ISIS targets pilgrims in Medina

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by bdee, Jul 4, 2016.

  1. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    They hit the Prophet's Tomb where thousands gathered for Hajj.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...-near-one-islams-holiest-sites-in-medina.html

    Third attack on pilgrims today.

    I imagine this will be considered an anomaly by those who want to characterize this a 'Islamic Terrorism'.

    The VAST majority of ISIS' victims have been Muslims. But in the past they've targeted Shia holy sites. Now they are going after Hajj.

    It lets the world know just how much reverence they have for the religion.
     
  2. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    For all those thinking ISIS attacks aimed at Paris, Brussels, and Orlando was something of a clash of cultures, here is a Google map of every car bomb set off in Baghdad since the United States left.

    Like I say, the VAST majority of ISIS' victims are Muslims. The only time people in the West seem to care is when it happens in the West.
     

    Attached Files:


  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    How much should we care? Aren't you one of the people saying we have no business being there?
     
  4. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    It is about the narratives that conservatives in this country are using to target Islam. The idea is that Muslims hate the west, as seen by certain terrorist attacks. This was the basis for Trump saying we should restrict Muslims from immigrating.

    But the fact is that ISIS lashes out at anyone that opposes them, namely Muslims in the region. But targeting Muslims on Hajj should really give you a clue as to how dedicated they are to their religion, as in trying to prevent Muslims from practicing their faith is about the worst thing one can do if one is actually a believer.

    But no, I am not advocating getting more involved. That would make things worse. We should, however, sell equipment to groups like the Peshmerga to do the job.
     
  5. Drew

    Drew Active Member

    1,883
    0
    36
    Personally I'm for pulling out of all foreign countries immediately, but not for selling weapons to the Peshmerga. That hasn't gone so well for us in the past. What's to say they won't end up as the next terrorist organization using our own weapons against us?
     
  6. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    We've sold millions of dollars worth of equipment to the Peshmerga already, they have been highly successful in pushing ISIS out of the north.

    The only way I see them turning on us, is if we, for some unknown reason, went after them.

    If we promised them an independent Kurdistan, sold them military equipment to establish that, then, at some point in the future decide to help the Iraqi government suppress that independence movement. But we've been selling them tanks, APCs, attack helicopters, etc. This would be equipment that would serve them well on the battlefield, but not as a material for a terrorist attack.

    You need to look up what the Kurds have been up to since we left. It is the only truly stable region in the country.
     
  7. Drew

    Drew Active Member

    1,883
    0
    36
    I understand that. I don't think we should have sold them a thing. Even IF they never end up using it against it I'm 100% against all foreign military sales (and foreign aid).
     
  8. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    It is predicated on the idea that anyone in the region is a potential terrorist, much like the anti-gunners would have you believe that anyone who buys an AR15 is a potential mass murderer.
     
  9. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    What we are talking about is private corporations in this country selling equipment to groups in other countries, and whether our government allows that equipment to be sold to that particular group.

    You say you're somewhat of a libertarian, how do you feel about the government restricting private businesses in that way?
     
  10. Drew

    Drew Active Member

    1,883
    0
    36
    I'm fine with private companies selling whatever they want to whoever they want. They shouldn't even need government permission. If it's military equipment paid for with tax dollars that's where I would have an issue.
     
  11. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Which is why I said sell it to them instead of give it to them.
     
  12. Drew

    Drew Active Member

    1,883
    0
    36
    If a thief breaks into my house and steals my TV it doesn't really help me if he sells it rather than gives it away. Why would it help me when it's the government? It's not like they're going to refund tax dollars. It will just be wasted on more useless government spending.
     
  13. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    http://amroali.com/2016/07/medina-r...ng-islam-they-are-actively-at-war-with-islam/
    As Medina reveals: ISIS is not hijacking Islam, it is actively at war with Islam

    Pretty much nails it.
     
  14. mdlott

    mdlott Member

    360
    8
    18
    Their Bible still says to convert, subjugate or kill the Infidels. I am one, so I guess I'll have to maintain my current position.....
     
  15. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Actually in the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are people of the book, and are to be a protected class. Any attempt to force them to convert or kill them is a violation of their religious tenants. Yes, there have been some throughout history.

    It does talk about pursuing pagans, but once they convert, they are to be treated as equals. The latter rarely happened, and is the subject of my dissertation.

    Surah 2:190-193

    However, I would remind you of what the Bible says on the same subject.

    Psalm 2
    Deuteronomy 18:9-12 ESV
     
  16. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    I think it all depends on your doctrine. Are you fundamentalist or not?

    Do you believe you should still do what it says in the older original first text, or do you follow what are in the newer text?
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    :p Yeah, protected class. You mean dhimmi?

    Let me translate bdee-speak for those who are not familiar with that language and think that "protected class" (LOL!) means something positive. Dhimmitude is a system of subjugation in islamic states. First, you have to pay a special tax to be granted the right to live (oh, how magnanimous). Minimum is 4.235 grams of gold per person per year, and there is no maximum. You must wear distinguishing dress from the muslims. You may not build a building taller than your muslim neighbors. May not enter the towns around Mecca, Medina, or Yamama. Must keep to the side of the street. No public displays of funerals or feast days. No reading the Torah aloud. NO BEARING ARMS!

    You must sign a contract agreeing to these things, or else you are an infidel enemy of islam.

    Now you know what bdee means by "protected class."

    Neat, huh?
     
  18. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    I appreciate you feeling the need to correct me, but you are not a historian, and you have demonstrated no expertise in early Islam, but few internet 'experts' actually can.

    You seem to be quoting from a document called the Pact of Umar. One thing you need to realize is that the document is forged and has no bearing on how those in the dhimmi class were actually treated.
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Like you, I suppose? Given your previous dishonesty displayed here, I will say no thanks.
     
  20. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    I have a Master's Degree in the subject, and I am currently writing my dissertation on the relationship between Arabs and early converts within Islam, so yeah, I am the expert here.

    But, yes, quoting a forged and widely discredited document to demonstrate your expertise, as well as some sort of anti-Islam agenda, then there is little education can do for you.