Show Discussions [Tv, Tv Tv, Tv, Sports, Sports, Sports, Call of duty, Dog Edition]

Jet wrote:
How did you decide islamic terror is worse than ours? Whats the criteria?

Jet wrote:
How does the MSM not condemning the obviously condemnable passages that muslims in western society are not following make any difference whatsoever? An real fear from counterterrorist forces there is alienating further the muslim community, which only makes it easier for extremists to recruit and harder to prevent this happening in the future.

Jet wrote:That article echoes the same words as the last one you posted....the friendly atheist.

Jet wrote:

Well for one we could try building an actual coalition of nations, of which the US could be a part of. This would involve appealing to the UN security council for a declaration of a threat to peace. The council would then organize a response.

But thats assuming you want to do something, I don't know....legal.

Jet wrote:
Whats to stop them from simply ignoring the removal should that happen? Or commiting the same acts under a different justification?  

Jet wrote:
How did we?

Jet wrote:And of course a double standard
http://news.sky.com/story/1407536/dieudonne-faces-trial-over-charlie-hebdo-post
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/

Jec wrote:

Jet wrote:And of course a double standard
http://news.sky.com/story/1407536/dieudonne-faces-trial-over-charlie-hebdo-post
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/

Of course there's hypocrisy... France is trying to project a calm united face to the world, but clearly they will be upset and emotional after the attack.
At least he's getting a trial and not getting beheaded.

Jec wrote:

Jet wrote:
How did you decide islamic terror is worse than ours? Whats the criteria?

I've already given the criteria why I think islamic terror is worse. One has economic rationality in which at least a single party receives benefits while the other one only bring death, destruction and poverty to all sides. This is clearly subjective I guess. Take into account that the main victims of islamic terrorism are muslims themselves (The school shooting in Pakistan, the village burning in Nigeria, the car bombs in iraq, etc...)

Jet wrote:
How does the MSM not condemning the obviously condemnable passages that muslims in western society are not following make any difference whatsoever? An real fear from counterterrorist forces there is alienating further the muslim community, which only makes it easier for extremists to recruit and harder to prevent this happening in the future.

jec wrote:
The islamic community is alienated for their failure to assimilate to western values. Since they can't beat their wives and prohibit younger people, etc freely under European law. Of course this alienation makes them easy target for recruiters but this is a cultural problem which must be analyzed from all sides, not just the assolutionist attitude of writing off Europeans as racists...

Jet wrote:

Well for one we could try building an actual coalition of nations, of which the US could be a part of. This would involve appealing to the UN security council for a declaration of a threat to peace. The council would then organize a response.

But thats assuming you want to do something, I don't know....legal.

jec wrote:
That's already happening...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Countries_and_groups_at_war_with_ISIL

Jet wrote:
Whats to stop them from simply ignoring the removal should that happen? Or commiting the same acts under a different justification?

jec wrote:
Some might ignore, but the moderate consensus should be enough. Of course this will take a generation or two which newborn muslims are educated to ignore violence in the Koran which will make them harder to recruit for future terrorist organizations.

Jet wrote:
How did we?

jec wrote:
By reducing footprint in the middle east... letting them decide their new rulers following the Arab Spring, letting them manipulate the price of oil how they see fit...

Jet wrote:
From the perspective of islamic terrorists their aim is not just to kill but to introduce fear into the societies they attack.

Jet wrote:
How reductive. They arent condemning the condemnable passages because they arent being practiced in France.

Jet wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/legal-basis-war-isis-syria-islamic-state

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/11/09/despite-growing-coalition-against-islamic-state-shouldering-most-air-campaign/WYj1UiefBpL7OsxMu1xCXL/story.html

Jet wrote:

The vast majority of radical ideology and funding comes from Saudi Arabia as previously discussed. The notion that this is just going to be allowed by their government is quite a stretch. Even then they would just state their grievances with imperialism(which is at the heart of this already) instead of stating their grievances as both religious and political, as it is now.

