How to defeat ISIL

[Diogenes]

Terrorism comes from:
political grievance
poverty
lack of effective rule of law
bad people

You need all four. Unfortunately there is no lack of bad people everywhere.

I'm sort of thinking that the Lack of effective rule of law creates both poverty and bad people and subsequently political grievances. I have been attempting to point out strictly through an evolutionary perspective, the culture created by Christian doctrine has been demonstrably superior to that created by all others. It was the "survival of the fittest" contest winner.


I have argued that the reason Western Society advanced was because of all those Christian principles which used to be more or less universal throughout that culture. A Hundred years ago, pretty much all of the Islamic nations were still stuck back in the fifth century.




My point is that your foundational assumptions have a massive impact on your eventual social conditions. Islam builds a lot of bad foundation into a culture.

[choff]

I would contend that the terrorism of the ISIL has a great deal to do with the price of oil, these are the same rodeo clowns funded by the Saudi's and trained by Western Intel to overthrow Assad in Syria. By using them to wreck Iraq that countries oil stays in the ground and off the market.

There was a report of a Kurdish military convoy setting out to fight the ISIL being ambushed right in the Kurdish capital. How could such a ragtag band of terrorists get such excellent intel that they could go in right under the Kurds noses and strike undetected, that kind of infiltration screams being sold out by the CIA to ISIL, high level mole, too high level mole. So far the U.S. bombing campaign against them has been a farce.

Terrorism is a byproduct of a fractional reserve debt based monetary system, what a Swiss banker referred to as an error cascade, another way to put it is that the love for money is the root of all evil(not money itself).

[tomclarke]

I'm sort of thinking that the Lack of effective rule of law creates both poverty and bad people and subsequently political grievances. I have been attempting to point out strictly through an evolutionary perspective, the culture created by Christian doctrine has been demonstrably superior to that created by all others. It was the "survival of the fittest" contest winner.


I have argued that the reason Western Society advanced was because of all those Christian principles which used to be more or less universal throughout that culture. A Hundred years ago, pretty much all of the Islamic nations were still stuck back in the fifth century.




My point is that your foundational assumptions have a massive impact on your eventual social conditions. Islam builds a lot of bad foundation into a culture.

Islam, as I understand it, is strong on rule of law. The Prophet was establishing national governance in a society with nomadic roots. Unfortunately, in many Muslim countries the culture (independent of Islam) is one in which laws make women akin to valuable property, and ask for violent punishment for many things (like adultery) that we would not see as meriting this. It is, in my view, a great wrong that women be treated in this way but you will find educated articulate Western Muslim women arguing that it is the way things should be and that they like it. They say that the inequality is a difference, not a straightforward issue of power. But I have to say that this is not true in many Muslim countries where it is a flimsy cloak around a patriarchal system in which males have power and abuse it with impunity.

I say that this is cultural because such practices were in place before the Prophet did his stuff - and in fact by the standards of his times he was very enlightened (not saying much, I know).

I'm personally very strongly against this attitude towards women which culturally comes from an assumption that men are necessarily spineless and unable to control their sexual urges, together with a a view that women are property owned by their husbands until they wish to throw them away. (Wives can also terminate the relationship - but it is a good deal more difficult). I disagree with both assumptions: if men are sexual predators that is their responsibility and they should be punished if they behave badly. Requiring women to prevent temptation is in principle wrong and in practice impossible. And anyway women can be tempted just as easily...

Living in our liberal society Muslims tend to have:
stronger social conscience
much stricter views on sex
tradition of obedience towards authority (family and law)
tradition of working hard and getting educated
stronger local involvement in keeping law and order

So both Islam and Christianity have views about sex that do not work in a world with effective contraception where women can earn as easily as men. Both, in enlightened liberal forms, are absolutely fine. In fundamentalist forms both are evil. We tend to see enlightened Christianity more often than enlightened Islam because Christianity is more embedded in most developed nations. Some here will say that the industrial revolution was enabled by Christianity but I don't see that. I think of the middle ages as having been extended by the practices of the Catholic Church, which sought to centralise knowledge and punish innovation.

