The Islamic State

[Suttree]

I'd really like to see Obama and Kerry comment on Assad, now that it turns out pretty much all rebel groups are either secretly allied or considering alliance with ISIS, since they're the rising force against the regime.

Source?

The above goes against every analysis I have read on the situation.

They became a great civilization when they noticed that the guys they just conquered had worthy achievements and they could learn some things from them and not act like a plague of locusts.

Learn somethings from them? They had more than their share of "worthy achievements" on their on.

[The Fallen]

So you agree that standards of that time are irrelevant today? Then why did you bring up caliphates as examples of tolerant places in a contemporary discussion?

The response was to a specific post. I should have quoted it as my response didn't get in on time to immediately follow it.

You were just talking about having to wait for muslims to become tolerant and liberal. Does that apply to the other population groups of west, too? Because there is a much larger group of people in every western country who have no tolerance for muslims, gays, women, liberals or minorities. Do they also get to practice their intolerant culture?

Why are you making this complicated? Western countries are tolerant, right? So why can't they be tolerant of Muslims? The other point I made was that we shouldn't be making demands of poorer countries when we've only just started to acknowledge, for instance, gay rights. It's pretty simple.

Don't you dare pull that shit with me. Every women in my family and most of the women I consider friends are muslim and have lived most of their lives under islamic law.

How many muslim women have confided in you? Other than the token fundamentalist celebrated in liberal media as the oppressed minority and the token anti muslim in conservative media presented as voice of freedom and caution how many muslims do you know?

I don't know in what country your family and friends live. But if they live in a western country they should be able to do as they like. If you want to know my feelings about that issue here is my response to Queen Ayra:

I would also say that we should be ready to assist and protect Muslim women who don't want to don the garb and are being threatened or forced into doing it. But that's a whole other conversation and thread.

You shouldn't force anyone to dress like you want.

But you shouldn't celebrate the most radical muslim women and shame muslim women who don't want to live according what you call their "culture" which is basically the most strict and fundamentalist islamic life.

You shouldn't leave them undefended in their communities to get bullied, threatened and forced to conform.

I've never advocated shaming anyone nor celebrating radical Muslim women. What I'm advocating is the right for people to do as they please. I'm not a female and I can't imagine having to wear a burka. But how can I assert, without speaking to these women, that they don't want to wear it and are being forced to do so? Now, in NYC it's rare to see a woman wearing a burka, but you see it every now and then. The more common site is Muslim women wearing western clothing with a head scarf. And again, how can I proclaim that they're doing it against their will? I can't, just like you can't assert that they're being forced to do it.

But again, my position is that as tolerant countries with freedoms we should respect the rights of Muslims to practice their religion as long as it's not hurting anyone. If it is then you take the necessary actions.

I agree with most of this. But the last part is a tougher sell. They shouldn't have to completely leave them behind, but they must be willing to assimilate to their new host country's culture, and if some of these beliefs conflict with the existing law, then those beliefs must be left at the door.

But it is a giant double standard, because if you're from the West and want to move to a ME country, you better belief you will assimilate 100% or likely face imprisonment or death, especially if you're a woman.

So do we start with the Orthodox Jewish communities and the Amish?

[Arakan]

To put it very plainly: you want to force young Muslims to make a choice between two loyalties. So do ISIS and their like. You want the same thing as they do, and the result will be the same. If you genuinely want to avoid radicalisation, don't advocate the tactics of those that promote it.

Mormont,

to put it very plainly as well: what I want is simply that the content of my country's constitution is enforced and that everyone who lives in this country, especially those who are granted citizenship of this country, accepts and defends the values of the Constitution:

1) the dignity of every human is unassailable

2) the defence of the democratic system

3) personal freedom for everyone (as long as it doesnt harm the personal freedom of others)

These are the core values of my country's Constitution. And if I have to force someone to make a choice between two loyalties, so be it. Those core values are non-negotiable for anyone who wants to be part of this society. And these core values include that a woman of Turkish origin wants to do porn, so be it. Just take a look what Sibel Kekilli had to suffer.

Finally, I am glad that many women of (mostly) Turkish origin forced all these issues of the parallel society into the spotlight where others wanted to leave it under the carpet. I have the umtost respect for these women who can be found in all big German Parties, from the Greens over the Social-Democrats to the Conservatives.

