Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core - should we declare war against it?


#121

You still going with it? The West is not concerned to spread democracy and freedom. Only nominally, but their real actions are nothing of the sort. I gave you two examples above, that you did not care to respond to. As with all nations that ever start an armed conflict, the “Western” nations only serve their own interests.

“Th3y H4t3 Us F0r 0ur Fr33d0m”

Jihadism starts primarily from the indignation that starts with the wars the West wages on the Middle East. This is why these extreme ideologies can get traction. Otherwise they would be largely ignored, as they were before the 80’s. If jihadists were directly fighting every kind of democracy, freedom and secularism, why are they not targeting Eastern Europe and Latin America? Why is it only the West + Russia? You still haven’t answered this important question.

First, I actually agreed with this, in case you didn’t notice. But I was talking about fighters in the frontline. How can the average Syrian citizen expect to be anything but a regular cannon fodder in a clash between armed operatives?

Second, your posts seem to imply that it would be easy for these people to participate in a war. That kind of thinking is only shared by those who either have never experienced a war or have no intention of finding out what one is like. It’s not nearly that easy, and you need to be willing to sacrifice everything in your life.

I guess you’ll be oblivious to this until a bomb falls in your house and kills half of your family or severely wounds them. And then, when you’ll have to take care of people with severed limbs and psychological breakdown, without a house, food, water, electricity, and hospital attention, maybe you’ll understand what these people go through.

Refer above ^^

One single soldier or militia can’t do anything, which has been my point all along. The point is using a fighting force composed of thousands in any regular, irregular or guerrilla army.

An army is the active fighting force of the interests of the state they represent. As long as states and militant forces have interests in the matters of others that can only be taken by the means of violence, militaries around the world will be mantained.


#122

You could potentially argue this against able bodied military age men, but I’m not entirely sure how big that demographic is among refugees. Regardless even if they did, there is still the issue of supplies.


#123

They are targeting all those not of their ilk.

You have not been paying attention to trade deals that include issues of human rights, although I admit that we are soft on those terms. That duty should be elevated to being a deal breaker.

No.
Various sects of Islam were at war from their birth.

He cannot but can only think that one of his numbers will be the spearhead of success in the battle.

Indeed. Just as those who fought for our freedom did so that you and I could improve our systems by criticism. Muslims must learn that freedom must be fought for and defended against all who would enslave them, even if it is their own.

Again, a stupid statement.

Imagine Hitler not escaping even one of those who tried to assassinate him and how that would have affected the war.

You might think you are useless without a gang but that is just your inferiority complex.


#124

I do not have the stats but I understand that the majority of male refugees are of fighting age, to the point that some are suggesting that we train and arm them and send them back to fight for their rights just as our forefathers did for us.

I see that type of action as better than just letting them settle into their ghettos and no go zones that end in hurting those who have generously taken them in.


#125

Islamic population is pretty small there compared to most nations.[quote=“StrangeSignal, post:121, topic:106617”]
Eastern Europe
[/quote]
Islam there has been castrated by years of socialism in places like Albania and Bosnia.


#126

You can prove anything subjectively, if only to yourself, but this was not my point. If I thought I was a huge orange octopus, that would be all the proof I needed. Morals are intangible and therefore non-existent - morals are abstract - and so you cannot prove to me whether something is moral or something is immoral, unless we just so happen to agree. You see, the word moral only really applies to something a group of people within a society believe to be right, something a group of people believe exist (an inter-subjective reality). If my reality and yours clash, we will both go away thinking the other one is immoral. We will have gotten precisely nowhere. I disagree with the judgement that “Islam’s ideology is immoral” precisely because not everybody will believe that, and morality is all in the belief, so the statement cannot be objectively true.

My views are this: we should all be able to co-exist so long as (and I tried to make this condition clear but it doesn’t look like I did a good job) we all respect the right of groups to co-exist. If this is violated - and Hitler violated it - then we do have to lift as many fingers as it takes to remove the threat to peace.

Do you believe that you should use force to impose Christianity on people, people who are peacefully going about their lives? If - and I mean if - we lived in a world where Muslims were killing Christians because of their infidelity, then you might have a case which people would believe. But the world you describe died 500 years before we were born. Self defence, perhaps, but attack would be catastrophic.

Do you mean Christian ideology? In what way is it under attack? ISIL are a serious concern, it’s true, but they represent a tiny warlike faction amidst a religion which is actually extremely peaceful. Also, the doctrine that ISIL follow leads them to think that anyone not in ISIL - Christian, Muslim, whatever - deserve to die (or strictly speaking, the girls are to be raped and the men die). Hence the terrorist attacks on Muslim countries and the keeping of Yazidi sex slaves. Basically it is ISIL vs the world. All other ideologies are under attack.

There was a time when the Muslim world under the Abbasid and Umayyad caliphates was the height of all civilisation and scientific thinking, before the rise of Europe eclipsed it. Islam has flourished for millennia, first by good deeds, and then also a little by the sword (the Christians were hacking people to death too). This is only a small point in the overall argument - Muslims should be free to believe and live as they wish, whether they have flourished for millennia or not.


#127

Don’t make me fucking laugh. Islam is so fucking violent and destructive it even makes the Buddhists (who to their credit are very peaceful) realize they need to be dealt with. The history of islam is literally just conquest, from Albania to Africa and all inbetween.


#128

Haha the Buddhists are definitely not a warlike sect… You’ve taken me out of context on Islam though. ISIL are a tiny warlike faction. Islam today, and Muslims today, are very peaceful. Historically, things were different. I am not going to advocate colonial oppression - the British occupation of America for example. Or much of Africa, divided up between imperial powers. Or even religious wars, like the Crusades. But I think we have to acknowledge that those were different times, with different values, different conceptions of the world.


