Never Forget!


    SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Share

    Poll

    Is The Walking Dead Garbage?

    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 
    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 
    [ 1 ]
    33% [33%] 

    Total Votes: 3
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:18 pm

    Eri wrote:daredevil is unreal!!!

    Latin netflix still doesn't have it Sad


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:52 pm

    Jec wrote:If Maher, Harris, Dawkins's discourse was the norm, the way we had been dealing with this.... Apologists wouldn't have the need to brand them "New Atheists"....

    The romantic bullshit, it's not getting us anywhere...
    its all the same bullshit arguments that lead to the same place. "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" "islam is the worst incarnation of that" Thats simplistic nonsense that gives people an enemy so they remain pacified while they lose lives, rights and treasure in their own governments fruitless war on terror.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat Apr 11, 2015 4:55 pm

    No, they don't lead to that, I mean, how would you know? It hasn't been done.

    An Arab saying goes, "if one person calls me a camel, then that person is insane, if another person calls me a camel, its time to look in the mirror"

    The only way to truly modify Islam is to be told the truth. If we act like apologists, there will never be incentive to change any aspect of the religion, saying all its problems are exogenous.

    If Muslims disown the violence in the Koran, extremists groups will loose their fuel...


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:02 pm

    By "lead to the same place" I am referring to the end point of their arguments. However eloquently they speak and whatever rhetorical tools they employ their ultimate argument always is something along the lines of "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" That is on its face facile.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:32 pm

    More like, "religion causes a lot of harm to the world and we should actively seek to reduce this damage by not keeping the fucking quiet".

    Just because you see it simplistic or easy doesn't make it any less truthful or relevant. Occam's Razor, we have been seeing it the complicated way for too long, maybe it's time to look at things for what they are. We can't let out idealistic sentimentality of always searching for moral grey areas where none exist keep us from changing the course of history.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:36 pm

    It's like Israel and Palestine conflict. Politologists and Lawyers have beven trying to solve this for decades seeing it from multiple angles like economical gain, political implications, etc... But always rule out the elephant in the room (religion) because it's too simplistic... Well have fun spending another century going in circles


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:08 pm

    Jec wrote:More like, "religion causes a lot of harm to the world and we should actively seek to reduce this damage by not keeping the fucking quiet".
    No, not more like. The repudiation of religion is the response to the central idea, "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" Your reply is an example of what follows this claim.

    jec wrote:
    Just because you see it simplistic or easy doesn't make it any less truthful or relevant. Occam's Razor, we have been seeing it the complicated way for too long, maybe it's time to look at things for what they are.
    Right, the billions of muslims in the world act like savages because of their religion. They all hold the same values within their religion with no deviation, sects, and historical persecutions. Our excellent media coverage has provided too much nuance. As Hitchens said our violence in the region is just and necessary. Likewise as Hirsi Ali says we must crush Islam under our heel.

    jec wrote:We can't let out idealistic sentimentality of always searching for moral grey areas where none exist keep us from changing the course of history.
    We are good and they are bad.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:24 pm

    Jet wrote:
    No, not more like. The repudiation of religion is the response to the central idea, "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" Your reply is an example of what follows this claim.

    Wut? No. anyways... what it could lead to is more than just an idea, it's an action and it's called ANTI-THEISM, which, unlike what apologists might want to tell you, it's not violent or extreme, is just the opposition of religious harm. Like I said before, you don't see antitheists riling up against Buddhists. You will see us bothering the government to stop legislating based on religion.

    jec wrote:
    Right, the billions of muslims in the world act like savages because of their religion. They all hold the same values within their religion with no deviation, sects, and historical persecutions.

    Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?

    I wouldn't go as far as saying the billions of muslims around the world act like savages, but I will say hundreds of millions agree or consent to the worst ideas of the religion.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/mentally-ill-woman-stoned-to-death-in-kabul-for-burning-quran/ <- I believe the headline should read "Woman stoned by mentally ill crowd"

    Jet wrote:
    We are good and they are bad.

    Try again, more like, "Islam is bad, and full of bad ideas, PERIOD"


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sun Apr 12, 2015 12:24 am

    Jec wrote:
    Wut? No. anyways... what it could lead to is more than just an idea, it's an action
    Yes it is. The central idea always spouted by 'New Atheists' is "religion is the ultimate evil". All arguments/further repudiations of religion go to support this central idea. It just so happens to be Islam now specifically, who we are told is our latest enemy. This is why I say its simplistic, all the ills of the world wouldnt end without religion. Yet that is whats repeated by the same people who push the 'Clash of Civilizations' narrative. I didnt mention whether the response was violent or not, though it is definitely a possibility and it does happen.

    jec wrote:

    Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?
    Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power. Sometimes propaganda, a little funding here and there, other times full blown coups. Definitely instances when we supported the very same people we now condemn in order to fight the last generations boogeyman, communism.

    jec wrote:
    I wouldn't go as far as saying the billions of muslims around the world act like savages, but I will say hundreds of millions agree or consent to the worst ideas of the religion.
    Perhaps. But people with money and power in the west believe in equally heinous things as well. Sheldon Addelson suggested genocide not too long go after all. The difference is hes bankrolling a number of Republican candidates who are audtioning for the highest office of the land. There are others like him who exert their influence on a smaller scale targeting congressional districts and such. Utimately that has an effect on our government officials view of foreign policy and thus consequences worldwide.

    Lots of people believe bad shit. Sometimes they act on them, other times they do not. This reality is not exclusive to the east.

    jec wrote:
    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/mentally-ill-woman-stoned-to-death-in-kabul-for-burning-quran/ <- I believe the headline should read "Woman stoned by mentally ill crowd"
    Autocracy is no better than Theocracy.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/03/us-supported-egypt-188-protesters-sentenced-die-days-mubarak-freed/

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/09/why-is-bahrains-government-afraid-of-a-tweet-nabeel-rajab-arrest/

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-court-sentences-us-egypt-citizen-life-prison-30244233

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/world/middleeast/egyptian-court-sentences-us-citizen-to-life-in-prison.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1

    Jec wrote:
    Try again, more like, "Islam is bad, and full of bad ideas, PERIOD"
    Again not everyone interprets their religion in the same way. Bad ideas are not unique to Islam. Or to religion for that matter.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:32 am

    Jet wrote:Yes it is. The central idea always spouted by 'New Atheists' is "religion is the ultimate evil". All arguments/further repudiations of religion go to support this central idea. It just so happens to be Islam now specifically, who we are told is our latest enemy. This is why I say its simplistic, all the ills of the world wouldnt end without religion. Yet that is whats repeated by the same people who push the 'Clash of Civilizations' narrative. I didnt mention whether the response was violent or not, though it is definitely a possibility and it does happen.

