Ongoing Response to Anti-Syria Anti-Muslim Arguments

[MessengerOfDreams]

This post by MessengerOfDreams was thumbed up by:

Harmless (November 19th, 2015, 8:49 pm)

[Kimonio]

I can confirm Argument 3 in so many ways, having done research of my own. Currently studying the Ottoman Empire and the early caliphates to see if there is any similarities.

[Charcoal]

I may be completely wrong, but I feel like people are complicating things. If ISIS is that big of an issue, focus on ISIS.
Are the veterans ISIS? No.
Are the vulnerable ISIS? No.
Are other Muslims ISIS? No.
FOCUS. ON. ISIS. PEOPLE. You're making it harder than it seems.

I'm not a Muslim, but I'm sick of people saying the Quran is evil. Seriously, there are parts of the Quran that talk about peace.
In Government class, I saw this guy spend 30 days with a Muslim family/community. At one point, he was talking to them about the terrorists, and the Muslims themselves said they didn't like what the terrorists were doing. See? Even they hate it.

Geez. First I stop going to a baptist church because of how hardcore they are about preaching the word to God was making me uncomfortable. Then I see a Christian billboard sign or two against evolution and homosexuals, and now Islam is receiving hate again. I've just about had it with religion. Ugh...

[Harmless]

My problem with religion (or any belief in general like Atheism) is that once you believe in something, you're forced to believe it's the only way possible. You end up shutting out all other possibilities, different religions, etc. People need to learn how to be flexible with other's ways of thinking. Just accept if they don't think like you do. You're not the freaking center of the universe anyway. (It needs to be said. I don't care if people are going to get angry at me and say that God is the center of the universe or the ultimate creator or whatnot. I haven't been struck by thunder yet.)

No offense to any religious folk of course. But damn, if you can't even see where other people are coming from, you're going to be stuck and very lonely... with other ignorant people under a similar mindset, that is. A person's religion or beliefs really shouldn't be a sole reason to be hostile towards them.

[Kimonio]

I may be completely wrong, but I feel like people are complicating things. If ISIS is that big of an issue, focus on ISIS.
Are the veterans ISIS? No.
Are the vulnerable ISIS? No.
Are other Muslims ISIS? No.
FOCUS. ON. ISIS. PEOPLE. You're making it harder than it seems.

You have to stop and think for a second. Of course people like you, I, MoD, and the active community here would pick that up, because we're very observant, and some intellectual in some aspects. Unlike the public itself, an average human being could give less of a ♥♥♥♥, they just want to live and do whatever the ♥♥♥♥ they want.

That's where propaganda comes in. The average America sees something happen, they get worried. They rush to the first news source they find, which is a hyped up outlet funded by bureaucratic supporters and politicians to boost their ratings and sales. They read the outlet's articles, and agree with it. This is the average liberal or conservative that, while they may be right or left, can't explain or argue past a certain part of any debate. Why?

Because they only know what they know.

Propaganda as far back as the Spanish American war even utilized propaganda with it's "Spain blew up our ship! Domestic affairs threatened!" when in reality, had time been given, all that happened was engine failure. But because people were bored, the media saw an opportunity and snatched it. That lead to problems, when people actually waged war with Spain.

WWI and WWII did the same. WWI especially had it's biggest attempt, which was the first time war was glorified as much as it is today in entertainment, and the last time it shamed someone for not serving.

And if you really want to see an interesting piece, here is one from the McCarthyism, 50's, during the Cold War.


As they say, "US had no chill".

Now we're in the era of red versus blue....literally. Political parties are my pet peeve, as they ensured our death as a nation. This was an anti-liberal propaganda image during the al-Qaeda battles.


It's worth noting the definition of "liberal":

lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: liberal
1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"
favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
"liberal citizenship laws"
synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; More
antonyms: narrow-minded, bigoted
(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
"a liberal democratic state"
synonyms: progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical
"a liberal social agenda"
antonyms: reactionary, conservative
(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
synonyms: wide-ranging, broad-based, general
"a liberal education"
3.
(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.
"they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation"
synonyms: flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite
"a liberal interpretation of divorce laws"
antonyms: strict, to the letter
4.
given, used, or occurring in generous amounts.
"liberal amounts of wine had been consumed"
synonyms: abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literaryplenteous
"a liberal coating of paint"
antonyms: scant
(of a person) giving generously.
"Sam was too liberal with the wine"
synonyms: generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, big-hearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literarybounteous
"they were liberal with their cash"
antonyms: careful, miserly

So in short, an artist themselves can be considered a liberal, and the people in favor of the nuke image are liberals, upholding a very VERY progressive war tactic under the guise of patriotism.

