McBell
Unbound
My apologies Godobeyer.This is it
for exemple :
I do blame West now for supporting rebels(terrorists) in Syria, I do salute the West for receive the Syrians refugees.
I got you mixed up with another member.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What should the West do Now about Islamic Terrorism?
- Thread starter George-ananda
- Start date
I got you mixed up with another member.
Pacifism isn't passivism. My beliefs fall into being Christian pacifism and anarcho-communism. I think you should take a look at this: http://www.therebelgod.com/2015/02/who-would-jesus-bomb-nonviolent.html
https://www.positive.news/2015/society/democracy/17909/pacifist-perspectives-tackling-threat-isis/
I do not have easy answers to this and there are none. But I did offer suggestions in my first post in this thread.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Here the Muslims would be condemning the West for merely doing what the Muslim world wants - actively preventing all forms of interference. They'd probably be condemning it because the embargo wouldn't be imposed by Muslims - but by non-Muslims.
Pff. They do that anyway.
Reversing the impetus of the argument (sometimes known as the tuquoque or 'what about you' fallacy) not only does not counter the initial point being made - it's a tacit admission that the argument you're countering had sufficient force that you see value in using it yourself.
I've never once heard a Muslim lay the blame for the likes of Islamic State or Boko Haram at the feet of pissed off Muslims who hate people that believe differently than they do. It's always cop-outs like 'they are not true Muslims' or 'the West supplies them'. In the case of Islamic State I admit the West is indirectly & partially responsible on two accounts:
- We toppled Saddam's regime and laid the ground work for the resulting chaos that would see Islamic State arise;
- We fund the Saudis who provided Islamic State with a lot of their hardware.
Last edited:
This is take the personal level ?
everyone is blamed/reponsible for his acts good or bad in past or present,is that simple enough ?
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
In your previous posts you were talking about the amorphous political entity known as 'the West', not individual people. This comes across as you shifting the goalposts. I don't think you meant it that way but it does look like that.
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Do you mean you're sick of the West undermining governments and installing West-backed dictators through insurgencies and conflict?
You miss my point again, I hope @David1967 could help me to clarify my point for you, because he understood it better
I want from West to correct what they done. or at least leave us alone , not involved by claim helping rebels against dictotic regimes.
West is allies to many dictatoric regime , just because they are just followers ,the West keep them , and be friend to them.
I see, thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately we have a precedent already: Gaddafi was one such mistake and the West helped Libya's people to fix it because they asked us to. We didn't stick around for the aftermath because neither our citizens nor the Arab world were in the mood for another Iraq or another Afghanistan and, lo and behold, the Libyans ruined their own success by turning their weapons on each other. Now Libya's a failed state because the Libyans couldn't work together in peace.
Because they asked you,so US respond !!
So Ukrainian asked you too "Crimea",why USA did not help ?
Ukraine seeks US, EU help to secure Crimea return
https://www.yahoo.com/news/poroshenko-wants-help-crimea-back-140750897.html?ref=gs
Now Muslims in Burma ask for help
https://www.burmamuslims.org/
I visit Libya it's was heaven and peace under Gaddafi compared to now (after NATO involved).
I think "oil" who asked you
Military interference in foreign matters is never a safe or easy matter, and sure, economic and political interests are very much a factor. I don't think that is even denied.
The USA will avoid direct confrontations with Russian military forces if they can help it. For very good reasons, among them the desire to avoid escalation. The anexation of Crimea was almost entirely a matter of establishing political control, with nearly no loss of life and very little reason for any outsiders to even attempt to interfere.
Burma/Myanmar's situation is complicated and there is no clear benefit from a hypothetical external intervention.
Lybia is an entirely different matter. While its internal situation seems to have worsened considerably since the fall of Gaddafi, one can hardly fail to acknowledge that his leadership was worth of at least some legitimate worry from outsiders. It was also very much a military civil war as of 2011, so it is not like peace could be attained by staying out of it.
And, frankly, Gaddafi was a dangerous madman in the first place. The question here is not of whether he should have remained in power, but of how he should have left it and what should be done to establish some sort of political authority after that.
Perhaps ironically, it seems clear to me that Lybia is a prime candidate to actual nation-building... something that the USA seem to be unable to do even name correctly, let alone do anywhere. In their defense, it is quite the quagmire even under ideal circunstances.
The USA will avoid direct confrontations with Russian military forces if they can help it. For very good reasons, among them the desire to avoid escalation. The anexation of Crimea was almost entirely a matter of establishing political control, with nearly no loss of life and very little reason for any outsiders to even attempt to interfere.
Burma/Myanmar's situation is complicated and there is no clear benefit from a hypothetical external intervention.
Lybia is an entirely different matter. While its internal situation seems to have worsened considerably since the fall of Gaddafi, one can hardly fail to acknowledge that his leadership was worth of at least some legitimate worry from outsiders. It was also very much a military civil war as of 2011, so it is not like peace could be attained by staying out of it.
And, frankly, Gaddafi was a dangerous madman in the first place. The question here is not of whether he should have remained in power, but of how he should have left it and what should be done to establish some sort of political authority after that.
Perhaps ironically, it seems clear to me that Lybia is a prime candidate to actual nation-building... something that the USA seem to be unable to do even name correctly, let alone do anywhere. In their defense, it is quite the quagmire even under ideal circunstances.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
This is not my problem.
My concern is regime before 1945.
Say "Never" now too
Holocaust Reparations: Germany to Pay 772 Million Euros to Survivors
http://www.spiegel.de/international...arations-to-holocaust-survivors-a-902528.html
Are you saying that I am a terrorist?
McBell
Unbound
i suspect what he means to say, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that anyone who reads the Koran CAN find reasons to be a terrorist.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Thing is Nazism did not vanish after 1945.
And neither did the Nazis.
Say "Never" now too
Holocaust Reparations: Germany to Pay 772 Million Euros to Survivors
http://www.spiegel.de/international...arations-to-holocaust-survivors-a-902528.html
So you don't deserve some money if you had to do slave labour under horrible circumstances?
As regime it's defeated and vanish ,I know as groups still exist.
Money is magic,you can even change minds people with
Your reply before money
Now
Yes "we" can mixing up Germans with Nazis , because of money
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Because generally people blame others in order to avoid looking closely at their own failings.
I think the West should just leave the Middle East do their own things. I know, giving them the benefit of the doubt, they have good intentions, but so far all tries to take out dictators only gave worse results than, or similarly bad results to, the way things were.
I could be wrong in this, but it is what I see so far.
depend.
If their own failings is consequence of others involve , so it's normal to blame others .
if thier own fails had no relation to others "involvements" (others did not involved) , is not fair to blame others .
It's like origin sin (in Christianity), involvement of West in Iraq and Syria and Libya is the main result of voilence today.
this does not mean that Muslims should fighting each other, not blamed for that too.
is that simple and fair enough?
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Probably the best thing, at least until ISIS obtains WMDs.
From where they could obtains ?