    If you have a deep conversation with an atheists or an antitheist you'll realize that our problem with religion is that it stems from greed and willful ignorance. Considering something as the worst of evils =/= implying all the evils of the world stem from it.

    Jet wrote:
    Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power. Sometimes propaganda, a little funding here and there, other times full blown coups. Definitely instances when we supported the very same people we now condemn in order to fight the last generations boogeyman, communism.

    Lets not forget the concept of control group and experiment. Latin America suffered the same intervention, coups and funding as the middle east yet you don't see catholic extremists from Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. blowing themselves up. When you have have the same or similar conditions but different outcomes, you can establish causal relations, and seeing as the extremists say themselves its for Islam, well I say we better believe them...

    Jet wrote:
    Perhaps. But people with money and power in the west believe in equally heinous things as well. Sheldon Addelson suggested genocide not too long go after all. The difference is hes bankrolling a number of Republican candidates who are audtioning for the highest office of the land. There are others like him who exert their influence on a smaller scale targeting congressional districts and such. Utimately that has an effect on our government officials view of foreign policy and thus consequences worldwide.

    Lots of people believe bad shit. Sometimes they act on them, other times they do not. This reality is not exclusive to the east.

    Except no one's gonna listen to Sheldon Addelson even if he is backing congress Republicans, not even they are that stupid and lacking of morals.


    Right.... "autocracies"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/mona-eltahawy-egypts-war-on-atheism.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/sherif-gaber-sentenced_n_6714770.html

    http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/rights-groups-condemn-detention-atheist-blasphemy-charges

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/10/the-seven-countries-where-the-state-can-execute-you-for-being-atheist/





    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/

    To me, an theocracy is just another form of autocracy...

    Jet wrote:
    Again not everyone interprets their religion in the same way. Bad ideas are not unique to Islam. Or to religion for that matter.

    But most religions have discarded those bad ideas or don't believe them. You ask Christians if they believe homosexuals and atheists should be put to death and they will overwhelmly say no... We can't ignore this, this is what I mean by not equaling everything...


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sun Apr 12, 2015 12:23 pm

    Good opening episode of GoT season 5... will watch episode 2 later...


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:54 pm

    Jec wrote:

    If you have a deep conversation with an atheists or an antitheist you'll realize that our problem with religion is that it stems from greed and willful ignorance. Considering something as the worst of evils =/= implying all the evils of the world stem from it.

    You're lying to yourself if you think the narrative is not against religion, primarily Islam.

    Jec wrote:
    Lets not forget the concept of control group and experiment. Latin America suffered the same intervention, coups and funding as the middle east yet you don't see catholic extremists from Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. blowing themselves up. When you have have the same or similar conditions but different outcomes, you can establish causal relations, and seeing as the extremists say themselves its for Islam, well I say we better believe them...

    Are you forgetting that Ive said multiple times now that religion plays a role in these ME conflicts? I'll say again: I think it disingenuous to say it's unrelated to the issue. For it is used to unify peoples - whether for good or ill depending on the situation. But the overwhelming consensus among New Atheists is to single out Islam as a particularly violent religion, and to de emphasize external factors, to whatever extent they may credit them. That is exactly the simplistic narrative that helps fuel hate and justify actions in the region. Perhaps that is harder to see from the trenches of tribalism.

    If you still doubt this then I suggest you take yourself up on your own advice and listen to what these extremists are actually saying after the usual 'death to america' chants. Vice News(Docs): Season 2 Episode 9 Titled: Children of the Drones. Suroosh Alvi goes to Pakistan and talks to american drone operator Brandon Bryant, Pakistani General Javed Mahmoud Bukhari, Maulana Sami Ul-Haq leader of Darul-Uloom Haqqania one of the largest and notorious madrassas in Pakistan, Feriha Peracha head psychologist of a deradicalization center in the Swat valley and footage of a recruitment meeting in North Waziristan. All point to the counter productive nature of the war on terror and the resentment bred from drone attacks. The people hold signs expressly saying "no more drones" "an attack on our sovereignity" and specifically point to that as their reason for joining these extremist groups. The last shot is a question posed by an active militant member "If somebody attacked your home wouldnt you respond? If somebody killed your brother wont you ask for revenge?"

    Its a lot easier to view the world in black and white terms. Funny how the tv media doesn't issue this type of news content. Where we get to listen to an actual conversation with those organizing their own form of violence. Portraying the enemy as simple terrorists to the invading population.....I wonder what the reason behind that could be....

    Jec wrote:
    Except no one's gonna listen to Sheldon Addelson even if he is backing congress Republicans, not even they are that stupid and lacking of morals.

    You say this now even while we are either bombing or supporting those that bomb the type of people hes talking about. This is something that is present and happening right now. So yes Republicans(and Democrats) are serving the wishes of people like him. One does not spend 92 million dollars in one presidential cycle and not expect something in return

    Http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/billionaire-mogul-sheldon-adelson-looks-for-mainstream-republican-who-can-win-in-2016/2014/03/25/e2f47bb0-b3c2-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html]

    Jec wrote:
    To me, an theocracy is just another form of autocracy...

    Glad you agree with me. Theocracy is JUST AS BAD as autocracy. That was the point of my response. What was the reason for yours? Did you think I believed otherwise? I'm under no illusions of liberal societies existing under repressive regimes. I just dont single out one type of repression over another because the only thing that changes is the justification. Jailing dissenters only hardens their ideology in prison and emboldens their resolve so its not a practical solution to extremism either. Its the other half of it

    Jec wrote:
    But most religions have discarded those bad ideas or don't believe them. You ask Christians if they believe homosexuals and atheists should be put to death and they will overwhelmly say no... We can't ignore this, this is what I mean by not equaling everything...

