Islam and the West
Discussion
What I struggle with is the tribal aspect to all this.
If the Middle East is ever to sort itself out (i.e. stop warring with everyone that criticises their god, country or regime) they need some sort of cohesive order to prevail and one that's not affected by minutia.
It strikes my unfortunate that many countries in that zone are light years away from civility on our scale and any efforts made by the west are but drops in their ocean of discontent.
If the Middle East is ever to sort itself out (i.e. stop warring with everyone that criticises their god, country or regime) they need some sort of cohesive order to prevail and one that's not affected by minutia.
It strikes my unfortunate that many countries in that zone are light years away from civility on our scale and any efforts made by the west are but drops in their ocean of discontent.
vxr8mate said:
What I struggle with is the tribal aspect to all this.
If the Middle East is ever to sort itself out (i.e. stop warring with everyone that criticises their god, country or regime) they need some sort of cohesive order to prevail and one that's not affected by minutia.
It strikes my unfortunate that many countries in that zone are light years away from civility on our scale and any efforts made by the west are but drops in their ocean of discontent.
Most would say that the Gulf states, UAE, Qatar etc..are reasonaly calm and that a country like the UAE, is one of the calmest.If the Middle East is ever to sort itself out (i.e. stop warring with everyone that criticises their god, country or regime) they need some sort of cohesive order to prevail and one that's not affected by minutia.
It strikes my unfortunate that many countries in that zone are light years away from civility on our scale and any efforts made by the west are but drops in their ocean of discontent.
Nope - the undercurrents of suspicion and trying to destabilise each other, each tribe... every now and again surface. It's certainly not all happy families here and I'm sure that it wouldn't take too much for them to start shooting at each other if they though they'd get away with it.
gpo746 said:
So you don't wish to answer the question
Fair enough
Thank you for your time
There was a genuine reason I asked BTW
Good luck to you and your beliefs
I simply would answer by saying that IN NO WAY would I wish to go and fight abroad for any cause, If I was conscripted or joined the army fair enough but I think that people who choose to go and fight as per the question I asked are wrong to do so.
I suspect that by you not answering you may know why I asked and from whom the quote (I slightly doctored) comes from ?
A few points gpo.Fair enough
Thank you for your time
There was a genuine reason I asked BTW
Good luck to you and your beliefs
I simply would answer by saying that IN NO WAY would I wish to go and fight abroad for any cause, If I was conscripted or joined the army fair enough but I think that people who choose to go and fight as per the question I asked are wrong to do so.
I suspect that by you not answering you may know why I asked and from whom the quote (I slightly doctored) comes from ?
I genuinely thought I had answered your question. If there's a sub-text please let me know and I'll address it. As for 'my beliefs' I'm 100% sure you don't know what they are and 99% sure you'd be surprised/gob smacked if you did.
I also find your statement that "IN NO WAY would I wish to go and fight abroad for any cause, If I was conscripted or joined the army fair enough" to be something that I can't get my head around.
So you wouldn't fight abroad for a 'cause' that includes the liberation from a despot of your family but do find it "fair enough" to go and fight/kill anywhere in the world as part of your terms of employment as a soldier - even when you have no particular axe to grind against the person you may be killing.
I also genuinely have no idea what you are talking about or who you are quoting in your last paragraph, sorry.
vxr8mate said:
What I struggle with is the tribal aspect to all this.
If the Middle East is ever to sort itself out (i.e. stop warring with everyone that criticises their god, country or regime) they need some sort of cohesive order to prevail and one that's not affected by minutia.
It strikes my unfortunate that many countries in that zone are light years away from civility on our scale and any efforts made by the west are but drops in their ocean of discontent.
Really some would have you believe they are so civil its only whitey that's the problem If the Middle East is ever to sort itself out (i.e. stop warring with everyone that criticises their god, country or regime) they need some sort of cohesive order to prevail and one that's not affected by minutia.
It strikes my unfortunate that many countries in that zone are light years away from civility on our scale and any efforts made by the west are but drops in their ocean of discontent.
gpo746 said:
Just curious what's your view on this sort of statement KareemK
A Muslim going to fight against a barbaric regime such as a dictatorship that is killing innocent men, women and children is not a terrorist he is a hero.
Anyone thinking anything else doesn't understand the situation.
