is feeding it. Hence, US foreign policy becomes a major focus.
And I think there are plenty of 'special type of people' on both sides of the debate. I'm sorry, but I think the guy sitting behind a desk with a drone on remote control, or a general giving orders to carpet bomb a village are just as special as a guy who beheads someone. Video game detachment and different reasons for righteousness don't excuse actions with the same result. I think THAT (legitimizing our own violence) is a WAY bigger problem than people 'sympathizing' (as you seem to see it) with the IS.

I said some posts seem to read as if they are defending ISIS. This is far from silly to present as I did. That's how they read whether you care to admit it or not. I read them that way. Matts obviously did as well which motivated him to write what he did.

I said I typically despise US foreign policy- I'm glad we can agree there (even though I think you think we don't). The guy who keeps his hands clean as he blows up children is just as reprehensible as the guy on the ground with the knife. How you got me legitimizing this form of violence perplexes me a little- it seems like you have tried to make something out of nothing there?

In the interest of 'examination':
I won't get into too many details, but like many other places, we have had a young man, spoiled with all the western luxuries we all share, leave our community to take up arms with ISIS. Trust me when I say people are shocked- this has been a bizarre event. Can you (or someone) explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.

Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?

When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.

The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.

I have a feeling this is going to circle the bowl pretty quickly....we're both saying the same thing to each other. You've not provided specific examples showing what you've perceived as defense of ISIS, just reinforced your 'accusation' (that word seems to strong but you know what I mean), by saying 'it's generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation'. Again - how would you like this thread to play out? Just "I hate ISIS - see link"....and that's it? That's what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are for. We can do better. There is nothing wrong with providing perspectives on the reasons for the proliferation of extremism, and what we feel can be done about it without stooping to the levels of violence we see from the IS and western militaries.
As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.

As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.

I was listening to U of T's radio station last night, and the host was speaking to a man who was recruited into a cult, and went from being an atheist to believing that humanity was responding to the will of Satan within a period of two weeks. Eventually, he recognized that he was drinking the Kool-Aid, and left, and now is outspoken on the topic of undue and unethical influence (or mind control). Something he made a point of mentioning was that good mind control techniques can work regardless of whether or not the recruiters and the recruited share premises. He also made a point of mentioning that it is not only weak-willed or 'dumb' people who can be controlled in this way, and that the demographics associated with cults typically include highly intelligent people.

We learn English, mathematics, science, art in school, but it wouldn't be until university that we could have an opportunity to take courses whose sole purposes are "sifting through bullshit to find meaningful and non-fallacious facts to base our alignments upon". Cults and extremist groups put significant effort into forming their controlling tactics, and we are left unprepared. Clearly, a glaring omission from our school curriculums is a course that would promote the significance of asking "why", and studying causality - a premise simple enough that even young children can understand (if this then that). To aid with teaching this notion, there are spectacularly horrific examples of the dangers of not asking why: I would imagine that almost every genocide in history has been associated with some form of unethical influence. Even though I am armed with at most a superficial understanding of two genocides (the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia), it is easy to see the associated influence that facilitated the atrocities.

rgambs

benjs said:

Godfather. said:

benjs said:

Godfather. said:

wipe em all out I'm tired of reading about thier shit

chadwick said:

or if not by isis how about beheaded by whackjob meat processing plant worker in oklahoma

who happens to be a muslim and an isis supporter......


Godfather.

rgambs said:

benjs said:

rgambs said:

How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?

I wish I knew.

Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.

The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.

evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t


Godfather.

Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?

You misunderstood. He wasn't calling for a wipe-out of IS, he was calling for the eradication of the Muslims in general. It's his whole schtick...bait and then mock.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Drowned Out said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Drowned Out said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I agree with the overwhelming sentiment here that the blanket Muslim statements spun from ISIS actions are very damaging and naïve.



At its core level and among many other horrific acts... an ISIS member is taking a knife and severing someone's head. It takes a special type of person to do something like that- one certainly not beyond reproach.