[tomclarke]

I said the topic was contentious. Views differ as to whether the bombing was effective militarily. The issue is proportionality. What level of collateral damage is acceptable in warfare? At the time in the UK there would be arguments for and against Dresden, as there are now. I think in the later stages of the war we did many things in the interests of victory that we should not have done, and I can hardly blame us in those circumstances. I accept that 25,000 civilian deaths is not, by modern standards, a large number. But it beats 9/11 by some 7X.

The party killing civilians can always claim that they did not wish to do so, that the purpose was not to punish the population or create fear. But inevitably and predictably both these two things happen in modern warfare. One of the great evils of technology is that soldiers can kill civilians with impunity and ease. It did not use to be so.

You can distinguish (some) Al Quaeda terrorism from this by the fact that the terrorists say specifically that they wish to punish civilian population for its political acquiescence in the immoral actions of a government. I'm not even sure that AQ claim this - 9/11 targetted the Pentagon and the twin towers, and as a symbol of capitalism I suppose, in some twisted way, you could view an attack on the twin towers as a military response. From this point of view Hammas would certainly not be a terrorist organisation since they admit officially only to attempts to destroy military targets - but with such poor weapons that (a) they don't work and (b) if they did work the rate of collateral damage would be very high.

Israel feels justified in its bombing of Gaza, and quotes its attempts to reduce civilian casualties. But it is waging an asymmetric war in which massive civilian casualties, both direct and indirect, are inevitable. And its campaign cannot work long-term unless it depopulates Gaza completely, because the more civilians suffer the stronger the young have a motive to fight back.

The firebombing of Dresden was not designed to cause civilian deaths. It was to help the Russians.Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government center, and a key transportation point to the East.
It was intended to cause mass evacuations of the city which would slow/stop German reinforcement making a easy way to the eastern front. Also Dresden was the one of the few industrial base not yet hit by the allies. Its war efforts were in direct support of the eastern front.
Unfortunately our efforts worked far better than intended and the firestorm that happened caused many more civilian deaths than intended . The fires burned so brightly and hotly they literally used up all the oxygen to the point where humans would pass out from the lack of air, then burn to death. shortly after that firebombing was ordered not to be used and declared to be a war crime.
The physic behind what happened and how / why there were so many casualty is really quite fascinating .

But No, the intention was not to cause civilian causality but force a mass evacuation of the city. Dresden was not the first city nor the highest number of casualties. It was just taken up as a focal point for history revisionist.
In 1949 they ban firebombing to create a firestorm after evaluating the effects on the city's that had firestorms.

[paperburn1]

Civilian casualty have been proven to be bad for any occupation. People will tend to put up with a lot from any government before they rebel. But when indiscriminate killing starts taking place it usually mean a bad deal for general population.
It also means the occupy force will never control the area because the can really be no peace brokered and the bad guys look just like the good guys so you really do not know if the killing was justified.

[Diogenes]

I'm sort of thinking that the Lack of effective rule of law creates both poverty and bad people and subsequently political grievances. I have been attempting to point out strictly through an evolutionary perspective, the culture created by Christian doctrine has been demonstrably superior to that created by all others. It was the "survival of the fittest" contest winner.

Islam, as I understand it, is strong on rule of law.

Of that I have no doubt, but the pertinent aspect is not just being gung ho "LAW!" It's about having the correct type of law. I keep saying that all laws are enforced morality, and Islamic law enforces a different sort of morality than does Christian based law.


Christianity is big on equality and respecting others. Islam has a hierarchical system of better and lesser people. In their system of ranking, infidels do not deserve the sort of respect as does a Muslim. This is the inherent cause of their acceptance and advocacy of violence directed at people of lesser piety than themselves.