Every person should find his or her personal happiness but these Constitutional core values are non-negotiable, I repeat myself. Of course no one is forced to accept this Constitution. Everyone is perfectly fine to find another place in the world.

Our democracy is a so called "Militant Democracy", i.e. every citizen has the duty to defend the Constitution of this country and its values. We learned our lessons with Weimar and the well-known aftermath.

I must say it was way over-the-top to put me in one sentence with ISIS. Mormont, I am shocked.

As conclusion I want to get the link to the current events in Iraq and Syria and why all of the above is important: currently there are roughly 400 KNOWN islamic extremists from Germany fighting with ISIS and its affiliates, in Iraq and Syria (only god knows how big the dark figure is). It is fair to assume that many of these 400+ fighters are committing atrocities and crimes against humanity. I feel ashamed of this because we as society have failed. We allowed these extremist views to grow in a parallel society, we didnt intervene out of a misguided understanding of "cultural tolerance".

Every one shall be able to follow one's religion and values...as long as they do not contradict the value of this country, defined in the Constitution of this country.

[Arakan]

Source?

The above goes against every analysis I have read on the situation.

I linked a Guardian article.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskle,

Link?

A coup lead by whom?

[Istakhr]

Why are you making this complicated? Western countries are tolerant, right? So why can't they be tolerant of Muslims? The other point I made was that we shouldn't be making demands of poorer countries when we've only just started to acknowledge, for instance, gay rights. It's pretty simple.

Because there is no comparison between how christianity and other religions are treated and how islam is treated here.

Nobody gives a shit if secularization or loss of "christian values" causes alienation among young fundamentalist christians, but people are demanding respect and special concern for islam.

No western country has shown a tenth of concern for gays in islamic countries that they have shown for them is christian Russia and Uganda.

I would also say that we should be ready to assist and protect Muslim women who don't want to don the garb and are being threatened or forced into doing it. But that's a whole other conversation and thread.

Something we agree on. And let me go further and say people, such as parents who are arranging parties to forced marriages (not necessarily all arranged marriages) should be charged under anti sexual slavery laws.

I've never advocated shaming anyone nor celebrating radical Muslim women. What I'm advocating is the right for people to do as they please. I'm not a female and I can't imagine having to wear a burka. But how can I assert, without speaking to these women, that they don't want to wear it and are being forced to do so? Now, in NYC it's rare to see a woman wearing a burka, but you see it every now and then. The more common site is Muslim women wearing western clothing with a head scarf. And again, how can I proclaim that they're doing it against their will? I can't, just like you can't assert that they're being forced to do it.

Of course you can't tell people's exact circumstances without knowing them individually. What you can do is when you have to take position, take the same position about any islamic group that you would take toward their equivalent christian one.

The worst thing that has happened to ordinary muslims in the west is that apparently every muslim who is not going to blow herself/himself up or advocate terrorism is considered a moderate no matter how odious her/his other beliefs are.

But again, my position is that as tolerant countries with freedoms we should respect the rights of Muslims to practice their religion as long as it's not hurting anyone. If it is then you take the necessary actions.

Agreed.

[The Fallen]

Mormont,

to put it very plainly as well: what I want is simply that the content of my country's constitution is enforced and that everyone who lives in this country, especially those who are granted citizenship of this country, accepts and defends the values of the Constitution:

1) the dignity of every human is unassailable

2) the defence of the democratic system

3) personal freedom for everyone (as long as it doesnt harm the personal freedom of others)

These are the core values of my country's Constitution. And if I have to force someone to make a choice between two loyalties, so be it. Those core values are non-negotiable for anyone who wants to be part of this society. And these core values include that a woman of Turkish origin wants to do porn, so be it. Just take a look what Sibel Kekilli had to suffer.

Finally, I am glad that many women of (mostly) Turkish origin forced all these issues of the parallel society into the spotlight where others wanted to leave it under the carpet. I have the umtost respect for these women who can be found in all big German Parties, from the Greens over the Social-Democrats to the Conservatives.

Every person should find his or her personal happiness but these Constitutional core values are non-negotiable, I repeat myself. Of course no one is forced to accept this Constitution. Everyone is perfectly fine to find another place in the world.