    How do you explain Private Military Companies like Blackwater then? You say Christianity discarded its bad ideas yet this went on

    ? wrote:
    The Bush administration’s favorite contractor, Blackwater, is the most powerful private army in the world. It commands thousands of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, has over a billion dollars in government contracts, and enjoys complete immunity from prosecution for its theater of operations’ conduct.

    Blackwater’s founder, Erik Prince, a staunchly conservative Catholic, has also served on the board of directors of Christian Freedom International, a crusading missionary organization operating in the overwhelmingly Islamic countries of Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Prince envisions an evangelical “end time” role for his warriors, “Everybody carries guns, just like Jeremiah rebuilding the temple in Israel—a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other.”

    http://www.countercurrents.org/weitzel100608.htm

    Not only that but he follows through on his vision with his army of "crusaders". This is State sanctioned violence from a liberal democratic society. Or as the media would most likely tell us, "promoting freedoms".

    Jeremy Scahill wrote: And when he moved to the United Arab Emirates, he said he did so because it was a free society and a country that respected the free market. Well, it didn’t take long for him to get down to business with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, and essentially hatched a plot to build up a mercenary army within the borders of the UAE, relying on labor from Colombia. Blackwater has a long history of working with Colombians. In fact, Blackwater paid Colombians $34 a day to operate in Iraq. And when the Colombians protested their payment, saying that they were getting less than the Bulgarians or the others that were working for Blackwater, the white soldiers, Blackwater threatened them, according to the Colombians, and wouldn’t give them their passports back and said, you know, "We’re just going to release you onto the streets of Baghdad." And eventually the Colombians left, and they went and they assassinated the recruiter that had hired them for Blackwater. So it’s ironic that Prince is using the Colombians. Now their pay has been increased to something like $150 a day.

    More background


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:41 pm

    Jet wrote:

    You're lying to yourself if you think the narrative is not against religion, primarily Islam.

    huh? When did I state it wasn't against religion... there's a reason it's called antitheism...
    The reason why we focus on Islam is because they're the ones causing the most trouble... they're the ones trying to install sharia in the west, the ones that commit terrorists attacks, the ones that kill atheists and gays, etc. Antitheism is opposing religious harm... if your religion isn't harming anyone (something that never happens) we won't oppose you...

    Jec wrote:

    Are you forgetting that Ive said multiple times now that religion plays a role in these ME conflicts? I'll say again: I think it disingenuous to say it's unrelated to the issue. For it is used to unify peoples - whether for good or ill depending on the situation. But the overwhelming consensus among New Atheists is to single out Islam as a particularly violent religion, and to de emphasize external factors, to whatever extent they may credit them. That is exactly the simplistic narrative that helps fuel hate and justify actions in the region. Perhaps that is harder to see from the trenches of tribalism.


    How many times do I have to say, I'm not talking about you, I know that you don't discard the religious factor, I simply believe other liberals in denial don't give it the importance it requires due to the diluted notion that "everyone and all religions are good at heart", "just a few rotten apples", etc.. The reason why you might feel New Atheists don't give the "other factors" enough importance is because they understand the concept of experiment and control group... Proved by the very example you give below...

    Jet wrote: Vice News(Docs): Season 2 Episode 9 Titled: Children of the Drones. Suroosh Alvi goes to Pakistan and talks to american drone operator Brandon Bryant, Pakistani General Javed Mahmoud Bukhari, Maulana Sami Ul-Haq leader of Darul-Uloom Haqqania one of the largest and notorious madrassas in Pakistan, Feriha Peracha head psychologist of a deradicalization center in the Swat valley and footage of a recruitment meeting in North Waziristan. All point to the counter productive nature of the war on terror and the resentment bred from drone attacks. The people hold signs expressly saying "no more drones" "an attack on our sovereignity" and specifically point to that as their reason for joining these extremist groups. The last shot is a question posed by an active militant member "If somebody attacked your home wouldnt you respond? If somebody killed your brother wont you ask for revenge?"

    ^ So, by the diluted "It's all the west's fault" version, islamic terrorism is caused by drone attacks and the war on terror... This is easily refuted by noting that there were terrorists attacks before the war on terror or before Obama began using Drones.

    Now I know what you will respond, "they were caused by US intervention, yadah yadah yadah" <- while that did play a role in it, here is were the concept of experiment and control group comes into play. The same shit the US and other western powers pulled in the ME were also done in other regions of the world, like Latin America and Southern Africa. None of those regions responded with religious based terrorism.

    So, you have two nearly identical situations (say, LA and SA are the control groups) and make the ME the subject of the experiment. Seeing the completely different outcomes from two near identical situations, we can establish causal relationships in their differences. The elephant in the room, the one impossible to miss, is the religious cause seeing as they use their religion to justify their actions. If you don't like this reasoning then get off the computer and discard all technology because this is how all science works...

    Why are there islamic terrorist attacks in India, or China? Why do all Islamic communities react with senseless suicidal killings every time something bad happens to them? What's gonna be the excuse once the US stops using drones? When's it gonna be Islam's fault.

    Jec wrote:

    You say this now even while we are either bombing or supporting those that bomb the type of people hes talking about. This is something that is present and happening right now. So yes Republicans(and Democrats) are serving the wishes of people like him. One does not spend 92 million dollars in one presidential cycle and not expect something in return

    Is he really spending 92 Million dollars just to kill brown people? Or just because he wants to keep getting richer like the Koch Brothers?


    Jec wrote:
    Theocracy is JUST AS BAD as autocracy.  That was the point of my response. What was the reason for yours? Did you think I believed otherwise? I just dont single out one type of repression over another because the only thing that changes is the justification. Jailing dissenters only hardens their ideology in prison and emboldens their resolve so its not a practical solution to extremism either. Its the other half of it

    Huh? My point is that the "autocracies" you sourced are just theocracies in disguise, since they are at least partially under Sharia...

    Jet wrote:

    How do you explain Private Military Companies like Blackwater then? You say Christianity discarded its bad ideas yet this went on

    Ah yes... the one PMC that follows fanatical views on the world....

