What do think, is about to happen in Iraq.

[LuisDantas]

Why was napalm used in war. Well to put in very simplistic terms, "it is effective" and any weapon that is effective will be used.

Effective by which criteria? Certainly none that are at all morally defensable.

If the military are that inconsequential they must be curbed out of existence, you know.

Jelled gasoline was first used in WWII in flame throwers and bombs. The modern term is Napalm "B" and is still used by the military. Therefore society will condone weapons that some consider inhumane as long as those weapons are condoned by the majority of the world.

If it will, then I for one do not want anything to do with that sorry excuse for a society. It is shameful, obscene, indefensable.

What do you mean with "therefore" anyway? There is no justification to be found in your paragraph above. You just state it as a matter of fact, out of thin air.

Only one form of weapons have been possibly outlawed and those are biological and chemical weapons. However, not all chemical weapons have been outlawed. Tear gas is a chemical weapon.

Indeed. Law can't be trusted to protect any society, nor to be at all fair.

 

[Mycroft]

What I'm most interested in is the amount of seemingly young/teen Muslims who seem to be travelling half way around the world (from places like Australia) to take part in a conflict their school mates have probably never even heard of.

I found myself wondering how this could have happened. Or, more precisely, why it doesn’t seem to happen for anyone who isn’t a Muslim. Coptic Christians from Ethiopia are not to be found trekking across the intervening desert to take up arms on behalf of their persecuted Egyptian brothers; 17-year-old Huddersfield Catholics and west London Greek Orthodox altarboys are not en route to Ukraine to take part in the struggle for Donetsk. If, God forbid, there were widespread violence in socialist Venezuela, I would not expect the Pilger battalion of British teen leftists to turn up, red-arm-banded, in Caracas. So why, Muslims might ask themselves, echoing Mario Balotelli, is it always us?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is premature to assume most non-Muslims are far away from becoming guerillas fighting for territory or a new nation. Some favelas in Rio harbor a very similar mindset, due to socio-economical considerations alone. Most are Christians, often fervorously so - to the point of counting on God to protect them from the police's bullets.

 

[esmith]

Originally Posted by esmith
Why was napalm used in war. Well to put in very simplistic terms, "it is effective" and any weapon that is effective will be used.

Effective by which criteria? Certainly none that are at all morally defensable.

Effective by the ability to render those it is used upon effectively removed from the battlefield by either death, injury, or reduction of the will to fight. Wars are not a "moral" endeavor

If the military are that inconsequential they must be curbed out of existence, you know.

That is your opinion and no, I do not know. To defeat any opposing force, use any weapon at your disposal. I will qualify that by saying use any weapon that you would be willing to be used against you. That is why biological and chemical weapons were basically banned. Of course nothing says that a force will not use it against you. I suspect that terrorist would use any weapon they could get their hands on.

Originally Posted by esmith
Jelled gasoline was first used in WWII in flame throwers and bombs. The modern term is Napalm "B" and is still used by the military. Therefore society will condone weapons that some consider inhumane as long as those weapons are condoned by the majority of the world.

If it will, then I for one do not want anything to do with that sorry excuse for a society. It is shameful, obscene, indefensable.

Unfortunately you do not have a say, other than an opinion, you have to play the cards dealt to you. You were born into this world and unless you want to leave it you will have to deal with what society deems permissible.

What do you mean with "therefore" anyway? There is no justification to be found in your paragraph above. You just state it as a matter of fact, out of thin air.

What I meant is that until society, as a whole, deems that a weapon can not be used then that weapon will be used. And even if society deems a weapon can not be used nothing says that it will not be used.

 

[LuisDantas]

Effective by the ability to render those it is used upon effectively removed from the battlefield by either death, injury, or reduction of the will to fight. Wars are not a "moral" endeavor

Most certainly not when they involve weapons of mass destruction. Such as napalm bombers.

That is your opinion and no, I do not know.

Are you sure you want to take such a stance? :areyoucra

To defeat any opposing force, use any weapon at your disposal.

No. You do it if you are quite that degenerated. I will not.

I will qualify that by saying use any weapon that you would be willing to be used against you. That is why biological and chemical weapons were basically banned. Of course nothing says that a force will not use it against you. I suspect that terrorist would use any weapon they could get their hands on.

Then one must wonder whether there is any real difference between an army and a terrorist group, other than that the army earns tax money.

Unfortunately you do not have a say, other than an opinion, you have to play the cards dealt to you. You were born into this world and unless you want to leave it you will have to deal with what society deems permissible.

Deal with, sure. And that involves refusing to support obscenities such as napalm military use, slavery and torture.