Jet wrote:
You dont seriously believe thats the big move we must do to reciprocate change? We still had a presence there. As long as we are seen as an occupying force perceptions will remain

Jet wrote: From the perspective of islamic terrorists their aim is not just to kill but to introduce fear into the societies they attack.

jec wrote: No, actually their aims are completely altruistic towards the muslim community (It makes perfect sense from an economical point of view, the don't consider what they do terrorism, that's a label the west gave them ). Their results however, are not. This is the difference and the reason I see one worse than the other. Despite their motives and their goals, they achieve non of it... the west on the other hand at least gets to reap socio-economic benefits. Bin Laden achieved nothing, there's still presence... Palestine isn't free and there's only a bunch of dead Muslims, mostly caused by extremists themselves.

Bin Laden wrote:"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript. He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers." "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said. He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States. "Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars. The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion. The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department. "It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. "And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy." As for President Bush's Iraq policy, Bin Laden said, "the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America. "So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future," bin Laden said.

Jet wrote: How reductive. They arent condemning the condemnable passages because they arent being practiced in France.

jec wrote: Except some of them are (I mean honestly, by having so many western newspapers censoring the prophet... it pretty much implies we are living under Sharia Blasphemy laws)...

Hypocrisy wrote:Well that didn't take long. Just three days after the French government hosted dozens of foreign leaders in a "unity rally" to defend free speech in the wake of last week's shooting at the Charlie Hebdo magazine, France has begun arresting its citizens for actually exercising free speech. According to news reports, more than 50 French citizens were arrested today and charged with offensive speech — the same kind of speech that was the trademark of of the Charlie Hebdo publication. None of those arrested were charged with links to terrorism or any real crime. Instead, they are facing up to seven years in prison for making statements the French authorities claim are supportive of the shootings or are anti-Semitic. New directives from the French Justice Ministry provided the legal basis for arresting those deemed "supportive" of the attacks or who express anti-Semitic or racist sentiment. Anti-Muslim sentiment was not included in the government's new arrest orders, despite a dramatic spike in actual attacks on French Muslims since the shootings. The justice ministry claimed the new anti-speech measures were necessary to protect freedom of expression. Among those arrested is controversial French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, charged with being "an apologist for terrorism" and facing jail time over a Facebook post making fun of Sunday's "unity rally." Exercising free speech by making fun of the French government as it celebrates free speech is apparently a crime. The French government has long banned Dieudonné's comedy performances over his controversial jokes, even as French authorities celebrate Charlie Hebdo's controversial jokes. Those arrested for exercising free speech in France will be charged under "special measures" put into place after the shooting, which provide for immediate sentencing of the accused. Some 130,000 military and security forces have been deployed on the streets of France and ordered to keep a particular eye on incidents that could bring violence against the police.

Hypocrisy wrote:In the wake of the Paris terror attacks on the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, a number of other instances of censorship and terrorism against artists and satirists have been ignored – perhaps even deliberately – by the mainstream media. The cartoonist Mohammad Saba’aneh was arrested at the Allenby Bridge checkpoint in Israel and sentenced by the Israeli Salem Military Court in April of 2013 for “contact with a hostile organization.” But Saba’aneh and his supporters say that this was all backlash against his political cartoons, by the State that he was so critical of. Saba’aneh was held without charge from the beginning. The military courts couldn’t decide if they wanted to have formal charges brought against a political cartoonist, so they just held him indefinitely, extending his detention. Meanwhile, his attorney protested that there was no evidence Saba’aneh had committed any offense whatsoever. But that didn’t matter to the State, or to the media abroad which completely ignored this case. The State alleged that Saba’aneh had contacted a publishing company about publishing his cartoons in a book. That Jordanian publisher also put out a book about Palestinian prisoners. The State of Israel said that this book was a threat to national security. Saba’aneh’s contact with this publisher was thereby used as a pretext to lock up the controversial cartoonist before he could connect with a broader audience via this publishing house. Saba’aneh was ultimately sentenced to five months in jail after serving out his informal and continuously extended detention. He was also fined 10,000 shekels for his “contact with a hostile organization.” His brother, Adel Saba’aneh said that, “The only thing Mohammad did was contact a publisher in Amman who publishes a book about Palestinian prisoners.” Adel Saba’aneh commented on the conditions he was kept in for months without formal charges being brought: “He’s sick, he was transported to a different place every few days and a pre-existing intestinal condition was aggravated because of the prison food.” “In similar cases, the lawyers say people are often released, but the authorities were determined to convict Mohammad. The longer he would refuse to confess, the higher the sentence would be. They would not let him go.” So while you are reading all about freedom of speech and the like, in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo bombing, remember that Muslims are not the only ones to send men with guns to come after journalists and political cartoonists. They just happen to be the only ones that the mainstream media focuses on. http://www.mintpressnews.com/no-outrage-palestinian-cartoonist-arrested-jailed-israel/200692/