    Blackwater or Sheldon Whatshisface ideologies are not shared by the majority of Christians. They are not representative, unlike the ideals of IS and other groups which are representative of hundreds of millions of muslims...


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am

    Jec wrote:
    huh? When did I state it wasn't against religion... there's a reason it's called antitheism...
    The reason why we focus on Islam is because they're the ones causing the most trouble... they're the ones trying to install sharia in the west, the ones that commit terrorists attacks, the ones that kill atheists and gays, etc.

    Muslims are not the only ones who are complicit in the spreading of extreme ideology either nor are they the only ones who commit atrocities and then try to justify them. Violence is definitely a problem worldwide. But what makes you think they, specifically are causing the "most" trouble? Since that seems to be the perception among NAs. Whats the criteria you are measuring for?

    jec wrote:
    How many times do I have to say, I'm not talking about you, I know that you don't discard the religious factor, I simply believe other liberals in denial don't give it the importance it requires due to the diluted notion that "everyone and all religions are good at heart", "just a few rotten apples", etc..

    Even if that were true Islamic reform has little chance of beginning(and sustaining) as long as we are entagled in the middle east. Not that those who use terms like the "crushing" of Islam and so on, have any legitamate credibility in the cause of bringing positive change anyway. Our governments on the hand have no problems with engaging militarily, even under a liberal president.


    jec wrote:^ So, by the diluted "It's all the west's fault" version, islamic terrorism is caused by drone attacks and the war on terror...

    Not solely. They acknowledge the role religion plays in radicalization. Maybe if you'd watch it you would understand that.

    jec wrote:So, you have two nearly identical situations (say, LA and SA are the control groups) and make the ME the subject of the experiment. Seeing the completely different outcomes from two near identical situations, we can establish causal relationships in their differences. The elephant in the room, the one impossible to miss, is the religious cause seeing as they use their religion to justify their actions.

    Religion has definitely been A source of conflict. Exploited by both both muslims with secretarian divides and encouraged by western powers in the middle east.


    jec wrote:Why do all Islamic communities react with senseless suicidal killings every time something bad happens to them?
    Because they are so hopelessly outmatched. Its the most amount of damage one person can do. It also probably has to do with losing someone you care about and the feelings that accompany that.

    jec wrote:What's gonna be the excuse once the US stops using drones? When's it gonna be Islam's fault.

    Good luck rolling back a military program like drones once its been implemented. Drones are being used even in the Mexican border. As for the second part, the idea that the majority of violence amounts to religion will probably begin to gain legitimacy when the US begins to pull out of the region and stops interfering. Rebuilding after the ruining that many lives though will take years. But the idea that we will leave?


    Not likely.



    Jec wrote:
    Is he really spending 92 Million dollars just to kill brown people? Or just because he wants to keep getting richer like the Koch Brothers?

    Given his funding of Israel, the notion which he takes to its ideological extreme as to advocate genocide, its the former. The money goes to support endeavors like what happened in Gaza last summer. Which obviously involves the taking and destruction of life.

    jec wrote:
    Huh? My point is that the "autocracies" you sourced are just theocracies in disguise, since they are at least partially under Sharia...

    Do you really believe they wouldn't be repressing their populations if they simply got rid of the influence of sharia? You realize the US & other countries are still funding them despite that?

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/moscow-cairo-relations-sisi-putin-egypt-visit.html
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/10/were-us-arms-to-egypt-ever-really-fr

    jec wrote:
    Ah yes... the one PMC that follows fanatical views on the world....
    Blackwater or Sheldon Whatshisface ideologies are not shared by the majority of Christians. They are not representative, unlike the ideals of IS and other groups which are representative of hundreds of millions of muslims...

    The only one exposed so far.....the allegations on Erik Prince were so surprising because as Jeremy Scahill said the employees fear reprisal. They usually speak off the record for this reason. The American Sniper Chris Kyle was on the news for his racist rhetoric not too long ago. Just because the people involved in this conflict dont all go around writing books that speak as honestly as he did doesnt mean they dont hold these beliefs.

    The impact of bad beliefs is what matters more. Not the mere fact that people hold them, since that can change over generations. As weve seen in the last few decades with Islamic influence growing as a consequence of western intervention. That bad beliefs that have been acted upon before and continue to be is the greater problem.





    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:03 am

    Jet wrote:
    Muslims are not the only ones who are complicit in the spreading of extreme ideology either nor are they the only ones who commit atrocities and then try to justify them. Violence is definitely a problem worldwide. But what makes you think they, specifically are causing the "most" trouble? Since that seems to be the perception among NAs. Whats the criteria you are measuring for?

    Scoreboard... As far as religions go, they are causing the most trouble... not just East vs West but East vs East as well as evidenced in China and India and among themselves.

    jec wrote:
    Even if that were true Islamic reform has little chance of beginning(and sustaining) as long as we are entagled in the middle east. Not that those who use terms like the "crushing" of Islam and so on, have any legitamate credibility in the cause of bringing positive change anyway. Our governments on the hand have no problems with engaging militarily, even under a liberal president.

    Do you truly believe that if the US pulls out is honestly gonna stop breeding islamic terrorist? Look at what happened in Iraq and Syria, the lack of US foot presence led to the development of strong extremists organizations hell bent on revenge. Pulling out and stop intervening is not enough... radical reform must happen within the ideology... sadly, it will take generations to achieve it and since no one wants to bring this discussion to mainstream media due to possible cases of "hurt feelings", it's happening at an even slower pace.

    Jet wrote:
    Because they are so hopelessly outmatched. Its the most amount of damage one person can do. It also probably has to do with losing someone you care about and the feelings that accompany that.

    Nonsense... Pakistan and India are evenly matched... Both are nuclear armed too... If they think that stimulating the military industrial complex is the best way to harm another nation, maybe they are simply far too irrational.


    Jet wrote:
    Good luck rolling back a military program like drones once its been implemented. Drones are being used even in the Mexican border. As for the second part, the idea that the majority of violence amounts to religion will probably begin to gain legitimacy when the US begins to pull out of the region and stops interfering.