The Prophet was establishing national governance in a society with nomadic roots. Unfortunately, in many Muslim countries the culture (independent of Islam) is one in which laws make women akin to valuable property, and ask for violent punishment for many things (like adultery) that we would not see as meriting this. It is, in my view, a great wrong that women be treated in this way but you will find educated articulate Western Muslim women arguing that it is the way things should be and that they like it. They say that the inequality is a difference, not a straightforward issue of power. But I have to say that this is not true in many Muslim countries where it is a flimsy cloak around a patriarchal system in which males have power and abuse it with impunity.

I say that this is cultural because such practices were in place before the Prophet did his stuff - and in fact by the standards of his times he was very enlightened (not saying much, I know).

I'm personally very strongly against this attitude towards women which culturally comes from an assumption that men are necessarily spineless and unable to control their sexual urges, together with a a view that women are property owned by their husbands until they wish to throw them away. (Wives can also terminate the relationship - but it is a good deal more difficult). I disagree with both assumptions: if men are sexual predators that is their responsibility and they should be punished if they behave badly. Requiring women to prevent temptation is in principle wrong and in practice impossible. And anyway women can be tempted just as easily...

Living in our liberal society Muslims tend to have:
stronger social conscience
much stricter views on sex
tradition of obedience towards authority (family and law)
tradition of working hard and getting educated
stronger local involvement in keeping law and order

So both Islam and Christianity have views about sex that do not work in a world with effective contraception where women can earn as easily as men. Both, in enlightened liberal forms, are absolutely fine. In fundamentalist forms both are evil. We tend to see enlightened Christianity more often than enlightened Islam because Christianity is more embedded in most developed nations. Some here will say that the industrial revolution was enabled by Christianity but I don't see that. I think of the middle ages as having been extended by the practices of the Catholic Church, which sought to centralise knowledge and punish innovation.

Islam has some good tenets and practices. But it's foundation is NOT based on equality and respect for others of differing opinions or faith. I personally think some of it's dogma is useful and perhaps necessary for the survival in the region and amongst the people for whom it was developed.


I think it was a very good evolved religion for the region, but it's benefits decline rapidly outside of the relatively harsh environment from which it came.



I think what was beneficial in a Desert based religion is detrimental elsewhere. It does not transpose well.

[GIThruster]

Since there are a very large number of good Muslims in the UK (and I'm sure the US is the same) who are seriously religious (generally more serious than is the case for Christians) and whose religion encourages them to be peaceful, virtuous, and law-abiding, to treat their religion as evil is an act of sectarian religious stupidity that beggars belief.

And that attitude does more to encourage terrorism than anything else.

That's just your ignorance showing, Tom. I suggest you read the Koran and look at the acts of Islam for 1,500 years. It is a warrior religion--the only one. Even the notion of martyrdom is redefined. Prior to the rise of Islam, martyrs were those who were ruthlessly murdered for their faith. Foxe's Book of Martyrs is an interesting read in this regard--it clearly demonstrates how and why those folks were killed. None of them were belligerents or militants of any sort. Stephen was stoned simply for saying what he believed and generally, those after him were fed to lions or burnt at the stake, simply for identifying with Christ. Though the teachings of Christ often have powerful effects on society, there is no social gospel in the Bible or Christ's teachings. Christianity does indeed cause its followers to seek social justice, but it also teaches that there is no final justice in this world, and that what is more important than improving society, is improving the heart of man through belief in Christ and the resurrection. Christians are indeed given an effective mission or "commissioned" to take the news of Christ's death on the cross and resurrection to the whole world, but there are NO instructions how to build nations or drive people into submission, and indeed this never happened until Constantine declared Christianity the state religion. The jury is out whether that turned out to be a good thing or not, for though it stopped the murders of Christians, it also turned the church into an institution that then decays in all the same ways as all other institutions, from governments to Skunkworks. Institutions never protect the heart of the thing they institutionalize. That can only be done by individuals who lose real influence once an institution emerges.