What I meant is that until society, as a whole, deems that a weapon can not be used then that weapon will be used. And even if society deems a weapon can not be used nothing says that it will not be used.

You... can't be quite that naive.

 

[Mycroft]

It is premature to assume most non-Muslims are far away from becoming guerillas fighting for territory or a new nation. Some favelas in Rio harbor a very similar mindset, due to socio-economical considerations alone. Most are Christians, often fervorously so - to the point of counting on God to protect them from the police's bullets.

There is no non-Muslim equivalent of what, until a few days ago was Isis but are now the forces of the self-appointed caliph Ibrahim. There isn’t a Christian Boko Haram. Pakistan is not convulsed by militant communists, but by its religious extremists in the local Taliban and other groups, who between them may have killed 50,000 people in the past ten years. There is no country that is not Muslim that attempts to enforce sanctions for apostasy or has the death penalty for blasphemy. Vaccinators are not being assassinated by Jews, nor voters having their fingers chopped off by Baptists.

Of course has always been dispute within Islam as to the meaning and application of texts. It is susceptible to reform and schism just as Christianity, Judaism and other religions and political credos have been. Furthermore, as a religion with 1.2 billion adherents, of whom well over 1.1 billion manage to make it through life without hefting an AK47, attending a training camp in Waziristan or watching a judicial amputation, the generalisation doesn’t tell you about how Islam is actually practised.

It’s obvious that most Muslims do none of these things. That is, engage in extremism in any form. They want to eat good food, lead decent, peaceful lives and watch their children grow up. And, in fact, ordinary Muslims are by far the biggest casualties of the jihadis and the zealots of apostasy. Pakistani Shia are massacred by Sunni extremists; Sunni civilians are snatched by Iraqi Shia death squads; the Syrian civil war has seen as many as 170,000 deaths in three years. By contrast the past 25 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict accounts for just under 10,000.

What is therefore doubly curious about this is the lack of a sense of Muslim outrage about what some other Muslims are doing. Who, for example, protests about the death penalty in many parts of the United States? Well, people in the United States and other western countries do. Judicial execution has been abolished in almost all formerly Christian countries despite its explicit sanction in the Bible.

 

[esmith]

Most certainly not when they involve weapons of mass destruction. Such as napalm bombers.

Are you sure you want to take such a stance? :areyoucra
No. You do it if you are quite that degenerated. I will not.

Then one must wonder whether there is any real difference between an army and a terrorist group, other than that the army earns tax money.

Deal with, sure. And that involves refusing to support obscenities such as napalm military use, slavery and torture.

You... can't be quite that naive.

To answer your questions
You may not like napalm, WP ammunition, cluster bomb, IED's, and means of death but they are here to stay for the foreseeable future

Yes

Yes there are differences between national armies and terrorist. And no I do not want to take that step to discuss the differences.

You may refuse to support but your country and others do. Not all of those that you mentioned though

Not naïve, just realistic.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am so glad that I do not have to deal with you personally, esmith!

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no non-Muslim equivalent of what, until a few days ago was Isis but are now the forces of the self-appointed caliph Ibrahim. There isn’t a Christian Boko Haram. Pakistan is not convulsed by militant communists, but by its religious extremists in the local Taliban and other groups, who between them may have killed 50,000 people in the past ten years. There is no country that is not Muslim that attempts to enforce sanctions for apostasy or has the death penalty for blasphemy. Vaccinators are not being assassinated by Jews, nor voters having their fingers chopped off by Baptists.

That is basically a circunstantial accident. Islam can hardly claim the monopoly of such extreme behavior. It just happens to be the most noticeable nation-wide such movement at the current historical moment.

Of course has always been dispute within Islam as to the meaning and application of texts. It is susceptible to reform and schism just as Christianity, Judaism and other religions and political credos have been. Furthermore, as a religion with 1.2 billion adherents, of whom well over 1.1 billion manage to make it through life without hefting an AK47, attending a training camp in Waziristan or watching a judicial amputation, the generalisation doesn’t tell you about how Islam is actually practised.

It’s obvious that most Muslims do none of these things. That is, engage in extremism in any form. They want to eat good food, lead decent, peaceful lives and watch their children grow up. And, in fact, ordinary Muslims are by far the biggest casualties of the jihadis and the zealots of apostasy. Pakistani Shia are massacred by Sunni extremists; Sunni civilians are snatched by Iraqi Shia death squads; the Syrian civil war has seen as many as 170,000 deaths in three years. By contrast the past 25 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict accounts for just under 10,000.