    Like they did in Syria or Iraq... The latter decided to choose a Kurdish president that ignored the sunni in and shia in the country leading to the rise of IS

    Jet wrote:
    Given his funding of Israel, the notion which he takes to its ideological extreme as to advocate genocide, its the former. The money goes to support endeavors like what happened in Gaza last summer. Which obviously involves the taking and destruction of life.

    The point still stands, his extreme ideologies are not representative of hundreds of millions of westerners... Ask any L American if they agree with US foreign policy...

    Jet wrote:


    Do you really believe they wouldn't be repressing their populations if they simply got rid of the influence of sharia?

    Of course not... but they would have even less excuses to repress their people... for example, they wouldn't jail or kill apostates... Killing opposition and apostates is worse than just killing opposition... But I don't even know what we're getting at here...

    Jet wrote:
    The only one exposed so far.....the allegations on Erik Prince were so surprising because as Jeremy Scahill said the employees fear reprisal. They usually speak off the record for this reason. The American Sniper Chris Kyle was on the news for his racist rhetoric not too long ago. Just because the people involved in this conflict dont all go around writing books that speak as honestly as he did doesnt mean they dont hold these beliefs.

    I don't know, that's just speculation...


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:28 am

    ^and if the PMC point that it's filled with extremist christian views is true... it only legitimizes antitheism or New Atheism even more...


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:13 pm

    On another topic, what do you guys think on Clinton running again? I personally think she's too much of a centrist...


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:12 pm

    Jec wrote:Scoreboard... As far as religions go, they are causing the most trouble... not just East vs West but East vs East as well as evidenced in China and India and among themselves.

    What consistitutes your score board? What exactly are you tracking? Violence and the profiting from it are nothing new. Neither is indoctrination, propaganda, secrecy, unjust imprisonment, mass surveillance etc.

    jec wrote:Do you truly believe that if the US pulls out is honestly gonna stop breeding islamic terrorist? Look at what happened in Iraq and Syria, the lack of US foot presence led to the development of strong extremists organizations hell bent on revenge. Pulling out and stop intervening is not enough... radical reform must happen within the ideology... sadly, it will take generations to achieve it and since no one wants to bring this discussion to mainstream media due to possible cases of "hurt feelings", it's happening at an even slower pace.

    No pulling troops out of the region is not enough. It must also stop the funding of terrorist organization that operate to further its geopolitical interest. You cant begin to talk about ideological reform when you are imprisoning and bombing people. Or supporting those that do it on your behalf for that same reason. These are elements that prevent liberal reforms from beginning to take root in the first place.

    Jec wrote:Nonsense... Pakistan and India are evenly matched... Both are nuclear armed too... If they think that stimulating the military industrial complex is the best way to harm another nation, maybe they are simply far too irrational.

    Islamic communities react through suicidal killings to get revenge for perceived damages. How is it not obvious why people do this? Because they are angry that their loved ones were killed by a system imposed on them by another country. As a consequence they want to hurt the ones responsible for maintaining it. Its important to note that this is not limited to attacks on western troops. They are reduced to these type of tactics for thats generally what's available to someone with limited resources yet bent on causing massive casualties. You once said that you didnt expect a soldier to be sane...yet you expect rationality from a civilian who has their loved ones slaughtered in front of them? Well that says a lot about bias...

    Jec wrote:Like they did in Syria or Iraq... The latter decided to choose a Kurdish president that ignored the sunni in and shia in the country leading to the rise of IS

    Right, as if the US and other countries actually stopped intervening....
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119418/arming-syrias-rebels-obamas-been-doing-it-covertly-2013

    Youre expecting immediate change where there will not be. The radicalized people born out of the result of occupation do not just disappear the moment we lighten our footprint. Neither would doing so in two countries stop our influence, in the region. Not that our intervention ever stopped there anyway. Our bases are still in the ME, our money is still there and our bombs are still felt there as well. The idea that we will remain entangled there and the belief that we should, is actually the dominant one.

    Jec wrote:
    The point still stands, his extreme ideologies are not representative of hundreds of millions of westerners... Ask any L American if they agree with US foreign policy...

    More like falls flat. You'd have to believe ideology matters more than impact of said ideology, which is ridiculous. The people that act on dangerous ideology equate to far more harm than those who merely hold dangerous thoughts. Anyone can have bad, horrific, disgusting ideas. But they can only be fantasies unless we find a way to manifest them materially in the world around us. Imperialist powers have managed to do that far more effectively than the muslims you claim are a bigger threat.

    Jec wrote:Of course not... but they would have even less excuses to repress their people... for example, they wouldn't jail or kill apostates... Killing opposition and apostates is worse than just killing opposition... But I don't even know what we're getting at here...

    They wouldnt jail or kill apostates? That assumes because a regime couldn't justify it with ideology they wouldnt kill or jail their own people. Just because they would not have the excuse for killing apostates does not mean that said apostates wouldnt be killed or imprisoned along with the rest who oppose a tyrannical government. They may have less of an excuse for it but that doesn't mean they don't/wouldn't repress their people.

    jec wrote:
    I don't know, that's just speculation...

    It really seems to me more like willful ignorance. The willingness to ignore western violence which is commited on a much wider scale than religious extremists. The willingness to believe that radicalization began primarily of their own accord as a result of words rather than action. The willingness to believe we are morally superior to billions of people and so our actions are acceptable, if not outright justified


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:57 pm

    Jet wrote:

    What consistitutes your score board? What exactly are you tracking? Violence and the profiting from it are nothing new. Neither is indoctrination, propaganda, secrecy, unjust imprisonment, mass surveillance etc.

    I never accused religions of unjust imprisonments and mass surveillance, that doesn't even make sense in this context.

    There is no modern religion that causes as much harm and destruction as Islam. Suicide bombings, female genital mutilation, stoning of gays and apostates, destruction of history (They are acting like the spanish did when they came to America), among many others... Do other religions do the same? Sure, they're all garbage and humanity would be better off without them, but no other religion is currently causing this much shit on this scale...

    Jet wrote:
    No pulling troops out of the region is not enough. It must also stop the funding of terrorist organization that operate to further its geopolitical interest. You cant begin to talk about ideological reform when you are imprisoning and bombing people. Or supporting those that do it on your behalf for that same reason. These are elements that prevent liberal reforms from beginning to take root in the first place.