#129

We did not declare war, Islam did.

From what I understand of the topic, it proposed the idea of declaring war on Islam. Moreover, I understand the Q’uran and talking about “killing the infidels” and a “worldwide caliphate”, but by no means can you still justify a war out of this.

Islam is the religion and political system of Sharia with the thought police that end the right to follow another religion and exercise free speech. Have you failed to recognize that fact?

No, I understand that as well, but us monitoring every idea is still not any better, and only fuels hatred and divides more than unites.

We have our own thought police as well. It enforces our democratic thoughts of equality and free speech that you seem to like. By doing nothing, we would eventually lose that.

There’s a staunch difference between a thought police and hate crime monitoring. What you’re talking about is a government that urges the public interest over individuals. However, that being said, what you are proposing to stop radical Islam is police monitoring and suppression of ideas that you don’t like.

Acting like our enemies does not make us any less corrupt or more free, and it’s morally bankrupt to say “there have been terrorist attacks by Muslims, therefore Islam must be destroyed”. If we act on the actions of a few low lifes in an ideology, all philosophies in the modern world should be treated the same.


#130

Which is why they routinely instigate ridiculous amounts of conflict in the world? From Indonesia to Pakistan.


#131

That plus the fact that immigrants want to immigrate to the rich countries where they can bite -----

Regards
DL


#132

True but that does not mean that debate cannot form a consensus the way you seem to think. You are beat before you even begin with your attitude.


If you do not see that Islam has taken the steps that require us to act then you might want to look again for the first time.

http://www.therebel.media/tiffany_gabbay_april_19


A free man who knows his duty will not let his neighbor enslave his wife and daughter. You go ahead and ignore your duty all you like. I will not.


Again you have not kept track of what is going on in the world. Christianity was born in the Middle East.


#133

??

War against the Ideology, ideology, ideology. Not Muslims that can be educated on morality.


You cannot unite with those sworn to kill you.

---------[quote=“spenser, post:129, topic:106617”]
the public interest over individuals. However, that being said, what you are proposing to stop radical Islam is police monitoring and suppression of ideas that you don’t like.
[/quote]

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. Right?

You are correct that I would try to supress the homophobia and misogyny that religions preach and that has slowed our evolution to civilization.

Why do you want such ideas to keep ruining the morality of our young and even older citizens?


A few???

If that were true, we would not be chatting about Islam.

You must have missed this above.


#134

There are more than one type of Buddhism. I am most familiar with the Shi-Lankan type and they are the most peaceful and loving people that I know.

Care to provide a link or two to show what you are referring to?


#135

??
War against the Ideology, ideology, ideology. Not Muslims that can be educated on morality.

Oh I see what you mean. Then of course I believe the ideology of RADICAL Islam should be struck out, but mind you a good portion of the world believes in extreme interpretations of the Q’uran (such denominations as Wahhabism)

Just so you know, as a Christian, I do believe that Sharia Law is morally wrong (stoning adulterers, killing people with disabilities, making women stand 10 feet behind men, etc)

On the same note, however, I don’t think declaring a war on ideology is a way of stopping it and has never worked.

You cannot unite with those sworn to kill you.

When you refer to the ideology of Islam, are you talking about the moral conservative side of Islam or the radical side of Islam?

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. Right?
You are correct that I would try to supress the homophobia and misogyny that religions preach and that has slowed our evolution to civilization.
Why do you want such ideas to keep ruining the morality of our young and even older citizens?

Nice sound bite responses, you mitigated the majority of my argument by simply looking at a sentence instead of the entire argument. Clearly proving here, silence is concession.

That’s certainly not what I said and you know that. I agree to suppressing those harmful ideals by all means. But you still have yet to refute the thought police argument. You still are incredibly morally bankrupt for someone who tries to hike a moral high ground.

A few???
If that were true, we would not be chatting about Islam.
You must have missed this above.

I agree with what she (a Sunni Muslim) said. I support suppressing radical Islam, but what you have said is entirely different from what she was saying. I agree that Sunni Islam is the peaceful form of Islam, but you have taken Islam as a whole and said, and I quote “Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core.” Not making an exception to any Muslim ally is who peaceful and moral such as your beloved source that you don’t exactly like to quote in full context.


#136



#137

You saw the stats I put up.

What % of the whole of Islam would you say is the moral conservative side of Islam?

And do you think that the large majority of that right wing fundamentalist religions gives a hoot about the small % of moral conservative left wing side of Islam?

Nice sound bite responses,

That gave you a reason to ignore the question.

Do you think that the good of the few outweigh the good of the many?


#138

I’m certainly not disagreeing with you that a large portion of Islam is immoral, but what I did say is that declaring war on an ideology is impractical. There’s no way you can destroy an ideology in a society that has a tight grip around the religious principles it carries.

Declaring war on an ideology is like kicking chairs in the dark.

Nice sound bite responses,
That gave you a reason to ignore the question.
Do you think that the good of the few outweigh the good of the many?

I wasn’t exactly sure if that was a rhetorical question or not so I didn’t respond.

For the most part, no. I believe the majority is more important, but at the same time, I don’t think the minority should be thrown out the window entirely.


#139

Sir_Mobutu_of_Devons

Thanks for this.

Unfortunately both links have almost nothing in the way of details and it seems in that second link, that the government sanctioned what the Buddhists did.

Regards
DL


#140

I agree that it would not be easy, but if we do not criticise and or condemn it’s ideology publicly and world wide, then we shirk our duty to the world.

We did our duty against Hitler’s ideology and I think we should let duty guide us against Islam’s ideology.

Nazi supremacist and KKK groups still exist today but are not mainstream and the world can tolerate Islam as a small fringe group as well.