Our democracy is a so called "Militant Democracy", i.e. every citizen has the duty to defend the Constitution of this country and its values. We learned our lessons with Weimar and the well-known aftermath.

I must say it was way over-the-top to put me in one sentence with ISIS. Mormont, I am shocked.

As conclusion I want to get the link to the current events in Iraq and Syria and why all of the above is important: currently there are roughly 400 KNOWN islamic extremists from Germany fighting with ISIS and its affiliates, in Iraq and Syria (only god knows how big the dark figure is). It is fair to assume that many of these 400+ fighters are committing atrocities and crimes against humanity. I feel ashamed of this because we as society have failed. We allowed these extremist views to grow in a parallel society, we didnt intervene out of a misguided understanding of "cultural tolerance".

Every one shall be able to follow one's religion and values...as long as they do not contradict the value of this country, defined in the Constitution of this country.

Do you believe in freedom of speech? How does a guy preaching on the street or a Muslim woman wearing a hajib violate or infringe on the three tenets of the German Constitution which you hold so deeply?

I don't know how many Muslims live in Germany, but what do 400 German Muslims fighting with ISIS have to do with the remainder of the Muslim population in Germany? Even if it turns out to be 1,000 how does that reflect on the tens, if not, hundreds, of thousands who are simply going about their lives in Germany? Why do they have to pay fir the crimes of the 400?

[Arakan]

Do you believe in freedom of speech? How does a guy preaching on the street or a Muslim woman wearing a hajib violate or infringe on the three tenets of the German Constitution which you hold so deeply?

I don't know how many Muslims live in Germany, but what do 400 German Muslims fighting with ISIS have to do with the remainder of the Muslim population in Germany? Even if it turns out to be 1,000 how does that reflect on the tens, if not, hundreds, of thousands who are simply going about their lives in Germany? Why do they have to pay fir the crimes of the 400?

Sorry did you actually read my post? Nothing of what you wrote adresses key aspects of my post

1) of course I do value freedom of speech unless the dignity of another human is attacked. Hate speech is a crime in Germany. This is not America. Freedom of speech is not number one in our Constitution.

2) every one can preach what he or she want unless he or she is preaching against our democracy, our liberal values. See p1. Then the "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution" comes into the game.

3) for all I care people can wear bermuda shorts all day long. Of course unless someone is forced to do so, and be it by group pressure

4) as most of these 400 terrorists are German citizens we are responsible for their deeds, at least indirectly (hopefully no one makes it back to Germany alive or at least only in chains)

5) your last passage is just one big allegation and defamation. Nowhere did I say that the millions of Muslims in this country are responsible for the deeds of the 400 terrorists. Thankfully Sippenhaft was abolished a long time ago.

6) what I said: we are responsible that these extremists could develop in a parallel society

7) the time of this parallel society is over

Any more questions?

[The Fallen]

Because there is no comparison between how christianity and other religions are treated and how islam is treated here.

Nobody gives a shit if secularization or loss of "christian values" causes alienation among young fundamentalist christians, but people are demanding respect and special concern for islam.

No western country has shown a tenth of concern for gays in islamic countries that they have shown for them is christian Russia and Uganda.

Something we agree on. And let me go further and say people, such as parents who are arranging parties to forced marriages (not necessarily all arranged marriages) should be charged under anti sexual slavery laws.

Of course you can't tell people's exact circumstances without knowing them individually. What you can do is when you have to take position, take the same position about any islamic group that you would take toward their equivalent christian one.

The worst thing that has happened to ordinary muslims in the west is that apparently every muslim who is not going to blow herself/himself up or advocate terrorism is considered a moderate no matter how odious her/his other beliefs are.

Agreed.

I'm not religious (my family is Christian) and I can't remember the last time I attended church. It was either a wedding or funeral service. Nor am I Arab nor from that part of the world. So I'm not demanding respect for Islam specifically. A little less religion on everyone's part is probably better for the world. But I do believe that there should be freedom of religion and separation of church and state. And if Christians were being persecuted or shunned for practicing their religion I would defend their right to do so. But you don't find these protections in less tolerant countries, such as the Middle East, but heck, even China. And I'm critical of those countries for their intolerance. But that's also the reason I feel even more strongly that western democracies with those rights and freedom of religion shouldn't become intolerant. And I don't think we should stoop to the level of those who are against freedom and choices.