Hypocrisy wrote:On February 2, 2011, President Obama called Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The two discussed counterterrorism cooperation and the battle against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. At the end of the call, according to a White House read-out, Obama "expressed concern" over the release of a man named Abdulelah Haider Shaye, whom Obama said "had been sentenced to five years in prison for his association with AQAP." It turned out that Shaye had not yet been released at the time of the call, but Saleh did have a pardon for him prepared and was ready to sign it. It would not have been unusual for the White House to express concern about Yemen's allowing AQAP suspects to go free. Suspicious prison breaks of Islamist militants in Yemen had been a regular occurrence over the past decade, and Saleh has been known to exploit the threat of terrorism to leverage counterterrorism dollars from the United States. But this case was different. Abdulelah Haider Shaye is not an Islamist militant or an Al Qaeda operative. He is a journalist. Take Action: Free Abdulelah Shaye Unlike most journalists covering Al Qaeda, Shaye risked his life to travel to areas controlled by Al Qaeda and to interview its leaders. He also conducted several interviews with the radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki. Shaye did the last known interview with Awlaki just before it was revealed that Awlaki, a US citizen, was on a CIA/JSOC hit list. "We were only exposed to Western media and Arab media funded by the West, which depicts only one image of Al Qaeda," recalls his best friend Kamal Sharaf, a well-known dissident Yemeni political cartoonist. "But Abdulelah brought a different viewpoint." Shaye had no reverence for Al Qaeda, but viewed the group as an important story, according to Sharaf. Shaye was able to get access to Al Qaeda figures in part due to his relationship, through marriage, to the radical Islamic cleric Abdul Majid al Zindani, the founder of Iman University and a US Treasury Department–designated terrorist. While Sharaf acknowledged that Shaye used his connections to gain access to Al Qaeda, he adds that Shaye also "boldly" criticized Zindani and his supporters: "He said the truth with no fear." While Shaye, 35, had long been known as a brave, independent-minded journalist in Yemen, his collision course with the US government appears to have been set in December 2009. On December 17, the Yemeni government announced that it had conducted a series of strikes against an Al Qaeda training camp in the village of al Majala in Yemen's southern Abyan province, killing a number of Al Qaeda militants. As the story spread across the world, Shaye traveled to al Majala. What he discovered were the remnants of Tomahawk cruise missiles and cluster bombs, neither of which are in the Yemeni military's arsenal. He photographed the missile parts, some of them bearing the label "Made in the USA," and distributed the photos to international media outlets. He revealed that among the victims of the strike were women, children and the elderly. To be exact, fourteen women and twenty-one children were killed. Whether anyone actually active in Al Qaeda was killed remains hotly contested. After conducting his own investigation, Shaye determined that it was a US strike. The Pentagon would not comment on the strike and the Yemeni government repeatedly denied US involvement. But Shaye was later vindicated when Wikileaks released a US diplomatic cable that featured Yemeni officials joking about how they lied to their own parliament about the US role, while President Saleh assured Gen. David Petraeus that his government would continue to lie and say "the bombs are ours, not yours." Seven months after the Majala bombing, in July 2010, Sharaf and Shaye were out running errands. Sharaf popped into a supermarket, while Shaye waited outside. When Sharaf came out of the store, he recalls, "I saw armed men grabbing him and taking him to a car." The men, it turned out, were Yemeni intelligence agents. They snatched Shaye, hooded him and took him to an undisclosed location. The agents, according to Sharaf, threatened Shaye and warned him against making further statements on TV. Shaye's reports on the Majala bombing and his criticism of the US and Yemeni governments, Sharaf said, "pushed the regime to kidnap him. One of the interrogators told him, ‘We will destroy your life if you keep on talking about this issue.'" Eventually, in the middle of the night, Shaye was dumped back onto a street and released. "Abdulelah was threatened many times over the phone by the Political Security and then he was kidnapped for the first time, beaten and investigated over his statements and analysis on the Majala bombing and the US war against terrorism in Yemen," says Shaye's lawyer, Abdulrahman Barman. "I believe he was arrested upon a request from the US."
This one is longer still
http://m.thenation.com/article/166757-why-president-obama-keeping-journalist-prison-yemen