It's not until you come to Islam, that you have suicide bombers as a new norm. And it is really just PC rubbish passing itself off as educated when it is certainly not, or kind when it is certainly not, or unprejudiced when it is certainly not, that drives people to make these stupid statements that fly in the face of all history. There are plenty of peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not at its core peaceful. It is fascist from start to finish and there is no other religion in the world like it. failing to note that vital distinction, makes people unable to see the world for what it is. This problem has existed for as long as Islam has existed, and it does not have a solution. Sometimes you need to accept you can't fix a problem. We are always going to have these kinds of people pursing these kinds of goals, because this is intrinsic to what Islam teaches, and we are certainly above the kind of cleansing required to remove this from our world.

LOL. We are not talking here about which religion is associated with countries that have conquered (militarily) which countries.

No we're not. Thats a cheesy atheist ruse. The proper question is not which religion is associated with poor behavior--they all are as is atheism. The proper question is which religion is the CAUSE of poor behavior. Islam wears this crown alone. You could quibble. Buddhism's teaching about reincarnation has at times moved people to be callous and careless of human life, and you could go on and multiply these sorts of small examples, but by and large, the world's great religions all do society as a whole, vastly more good than harm, for they are as Dio loves to point out, instructional tools and often the entire framework for good behavior. Only Islam has the horrid "at war with the world" attitude that permeates the entire mess. If you don't believe this, read the Koran and study Islam's history. It is and has always been, entirely militaristic; by design. There is really nothing we can do about this, except to provide social sanctions against homicidal behavior.

And really Tom, there are a million places you can bash the church if you like. Making up rubbish about things you know nothing is not the way to go. Where in the Judeo-Christian scriptures do you find sanction of things like kidnapping? What I read is "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." (Ex. 21: 16). So where do you get that Christianity teaches kidnapping?

[tomclarke]

We disagree in a few ways tyat will not change, since there is no precise quantification of the matter we argue. So just some small corrections of fact below.

Since there are a very large number of good Muslims in the UK (and I'm sure the US is the same) who are seriously religious (generally more serious than is the case for Christians) and whose religion encourages them to be peaceful, virtuous, and law-abiding, to treat their religion as evil is an act of sectarian religious stupidity that beggars belief.

And that attitude does more to encourage terrorism than anything else.

That's just your ignorance showing, Tom.

I'd say rather it is your ignorance showing. How many Muslims do you know well?

I suggest you read the Koran and look at the acts of Islam for 1,500 years. It is a warrior religion--the only one.

Sikhism is a warrior religion. Muslimism is not - though I agree it has quite a subtext of war.

Even the notion of martyrdom is redefined. Prior to the rise of Islam, martyrs were those who were ruthlessly murdered for their faith. Foxe's Book of Martyrs is an interesting read in this regard--it clearly demonstrates how and why those folks were killed. None of them were belligerents or militants of any sort. Stephen was stoned simply for saying what he believed and generally, those after him were fed to lions or burnt at the stake, simply for identifying with Christ. Though the teachings of Christ often have powerful effects on society, there is no social gospel in the Bible or Christ's teachings.

Many Christians would disagree

Christianity does indeed cause its followers to seek social justice, but it also teaches that there is no final justice in this world, and that what is more important than improving society, is improving the heart of man through belief in Christ and the resurrection. Christians are indeed given an effective mission or "commissioned" to take the news of Christ's death on the cross and resurrection to the whole world, but there are NO instructions how to build nations or drive people into submission, and indeed this never happened until Constantine declared Christianity the state religion. The jury is out whether that turned out to be a good thing or not, for though it stopped the murders of Christians, it also turned the church into an institution that then decays in all the same ways as all other institutions, from governments to Skunkworks. Institutions never protect the heart of the thing they institutionalize. That can only be done by individuals who lose real influence once an institution emerges.

It's not until you come to Islam, that you have suicide bombers as a new norm.

Suicide bombers are a modern invention - obviously.

And it is really just PC rubbish passing itself off as educated when it is certainly not, or kind when it is certainly not, or unprejudiced when it is certainly not, that drives people to make these stupid statements that fly in the face of all history. There are plenty of peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not at its core peaceful.

That is a value judgement. I agree that Christianity as it perhaps should be practiced (one interpretation) is pacifist and strongly anti-violence. It would then be distinguished from most other religion, and align with Budhism. That pure form of Christianity is very seldom practiced, and there is room in the New Testament for multiple interpretations.

It is fascist from start to finish and there is no other religion in the world like it. failing to note that vital distinction, makes people unable to see the world for what it is. This problem has existed for as long as Islam has existed, and it does not have a solution. Sometimes you need to accept you can't fix a problem. We are always going to have these kinds of people pursing these kinds of goals, because this is intrinsic to what Islam teaches, and we are certainly above the kind of cleansing required to remove this from our world.

That is rank prejudice. You can tell from "these kinds of people". People from all religions pursue evil goals. Culture and politics affect how many become voiolent - religion is not the point. It is often used as an excuse, but never the prime mover except in sects that have no popular appeal beacuse they are poisonous.

LOL. We are not talking here about which religion is associated with countries that have conquered (militarily) which countries.

No we're not. Thats a cheesy atheist ruse. The proper question is not which religion is associated with poor behavior--they all are as is atheism. The proper question is which religion is the CAUSE of poor behavior. Islam wears this crown alone. You could quibble.

I do quibble. Establishing cause in this way is impossible. You believe this. A virtuous Muslim in the UK will undoubtedly believe the opposite - citing the social good and selflessness encouraged by Islam. Such generic judgements overgeneralise and are disrespectful to whatever religion is being disparaged. Islam is a great and subtle world religion that at its best is as beneficial as the best of Christianity.

Buddhism's teaching about reincarnation has at times moved people to be callous and careless of human life, and you could go on and multiply these sorts of small examples, but by and large, the world's great religions all do society as a whole, vastly more good than harm, for they are as Dio loves to point out, instructional tools and often the entire framework for good behavior. Only Islam has the horrid "at war with the world" attitude that permeates the entire mess. If you don't believe this, read the Koran and study Islam's history. It is and has always been, entirely militaristic; by design. There is really nothing we can do about this, except to provide social sanctions against homicidal behavior.

The OT is militaristic. This does not make the Jews so. Were your arguments true Jews would be more militaristic than Christians. In reality the reverse is true (for cultural reasons). Which makes my point.

And really Tom, there are a million places you can bash the church if you like. Making up rubbish about things you know nothing is not the way to go. Where in the Judeo-Christian scriptures do you find sanction of things like kidnapping? What I read is "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." (Ex. 21: 16). So where do you get that Christianity teaches kidnapping?

I don't think any religion, properly understood, "teaches kidnapping". Justification for kidnapping can be found in any religion - in fact it can be found in real life under extreme circumstances. I was talking about the bad acts that have been done in the name of Christian wars, of which there have been a lot.

As for Islam justifying the atrocious acts of Boko Haram, for example:

I began by asking the sheikhs for their initial reactions to the recent kidnappings in Nigeria by the Islamist group Boko Haram. In response, each cleric sought to confront the beliefs and practices of Boko Haram with Quranic and Islamic sources.

Sheikh Fouad Khreis expressed his pain that Boko Haram could even call themselves Muslims, a view expressed by all three sheikhs in fact, stating that their actions go against the Qur’an and the teachings of Islam. On this, Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zaid replied:

As a judge I need to be sure of the facts. Once the circumstances surrounding the situation have been confirmed [i.e. not simply based on uncorroborated media reporting], I affirm that as Muslim leaders and as the Muslim community we are completely and wholeheartedly against this action. An authentic Islam, based on a true reading of the Qur’an, inspires us. We oppose what the group Boko Haram has done in the name of Islam.
Furthermore, Sheikh Muhammad Nokkari challenged the notion that kidnapping was in any way Islamic, stating that:

There is no excuse for kidnapping in Islam. The Quran teaches against kidnapping innocent people. The operation itself is refused. You will find no Islamic reference or teaching in Islam that supports this. I am not surprised, though, because this is not the first time this group has done such a horrific action. They are against all the teachings of Islam. We can only confront them with discernment and fight against them, especially since they are acting in the name of Islam, because the truth is that they are working against Islam, ruining its reputation.

from http://imeslebanon.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... ian-girls/

[GIThruster]

We disagree in a few ways that will not change, since there is no precise quantification of the matter we argue.