    Agree on the need to stop funding groups, not on considering the elements that prevent liberal reforms. You can't have liberal reforms when the leaders, both socially and political of their communities are keeping their sheep comfortable under ultra conservative ideals. What's truly holding back liberal reform is the lack of conversations and debates on faith. Mainstream media must also play a role... Before Glee Americans hated anything that had to do with Gay Rights, now that LGTB communities are more represented in mainstream media, thus being in the reach of more people, is what has led to more than half of US citizens support marriage equality.

    If mainstream media would have more serious debates on faiths rather than just a couple of schmucks saying "it's just a few rotten apples" we'd be getting somewhere, at least on the ideological front.

    Jet wrote:
    Islamic communities react through suicidal killings to get revenge for perceived damages. How is it not obvious why people do this? Because they are angry that their loved ones were killed by a system imposed on them by another country. As a consequence they want to hurt the ones responsible for maintaining it. Its important to note that this is not limited to attacks on western troops. They are reduced to these type of tactics for thats generally what's available to someone with limited resources yet bent on causing massive casualties. You once said that you didnt expect a soldier to be sane...yet you expect rationality from a civilian who has their loved ones slaughtered in front of them? Well that says a lot about bias...

    Because islamic communities are the first community to ever be victims of brutal repression and murder... <\sarcasm>... but they are the first to act in such a way. They would not retort to suicidal killings if they didn't brainwash them into thinking they're getting 72 virgins...

    I'll never tire of emphasizing on the concepts of control and treatment groups.

    Jet wrote:

    Right, as if the US and other countries actually stopped intervening....
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119418/arming-syrias-rebels-obamas-been-doing-it-covertly-2013

    So... handing out weapons instill radicalism too? I would think the radical groups would be thankful for being armed to the teeth...

    The US might have helped armed ISIS but their ideological motivation and what ignited them was a weak Kurdish regime that decided to legislate ignoring the interests of the other ethnic groups in their country. They don't even let themselves be and are willing to tear each other apart over slight differences in their own religion... Like catholics and protestanst years ago...

    Jec wrote:

    More like falls flat. You'd have to believe ideology matters more than impact of said ideology, which is ridiculous. The people that act on dangerous ideology equate to far more harm than those who merely hold dangerous thoughts. Anyone can have bad, horrific, disgusting ideas. But they can only be fantasies unless we find a way to manifest them materially in the world around us. Imperialist powers have managed to do that far more effectively than the muslims you claim are a bigger threat.

    I disagree. Massive belief in ideology is far worse than the acts of few on a certain ideology. You know as well as I do that the whole extremist Christian motivation of the PMC Blackwater is not of common knowledge among westerners. Hell, I didn't know it until you brought it up. If most people find out about it, pressure and protest would arise from home making their representation of Christianity illegitimate, where as if most westerners shared Blackwater's ideologies and motivations, their actions would be legitimate. The reason why America  has been able to get away with such a destructive foreign policy is because they convinced their citizens that their actions are good and they are exceptional, among other crap. American citizens legitimize America's actions. The reason why support for shit like the War on Terror and massive surveillance in the US has been on decline is because the public has been finding out via scandals and leaks leading them to hopefully choose their future leaders better... although I understand the massive money in US politics may make this difficult.

    This is the massive difference with what happens in Islam with IS. Muslim's cannot whole heartily denounce the violent actions of the Islamic state if they share most of them

    Jet wrote:

    They wouldnt jail or kill apostates? That assumes because a regime couldn't justify it with ideology they wouldnt kill or jail their own people. Just because they would not have the excuse for killing apostates does not mean that said apostates wouldnt be killed or imprisoned along with the rest who oppose a tyrannical government. They may have less of an excuse for it but that doesn't mean they don't/wouldn't repress their people.

    They wouldn't actively search for apostates unless the apostate opposes the regime, MASSIVE DIFFERENCE... Don't try to equate this matter, there's a clear difference...

    Jet wrote:
    It really seems to me more like willful ignorance. The willingness to ignore western violence which is commited on a much wider scale than religious extremists.

    I disagree... Hell even you are contradicting yourself... since according to you, western military interventions in the ME are led Christian Zionists and extremists. The western violence you protests is also religious in part...

    Like they say down here, "No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver". I'm gonna keep on researching on the role of extremist Christianity in these conflicts and I encourage you to do the same. Perhaps as time passes you'll see that antitheism's constant criticism of religion is not on a whim.


    Last edited by Jec on Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:01 am; edited 1 time in total


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:58 pm

    Interesting find:

    wrote:Historical Revisionism

    Next Affleck argued: “We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot, and we’ve invaded more Islamic nations.”

    Aside from essentially suggesting that “two wrongs make a right,” his assertions reflect an appalling acquaintance with true history — thanks of course to the ingrained lies emanating from academia, followed by Hollywood and the media.

    Reality records a much different story. From its inception, Islam has been a religion hostile to all others. Jihad was its primary tool of expansion.

    Consider: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the seventh century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

    Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

    In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia), was conquered by Muslim Turks.

    The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island seizing four hundred captives, selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

    Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s right and duty to make war upon non-Muslims wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.

    In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that people like Affleck are obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.

    Yet today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians.



    _______________________________
    avatar
    Eri
    Genin Ninja: Rookie
    Genin Ninja: Rookie

    Posts : 5237
    Join date : 2012-01-24
    Location : Lend me the power to let it burn like Usher

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Eri on Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:56 am

    GoT questions:

    episode 1 and 2

    Spoiler:
    who was the guy deaenerys had killed? for murdering the harpy guy. and forget the other one. im gonna get back to you on that one


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:52 pm

    Eri wrote:GoT questions:

    episode 1 and 2

    Spoiler:
    who was the guy deaenerys had killed? for murdering the harpy guy. and forget the other one. im gonna get back to you on that one

    I think

    Spoiler:
    He's a representative of the freed slaves


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jet
    Hokage
    Hokage

    Posts : 12170
    Join date : 2012-01-15
    Age : 24
    Location : Lend me the Power to bring about the World Restoration!!!