Jet wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/legal-basis-war-isis-syria-islamic-state http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/11/09/despite-growing-coalition-against-islamic-state-shouldering-most-air-campaign/WYj1UiefBpL7OsxMu1xCXL/story.html

jec wrote: "A fifth exception, and one asserted in August 2013 by the UK government with regard to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, is humanitarian intervention in circumstances involving “overwhelming humanitarian necessity”" Weather the Syrian regime used chemical weapons or not, is up to debate....

Jet wrote: The vast majority of radical ideology and funding comes from Saudi Arabia as previously discussed. The notion that this is just going to be allowed by their government is quite a stretch. Even then they would just state their grievances with imperialism(which is at the heart of this already) instead of stating their grievances as both religious and political, as it is now.

jec wrote: I doubt funding comes from Saudi Arabia... most extremist funding comes from poppy (heroin and opium) and arms dealing

With allies like these who needs enemies wrote:
"This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop," said Gen Shaw. "And the question then is 'does bombing people over there really tackle that?' I don't think so. I'd far rather see a much stronger handle on the ideological battle rather than the physical battle." Gen Shaw, 57, retired from the Army after a 31-year career that saw him lead a platoon of paratroopers in the Battle of Mount Longdon, the bloodiest clash of the Falklands War, and oversee Britain's withdrawal from Basra in southern Iraq. As Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, he specialised in counter-terrorism and security policy. All this has made him acutely aware of the limitations of what force can achieve. He believes that Isil can only be defeated by political and ideological means. Western air strikes in Iraq and Syria will, in his view, achieve nothing except temporary tactical success. When it comes to waging that ideological struggle, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are pivotal. "The root problem is that those two countries are the only two countries in the world where Wahhabi Salafism is the state religion – and Isil is a violent expression of Wahabist Salafism," said Gen Shaw. "The primary threat of Isil is not to us in the West: it's to Saudi Arabia and also to the other Gulf states." Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are playing small parts in the air campaign against Isil, contributing two and four jet fighters respectively. But Gen Shaw said they "should be in the forefront" and, above all, leading an ideological counter-revolution against Isil. The British and American air campaign would not "stop the support of people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity," added Gen Shaw. "It's missing the point. It might, if it works, solve the immediate tactical problem. It's not addressing the fundamental problem of Wahhabi Salafism as a culture and a creed, which has got out of control and is still the ideological basis of Isil – and which will continue to exist even if we stop their advance in Iraq." Gen Shaw said the Government's approach towards Isil was fundamentally mistaken. "People are still treating this as a military problem, which is in my view to misconceive the problem," he added. "My systemic worry is that we're repeating the mistakes that we made in Afghanistan and Iraq: putting the military far too up front and centre in our response to the threat without addressing the fundamental political question and the causes. The danger is that yet again we're taking a symptomatic treatment not a causal one." Gen Shaw said that Isil's main focus was on toppling the established regimes of the Middle East, not striking Western targets. He questioned whether Isil's murder of two British and two American hostages was sufficient justification for the campaign. "Isil made their big incursion into Iraq in June. The West did nothing, despite thousands of people being killed," said Gen Shaw. "What's changed in the last month? Beheadings on TV of Westerners. And that has led us to suddenly change our policy and suddenly launch air attacks." He believes that Isil might have murdered the hostages in order to provoke a military response from America and Britain which could then be portrayed as a Christian assault on Islam. "What possible advantage is there to Isil of bringing us into this campaign?" asked Gen Shaw. "Answer: to unite the Muslim world against the Christian world. We played into their hands. We've done what they wanted us to do." However, Gen Shaw's analysis is open to question. Even if they had the will, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar may be incapable of leading an ideological struggle against Isil. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is 91 and only sporadically active. His chosen successor, Crown Prince Salman, is 78 and already believed to be declining into senility. The kingdom's ossified leadership is likely to be paralysed for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile in Qatar, the new Emir, Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, is only 34 in a region that respects age. Whether this Harrow and Sandhurst-educated ruler has the personal authority to lead an ideological counter-revolution within Islam is doubtful. Given that Saudi Arabia and Qatar almost certainly cannot do what Gen Shaw believes to be necessary, the West may have no option except to take military action against Isil with the aim of reducing, if not eliminating, the terrorist threat. "I just have a horrible feeling that we're making things worse. We're entering into this in a way we just don't understand," said Gen Shaw. "I'm against the principle of us attacking without a clear political plan."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

Jet wrote: You dont seriously believe thats the big move we must do to reciprocate change? We still had a presence there. As long as we are seen as an occupying force perceptions will remain

jec wrote: Baby steps...we can't deny the dangers that radical groups impose on western culture.

Jet wrote:
 Ok granted they may not consider what they do 'terrorism', but thats missing the entire point. I will reiterate:   Their goals are to bring the societies they attack into a state of fear so that they do overreact and further marginalize their muslim communities. When that is done it creates the environment for more muslims to become radicalized, thus continuing attacks on the west. In addition they want our governments to overextend themselves. Likewise bin laden DID achieve what he wanted.

Jet wrote:
Ughhhhhhh some countries we hold up as bastions of free speech democracies already DO have censorship laws INCLUDING france. You can argue that the denial of holocaust laws might have made sense when they were created but how can you not see the hypocrisy here.

Jet wrote:
Its legality is tenuous at best.  

Wall of text wrote:  "The root problem is that those two countries are the only two countries in the world where Wahhabi Salafism is the state religion – and Isil is a violent expression of Wahabist Salafism," said Gen Shaw.  

Jet wrote:
It starts with US, the ones still standing after all this mess. The thing we can affect the most are our own governments actions not to mention it gives credibility to any arguments when we actually try to make change ourselves.

Jet wrote: Ok granted they may not consider what they do 'terrorism', but thats missing the entire point. I will reiterate: Their goals are to bring the societies they attack into a state of fear so that they do overreact and further marginalize their muslim communities. When that is done it creates the environment for more muslims to become radicalized, thus continuing attacks on the west. In addition they want our governments to overextend themselves. Likewise bin laden DID achieve what he wanted.

jec wrote: Except that isn't their goal, that's their MO. The motivations and goals of islamic extremists, supposedly, and by their own world is restoration and rejection of western culture and values that contradict those of Islam. Every islamic organization has different goals... ISIL wants to restore the Caliphate based on the supposed lineage of their leader traced back to Muhammed himself... Boko Haram considers any "western knowledge" a bad thing and wants to rid central Africa from any of that...Al Qaueda... well, I don't know what the fuck they want... The Taliban is similar to Boko Haram... and so forth...

jec wrote: I think you're not understanding that I'm judging the "relative evilness" of both sides by their results, not their goals, not their motivation (Although I think wanting to keep people ignorant of scientific knowledge a horrendous act, that is sadly being replicated in the west by conservatives).

jec wrote: Bin Laden giving himself credit for the economic crisis is ridiculous... if anything, historically, wars not fought on the mainland are huge economic boosts (WWI and WWII are the reasons the US climbed the podium in the XX century)... The 2008 crisis and even the deficit were caused by completely different things.