Or they are choosing not to understand the situation.
What is your view on that sort of thing.
the problem is that while the current regime is a despot and really deserves his knackers chopping off (metaphorically speaking) the alternative seem to be even worse. In that situation who do you support? On balance I'd say that ISIS (or whatever those loons like to call themselves these days) are the worst of a bad bunch - that's not to say that Bashar is a goodie, but the way simplistic minds would have it is that if you don't support ALL opposition to him then you support him. A Muslim going to fight against a barbaric regime such as a dictatorship that is killing innocent men, women and children is not a terrorist he is a hero.
Anyone thinking anything else doesn't understand the situation.
Or they are choosing not to understand the situation.
What is your view on that sort of thing.
That region is in for an even rockier ride than it's had for the past 40 years
irocfan said:
the problem is that while the current regime is a despot and really deserves his knackers chopping off (metaphorically speaking) the alternative seem to be even worse. In that situation who do you support? On balance I'd say that ISIS (or whatever those loons like to call themselves these days) are the worst of a bad bunch - that's not to say that Bashar is a goodie, but the way simplistic minds would have it is that if you don't support ALL opposition to him then you support him.
That region is in for an even rockier ride than it's had for the past 40 years
Of the Saudis had not tried regime change in Syria, things would have been rather different.That region is in for an even rockier ride than it's had for the past 40 years
Regime change - has it ever materially improved things for the locals?
Mermaid said:
irocfan said:
the problem is that while the current regime is a despot and really deserves his knackers chopping off (metaphorically speaking) the alternative seem to be even worse. In that situation who do you support? On balance I'd say that ISIS (or whatever those loons like to call themselves these days) are the worst of a bad bunch - that's not to say that Bashar is a goodie, but the way simplistic minds would have it is that if you don't support ALL opposition to him then you support him.
That region is in for an even rockier ride than it's had for the past 40 years
Of the Saudis had not tried regime change in Syria, things would have been rather different.That region is in for an even rockier ride than it's had for the past 40 years
Regime change - has it ever materially improved things for the locals?
The quote on which the question I Asked was based on is from this:
"Questions about whether he's engaging in charity work or something more sinister will continue. Jameel says he supports fighters, though he makes a distinction between those he says are "legitimately" fighting Assad in Syria, and the brutal tactics of groups like Isis. "If a Muslim goes to Syria to fight against a barbaric regime, against a dictatorship that is killing innocent men, women and children, they are not terrorists, they're heroes. And if anybody thinks anything else, then they don't understand the situation. Or they are choosing not to understand the situation."
It was from this charity drive's leaders own lips.
As per this article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/briti...
And from a newspaper that isn't widely regarded as a right wing one
"Questions about whether he's engaging in charity work or something more sinister will continue. Jameel says he supports fighters, though he makes a distinction between those he says are "legitimately" fighting Assad in Syria, and the brutal tactics of groups like Isis. "If a Muslim goes to Syria to fight against a barbaric regime, against a dictatorship that is killing innocent men, women and children, they are not terrorists, they're heroes. And if anybody thinks anything else, then they don't understand the situation. Or they are choosing not to understand the situation."
It was from this charity drive's leaders own lips.
As per this article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/briti...
And from a newspaper that isn't widely regarded as a right wing one
vxr8mate said:
It strikes my unfortunate that many countries in that zone are light years away from civility on our scale and any efforts made by the west are but drops in their ocean of discontent.
The 'West' would do well if they could keep out of the area. They have a massive hand in what goes on there and what has been going on there. On the one hand they support ISIS etc when they are in Syria, and then apparently go against them when they are in Iraq. Hypocrisy at best. All the 'West' do is look after their own interests. They are not concerned about stability in the region, democracy, women's rights etc at all. gpo746 said:
The quote on which the question I Asked was based on is from this:
"Questions about whether he's engaging in charity work or something more sinister will continue. Jameel says he supports fighters, though he makes a distinction between those he says are "legitimately" fighting Assad in Syria, and the brutal tactics of groups like Isis. "If a Muslim goes to Syria to fight against a barbaric regime, against a dictatorship that is killing innocent men, women and children, they are not terrorists, they're heroes. And if anybody thinks anything else, then they don't understand the situation. Or they are choosing not to understand the situation."
