Islamic State Militants Mocked By US State Department In Grisly Video (WARNING, GRAPHIC)

First topic message reminder :

[ltr]Islamic State militants currently sweeping across Syria and Iraq have already gained notoriety through their use of intimidating, but slick, social media campaigns.[/ltr]
[ltr]Now, the US State Department has released their own video to counter terrorist attempts to recruit people online.[/ltr]
[ltr][/ltr]
[ltr]It's harrowing, grisly, and distressing viewing, but it gets the point across; that would-be jihadists should think twice before joining in on the barbaric actions taking place in the so called caliphate.[/ltr]
[ltr]Using the group's own propaganda against them, the sickening scenes show men being slaughtered through crucifixion, decapitated bodies and mosques being blown up.[/ltr]



[ltr][/ltr]



[ltr]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/06/islamic-state-militants-us-state-department-video_n_5776964.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/ltr]

Hi Stardesk

Basically Quills points is based around racial view poits, if they are not of our race, it is not our problem, basically he is saying fuck them, let them sort it out even though they are human, being as we are all one human race, which is illogical. Using this logic you may as well not concern yourself over crimes that happen in the US state next to you, or go one further to the town nearest to you. The principle being used by Quill in this case Stardesk, is naivety, one where it hopes a problem will go away, and fails to look at the bigger picture of any given problem, his own reasoning on the Atomic bomb is very short sighted as even though it caused over a hundred thousand deaths, it actually saved millions of lives, which is why he fails to look at anything further than its intended use.

The reality is again Quill is unable to look at the bigger picture of such groups which he fails to understand the groups behind their rise, of which Salafism is behind Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Nigeria's Boko Haram, all of the the 9/11 terrorists, the 7/7 bombers, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Somalia's Al-Shabab, Al-Nusra Front, and the many ISIL supporters and sympathizers from Western countries. This is clearly a huge problem especially when people fail to understand the goals of a religious ideology, one which sees even other Muslims as heretics within Islam, to the point of justifying their deaths.

The view of Quill is called the Chamberlain affect, one that hopes the problem will never become a problem on his own front door step, it was so poor it allowed Hitler to gain strength when if he had been taken to task when weaker, the whole of the events of WW2 could have been avoided. You see he just looks at one extremist group as if they are individual, thus showing no understanding of the ideology behind every single group I have mentioned, the only difference between them, is based around how far they will enact their extremism. He fails to even understanding Salafism, thus having no understanding about why such groups have grown, behind again as I have stated before a fear of the loss of the power of a faith, through this doctrine.

His is a view that humanity should not help each other, and that just because he is born onto a land lucky enough to have the benefits of advancement, which were solely down to individuals, brought about by wealth, that this entitles him to ignore the plight of other humans. The reality is there is a very much direct link to Nazism and Salafism, both extreme ideologies, that view it acceptable to kill those it deems at odds with it views, they both make arguments for the destruction and extermination of people, which is why he again fails to understand the bigger picture. This goes back to my point in regards to how people fail to understand an ideology, and just base it around a localized group, when the same doctrine is found within all this same extremist groups, all of which again is being exported from certain Islamic countries, like Saudi etc. IS are carrying out Military objectives, and also trying to commit genocide on Shia's, Christians and countless other minority ethnic and religious groups, in fact it is a perfect comparison to Nazism, where their clear goal again is one of global domination based around their ideology.

To say we have no one side to champion, is ignoring the plight of the many people caught up in these conflicts, who are being displaced and butchered both in Iraq and Syria, it is again a shortsightedness by Quill, where he chooses to ignore the reality of the situation. Now he speaks of conservatism, but his argument, abounds this view point around how he perceives they do on poverty, but when you apply this same principle here, to others in conflict it is the exact same, help ourselves but not help others.

So yes we do have an idea what to do in the long term and one of the major proponents to do so will come from may Muslims themselves and the West to stop pandering to nations who ar proponents of this ideology. This is why I know Quill has not even read about Bin Abdul Wahhab , to understand the fact of this ideology, which even promotes the view you will go to heaven if you kill what they see as heretics.

If we take his view point, it is one that turns the other cheek, thinking I am alright Jack, to the point, it fails to look at the longer term picture, and fails to look at alternative scenarios if this ideology is not stemmed from its present spread of hate which is reaching far out into the world. I am glad many do not share his conception of inaction, if they did the Jews would be extinct today.

Didge wrote:Hi Stardesk.  