Sure there is.

Since there are a very large number of good Muslims in the UK (and I'm sure the US is the same) who are seriously religious (generally more serious than is the case for Christians) and whose religion encourages them to be peaceful, virtuous, and law-abiding, to treat their religion as evil is an act of sectarian religious stupidity that beggars belief.

For the vast bulk of the Islamic world, their religion doesn't teach them to be good. They're good quite in spite of their religion. Moderate islam is a response to the modern world. The Koran does not teach moderate Islam, but radical Islam. You can say this is not precisely quantified only if you refuse to READ THE KORAN for yourself, and look at the history of the Islamic world. Just go read it. Go read what you're are merely pretending to know about. These people a re killing others every day of your life all around the world and you can;'t be bothered to read why? It's in the Koran!

How many Muslims do you know well?

Five. They're all moderates and good people. But this is NOT THE ISSUE, TOM. And we both know the smattering of people you and I know all counted together, cannot ever answer the real question here, the one you are deliberately obscuring with your logical fallacies.

Sikhism is a warrior religion. Muslimism is not. . .

Most comparative religion texts would not list Sihkism as a major world religion since it only has something like 5 million adherents, same with Zoroastrianism. And honestly, you have to be completely ignorant of your world history to believe what you just wrote. You don't really believe that though, do you? Is this your answer, to assert the consequent and pretend this then is making your case? Islam is not a warrior religion because oh em. . .Islam is not a warrior religion!

When was the last time you read the newspaper about the Sikh's bombing people? People need to accept that the Koran teaches at its core, a host of sick, twisted beliefs that make the islamic world what it is, and so agree that it is the religion that is FUBAR. When you tell people to murder their neighbors, betray their friends, hunt down and kill their own children if they convert, rape women on the street, lie, cheat and steal as a matter of normal business, kidnap, pillage, hate the world and burn it with fire, that is BAD RELIGION. That is is all what the Koran says to do, Tom! Read it!

Tolerance does not require ignorance. If you've never read the Koran you should. Would save you all manner of idiotic statements. Its once you really know what it says, THEN you practice real tolerance. Here's a big hint, Tom. Those thousands of "true believers" on CNN, jumping around firing their guns in the air and cursing you simply because you're not one of them? They hate you because the Koran taught them to, and they will kill you if they can.

To return to the point here, ISIL is fighting a conventional war in most respects. Air power should be pretty effective, especially if we can continue finding targets. If we have cooperation on the ground, then we can hammer then night and day. And though one doesn't want to injure the infrastructure, the region's oils yards are generating $20M/month income to them, so they need to be taken out. Kill the finances and the rest of the things will die in a few months. What I want to see is Iran get spanked for feeding this frenzy. Instead of golfing, OBama needs to be finding ways to hold Iran accountable. Iran supposedly has been funding several Shia militias in Iraq, and there needs to be a military response to this.

[tomclarke]

For the vast bulk of the Islamic world, their religion doesn't teach them to be good. They're good quite in spite of their religion. Moderate islam is a response to the modern world. The Koran does not teach moderate Islam, but radical Islam. You can say this is not precisely quantified only if you refuse to READ THE KORAN for yourself, and look at the history of the Islamic world. Just go read it. Go read what you're are merely pretending to know about. These people a re killing others every day of your life all around the world and you can;'t be bothered to read why? It's in the Koran!

You believe that the teachings in scripture of the "book religions" provide moral guidance independent of interpretation. That is a fundamentalist view, you are in good company. And fundamentalists of all the book religions do evil things quoting scriptural justification.

When you look at the non-fundamentalist interpretations from good scholars, they are good. There are differences in emphasis, that is all.