It was from this charity drive's leaders own lips.
As per this article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/briti...
And from a newspaper that isn't widely regarded as a right wing one
OK...but whats your point?"Questions about whether he's engaging in charity work or something more sinister will continue. Jameel says he supports fighters, though he makes a distinction between those he says are "legitimately" fighting Assad in Syria, and the brutal tactics of groups like Isis. "If a Muslim goes to Syria to fight against a barbaric regime, against a dictatorship that is killing innocent men, women and children, they are not terrorists, they're heroes. And if anybody thinks anything else, then they don't understand the situation. Or they are choosing not to understand the situation."
It was from this charity drive's leaders own lips.
As per this article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/briti...
And from a newspaper that isn't widely regarded as a right wing one
I'd say that his comments would be in-line with what most people think.
Sorry but you've got me baffled.
gpo746 said:
The quote on which the question I Asked was based on is from this:
"Questions about whether he's engaging in charity work or something more sinister will continue. Jameel says he supports fighters, though he makes a distinction between those he says are "legitimately" fighting Assad in Syria, and the brutal tactics of groups like Isis. "If a Muslim goes to Syria to fight against a barbaric regime, against a dictatorship that is killing innocent men, women and children, they are not terrorists, they're heroes. And if anybody thinks anything else, then they don't understand the situation. Or they are choosing not to understand the situation."
It was from this charity drive's leaders own lips.
As per this article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/briti...
And from a newspaper that isn't widely regarded as a right wing one
Many people for the UK etc who have gone to fight in Syria etc think they have gone and are doing Jihad. There are many conditions to be fulfilled that would make it Jihad. The parents of some of the guys that have gone did not know that their son was going, which would automatically nullify their Jihad and hence it would not be Jihad. "Questions about whether he's engaging in charity work or something more sinister will continue. Jameel says he supports fighters, though he makes a distinction between those he says are "legitimately" fighting Assad in Syria, and the brutal tactics of groups like Isis. "If a Muslim goes to Syria to fight against a barbaric regime, against a dictatorship that is killing innocent men, women and children, they are not terrorists, they're heroes. And if anybody thinks anything else, then they don't understand the situation. Or they are choosing not to understand the situation."
It was from this charity drive's leaders own lips.
As per this article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/briti...
And from a newspaper that isn't widely regarded as a right wing one
NISMOgtr said:
vxr8mate said:
It strikes my unfortunate that many countries in that zone are light years away from civility on our scale and any efforts made by the west are but drops in their ocean of discontent.
The 'West' would do well if they could keep out of the area. They have a massive hand in what goes on there and what has been going on there. On the one hand they support ISIS etc when they are in Syria, and then apparently go against them when they are in Iraq. Hypocrisy at best. All the 'West' do is look after their own interests. They are not concerned about stability in the region, democracy, women's rights etc at all. Nostradamus apparently predicted the next world war would start in the East and while I don't go in for that type of superstition who would argue?
Edited by vxr8mate on Thursday 3rd July 15:24
vxr8mate said:
If the West had stayed out of the area; Sadam would have probably carried on with his genocide, the various terrorist organisations prevalent in the area would have brain washed or bullied thousands more into committing various atrocities against all the none believers and the 'West' would be constantly thinking 'should we have gone in their and taken action?'
Nostradamus apparently predicted the next world war would start in the East and while I don't go in for that type of superstition who would argue?
The West did support Saddam remember........not only supported him but put him there in the first place!Nostradamus apparently predicted the next world war would start in the East and while I don't go in for that type of superstition who would argue?
Edited by vxr8mate on Thursday 3rd July 15:24
NISMOgtr said:
vxr8mate said:
If the West had stayed out of the area; Sadam would have probably carried on with his genocide, the various terrorist organisations prevalent in the area would have brain washed or bullied thousands more into committing various atrocities against all the none believers and the 'West' would be constantly thinking 'should we have gone in their and taken action?'
Nostradamus apparently predicted the next world war would start in the East and while I don't go in for that type of superstition who would argue?
The West did support Saddam remember........not only supported him but put him there in the first place!Nostradamus apparently predicted the next world war would start in the East and while I don't go in for that type of superstition who would argue?
Edited by vxr8mate on Thursday 3rd July 15:24
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff