@Tererun: You quoted my post, possibly by accident... However, El Chup answered your question already. In an ideal world, the surrounding Muslim states would combine forces and crush IS on their own. Despite the US and their allies are partly responsible for this mess. But whe all know that it won't happen, so it's up to you guys, sorry! The root of the problem are not the two Gulf wars or even earlier western meddling in the region. The root of the problem is an archaic religion which is still in its childhood. A dangerous ideology based on fairytales by a confused man who heard voices in his head and decided to spread his fantasies by the sword. There, I said it!
@Packard: You seem to imply that there is some media conspiracy with the goal to ignore the voices of the more rational muslims and only show the freaks. I really doubt that. Yes, I want to see the thousands of peaceful Muslim immigrants to reclaim the streets from the radicals to show Muslim haters like myself that I am wrong. I don't care much about what an Imam in Indonesia has to say about IS. I want to hear it from the Muslims who live here. The media couldn't and wouldn't ignore that. It would be all over the news, and it would help the Muslim immigrants. Because as you might have noticed, scepticism towards Islam is growing in Europe, even in the middle and on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm afraid the radicals are far more numerous than you think, and I consider them a threat. But we have been at this point before...
You don't need anything like a conscious conspiracy for media to focus on what they habitually report and habitually get audiences for. Look. About 10 posts upthread, you said that Muslims in Germany weren't protesting against ISIS. I then showed you that the main organisation of Muslims in Germany had condemned ISIS publically. It's pretty clear that you didn't know this before I pointed it out, even though it spoke directly to an issue you were specifically interested in. My explanation for that is that media didn't report on it a whole lot, and where they did, they didn't get a lot of attention. If I'm wrong, what's your explanation? I just gave you a list of reports that started with protests in Germany and went right through to Indonesia. Why are you focusing on Indonesia, why are you ignoring the report on Muslims that live here, and why are you claiming that the media and their audiences wouldn't ignore that when you just demonstrated that you didn't have that information, and that you're ignoring it in favour of Indonesia as soon as you get it? Yes, we have, and I maintain that the radicals are an enormous threat, and that you are lending support to that threat by supporting their worldview: according to which all Muslims are on their side, and the other side of that divide is enlightened Western democracy. The way to de-radicalize religion is to de-politicize it. Enlightenment and liberal democracies didn't win against Protestants and Catholics by killing or removing them all from Europe, but by enforcing a view of religion and politics that kept those separate, allowing for Catholic democratic citizens and Protestant democratic citizens to be a commonplace concept. What we need is to have the same matter-of-fact attitude about Muslim democratic citizens. And it's not just a concept, but a reality. We have tens of thousands of them right here in Germany: Patriots for our constitution, members of various political parties, some of them members of parliament, and still Muslims. The radical Islamists are telling them they can't be Muslims and democrats. What would you like to tell them?
Radical Islam emerges in the 19th century from the rise of nationalism. It is not a lack of enlightenment, but a product of the industrial age's concept of the nation.
Baghdad was a center of enlightenment, culture and learning before the Mongols laid waste to it in 1258. Islam has yet to recover, and probably never will.
Oh no, it was not by accident, it was because I read it. We do not live in an ideal world so those ideas are just hypothesizing. I am asking about the real world. We have to deal with the real world, and I am not blaming you for not knowing what to do. I do not want you to think that I am trying to be confrontational. If we are to actually do something in the middle east I think we have to confront the reality that there are a certain amount of people on all sides who are so horribly scarred that asking them to stop or even establishing a government and telling them to stop is not going to work. We have to come up with a solution that does not involve the dumbfuck war we did. It may be a forceful military option. If we are going to get involved then we should do so productively. Bush's war was not productive for anyone but his contractor friends. That is because no one thought it through. Really the religion is not so much a reason at this point, but rather a banner. These people are not killing each other over religious ideology. That is the excuse they give. No, there is hate, prejudice and pain in there. They all know people who mattered to them who have been killed by the other side. They know people who have been oppressed and hurt by their opponents. Like any human being when their family and friends are hurt or killed they are angry and rally around what they know. The sides are not terribly different in a general sense. It is really just the people that are leading them and and holding their groups together that inspire the fighting. That is why in war you hit the leaders. What I am saying is even if you took away the religion these people would still be fighting because of history and loyalty. When you attack the religion you miss the mark and end up pissing off both sides. That is not productive. Oh, and yes I do agree with your conclusion of how the religion was formed.
@Packard: I do NOT ignore the fact that the official representants of the Muslims in Germany (or Switzerland...) condemn radical Islamism and do their best to guide their brethren to be peaceful. However, I think you overestimate the influence of these official gremiums. Integrated Muslims in Europe can be good citizens, too. And being born Muslim doesn't make one a bad or even violent person. Hey, I am an ethnical Christian myself... However, a Muslim is not a good person because of the teachings of his Holy Book, but despite of it. Islam is far more violent in its core than Christianity or Buddhism. Radical islamists are closer to the teachings of Mohammed than peaceful Muslims. The Koran promotes violence against nonbeliefers on many occasions, compared to the NT for example. Good fodder for radicals... I agree about the de-politicizion. But again, because if the nature of the Koran, it is far more difficult to achieve. It is a book of rules in many parts, more than the bible. It has rules for many aspects of everyday life. And a Muslim true believer can't easily find a way around these rules, because the are made by Allah himself. Of course, Islam will experience some kind of "secularization" in the future and become less politic. However, it will take a long time and cost many lives. It's a modern world, the weapon systems are better than during the religious wars in Europe. (Ffs, I wish my English skills were better, it's hard to make myself clear.)
@Tererun: Good points, I will answer later on. Same for Packard. Posting from my mobile was a stupid idea...
Yes, indeed. What you just said made me think of the reconciliation panels in South Africa. It is possible to even overcome the deepest scars -- but bombs aren't helping. I tend to believe the change can hardly come from outside. If it can be helped from the outside at all, I have greater hopes for NGOs than for any official action by any foreign government. There are good reasons to distrust governments. Less flags, more logos!
No, you cannot be so lazy and to hide behind that. While the Gaza protests have indeed been exploited by anti-semites (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) that doesn't mean that there are not legitimate protestors or that the anti-semites form the vast majority. Frthermore, I keep hearingit suggested that there is no balance with protests againbst ISIS, but the fact is that there have been protests and they have been going on for the best part of 2014. Since when did you become such a rhetoric based reactionary anyhow? I smell trolling.
I didn't think you were taking a dig at me. I just figured you didn't understand my post, which you still don't seem to.
Indeed, which is the point I made in my first post in the thread. This only thing I can think is that had we had a credible rebuilding program and sensible exit strategy after the Iraq war, instead of downing tools and fucking off overnight, then possibly this mess would not be at the stage it's at. It's really a case of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted and it also shows you how, beyond question, not everything can be solved by the dropping of a bomb.
We are going to be damned when we do, and damned when we don't. So we might as well do the right thing.
The problem is in determining what that really is. People tried to say the same thing about Syria, and we ended up supporting some very bad people. Which has been the case in more than one place we involved ourselves in.
They already have. Most of Western Europe is filling up fast with "immigrants" from the middle east because of all the "freebies" you guys hand out. (like America does)
Yeah, that's bullshit. It's incredibly difficult to be accepted as an immigrant here, and those few who do regularly pay much more in taxes and into social security and receive less support than average citizens. This is especially striking given the aging population in many Western European countries; they're desperately in need of immigration if they want to keep up their economies.
They are crucifying people, beheading them, and cutting children in half. I say bomb and drone the shit out of them and fuck what anybody thinks about it.
Top 25 countries of origin for foreign born people in the UK.... Republic of Ireland 533,901 405,000 457,000 Irish migration to Great Britain India 467,634 693,000 729,000 Indians in the United Kingdom Pakistan 321,167 431,000 457,000 Pakistanis in the United Kingdom Germany 266,136 296,000 297,000 Germans in the United Kingdom United States 158,434 200,000 189,000 Americans in the United Kingdom Bangladesh 154,362 220,000 230,000 Bangladeshis in the United Kingdom Jamaica 146,401 150,000 143,000 Jamaicans in the United Kingdom South Africa 141,405 236,000 211,000 South Africans in the United Kingdom Kenya 129,633 128,000 133,000 Kenyans in the United Kingdom Australia 107,871 112,000 107,000 Australians in the United Kingdom Italy 107,244 118,000 124,000 Italians in the United Kingdom Hong Kong 96,445 75,000 82,000 Hong Kongers in the United Kingdom France 96,281 111,000 137,000 French in the United Kingdom Nigeria 88,378 151,000 190,000 Nigerians in the United Kingdom Cyprus 77,673 56,000 54,000 Cypriots in the United Kingdom Canada 72,518 81,000 84,000 Canadians in the United Kingdom Sri Lanka 67,938 117,000 120,000 Sri Lankans in the United Kingdom Poland 60,711 532,000 643,000 Polish in the United Kingdom New Zealand 58,286 72,000 58,000 New Zealanders in the United Kingdom Ghana 56,112 84,000 80,000 Ghanaians in the United Kingdom Uganda 55,213 48,000 50,000 Ugandans in the United Kingdom Spain 54,482 68,000 71,000 Spaniards in the United Kingdom Turkey 54,079 72,000 72,000 Turks in the United Kingdom People's Republic of China 51,078 120,000 136,000 Chinese in the United Kingdom Malaysia Where are all the Middle Easterners? The highest Middle Eastern population in the UK is from Iran, which is 28th on the list, then Iraq at 36th, Egypt at 39th and so on. In contrast, look at who's at number 5......
Well, I will say that this situation in Iraq, which is partially a spillover from Syria, highlights how little attention the Syrian conflict has been getting. Sure, we were all discussing it a year or so ago, but after nothing came of that, it's been all but ignored. The death toll there has been enormous, in the hundreds of thousands.
The problem is not Islam itself. There are a number of predominantly Muslim nations that do not attack western interests and/or sponsor terrorism
Okay, this is disconcerting, and I'll credit it to tonight's Supermoon, but you and I are in 100% agreement on this. Religion - any religion - is just the veneer of civilization over far more ancient tribal behaviors, and a part of the world where water and territorial ownership mean the difference between life and death, and that has been conquered by every passing horde throughout thousands of years of its history, will result in tribes of aggressively xenophobic peoples. This is the basis of every conflict in the Middle East, and the West's insistence that there's an easy solution "if we can just get both sides to talk to each other" is pure Pollyannism.
Let's be honest, there is no perfect religion (I love my church but I'm sure they've done bad things at some point in the past). All have good and bad things in their histories. And they change for good and bad over the course of time. Western nations (okay, Americans mainly) prefer dealing with cultures they find unfamiliar and alien in a very simplistic way. We like to simply blame "Muslims" because they seem so different in many respects to modern Christians. Americans don't like having to dig down into the minutiae of the vast number of different Muslim sects or the staggering differences in largely Muslim nations or the great regional differences.
I agree! They have a different mindset and culture. They don't necessarily play the "nation/borders" game. Not saying it's wrong, but not a good "fit" for working and playing well with others.