But I'm not advocating nor supporting any particular religion. Simply protection for all worshipers.

Sorry did you actually read my post? Nothing of what you wrote adresses key aspects of my post

1) of course I do value freedom of speech unless the dignity of another human is attacked. Hate speech is a crime in Germany. This is not America. Freedom of speech is not number one in our Constitution.

2) every one can preach what he or she want unless he or she is preaching against our democracy, our liberal values. See p1. Then the "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution" comes into the game.

3) for all I care people can wear bermuda shorts all day long. Of course unless someone is forced to do so, and be it by group pressure

4) as most of these 400 terrorists are German citizens we are responsible for their deeds, at least indirectly (hopefully no one makes it back to Germany alive or at least only in chains)

5) your last passage is just one big allegation and defamation. Nowhere did I say that the millions of Muslims in this country are responsible for the deeds of the 400 terrorists. Thankfully Sippenhaft was abolished a long time ago.

6) what I said: we are responsible that these extremists could develop in a parallel society

7) the time of this parallel society is over

Any more questions?

I'm not an expert on your constitution. So if a guy is preaching against it then he's responsible for the consequences of his actions.

However, with regards to Muslims, the point I was making is that if there are millions of Muslims in Germany and only 400 have been radicalized enough to go and fight for ISIS how does that constitute a serious problem? It's not even 1% (if my math is correct) of the entire Muslim population. Yet you feel that actions need to be taken. Against what and whom? It seems like an overreaction to me on your part.

[Suttree]

I linked a Guardian article.

Not even sure how to respond. The fighting between rebel militias in Syria and ISIS has been well documented. Free's comment was unequivocally false.

[WinterKing]

Apparently Maliki has deployed forces loyal to him in Bagdad and ordered the arrest of the president of Iraq.

[James Arryn]

I feel ashamed of this because we as society have failed. We allowed these extremist views to grow in a parallel society, we didnt intervene out of a misguided understanding of "cultural tolerance".

I am a bit confused. Unless they were committing crimes, how would you as a society go about disallowing the extremists to grow in your society without violating your 1st and 3rd rules? And how would you distinguish them as extremists until they committed a crime without doing the same?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Isn't this a perfect opportunity for ISIS to exploite the division and take Bagdad?

[Horza]

Sure, turning your army and security forces into a personal militia might lose you half the country but it's great for launching/defeating coups.

[Serious Callers Only]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/10/coup-underway-in-iraq/

edit: eh, i'm late

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The Caliph must be salivating at the opening this creates for his forces.

Well done Mr. Al-Maliki.

Real men of Genius!

Hear's to you Mr. Nuri Al-Malaki

Mr. Nuri Al-Malaki!

You want to keep your job as PM of the failing State of Iraq. So, you wait until you are surrounded by Islamic extremists who would like nothing more than to remove your head from your neck to divide your remaining loyal military in a coup attempt to keep your position as head of your collapsing State.

a coup!

So, you'll get to enjoy your ten minutes as the undisputed ruler of Iraq before those militants swoop in and practice the fine art of Defenstration. Here's to you!

[Clueless Northman]

You must be kidding me...

Is Maliki trying his best for the "Worst leader ever" award?

The odds of ISIS turning its attention towards Baghdad massively increased...

[jarl the climber]

You must be kidding me...

Is Maliki trying his best for the "Worst leader ever" award?

The odds of ISIS turning its attention towards Baghdad massively increased...

Well, now we know why people actually back the ISIS over this guy. As bad as they are, they look attractive next to Assad and Malaki at least to the Sunni population. I'm curious what Iran thinks about this move by Malaki?

[Clueless Northman]

Really, at this point, I'm seriously wondering who in the Iraqi leadership is actually working for ISIS...

[Horza]

Well, now we know why people actually back the ISIS over this guy. As bad as they are, they look attractive next to Assad and Malaki at least to the Sunni population. I'm curious what Iran thinks about this move by Malaki?

Likely underscores their desire to get rid of him, this sort of stuff is exactly why they'd rather have a team player.