Your argument is that Muslims commit many acts of terror, and this is caused by their religion. I agree, a lot of terrorism is committed by Muslims, though numerically the worst acts always seem to come from Africa, like the Tutsi genocide committed by mostly Christian Hutu extremists. I'm not claiming that religion caused the 500,000 - 1,000,000 violent deaths of civilians - but it must be put in the balance if you try to weigh religious merit according to whether the religion encourages or discourages violence.

My argument is that violent and bad acts are independent of religion (short of fundamentalists who are uniformly and necessarily bad, and may or may not express that in ways that horrify most people). Bad acts are predominately influenced by culture and circumstances.

And we will never see eye to eye on this because you think scripture has moral validity independent of interpretation (this is a slippery slope towards the literal and often abused stance of fundamentalists) and I don't.

The way that religion is essentially independent of goodness is shown in how Christians reacted during the Tutsi and moderate Hutu genocide.
from Wikipedia(Rwandan religion):

Timothy Longman has provided the most detailed discussion of the role of religion in the Rwandan genocide in Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda, published in 2010.[7] Longman argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing. Churches had longed played ethnic politics themselves, favoring the Tutsi during the colonial period then switching allegiance to the Hutu after 1959, sending a message that ethnic discrimination was consistent with church teaching. The church leaders had also long had close ties with the political leaders, and after the genocide began, the church leaders called on the population to support the new interim government, the very government supporting the genocide.

At the same time, churches did not uniformly support the genocide. In the period leading up to the genocide, 1990–1994, major splits emerged within most churches between moderates who promoted democratic change and conservatives allied with the Habyarimana regime. Many of the clergy were Tutsi, and they generally supported democratic reform, but many moderate Hutu within the churches supported reform as well. Churches provided major support to the formation of the new human-rights groups that emerged in the early 1990s. When the genocide began in 1994, some clergy and other church leaders opposed the violence,[8] even at the risk of their own lives.[9]

Some individual members of the religious community attempted to protect civilians, sometimes at great risk to themselves. For example, Mgr. Thaddée Ntihinyurwa of Cyangugu preached against the genocide from the pulpit and tried unsuccessfully to rescue three Tutsi religious brothers from an attack, while Sr. Felicitas Niyitegeka of the Auxiliaires de l’Apostolat in Gisenyi smuggled Tutsi across the border into Zaire before a militant militia executed her in retaliation.[10]

In her book Left to Tell: Discovering God in the Rwandan Holocaust (2006), Immaculée Ilibagiza, a Tutsi woman, describes hiding with seven other Tutsi women for 91 days in a bathroom in the house of Pastor Murinzi - for the majority of the genocide. At the St Paul Pastoral Centre in Kigali about 2,000 people found refuge and most of them survived, due to the efforts of Fr Célestin Hakizimana. This priest "intervened at every attempt by the militia to abduct or murder" the refugees in his centre. In the face of powerful opposition, he tried to hold off the killers with persuasion or bribes.[11]

[tomclarke]

Civilian casualty have been proven to be bad for any occupation. People will tend to put up with a lot from any government before they rebel. But when indiscriminate killing starts taking place it usually mean a bad deal for general population.
It also means the occupy force will never control the area because the can really be no peace brokered and the bad guys look just like the good guys so you really do not know if the killing was justified.

Great leaders have known throughout history that empires can be expanded only by playing nice with the subject populations. Rome was good at this.

Modern conflicts are interesting because force is projected from countries with no direct territorial ambition. Iraq was an aberration here (and because of the lack of stability after conquest broke the rule) most people in Iraq were better off under Saddam, even though not free, than in a broken post-Saddam Iraq.

Israel suffers from this. Whether it nominally occupies Gaza or not, the level of control needed to prevent aggressive acts from elements of the population will inevitably lead to increased resistance. The only solution to this would be control together with very large amounts of money put into development. The problem here is that the control itself (closing borders) prevents any meaningful development.

The real purpose of 9/11 was never to turn the US into part of an Islamic Caliphate. That is so absurd only weirdos could believe it. It was to gain a great propaganda victory over the US where the US is seen as an enemy in Middle Eastern conflicts.