---

Let's go back to what propaganda does. Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember all the emails in your spam folder or in general, or even in your parents folder, talking about how "Bush said this" or "Obama wrote that"? This was propaganda. Propaganda takes the facts but grinds it into a mush where the average civilian can interpret it. This is why the term "sheeple" is used.

ISIS has propaganda as well. In fact, their's is based upon ours. Every hateful remark we make, they use against us to piss their people off more. Just like we did.

Propaganda can do one of two things. It either makes you want to learn more, or it gives you just enough ♥♥♥♥ that you become a radicalized puppet. Which one are you?

Humans are imbeciles. Hate me, but it's true. We're still primates, and while we're intelligent, we have short attention spans. Now in a time of technological advancements, when education is important to thrive, we've failed and subjected ourselves to becoming our past, and we de-evolved. As much as people say "we should have stayed in Afghanistan", it would have only made it worse. We should no have been involved at all. We should have eliminated the threat when we first saw it coming. Our government shouldn't have been keeping secrets.

Maybe, just maybe, we should have listened and not brushed it off as skeptics?

I don't know. But if anything, I know people need to pull their heads out of their asses and unite as one movement to crush the next holy threat before it escalates into something stronger. Race and political ideological parties do not matter anymore, and the more we focus on petty ♥♥♥♥ like that, the more we distance ourselves apart and leave an open wound just waiting for an invasive threat to take over.

If anything, stop being afraid.

[Harmless]

I agreed with you all the way up to:

We should have eliminated the threat when we first saw it coming. Our government shouldn't have been keeping secrets.

Maybe, just maybe, we should have listened and not brushed it off as skeptics?

I don't know. But if anything, I know people need to pull their heads out of their asses and unite as one movement to crush the next holy threat before it escalates into something stronger. Race and political ideological parties do not matter anymore, and the more we focus on petty ♥♥♥♥ like that, the more we distance ourselves apart and leave an open wound just waiting for an invasive threat to take over.

If anything, stop being afraid.

If you don't mind I'm going to break down my argument step by step.

We should have eliminated the threat when we first saw it coming. Our government shouldn't have been keeping secrets.

Let's imagine this mindset during the Cold War. Russia is all the way across the freaking globe, you can't sneak in any military transports or spies (if anything you tried sending spy planes but one got shot down, and boy did you get a mouthful from the Russian government for that), and right now both of you are building up superweapons and stockpiling resources and spreading propaganda and ohmygosh the influence of Communism and Anti-Communism are spreading like wildfire

All humanities have been thrown out the window. And yet, somehow, at the end of all that happened during the Cold War, they did not turn eachother's countries into complete wastelands!

But let's go back in time, back to the start of the Cold War. Let's have this mindset of "We should have eliminated the threat when we first saw it coming." So you're going to throw all diplomacy out the window (when it will save you in the future from getting ICBM'd by Cuba), and you're going to fire off the first nuke you build the first chance you get... at Moscow. Well congrats, because you've just made the USA look like a total dickweed in front of millions of other countries, have ruined your diplomatic standing with even your most trusted allies, are probably gonna get nuked back, and have established riots in both your country and others around the globe. Real smart move there.

There's a huge consequence that comes with irrationally waging war and firing off nukes at other countries for the sake of "eliminating the threat before it emerges". There's a lot more to global affairs than just "ohey these countries don't like us. Nuke 'em!"

Maybe, just maybe, we should have listened and not brushed it off as skeptics?

I don't know. But if anything, I know people need to pull their heads out of their asses and unite as one movement to crush the next holy threat before it escalates into something stronger. Race and political ideological parties do not matter anymore, and the more we focus on petty ♥♥♥♥ like that, the more we distance ourselves apart and leave an open wound just waiting for an invasive threat to take over.

Well considering how much people care and want to learn more about the ISIS/Muslim terrorist attacks around the globe then yes, I believe we aren't brushing it off as skeptics.