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jet on Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:55 pm

    Jec wrote:I never accused religions of unjust imprisonments and mass surveillance, that doesn't even make sense in this context.

    I never said you did. I pointed to those things because they all are all examples of abuses of power/atrocities all which are not unique to religion. The examples of violence you gave also happen under groups that imperial powers arm or empowered in the first place. Also people are burned alive with our bombs. So I don't see how that makes our violence better since not only do we enact it internationally, but also are complicit in the violence of others. The people in power clearly know the consequences of making these radicals deadlier but dont care in their pursuit for regional and economic dominance.

    jec wrote:They wouldn't actively search for apostates unless the apostate opposes the regime, MASSIVE DIFFERENCE... Don't try to equate this matter, there's a clear difference...

    While I still think theres not much of a difference in Egypt, I am willing to reassess my view on the broader side of this.

    jec wrote:Agree on the need to stop funding groups, not on considering the elements that prevent liberal reforms.

    Any talk of secularism will be perceived by a country like Saudi Arabia as a threat to its rule. That is a fact, just like they displayed recently with Saif Badawi. How is any new reform going to happen where such talk is outlawed? In one of the many oil rich dictatorships which we enable in order to secure our power even our politicians criticism is mild.

    jec wrote:You can't have liberal reforms when the leaders, both socially and political of their communities are keeping their sheep comfortable under ultra conservative ideals.

    You cant have liberal reform when conservative dictators, often supported or installed by the west, are killing or jailing the very people that are necessary for planting the seeds that could eventually bring about the very reforms we want to see.

    jec wrote:
    If mainstream media would have more serious debates on faiths rather than just a couple of schmucks saying "it's just a few rotten apples" we'd be getting somewhere, at least on the ideological front.

    That would never happen because that would make the public aware of our involvement in the ME and our relationship with the gulf states, which are upholding the petrodollar. To begin to discuss these things would also paint us in a very negative light. Not much of a chance the mainstream media is going to undermine its nations own interests either.

    jec wrote:Because islamic communities are the first community to ever be victims of brutal repression and murder... <\sarcasm>... but they are the first to act in such a way. They would not retort to suicidal killings if they didn't brainwash them into thinking they're getting 72 virgins...

    Look Jec......the point of me pointing towards the Vice documentary was not to say this can easily be summed up as Western countries, by themselves, are entirely responsible for radicalizing generations. Rather, what I am saying is if you are going to have such a simplistic reaction to the recruitment videos you see on the mainstream news and reply "Look they are saying they are doing this because of religion, believe them!" Then by the same standard apply that to the documentary, where instead a journalist actually went to a region of turmoil and asked of the motivation for terrorist attacks, directly from the people affected by it. Not only from the head of an extremist group, but also a broad spectrum of people who deal with the fallout. If I apply the same reductionist metric that you are then I can easily say "Look its all western imperialism they are saying it, believe them!". So if you are going to be so one dimensional at least be consistent.

    jec wrote:So... handing out weapons instill radicalism too? I would think the radical groups would be thankful for being armed to the teeth...

    ...What?....I was refuting the statement you made, that we stopped intervening. Giving weapons to these groups enable them to kill the people we want dead. Oh, and also innocents. These are proxy wars. We are just as responsible for the deaths there. Its not like we dont know what they are going to use those weapons for.

    jec wrote:The US might have helped armed ISIS but their ideological motivation and what ignited them was a weak Kurdish regime that decided to legislate ignoring the interests of the other ethnic groups in their country. They don't even let themselves be and are willing to tear each other apart over slight differences in their own religion... Like catholics and protestanst years ago...

    Thats one part of it. But you're forgetting the US and the gulf states created ISIS too. SA uses them, and other groups like them to diminish shia influence as well.

    jec wrote:I disagree. Massive belief in ideology is far worse than the acts of few on a certain ideology.

    No it isn't. Ideology by itself is nothing but bad ideas until they are acted upon. We act for our economic benefit all the time which contributes to the instability in the region. This goes on to set off a chain of events that subsequently result in the furthering of extreme ideologies - and actions. The scope of this is greater than a few, the impact matters.

    jec wrote:Hell, I didn't know it until you brought it up. If most people find out about it, pressure and protest would arise from home making their representation of Christianity illegitimate

    Really? Youd be surprised to learn then the scale of support israel gets from christian evangelicals because their faith tells them that jewish control of the holy land will result in the second coming of christ.

    I would link to the documentary that explains this but for some odd reason it and the one I previously mentioned are both missing from the channel which holds the others.

    jec wrote:I"m gonna keep on researching on the role of extremist Christianity in these conflicts and I encourage you to do the same
    Ive been researching more than just the role of christian extremism thanks. Not to discourage you from learning more but if you're still intent on proving one religion is more extreme than the other youre still missing the bigger picture. You'll never get out of the tribal mentality that will only keep dumbing down any ideological debate.

    jec wrote:I disagree... Hell even you are contradicting yourself... since according to you, western military interventions in the ME are led Christian Zionists and extremists. The western violence you protests is also religious in part...

    *No, not quite a contradiction. Yes "western violence" is partly religious, just like it is for "islamic violence". Western intervention, and the rise of fundamentalists both stem from the same belief in unbridled capitalism. From this ideal is derived the worst aspects of human nature that were mentioned earlier - greed and willful ignorance. This is what creates the conditions necessary for the continuation of violence and misery. Whether it be invasions, funding of terrorism, the spreading of arms, or the millions spent to influence and corrupt governments. All of these and many other actions work in conjunction to uphold this belief, which only ever seeks more money, power and control, a representation of our most basic primal instincts.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:48 pm

    Jet wrote:
    .... Also people are burned alive with our bombs. So I don't see how that makes our violence better

    Spare me from the diluted philosophical strain of moral relativism...

    Jet wrote:
    Any talk of secularism will be perceived by a country like Saudi Arabia as a threat to its rule. That is a fact, just like they displayed recently with Saif Badawi. How is any new reform going to happen where such talk is outlawed? In one of the many oil rich dictatorships which we enable in order to secure our power even our politicians criticism is mild.

