Iraq - where is the rest of the Muslim world now?

That isn't true. You were responding to a general question whether Israel was defending themselves or were the aggressors, and you responded accordingly with a general answer.

Obviously this is a ridiculous argument and one that would normally totally pass me by, but it is the argument that you are using on me, all the way through this thread. It really is pedantic in the extreme.

 

I asked the question, just answer! Did you honestly think I was implying that I had read every article and blog on the Middle East. If you answer yes, then you are just totally stupid, and if you answer no, then, despite all these stupid carrying on, you did actually understand what I was saying. You are just deflecting from the real issue.

 

The zztop giude to the internet. Ask question, ignore answer, answer it himself, repeat. Bravo.

 

Yes, what you are concentrating on is ridiculous. In part, that is because you, as I proved with the Israeli question, don't seek all the facts either before expressing something as fact, and nobody else does either. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Then, to use your own particular (stupid) argument against you, how do you know that I didn't get my information (for my OP) from someone else? I often talk about these things with my pharmacist neighbour, who is a Muslim and very well informed about these matters. How do you know that we didn't sit over a monitor looking at Islamic websites? How do you know that he didn't have a moan about the same issue as my OP, and it was he that prompted me to start the thread? Yet, even without all that knowledge you think you can express as a fact that I hadn't looked into this at length.

If you want to inflict stupid, ridiculous fact/opinion rules on me, then at least have the decency to play by your own rules, or shut up.

Following this line was so ridiculous that it had to be personal. Absolutely personal - but that only bothers me when it deflects attention away from my initial OP.

 

You didn't answer my question. Grow up.

 

You asked me if after reading your OP i thought A or B. I respond with C only to be told its not a viable answer. I'm afraid o can't go further than that!

 

I think that is a pretty good summary. But I couldn't have said Middle Eastern nations, as that would include Israel and that would be daft. If you read my OP I was meaning that, because ISIS was committing genocide this is reflecting badly on Islam as a whole, and they should tackle it rather than the West. That is all. It is so ****ing obvious to me. If I made a mistake, then it was not spelling it out more simply, because saying it as I did meant that anyone wanting to deflect the argument away from the real issue found the opportunity to concentrate on pedantics instead.

 

It is a simple question, with only two possible answers (if you were being honest, there was only one possible answer). But because you know your argument is completely stupid, you make yet another childish, pathetic comment, to deflect from the truth.

I'm off to bed.

 

And he thinks I abused him "in the vilest ways" by calling him arrogant!

 

Did anybody see this on the BBC? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28772646

They are discussing a Caliphate with young British muslims. The two in the white robes ought to be put on some sort of watch list. Truly terrifying if this group is at all representative of young British muslims. Of course I don't believe it is though.

Very odd that one is particularly homophobic and bigoted, and seems to think western society is based on nudity and pornography.

Where I found that link on reddit, a left wing former UAF man was talking about a British Islamic news agency, called 5pillarz, who claim to be unbiased and representative of the views of British muslims. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I don't trust what he said about it but would rather someone in a better position to answer on here discuss it.

 

That's a pretty worrying video Simms.

Looking at some of the other new videos on the BBC site ( and others ), religious leaders, Shia and Sunni, seem extremely worried that the current events are likely to spread throughout the entire region. Some, from both sides, wanted armed response from the US, suggesting that such help may be the only way to stop totally getting out of control.

This is serious.

 

Sigh. I'm out of this part of the debate. You enjoy your black and white world and don't worry about why you have different rules for different people.

 

There are a couple of possible outcomes. Either -a- Iraq is partitioned into a largely Shia state like a 'West Iran' an 'Islamic' Sunni one and a Kurdish one. The fighting would continue here because the Islamic state would be in conflict with Syria and therefore Iran. It would also be an exporter of terror and so the West would seek to change it,

or -b- most likely, Iranian backed Iraqi forces will regroup and attempt to reconquer the Sunni heartlands. They would be backed by the Peshmerga and possibly Western air cover. Mass slaughter of Sunnis could provoke further combatants to join. It will be a miracle if Lebanon and other countries are not sucked in.

 

You know that isn't true. I honestly don't know what you are expecting me to say. I have acknowledged that previous US involvement is partly to blame, I have acknowledged that IS is only an extreme part of Islam.

What I am more concerned about now, is the best way to prevent the looming crisis of epic proportions that will soon come to a head and I have explained how I think that should be achieved, that is without the West becoming more militarily involved.

If you think this is all being black and white, then maybe you need to see the optician.