The problem here is people don't know how to separate peaceful Muslims from terrorists (or Muslims in general from Terrorists). We need education, like you've stated before. There's been some people that have been showing signs that this generation is getting smarter, but a fair amount of people are still dumber than the people in the 1800's. What we need to be able to do is recognize when someone is peaceful, regardless of their race. Of course, since most of us are dumb as all hell it's not nearly as simple as it seems.

We probably won't be abolishing religion anytime soon, as it did come more than 2000 years ago. However, what we need to do is identify our enemy BEFORE we make any decisive strikes. We haven't even done that yet! The Government or media hasn't covered any parting details that separates Terrorists from peaceful Muslims! (And likely because of Propaganda like you stated, but nevertheless...)

If anything, stop being afraid.

Assumption much? There's a fine line between tactics and cowardice. If you fall back or play passive for a good reason, then you've got something going (given the situation). If you absolutely desert your goal, then it's cowardice. If anything we still need to play a little more passive because we need to take care of ourselves first. We need to tell the people the truth, and educate them, and make them be able to think their own solutions and connect their own logic. What we need is people to become SMART! Because otherwise, we will not play smart. We will still have those Christians who do not accept refugees (and a lot of other things aside from that), we will still have those Atheists who do not accept Christians just because they think differently, and even outside of Christianity, there will be a LOT of problems in the world. Right now, our education system and education efficiency sucks total ♥♥♥♥.

But once we tell people the truth, identify our enemy, and wipe away the back talk and propaganda, then we can make the decisive move.

[Doram]

My problem with religion (or any belief in general like Atheism) is that once you believe in something, you're forced to believe it's the only way possible. You end up shutting out all other possibilities, different religions, etc. People need to learn how to be flexible with other's ways of thinking. Just accept if they don't think like you do. You're not the freaking center of the universe anyway. (It needs to be said. I don't care if people are going to get angry at me and say that God is the center of the universe or the ultimate creator or whatnot. I haven't been struck by thunder yet.)

No offense to any religious folk of course. But damn, if you can't even see where other people are coming from, you're going to be stuck and very lonely... with other ignorant people under a similar mindset, that is. A person's religion or beliefs really shouldn't be a sole reason to be hostile towards them.

Actually, most versions of New Age Paganism are NOT like this (one of the reasons why I went there). There's plenty of room for people to connect with what they are interested in, and just leave everything else alone. There are a few groups within Paganism with a bit of the "my way or the highway" mentality (Norse Heathens come to mind), but they are the exception, and not the rule.

[Harmless]

Oh, nice.

Though that is more recent Paganism (judging by the name anyway), almost all traditional religions act otherwise.

[darthbrowser]

You guys are getting derailed and confused.

Most Muslims are not Isis. Everyone serious knows this already. So how did this devolve into a discussion of Islam?

Perhaps the larger question is, is ISIS practicing Islam correctly? And behind that...do Muslims represent Islam? Basically, ISIS disregards the Taksirs and bases it's jurisprudence entirely on the Qur'an itself. Everything ISIS does is from the Qur'an, but most Muslim states follow the Taksirs more.

The Taksirs are derivative exegesis of the Qur'an, and acknowledged as such by the Ummah. Most Taksirs were written to support the political elite at any given time (a fact not so readily acknowledged by the Ummah ).

The Qur'an contains such niceties as the Prophet declaring women are, "in all cases," half as intelligent as men, encouraging Muslims to lie about their faith when necessary, and the general talk of God mercilessly slaughtering all unbelievers that all the Abrahamic religions love so much.

So, is ISIS behaving as the Ummah did when Mohammad was alive? Well, yes. Most Imans would argue that Mohammad wanted Islam to transition into an incarnation of peace after the Prophet left, he was only there to guide Muslims through the pains of birth. The Caliphates encouraged whatever interpretations suited them most, hence the rich history of Islamic jurisprudence and it's amazing ability to change it's mind whenever the ruling class switched. But, ISIS has always claimed that it is returning to "true Islam," by which they mean the time of the Prophet, and they are doing well in that regard.

And the rest of the Muslim world actually isn't too keen on stopping them. Saudi Arabia sees them as threat....but they would more then happy if the Sunni ISIS could harass Shia Muslims and just ignore the Saudis. Jordan & friends send weapons to anti-ISIS forces, but they'd act hard pressed to take any Syrian refugees, just like they've erected major fortifications to keep out Palestinian refugees.