What is therefore doubly curious about this is the lack of a sense of Muslim outrage about what some other Muslims are doing. Who, for example, protests about the death penalty in many parts of the United States? Well, people in the United States and other western countries do. Judicial execution has been abolished in almost all formerly Christian countries despite its explicit sanction in the Bible.

It seems to me that there is plenty of intra-Muslim outrage. It has in fact been well taken advantage of in most of the Middle East, and very often too.

But at the end of the day, the Middle East troubles are far, far more a matter of social unrest fueled by territorial worries, military unsecurity, economic realities and lack of true national union than a matter of radical beliefs.

Besides, seeing how casually people talk about killing Middle Easterners even now, it is painfully, shamefully obvious that there is not much of a real moral high ground from non-Muslims. We just excuse ourselves far more often because we are used to think of those bothersome Middle Easterners as impertinent pests that will not even leave us alone as they kill each other out.

 

[MD]

Besides, seeing how casually people talk about killing Middle Easterners even now, it is painfully, shamefully obvious that there is not much of a real moral high ground from non-Muslims. We just excuse ourselves far more often because we are used to think of those bothersome Middle Easterners as impertinent pests that will not even leave us alone as they kill each other out.

Not all middle easterners are muslims...

 

[columbus]

Not all middle easterners are muslims...

No, but it is currently Muslims who are slaughtering middle easterners. What Luis is pointing out is that non Muslims don't have any moral authority to condemn.

Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed. We deal with the Middle East by exercising military strength, decade after decade, then we find it strange that so do they? Really?

 

[Josh97]

What I'm most interested in is the amount of seemingly young/teen Muslims who seem to be travelling half way around the world (from places like Australia) to take part in a conflict their school mates have probably never even heard of.

Stigma and Religion. It is both the solution and the problem. These young people have been consumed by the stigma behind war that can attract individuals - combined with the strength of religion - it is a recipe for destruction.
To those who rule out military intervention with claims that it is immoral, and 'it is not our war', you are absurd. We are not dealing with individuals with reasonable minds. If that dehumanises them I am sorry, but religion, can change someone completely. Once you begin reasoning with them, you are no longer speaking to them, you are speaking with God. Negotiation, peace treaties and all this meaningless waffle, has gotten us no where.
When humanity is faced with a problem thats entrenched in religion and culture, the most appropriate option is to tackle it head on.
This is not coming from someone who endorses war, this is coming from someone that wants solutions.

 

[Mycroft]

Stigma and Religion.

The thing is, there is nothing Islamic about a caliphate/state. There is not a shred of theological, historical or empirical evidence to support the existence of such an entity. Yes, Muslims have a romanticised view of Medina, under the rule of the Prophet Muhammad between 622 and 632AD, but it had none of the trappings of a modern state - no fixed borders, no standing army, no civil servants - and was led by a divinely appointed prophet of god. Unless the shadowy al-Baghdadi plans to declare his prophethood, too, the Medina example (should anyone be reading for it) is irrelevant.

Incidentally the caliphate (from the Arabic khilafah, or "succession") that came after Muhammad was plagued by intrigue, division and bloodshed. Three of the first four "rightly guided caliphs" were assassinated. By the 10th and 11th Centuries, there were three different caliphates - Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid - which were constantly at war with one another. Not quite the golden age of the Islamist imagination.

Second, the Islamic faith doesn't require an Islamic state. Muslims have never needed to live in such a caliphate in order to pray, fast or give alms. And, as the great Muslim jurist of the 14th century Imam Shatibi argued, sharia law can be boiled down to the preservation of five things: religion, life, reason, progeny and property. I'd argue that the UK, despite rising Islamophobia, does preserve these five things and therefore allows Muslims to live "Islamic" lives. By contrast, the authors of a recent study at George Washington University found: "Many countries that profess Islam and are called Islamic are unjust, corrupt and under-developed and are in fact not 'Islamic' by any stretch of the imagination.

Third, most Muslims don't want an Isis-style state. In their book Who Speaks for Islam? I would hazard to guess that the popular Muslim opinion would sound something like not wanting religious leaders to hold direct legislative or political power.

Fourth, time and again, politicised Islam has proved to be a failure. Violent Islamists have discovered, after the shedding of much blood, that you cannot Islamise a society by force - whether in Afghanistan, Gaza, Egypt or Iran. Rhetoric is easy; running public services and state institutions much harder. The hand-choppers and throat-slitters of Isis, Boko Haram, al-Shabab and the rest have no political programme, no blueprint for government. Theirs is a hate-filled ideology, built on a cult of victimhood and sustained by horrific violence.

A good book called The Rise and Fall of al-Qaeda by Fawaz A Gerges gives such an example.