Basically Quills points is based around racial view poits, if they are not of our race, it is not our problem, basically he is saying fuck them, let them sort it out even though they are human, being as we are all one human race, which is illogical. Using this logic you may as well not concern yourself over crimes that happen in the US state next to you, or go one further to the town nearest to you. The principle being used by Quill in this case Stardesk, is naivety, one where it hopes a problem will go away, and fails to look at the bigger picture of any given problem, his own reasoning on the Atomic bomb is very short sighted as even though it caused over a hundred thousand deaths, it actually saved millions of lives, which is why he fails to look at anything further than its intended use.

Hi too, Stardesk…

This is why you don’t give firecrackers to children.  Unfortunately, Didge doesn’t grow with the conversation.  Naivety is not a principle, but an adjective.  This is an attempt to both create a red herring and discredit it in the same breath.  He also thinks you can’t read for yourself, but he doesn’t have adjectives for that.

Didge’s answer for everything Muslim is bang, bang…blow ‘em up.  He doesn’t want to understand—understanding would not allow him the irrationality in which he wants to indulge—and so he engages red herrings in order to continue what is essentially a conversation with himself.

All I am saying is until you come to learn and understand the underlying causes of a conflict, you cannot design a fix for the problem.  And when you do come to understand the problems, you still cannot implement the fix unless you gain the subscription of the people affected.  This is what I mean when I say that peace must be internal.

Didge wrote:The reality is again Quill is unable to look at the bigger picture of such groups which he fails to understand the groups behind their rise, of which Salafism is behind Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Nigeria's Boko Haram, all of the the 9/11 terrorists, the 7/7 bombers, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Somalia's Al-Shabab, Al-Nusra Front, and the many ISIL supporters and sympathizers from Western countries. This is clearly a huge problem especially when people fail to understand the goals of a religious ideology, one which sees even other Muslims as heretics within Islam, to the point of justifying their deaths.

Yes, yes…Didge loves to wow the masses with his grasp of theories and movements.  While I don’t discount what they call “inspirational issues,” they are a relatively small part of the problem.  Did Marx, for example, inspire the entire Russian Revolution?  Only to the intellectual top 2%.  Otherwise, it was economic issues, political issues, and dissatisfaction with local conditions.

There are two Muslim factions vying for control in the Levant, and these factions tend to create insular groups that favor their own.  As this grows, so does the conflict.  ISIL is about Sunnis that are dissatisfied with a Shi’ite government.  If you want to settle this dispute, don’t go in and blast the sheit out of everything.  Work out ways in which the two sides can integrate.

I still don't understand how Didge's profound understanding of Islamic theory motivates him to want to blow everything up.  I have no idea how taking of innocent lives will bring about peace...shades of what we should have learned in the Iraq War, at the least.

The adverse party in Nazi Germany were a few selfish people, acting in their own behalf.  Ideologically, that was simple--get rid of them and you get rid of the problem.  But here the adverse entity is a lot more diffuse.  You don't have a cabal of influential people, but a movement.

Never made any such claims Quill, you are now accusing me of things I have never claimed.
That is poor and disingenuous and shows you are stooping to poor levels making unfounded accusations, which can only lead me to the conclusion you have no answer to my points accept here in this case making up lies to attack me.
That is not only childish, but shows the limitation of your counters.

So for starters before we engage all your post, which you ignored mine, show were I stated or have argued, where if not I expect an apology:

Didge’s answer for everything Muslim is bang, bang…blow ‘em up.


or this point:


I still don't understand how Didge's profound understanding of Islamic theory motivates him to want to blow everything up. 





Never made any such claims and thus I shall await your apology and do not play the game of poor lies, as I will easily expose your lies.

Yet here you are, arguing for yet another war in Iraq.

Original Quill wrote:Yet here you are, arguing for yet another war in Iraq.

Incorrect and Iraq is made up of Christians and other minority religious groups, as well as Muslims, your view is my answer is to blow up all Muslims, that was a lie and you have no decency to apologise for making up a lie.
There is already a war in Iraq, by the way, it is about whether we help to stop genocide.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yet here you are, arguing for yet another war in Iraq.

Incorrect and Iraq is made up of Christians and other minority religious groups, as well as Muslims, your view is my answer is to blow up all Muslims, that was a lie and you have no decency to apologise for making up a lie.
There is already a war in Iraq, by the way, it is about whether we help to stop genocide.

Well, we finally agree. Let's stay out of Iraq, eh? There's no genocide. The problem is out own indecision: who is the real government over there...