And the average Muslim? The immigrant next door? I know a few.

I was talking with one about Islam, and I mentioned Aisha, Mohammed's seven year old wife. He responded that wasn't true, at which point I told him it was, indeed, in the Qur'an. He didn't know that....because he'd never read the Qur'an. Half the time, he forgets to pray daily. He's just like the average Christian...not really much of a Christian.

The average religious person doesn't really do much religious stuff. Their own views, and actions, are influenced by their culture and nation far more than their faith, though they will bring up "God" to try and win a moral argument. Saying most Muslims aren't ISIS is true, but does nothing to show how Islam is not ISIS.

I read a piece in the Wall Street Journal about Islam in Somalia. Specifically, the case of a women who works most of the day for a store owner. The problem was that the workload was excessive, her pay poor, and, importantly, she didn't have time to pray. Her employer did not provide any break at prayer time.

Both of them are Muslim, and neither saw anything un-Islamic about the matter. Islam forbids all of the above, and it's doubtful that they are aware of that. But the point of the article was to emphasize that Islam, like all religion, means very different things in different places...and it's an identity more often than a religion. It's a shared history and culture. The women in question proudly proclaimed she was a Muslim. She couldn't even read, she is ignorant about Islam and unable to learn more. But, again, it doesn't matter.

The point of this is to not confuse Muslims with Islam. You wouldn't go to someone who calls themselves a Christian and expect to get the full view of their faith from them, would you? Christianity encompasses three extant schisms - Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the various Protestant dominations, and the vast majority of lay people in each one know little of their own branch and practically none of the others. Fewer still are aware of the long history of arguments and theology behind each.

The vast majority of religious people are not really qualified to call themselves members of any religion, just as they most likely never really made a choice in the first place.

Don't say things like "most Muslims are not violent/don't want Sharia law/are normal people." That's obvious. It has nothing to do with Islam, because most Muslims know nothing of Islam. Ask a random Christian to explain the theology behind the Great Schism. They probably won't even know what that is - and yet it's one of the most important theology disputes in Christianity. Most Muslims don't know the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, save that their branch is "right," of course.

When you try to address Islam, don't dodge the question by talking about what some or most Muslims do or do not do. That's changed quite a bit over the centuries, like everything else.

[Bogdan]

First, this is relevant, more or less: http://imgur.com/gallery/4lEWn

Secondly I'm not saying that Islam is evil and all muslims are bloodthirsty barbarians, but I think we all agree that there are bigger problems when it comes to fanaticism in islam world rather than in any other religion.

inb4"hurr durr forgot crusades u lil fgt"
Back in the crusade era, while yes most of the wars were religion based, both parties were equally bad. Catholics wanted to impose their religion in Constantinople, Transilvania, get back Jerusalem and so on; Ottomans wanted to spread islam in the regions they conquered, both religions were being spread by sword (*cough-cough*).

Now if we jump to more recent times, yes there are christian fanatics that will grab their M16 and shoot the first 'infidel' they see, but those are actually isolated cases, because we didn't ignore them and didn't let them develope too much, unlike we did with muslim world that is a powder keg. Now there are more causes, besides the religious ones, such as poorness and treat from other nations, for instance in Afganistan, where they have a poor country and had conflicts with the Russians, or even Iraq war, when Hussein invaded Kuwait. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but around the corner of the web I stay, I've heard enough theories about Americans/NATO being responsable for such organisations being born, such as Al-Queda or Daesh. Al-Queda is said to be born after the americans provided weapons to afgani population to fight with russians, and after they were done dealing with them, they turned their weapons at us. Daesh is said to be born after killing Sadam Hussein in Iraq, creating a poor gouverment that could be puppeted and leaving a power vacuum that was used by some folks to create the terrorist group. I'm open to hear counter-arguments, but so far this is the most plausible and logical explanation I encountered.

The idea was that we gave them power, or at least the opportunity to grab it being negleting the problems and treating them quite poorly. And furthermore, those Middle-East countries are mostly gouverned by religion, like for example Iran that was once a great country, but decayed after the muslim revolt and establishment of an authorian gouverment. An example of good muslim country? Turkey. It's not flawless country, given that if they have the opportunity, the radical islamist will try to take power, but their leaders are actually fighting the problem, so we need to use similar ways in other countries aswell.