So apparently ISIS declared a war on the U.S.

[Hotshot.exe]

An American journalist was beheaded in Iraq by ISIS and pretty much declared war on the U.S. Obama responded with 14 airstrikes targeting their group.

I hope their leaders get wiped out by one of these airstrikes.

More on the story http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/

 

[Low Budget]

An American journalist was beheaded in Iraq by ISIS and pretty much declared war on the U.S. Obama responded with 14 airstrikes targeting their group.

I hope their leaders get wiped out by one of these airstrikes.

More on the story http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/

Nuke them all.

 

[Hotshot.exe]

Too many innocent.

 

[Low Budget]

The U.S are definitely not interested in putting boots on the ground. Obama partially won his campaign on the basis of ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now he authorized airstrikes, but I think the international community should get involved. Why does the U.S have to bail everyone out all the time. It's time for European countries, and Arab Nations to get together, form a coalition and destroy ISIS. At the very least Arab nations need to get involved because it's their fellow innocent Arabs (regardless of their religion) being victimized right now and they need to step up to ISIS.

 

[Steve]

they can talk all the shit they want and pick on US civilians brave enough to go to iraq, but if those ISIS fags do shit to americans on american soil flay them living

 

[Hotshot.exe]

they can talk all the shit they want and pick on US civilians brave enough to go to iraq, but if those ISIS fags do shit to americans on american soil flay them living

I could imagine them doing so in suicidal fashion.

 

[Steve]

I could imagine them doing so in suicidal fashion.

and what would that ever gain them other than bombs falling over their homes?

 

[Hotshot.exe]

and what would that ever gain them other than bombs falling over their homes?

That would only cheer them up

 

[OG buckshot jr]

The U.S are definitely not interested in putting boots on the ground. Obama partially won his campaign on the basis of ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now he authorized airstrikes, but I think the international community should get involved. Why does the U.S have to bail everyone out all the time. It's time for European countries, and Arab Nations to get together, form a coalition and destroy ISIS. At the very least Arab nations need to get involved because it's their fellow innocent Arabs (regardless of their religion) being victimized right now and they need to step up to ISIS.

Europe doesn't want to be involved in the paki mess, then have some gay treaty afterwards where borders are opened up (Britain, France etc.), and everyone in the Middle East just bombs eachother, no one knows why...

 

[vinny paz]

I'm pretty sure ISIS was created by non-muslims.

http://aanirfan.blogspot.ca/2014/08/isis-run-by-simon-elliot-mossad-agent.html

They appear out of nowhere, are given boatloads of American weapons, cameras to film the carnage, and are encouraged by their leader to embrace their fanaticism and wipe out any non-muslims in the region. I'm not buying it. Something much larger is at play.

 

[OG buckshot jr]

I'm pretty sure ISIS was created by non-muslims.

Are you saying the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant/Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant) was not created by Muslims?

 

[vinny paz]

yes

 

[Rei]

I saw something on the news this morning about how they where uploading "propaganda" on the internet to scare people, similar to how most terrorist groups work. Under fear. Obama said something about how they are becoming more of a threat than we thought, and how over 8 months they have gone from a JV terrorist group to a V one. (Yes, Obama actually said JV as in Junior Varsity) Also something something about airstrikes but that about as much as I know. Guess I'll keep updating as I see more, hope I helped share some new info.

 

[Freak]

Are you saying the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant/Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant) was not created by Muslims?

Yes.

True Muslims don't blow people up or behead them.

 

[Tick Tock Man]

At the very least Arab nations need to get involved because it's their fellow innocent Arabs (regardless of their religion) being victimized right now and they need to step up to ISIS.

There are two dynamics at play here - the never-ending struggle for political power, and the possibly more entrenched struggle for the identity of Islam. The second motivator has been the source of Arab on Arab violence since 632 AD, when the death of Muhammad left a power vacuum at the the head of the first Islamic caliphate - and not coincidentally the origin of the main division in Islam, Sunni and Shia.

To really appreciate the problem here it helps to keep in mind that for those of the more fundamentalist perspective, anyone belonging to a different version of Islam is fair game for murder, and those who do not believe in Islam are less than human and therefore killing them is akin to slaughtering livestock..

If you imagine that these folks caught up in this antiquated magical thinking can or will reason their way to any sort of concern for their fellow Arabs, then you haven't been paying attention - Bosnia, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, Indonesia, Macedonia, Sri Lanka, Philippines....the willingness to slaughter each other by the tens of thousands is common, respect for each other and differing beliefs is not.

It is estimated that 90% of the violent conflicts around the world are motivated by Islamic theology, and that number is rising.

All this is not to say that all Muslims are violent, that is obviously not true - but it is a pretty clear indicator that a quite large number of them see Chapters 8 & 9 as a clear justification for violence against anyone and everyone they disagree with - specifically they interpret the concept of Jihad in the military sense, and place little or no value on the lives of anyone who does not follow their preferred interpretation of the Qur'an.

I would recommend to anyone wishing to better understand this conflict to read the Qur'an, to read first hand the instructions for when violence is justified, in the home, in the mosque, in the public square - with close attention to how anyone who isn't Muslim is referred to, and how those who deviate from Islamic teaching are to be dealt with - it will provide a much needed context to understanding the nature of this violence.