    Raif was condemed for insulting Islam. Massive international outrage saved him, at least for now, from punishment. The actions of one man, that decided to speak out liberal reforms put the kingdom in the spotlight. Imagine if the conversations were far more widespread... Saudi Arabia can't behead a fifth of their citizens, I'm certain even conservative muslims would protest.

    Jet wrote:That would never happen because that would make the public aware of our involvement in the ME and our relationship with the gulf states, which are upholding the petrodollar. To begin to discuss these things would also paint us in a very negative light. Not much of a chance the mainstream media is going to undermine its nations own interests either.

    True, but some of the things keeping it from happening comes from people too. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Hirsi Ali (Victim of FGM) tries to make this a conversation, but audience is limited, and it's discouraged from speaking about it due to a frenzy of liberals attacking , painting them in negative light, calling them bigots, racists... the only publicity it gets is that Bill and company are islamophobes, bigots, etc.

    Jet wrote:
    Look Jec......the point of me pointing towards the Vice documentary was not to say this can easily be summed up as Western countries, by themselves, are entirely responsible for radicalizing generations. Rather, what I am saying is if you are going to have such a simplistic reaction to the recruitment videos you see on the mainstream news and reply "Look they are saying they are doing this because of religion, believe them!" Then by the same standard apply that to the documentary, where instead a journalist actually went to a region of turmoil and asked of the motivation for terrorist attacks, directly from the people affected by it. Not only from the head of an extremist group, but also a broad spectrum of people who deal with the fallout. If I apply the same reductionist metric that you are then I can easily say "Look its all western imperialism they are saying it, believe them!". So if you are going to be so one dimensional at least be consistent.

    It's not reductionist Jet, you just still don't get control and treatment groups. If terrorists were not convinced they were going to be rewarded after death for their brutal actions, they simply wouldn't do it. They are the only group in human history that has reacted in such a way despite there being many other groups of people historically that have received brutal treatment. This is conclusion based on observation and analysis.

    A conclusion is not a reduction of the problem.... Observing different social groups, understanding their heterogeneity and their homogeneity is key to understand and be able to draw conclusions.

    Jet wrote:
    ...What?....I was refuting the statement you made, that we stopped intervening. Giving weapons to these groups enable them to kill the people we want dead. Oh, and also innocents. These are proxy wars. We are just as responsible for the deaths there. Its not like we dont know what they are going to use those weapons for.

    Yes, but not all intervention should logically lead to the rise of religious extremist sentiment. If Al Asaad's forces were the ones beheading and burning pilots alive your point would make sense. It doesn't make sense to blame that intervention of selling arms for igniting extremism on the forces that would become ISIS. The more logical source of the radicalization, in this cases is clearly the sectarian government hypothesis rather than the intervention one.

    Jet wrote:
    Thats one part of it. But you're forgetting the US and the gulf states created ISIS too. SA uses them, and other groups like them to diminish shia influence as well.

    Just like Iran uses the Houthi to diminish Sunni influence. It's all religious...

    Jet wrote:
    No it isn't. Ideology by itself is nothing but bad ideas until they are acted upon. We act for our economic benefit all the time which contributes to the instability in the region. This goes on to set off a chain of events that subsequently result in the furthering of extreme ideologies - and actions. The scope of this is greater than a few, the impact matters.

    An ideology can also lead to inaction, which is just as bad or worse. The Arab countries can't seem to fully unite against ISIS because in the end, they kinda (almost fully who are we kidding) agree with their core beliefs. The ideology of the many legitimize the actions of the few, making the incentives to intervene almost non existent. The middle east has the military prowess to crush Isis militarily in a couple of weeks, yet they refuse to put boots on the ground. The only reason the Saudis are pushing is because they threaten the rule of the monarchy.

    Jet wrote:

    Really? Youd be surprised to learn then the scale of support israel gets from christian evangelicals because their faith tells them that jewish control of the holy land will result in the second coming of christ.

    I know that part, it's called Christian Zionism. I mention it every time the israeli palestinian conflict arises but everyone just looks at me funny down here... People refuse to debate these uncomfortable topics.

    Jet wrote:
    Ive been researching more than just the role of christian extremism thanks. Not to discourage you from learning more but if you're still intent on proving one religion is more extreme than the other youre still missing the bigger picture. You'll never get out of the tribal mentality that will only keep dumbing down any ideological debate.

    I meant the role of Christianity on this conflict. I've been debating religion and seen its poison from early on and I know you'll see that Islam is in fact the most poisonous of them all, at least currently (Honor killings, apostaty, FGM, suicide bombings, repression of knowledge, gender inequality, medieval punishments, beheading, stoning, theocracies, etc). What's dumbing down the debate is the failed premise of moral relativism. There are some religions that clearly harm more than others and this is a fact, you can't tell me that Jainism has done just as much harm as Christianity or Islam, religions are heterogeneus. Morality has biological and socio-psychological objectivity and there's loads of literature to back this up.


    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/16/europe/italy-migrants-christians-thrown-overboard/index.html

    Jet wrote:
    *No, not quite a contradiction. Yes "western violence" is partly religious, just like it is for "islamic violence". Western intervention, and the rise of fundamentalists both stem from the same belief in unbridled capitalism. From this ideal is derived the worst aspects of human nature that were mentioned earlier - greed and willful ignorance. This is what creates the conditions necessary for the continuation of violence and misery. Whether it be invasions, funding of terrorism, the spreading of arms, or the millions spent to influence and corrupt governments. All of these and many other actions work in conjunction to uphold this belief, which only ever seeks more money, power and control, a representation of our most basic primal instincts.

    Greed and willful ignorance has been part of human society long before the rise of capitalism (around 300 years ago). If there's anything to blame the rise of loving willful ignorance is the Abrahamic religions. Before Christianity, the Greeks, Romans, etc were bastions of knowledge and scientific hunger. After the rise of religion, we lost that appetite for a thousand years.


    _______________________________
    avatar
    Jec
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate
    Academy Ninja: Genin Candidate

    Posts : 4240
    Join date : 2012-01-28
    Age : 26

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Jec on Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:49 pm

    Rebels, season 2 trailer



    _______________________________

    Sponsored content

    Re: SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:23 pm