Edit: this morning on the BBC there is talk about us arming the Kurds. That is what annoys me as it strengthens the resolve of IS and enhances their reputation in the eyes of potential recruits. Why aren't the Kurds being armed by the other nations in the area? And I don't mean covertly, I mean openly and loudly - sending a message to IS and their potential recruits that IS dogma is NOT an acceptable form of Islam.

 

I see this as representative of how stupid young people are, rather than a reflection on Islam.

 

I find it depressing that 25 years ago idealistic young people would have shunned religion and embraced anti-racist, utopian ideologies that lead them to dream of improving the world rather than trying to send it back to the middle ages. It's a failure of both Capitalist materialism and individualism and lack of a coherent socialist answer.

 

Of course Moose. It must be the fault of capitalism.

 

What, do you think it works for everyone? This will be amusing.

 

You say that, but the massive, unimaginable inequality that has grown as I direct result of unrestricted capitalism over the last thirty years is clearly a major, if not the biggest contributor to societal unrest and the feeling that the country, and everybody in it, is against you. Furthermore if you are surrounded by people in the same situation it is easy to see how radicalisation can bloom.

Even now, wages have been stagnant for what, five years? Meanwhile the top percentile have massively increased their wealth at the expense of all others. The lowest earners can't afford anything at all while the middle class is squeezed further and further.

Clearly it is not the sole reason, but it is a big contributor, at least to disaffection even if it may or may not have directly affected the few people who are thick enough to actually travel to Iraq to fight for ISIS.

Less inequality = less disaffection = less isolation from society = less radicalism.

 

Jumbo just thinks there are good people and bad people - end of. Bad people are jealous and blame other people or airy concepts such as 'capitalism' or 'oppression'. Anything which is not a direct link from cause to effect is ruled out of court.

 

Moose - the current conflicts around the world are about either land or religion. It has little to do with the economic models used by the various countries. Any attempt by you to blame capitalism is just your usual devotion to your bonkers socialist ideals where you attempt to blame capitalism for all of the world's ills.

 

Not really sure where you are getting that from. Any evidence where I think there are just "good or bad people".

One thing I do believe in is that capitalism gives the less well off the most hope and opportunity. We are never going to agree so it's probably not worth us diverting this thread.

After all, you are of the mindset that an old person will die of thirst unless the State reminds them to drink some water on a hot day. Your opinion of people's intelligence is so low that they can't respond to basic bodily requirements without the State holding their hand.

 

"Less inequality = less disaffection = less isolation from society = less radicalism. "

Are we really going to hold up capitalism as a bigger cause of radicalism than religion? Really?

 

I thought we were talking about why some young people in Britain choose radical Islam.

 

Religion follows economics not the other way around.

 

You are a bit ignorant of vulnerable (not active ordinary) but vulnerable older people and their frailties.

 

No. I give them some credit. You patronise them and think they are useless morons who can't remember to drink some water unless the council writes it in a leaflet!

 

Rubbish. Religious people would be horrifed at this suggestion.

 

Yes, clearly that is EXACTLY what I said... :whoosh:

 

It doesn't matter in general what they think. Osama Bin Laden went to live in a cave but he still commanded like a prince because he had millions at his disposal.

It's not that religion doesn't shape behaviour, but bigger things shape it more. Colonial missionaries took Christianity to the developing world, but it wasn't the purpose of colonisation - that was economic - the ideological reasons follow it.

On the whole, well off successful devout Muslim, much less likely to become jihadist that low-waged/unsuccessful devout Muslim. People tend not to throw their good lives away.

 

So what is your position? Material jealousy is a small part in making young people turn to radicalism and a far smaller cause than religion. Not exactly a stong statement against capitalism is it?

 

Throughout history religion does well when people are poor and in need of big answers. Christianity is the slave religion throughout the roman empire, and they eventually got organised and ethnically cleansed the pagans. Judaism took off especially while the Israelites were used as slaves by the Egyptian empire. I remember seeing an article with a graph showing in the modern day a curve suggesting the poorer the country the more religious it is. Of course you get anomalies like the US, but thats probably because the original pilgrims were extremely religious and left because they couldn't implement their extreme views as law.

 

A few exceptions though, like Osama who came from a super rich family, and had access to western ideas and education.

 

And capitalism has demonstrably over history created more well off successful people than socialism has, so why are you blaming capitalism?

 

If you are poor you don't generally take succour in other people's good fortune. But I was blaming socialism too - they are part of the same totality.