(as you seem to see it) with the IS.

explain to me how someone so personally detached (physically detached might be a better way to frame it) feels the need to take up arms with ISIS in a country he had previously never set foot in and contribute to the violence they pursue?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty. Propaganda, same crap that aligns us to kill.

Can you show examples of posts that defend ISIS?

When a post is offered that speak to the brutality of ISIS, it is generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation.

The optics of such dialogue seem to present an attitude that displays a level of tolerance given how ISIS has gotten to here.

I have a feeling this is going to circle the bowl pretty quickly....we're both saying the same thing to each other. You've not provided specific examples showing what you've perceived as defense of ISIS, just reinforced your 'accusation' (that word seems to strong but you know what I mean), by saying 'it's generally countered with a post that speaks to their motivation'. Again - how would you like this thread to play out? Just "I hate ISIS - see link"....and that's it? That's what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are for. We can do better. There is nothing wrong with providing perspectives on the reasons for the proliferation of extremism, and what we feel can be done about it without stooping to the levels of violence we see from the IS and western militaries.
As for making something out of nothing - I didn't really suggest that you are legitimizing western violence....but you did separate the violence of ISIS from our violence by suggesting that it takes a special kind of person to kill someone with a knife. Your response seems to contradict your first comment.

As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment. I don't know the background of the guy you're talking about....But I don't think it's really all that surprising that mentally unstable people with violent tendencies, unresolved hatred, or blind faith, would volunteer to go to war. It happens with our own militaries all the time. And this is not defending this choice of action...in fact I'm against it on both sides. But there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.

As long as meaningful discussion occurs, this thread can play out any way it might. Your point works both ways: are threads any better if everyone says "I hate the US and they are responsible for... (see link)"?

You asked for a post which provides a 'specific example of a defence of ISIS'. Then you proceed to write: As for people leaving to take up arms with ISIS....I've said this a few times here lately - people are tired of the US meddling in the middle east. People are tired of being sold down the war path on lies and misinformation. People are tired of feeling powerless against corrupt governments. People, even in at home, see the US as the world's biggest threat to peace, and some think the only way to end their reign is to bring them down with violence. ISIS is the enemy du jour - the only army actively working against the US at the moment.

Read these words. Now, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you have written, but these words- like many others before them- tend to leave the reader with the impression (no... not 'specific'... but an impression nonetheless) that a defence can be made for the actions of ISIS if one simply took the time to understand why they have come to this position.

More alarming to me than the beheadings is the fact that ISIS is engaged in an aggressive and hostile ethnic cleansing effort. Americans aren't the only people who have motivated this group to such levels of hostility.

Godfather.

benjs said:

Godfather. said:

benjs said:

Godfather. said:

wipe em all out I'm tired of reading about thier shit

chadwick said:

or if not by isis how about beheaded by whackjob meat processing plant worker in oklahoma

who happens to be a muslim and an isis supporter......


Godfather.

rgambs said:

benjs said:

rgambs said:

How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?

I wish I knew.

Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.

The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.

evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t


Godfather.

Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?

if I said go jump off a bridge would you do it ? or do you have enough common sense to realize I was not serious...and even better you finally got to use the B (bigotry) word and that in it self must be a real hum-dinger to a super crime fighter like yourself so run like the wind super hero ) and go catch those nasty homophobic GENOcidel biggoted blog nastys...
then take it ez for a while.


Godfather.

dignin

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/look-around-isis-s-acolytes-are-just-apprentices-at-atrocity-1.2781883

Look around, ISIS's acolytes are just apprentices at atrocity

WARNING: This story contains graphic content

Neil Macdonald
Senior Washington Correspondent

Back in July, Barack Obama signed an executive order punishing anyone responsible for some of the hideous excesses of the Congolese civil war.

Hardly anyone noticed Obama's order. But for the record, the people it targets have reportedly committed: mass rape (of men and women, by rebels and government soldiers) often in front of communities and families, or forcing people to rape each other, as a weapon of war; inventive torture (forcing men to copulate with holes in the ground lined with razor blades, forcing women to eat excrement or flesh of relatives); casual and varied forms of murder (including firing weapons up women's vaginas); use of child soldiers; and ethnic cleansing.

