So - why don't the experts (like other Muslim nations) get together and figure out a strategy rather than ignore it and wait for the ham-fisted American approach to inevitable fail? Definitely in their backyard and field of expertise.
It might be the politically correct thing, but acquiting Islam is just as simplistic and naive as blaming Islam entirely. Religion is bound up intricately in middle eastern culture, and more notably in middle eastern politics, without there being such thing as separation of church and state. ISIS is the Islamic State. That means something.
Really? Well why isn't the US in Congo sorting our the Lord's Resistance Army then? Laughable simplicity. When Dayton gets it more than you, you should probably walk away from the thread.
Considering how many of the borders in the region were imposed by outsiders (Turkey, Britain, France, etc.), can't say I blame them. Iraq is in the situation it is today because the West decided it would be cool to jam a slew of traditional enemies onto the same piece of land.
It means no more or less than the "Islamic state" has an interpretation of Islam among many. We are a Christian nation, so is America. The Queen is our defender of the faith, the Americans trust in God under their constitutional structure. But does that mean that either of our nations is the same as, say, the Vatican?
Because then you fall back on tribalism again, and the Tribe is ultimately more important than the religion. Always wondered why the Islamic nations didn't lift a finger to help their co-religionists in Bosnia, until I realized the attitude was "But they're not like us. Let them die!"
Again, separation of church and state applies to liberal democracies, despite legacy constitutional foibles. And I'm not sure what you're saying - this is one interpretation of Islam - correct. So what? It's still grounded in Islam.
No, again, it's grounded in a interpretation of Islam, an interpretation of Islam so fucked up that even Al-Qaeda criticise it as being un Islamic and barbaric. Whilst I am not trying to legitimise organised religion in any form, I see your comment meaning nothing more than equally saying "Fred Phelps is borne out of Christianity".
You are correct from a purely factual standpoint, but realistically, blaming Islam even if the blame is wholly legitimate serves little purpose. Even if you attack Islam as "being the cause of this" and it is accurate you will offend Muslim moderates (or at least non radicals) who will naturally see legitimate criticism as attacking or mocking our faith. Most people of faith (regardless of the faith) are very sensitive to criticism It isn't only Americans who prefer to look at the world in the simplest possible ways.
I can't believe what I am reading from Dayton, I really can't. He's really hit the nail on the head on this. He's saying exactly what I've been saying for ages....and I'll add to what he's saying that making the case, that Ricky seems to be making, that the root is still religion entirely misses the point that we are all human beings and how we choose to observe our faith (should we have it) is ultimately a matter of individual choice. If you behead a child in the name of religion it is a human choice, not a choice forced on you by fixed doctrine.
Every persons faith is an "interpretation", whereby they make choices about an underlying belief structure. The belief structure is still what they're working with. That applies to Fred Phelps too.
That calling it an interpretation is not a get-out. A religion is nothing more than the collective interpretations of its followers. There's no "true" version of Islam that ISIS is distorting.
I think Rick's position (he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that given that every persons faith is an "interpretation" then the source material that they "interpret" their faith from (Bible, Koran, Star Trek, whatever) is a legitimate issue to bring up. Again, factually I think he is correct, but from a strictly realistic standpoint, criticizing a religion probably brings no gain and possibly a lot of trouble.
Who claimed there was a "true version". But a man who claims to view all religion as made up, uit then seeks to apportion blame to an singular religion as a whole is a foolish man indeed.
Because the logistics of hunting someone down in thick jungle with Third World infrastructure can be daunting. VietNam would be a good example. But several African nations would surely have the combined resources to destroy them. What could America bring to the table that Africa the continent of concerned nations couldn't do themselves?
Speaking of Africa, is there a nation on the whole continent that has borders that make sense? Thank you Europeans.
Well, see, by Rick's own standard I don't consider him to be "factually correct" because he doesn't believe in God and says religion is all bullshit. Therefore, there is no greater authority in claiming that Islam is the root cause because it is called Islam and has a singular text than a Zoroastrian saying that Abrahamic religions are the root cause of the world's problems because they all believe the same basic story and deity.
Ha ha. I don't think that remotely addresses what I was asking you or the comment you originally made.
I don't see any disconnnect between seeing a religion as "made up" and seeing it as to blame (to some extent) for what its followers do.
You are obviously not intelligent enough to see that by describing it as a singular "it" you are not only falling into the trap of a broad brush approach, but you are also assigning it a status as a singular entity, and that is what I am taking issue with.
define 'make sense'. africa as well as the middle east would be a quagmire of hundreds of little fiefdoms if every group got their 'state'. they'd also be in a constant state of war with each other.
It isn't a singular entity. But everything that is called Islam has some basic elements in common, or else the term would be meaningless. It is legitimate to criticise those and to observe that they lead to people doing bad things more often than might otherwise be the case if said people did not believe them.
One of my exes was brought up in an Islamic household. Are you making the case that she has the same core drivers as IS?
I'd say that's possible, but not necessary, given the extreme freedoms implied by interpreting something that does not exist. Can you name some of the underlying philosophies of which you're thinking?
"Philosophies" may be the wrong word - but I'm sure you're aware of what's common to all Muslims - the five pillars and so forth.
I cannot begin to tell you how idiotic this statement is. Her belief system, and that of her family, was as far from IS as you can get an, in some aspects, but us in the West to shame.