This succeeded, mostly because it provoked the "war against terror" and that led to enormous good AQ PR sustained over many years.

The mistake was to treat acts of evil that will be discounted by all sensible people as an act of war - and thereby give the leaders of AQ the status of a nation.

This applies to other acts of terrorism. They are criminal, not acts of war. Those who encourage them speak in terms of war. Those who would stop them must see them as they are and not fall down the rabbit hole of declaring war, whether between states or religions.

Interestingly, ISIS, if it is as sophisticated as it appears, will possibly make clear that it does not sponsor or support terrorism outside the borders of its Islamic State. As Iran is now quite successfully doing. It may well then stay as a nation within the Middle East, and be tolerated as such. There are any number of thoroughly evil nations, with internal oppression of people, and we generally do not interfere with them. On the other hand if ISIS keeps a "conquer the world" ideology it will be feared by all the neighbouring Middle Eastern States and the West and could prove to be the one factor that unifies, for a time, the separate interests in the Middle East.

[GIThruster]

[quote="tomclarke"]Your argument is that Muslims commit many acts of terror, and this is caused by their religion. . . .
My argument is that violent and bad acts are independent of religion. . .
Yes, but your argument is based upon ignorance and presuppositions you chose to support your atheism, while mine is based upon the actual teaching of the text and the dictates of 1,500 years of history. And really, your presuppositions aren't worth anything Tom. Ignorance never is. If anyone wants and answer to these things, they need first of all top read the Koran and see what it says. Your opinions about a religion and history you don't understand are worthless, and so are your presuppositions.

Some very recent history:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/25/if- ... will-take/

Note the pice doesn't explain how to rationalize a war nor why it is in our national interest. Very bright guy who wrote the wrong thing.

[tomclarke]

your argument is based upon ignorance and presuppositions you chose to support your atheism, while mine is based upon the actual teaching of the text and the dictates of 1,500 years of history.

Yes, except that my arguments would be held by devout (non-fundamentalist) theists too. I'm not arguing scripture has no moral teaching, merely that such teaching cannot be made without interpretation.

Some very recent history:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/25/if- ... will-take/

Note the pice doesn't explain how to rationalize a war nor why it is in our national interest. Very bright guy who wrote the wrong thing.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying about this.

From my POV once ISIS is an established state the US or anyone else can go to war against it if they want. Whether that is advisable or moral is another matter - I don't have a strong opinion at the moment, though that might change. The idea, promoted in that link, that war can only be worthwhile when it breaks the spirit of the enemy is doubtful. It is the justification for torture, of course, write large. When you declare war on a state the spirit you deal with is that of millions of civilians.

[Diogenes]

This seems relevant.


As European Jihadists Pour Into Syria And Iraq, It’s Clearer Than Ever That Poverty Does Not Cause Terrorism

Yet prosperous Western nations are themselves now exporters of Jihad. The combination of Saddam Hussein’s rule and America’s sanctions had plunged Iraq into penury, yet the country produced fewer terrorists under Saddam than Britain, for example, has in recent years. Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was beheaded in Pakistan in 2002 by the British-born Omar Saeed Sheikh, who had left the prestigious London School of Economics to become an aid worker in Bosnia. In 2003 two British Muslims bombed a Tel Aviv bar. An investigation by the BBC found that at least 32 British citizens have travelled to Somalia to fight with the terrorist group al Shabaab.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/25/as-eu ... terrorism/

[ladajo]

One point is very right in all this. If a state treats terrorists like another state, it imparts a permanent legitimacy to the terrorists. They must never be treated as a state.
To defeat IS, it will take an immediate violence of action that disregards state taboos and sovereign considerations.
We more than likely will waffle for a decade or more, if history is any indicator, and then act in a too late, too expensive in blood and treasure endeavour that will only beget a follow on problem.

If we act now and decisively, it will end it. But the too late line is approaching rapidly. As it has already passed in Ukraine.