The list goes on.

The Congo war has killed five million people, directly and indirectly, since 1998 — more than the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq put together, as one national newspaper here noted recently.

Obama's punishment for the culprits? Financial discomfort.

He broadened the reach of U.S.-UN sanctions to take in a wider group of participants. (They'd better not show up in America, or open a bank account here, or they'll be sorry.)

Then, a month after he signed the order, Obama invited Congo's unsavory president, Joseph Kabila, to the White House for dinner.

Compared to the acts committed by Kabila's military and the rebels fighting it, and the interventions by neighbouring Rwanda, the 20,000 or so fighters of ISIS are tenderfoot apprentices in the atrocity business.

Yet ISIS merits what is obviously just the beginning of a full-scale American re-invasion of Iraq, and perhaps even Syria.

'The heart of darkness'

House Speaker John Boehner on the weekend became just the latest prominent American to predict the inevitable deployment of U.S. ground forces.

Meanwhile, the campaign to soften up a mildly skeptical Western public is blaring at near-feedback levels.

ISIS has now become the arch-villian, the Keyser Söze of revolutionary groups.

It is denounced as "the heart of darkness," (Obama), a "death cult" (Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott) and a genocidal terrorist caliphate (Stephen Harper).

None of those leaders spends much time at all talking about the Congo (the subject was last raised in the Canadian House of Commons three years ago).

When they do, they speak in far milder terms than they do about ISIS, even framing it in the mournful abstract.

At a Francophonie summit in 2012, Harper gently asked whether Canada could help find "solutions" to advance "peace, development and democracy in the DRC," the Democratic Republic of Congo, where all the fighting is.

So why the cognitive dissonance?

Moral relativism

The most charitable view is that national leaders tend to act on the fears and desires and preoccupations of their voters, and while ISIS has terrified Americans by beheading a handful of Westerners, nobody really cares what goes on in the Congo.

It's far away, in the middle of a continent widely perceived as dirty and savage, and the victims are all, well, black Africans.

Western politicians also take their cues from news outlets, and while editors don't like to discuss such things, Africa (along with a few other wretched parts of the Earth) barely makes the news menu, if at all.

A struggling baby panda in some zoo will easily knock an African genocide off the nightly newscast.

It's not a conscious racism — journalists profess, probably sincerely, concern for suffering and death everywhere. And the level of education among editorial staff, like diplomats, can be remarkable where world affairs are concerned.

But what makes it onto front pages and newscasts and national agendas tells the story.

Passenger liners that crash in Africa barely make world briefs, or "in other news" sections voiced over by the anchor. Jets that go down carrying Europeans or North Americans stay on front pages and newscasts for days.

The current Ebola epidemic only began grabbing serious space on American newscasts when Obama said its spread had become "exponential," and declared it a threat to American national security.

Move over Keyser Söze

But even within the Middle East, where brutality and savagery are often considered normal governance, ISIS has assumed a special status as evil incarnate.

Yes, ISIS has carried out beheadings, often for apostasy, which in ISIS's book means not following its deranged interpretation of Islam.

But so has the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose princes walk hand in hand, sometimes literally, with American presidents, and are welcomed in the society salons of Georgetown.

The Saudis have beheaded 46 people so far this year, including 19 in the first three weeks of August. Like ISIS, the Saudis favour public beheadings, and have sometimes strung the decapitated corpses up to rot in public.

Grounds for beheading in Saudi Arabia include sorcery. Seriously, sorcery.

And, of course, apostasy. (The Saudian Arabian version of Islam, Wahabbism, isn't all that different from the ferocious ISIS interpretation.)

Yes, one might argue, but the Saudis are America's allies, not its sworn enemies.

Well, setting aside the fact that that hardly excuses beheading apostates, or sorcerers, in the 21st century, most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and wealthy Saudis have funded some of the most anti-Western radicals worldwide, not the least of which were the Taliban.