 

[Freak]

it is a pretty clear indicator that a quite large number of them see Chapters 8 & 9 as a clear justification for violence against anyone and everyone they disagree with - specifically they interpret the concept of Jihad in the military sense, and place little or no value on the lives of anyone who does not follow their preferred interpretation of the Qur'an.

It's funny, growing up and reading these chapters I thought it had everything to do with leaving the "disbelievers" alone and let them suffering their fate, not actually going out and killing them. There's no mention of humans required to smite them, only that God would inflict the judgement when the time comes.

Even more specifically, Chapter 109 makes a specific point of live and let live. "I serve what you not serve, nor do you serve whom I serve".

The Qur'an as I was taught was never to be taken individually and out of context. For many it is considered to be a guide for humanity and, if one were to read the whole thing, it has some important teachings. Not all I agree with, but they are there nonetheless.

Which is why I cannot consider Al-Qaeda, ISIS or any splinter group to be "Muslims". They give the honest men and women who remain true to their faith a horrible reputation. Arabs themselves live in fear of these groups and the heads of states are too focussed on power and control to do anything about it.

 

[OG buckshot jr]

Yes.

True Muslims don't blow people up or behead them.

Oh I beg to differ. Yes, there are extremists, just like any religion, race, culture etc., but they are Muslim in this case, and they are beheading people.

 

[Tick Tock Man]

Which is why I cannot consider Al-Qaeda, ISIS or any splinter group to be "Muslims".

^This is a perfect example of my point, there are a good many divisions of the Muslim populace who would echo this sentiment word for word, with the exception of who isn't considered a "true" Muslim, and it's this fairly commonly held perspective that allows them to relegate anyone else to either "zindiq" or unbeliever, or worse still apostate...

To be sure the Qur'an, like just about every other religious text - can be interpreted as justification for violence, just as it can be interpreted as just the opposite - and this is the where the struggle for the identity of Islam comes into full view. Is Islam a guide for each person to live a full and peaceful life, or is it a mandate for political and military conquest? There are compelling arguments to be made for either perspective - unfortunately the vast majority of Muslims we hear about all around the world these days fall into the latter category..

*Sorry for all the edits, I wrote this before I had finished my morning coffee..

BTW Freak, kudos on the reference to the Magritte Pipe...lol
One last edit:

There's no mention of humans required to smite them, only that God would inflict the judgement when the time comes.

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks; except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Surah 4.89-90.

 

[Freak]

I suppose you got me there. I was talking purely within the contexts of Chapters 8 and 9. That kind of rationale would explain motive behind the Crusades and of modern day Islamist fundamentalism.

Like you said, there are arguments on both sides of the coin for peaces vs militarization, and no religion is immune to this. Hell, regardless on what you believe, it's hard to not consider the idea that religion was born out of a necessity to control (and subsequently militarize) a civilization. We are a violent race, and religion is the perfect tool to rationalise our destructive nature.

BUT for the vast majority of religious people, it is a means to live your life, peacefully. I hope it continues to be so.

Oh I beg to differ. Yes, there are extremists, just like any religion, race, culture etc., but they are Muslim in this case, and they are beheading people.

So what exactly are you trying to say? You acknowledge ISIS are extremists and they claim to represent Islam. Using the language of Islam to convey your fucked up ideas doesn't automatically mean you're Islamic.

That's like trying to advocate date-rape to women by dressing up like one and talking like one. They can all see that you're a fucked up dude first.

 

[Tick Tock Man]

The irony is this is from one of the last books to be dictated, when Muhammad perhaps foresaw the impending political strife between his brother-in-law and his uncle, both of whom aspired to the throne (and the progenitors of the two main sects) and the phrase above comes from a discussion of how to deal with people who leave Islam and take up arms (or speaks out) against Muslims, likely as a cautionary step to prevent war - but this matters only if you consider it in context...

This phrase is commonly used as a standalone justification for all manner of violence, so long as the intended targets are labeled correctly by those manipulating the rhetoric.

I can't say that I agree that for a "vast majority" it is a means for peace...the sheer number of large scale conflicts with political implications dispersed all over the world, combined with countless instances of "tribal justice" perpetrated by individuals against members of their own families or members of their communities for "honor" violations is both staggering and appalling - to my estimation the evidence simply does not support this assumption.

The problem stems from the fact that there is actually fairly little disagreement on most tenets of faith from the most extreme end to the most moderate - even the most hard core fundamentalist Imam and the most moderate share most of the same message - the only real difference comes from how you consider "Jihad" - whether it be the internal struggle for peace and righteousness or the external struggle to spread Islam and subjugate or eradicate any opposing viewpoint...

While this difference seems huge, when stripped down to the the basic dynamic it really isn't - the message is the same, conquer any threat to your Islamic faith that you encounter, the only difference is where you see the threat.

It is quite telling that while the Qur'an speaks frequently and eloquently about "freedom of faith", it does not mean freedom as we interpret the word today - what it means is that you are permitted to remain a non-Muslim so long as you were born that way and do not pose any perceived threat to Islam; and you are free to convert from any other faith TO Islam - however you are not free to decide that you no longer wish to be a Muslim, and leaving the faith is and has been since the founding of Islam considered by a great many to be the worst crime you can commit and worthy of death. To me this speaks volumes about the tenets of this faith, regardless of how you choose to interpret some specific aspects.