Incidentally, they have also funneled an awful lot of money to the opposition fighters in Syria, which of course means ISIS.

Which probably brings us to what's really at issue here: oil.

The Saudis have lots of it, and as long as they're willing to be good fellows and keep selling it on the open market, well, their virulent extremism is just the religious quirk of a close and valued ally.

ISIS, meanwhile, made the gross error of beheading some white people, and has taken over oil refineries, and sold the oil, and threatened the order of things, and there are few crimes more serious than that.

So, to war? Again?

Oh, and will someone please check up on those Congolese bank accounts?

benjs

Godfather. said:

benjs said:

Godfather. said:

benjs said:

Godfather. said:

wipe em all out I'm tired of reading about thier shit

chadwick said:

or if not by isis how about beheaded by whackjob meat processing plant worker in oklahoma

who happens to be a muslim and an isis supporter......


Godfather.

rgambs said:

benjs said:

rgambs said:

How does byrnzie get banned for sticking up for himself and godfather can come in here literally calling for genocide?

I wish I knew.

Me too. It's sad, blatant racism and homophobia are allowed to exist alongside calls for murder of innocent children, because it is labelled as an opinion, or someone's "feelings", but if you debate aggressively and respond to a troll harshly you are out.

The bolded part above particularly blows me away. That's not even masked. Thank you Godfather, for sharing your bigotry you consider enlightenment and, go figure, without an ounce of supporting evidence.

evidence ?...really ? good grief man just watch any news source or even social media ...... :-t


Godfather.

Yes, I am asking you to provide adequate evidence that suggests we should "wipe them all out" in spite of the civilian casualties that intervention would cause. And evidence that suggests that when we "wipe them all out" (assuming "we" could exclusively kill each and every member of IS), another brutal extremist group wouldn't come right back fighting for the right to ownership of their own territory and resources without intervention from the largest militaristic superpower who happens to reside a ten hours' flight away. If you are asking for IS to justify their actions or be condemned when their actions involve killing, why not hold the US (the noble, democratic utopia that it is) to the same standards?

if I said go jump off a bridge would you do it ? or do you have enough common sense to realize I was not serious...and even better you finally got to use the B (bigotry) word and that in it self must be a real hum-dinger to a super crime fighter like yourself so run like the wind super hero ) and go catch those nasty homophobic GENOcidel biggoted blog nastys...
then take it ez for a while.


Godfather.

Godfather, if you told me to jump off a bridge, I'd ask you why, and you'd proceed to walk away from the conversation laughing instead of giving me a reason as with any other of your unsubstantiated claims, opinions, or proposals for action.

Your so-called jokes, as I've pointed out to you before - are not funny. It is NOT funny to tell Muslims not to get their "head wraps in a wad". It is NOT funny to propose "wiping them all out" (and backtracking to claim you were joking doesn't make it any better). It is insensitive, and amounts to barely masked racism. It is offensive. I tell the same thing to my parents when they present their bigotry. And I tell myself the same thing whenever an unfounded thought based on prejudice creeps into my head.

My raison d'être here is to learn first and to share second (and the sharing typically is just a means to more learning). Any form of nastiness, homophobia, affection for genocide or bigotry are mere obfuscations from legitimate information gathering and sharing: and that's the exclusive reason I waste my time (and I do consider it a waste since I have yet to see a semblance of a logical statement or rebuttal from you) responding. I'd love to hear the reason you post here. Is it to teach? Is it to learn? Or is it to introduce conflict and distract from meaningful conversation?

Jason P

Drowned Out said:

Jason P said:

NEO Journal makes Fox News look fair and balanced.

Yawn. Care to refute anything he says, or would you prefer to attack the source? The author has written for many alt-media outlets....tho I'm sure you'd say none of them were credible either.

OK. I would not call the Syrian army shooting down a Turkish aircraft in 2012 a fabricated story.

The NEO website does give me insight on your statements of what you believe is going on in the Ukraine.