Jet wrote: Ughhhhhhh some countries we hold up as bastions of free speech democracies already DO have censorship laws INCLUDING france. You can argue that the denial of holocaust laws might have made sense when they were created but how can you not see the hypocrisy here.

jec wrote:Do any of the bastions of free speech censor people based on satire of ideas like religion?

jec wrote: Have the bastions of free speech censor and arrested people for inciting violence and applauding acts of violence? Yes... all the time... this is the problem with putting unequal things on equal terms...

Jet wrote: Its legality is tenuous at best.

jec wrote: International law is molded by the powerful. International platforms like the UN, NATO, etc only project the power of the most powerful and legitimize it at an international level. Looking for the international legality of an action is moot considering that a powerful nation could just have a resolution passed and changes the law.

Wall of text wrote: "The root problem is that those two countries are the only two countries in the world where Wahhabi Salafism is the state religion – and Isil is a violent expression of Wahabist Salafism," said Gen Shaw.

jec wrote: I thought we were talking about money funding... But analyzing that text...

jec wrote: That statement is wrong... First off... Wahhabism and Salafism are two separate things... Second of all, in both Qatar and Saudi Arabia, those two idiologies don't constitute even the simple majority... 22% in Quatar... 40% in Saudi Arabia...Third, Wahhabism - Salafism are not religions per se, just movements inside Islam so it doesn't make sense to consider those ideologies "state religion". Fourth, ISIL is Sunni islam in it's purest form... They are literally trying to unite islam under someone of the prophet's descent...

Ali Ahmed wrote:
Nope.
Q:What is the role of the religious hierarchy in Saudi Arabia in relationship to the government?

A:The religious hierarchy is a governmental institution. Their role is to justify anything the government wants to do, using religious authentication.

Q:... You mean they're paid by the government?

A: Yes, they are. The religious institution in Saudi Arabia is paid and hired and chosen by the government.

Q: So there's no separation of church and state?

A: No separation between the Salafi institution and the Saudi government.

Q: You say "Salafi institution." What does that mean?

A: Salafi is an understanding of Islam which starts in Saudi Arabia 200 years ago. And it is the official sect in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government adopts the Salafi understanding of Islam and implement it on all Saudis.

Q:Salafi to us is what we call Wahhabi? Is that the same thing?

A: Yes. Salafi is what you call in the West Wahhabi.

Q: Bin Laden learned this [intolerance] in Saudi Arabia. That message that Bin Laden received still is taught in Saudi Arabia. And if bin Laden dies, and this policy or curriculum stays, we will have other bin Ladens. And so then Prince Bandar is right when he says to us, "There is no Wahhabi sect, and this is a misunderstanding," that it's a fundamentalist sect that leads to extremism?

A: Well, they don't say it's a sect. The Salafis do not say they are a sect. They say they are a movement, a religious renewal movement. But it is, in practically, a sect, because it differs from everybody else, from Sunni Muslims and from Shi'a Muslims. And they have different ideas about life, about God, about religion, about relationship between men and among each other, which is totally different, probably, from the general Islam [ideas].

Q: ... You say totally different. Why totally different? ...

A:It's intolerant toward other Muslims who are not Salafis. You can see a book that is printed [by] a branch of Imam Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud University in Washington area, and they printed this book where they say that 95 percent of Muslims are claimant to Islam, ... [that] they are not called Muslims. They are claimant to Islam, or claim to be Muslims.

Q: So the official religion of Saudi Arabia says that 95 percent of people who say they're Islamic are just claiming to be Islamic?

A: Exactly. This is what is reflected in the textbook, and the books that [are] printed by the government. ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/ahmed.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

jec wrote:How is it that they are getting ideologically funded by Saudi Arabia?

Ali Al Ahmed wrote:

A: Yes. That's true. The Saudi government has systematically financed the propagation of Salafi Islam, by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on three out of seven universities in Saudi Arabia [that] are religious universities. They built thousands of mosques around the world, including the United States. They have given free scholarships to non-Saudis, to come and study Salafi and become Salafi. They sent 2,000 Salafi clerics around the world every summer. They print books by the millions in every languages to promote Salafi Islam. They have conventions, conferences. They spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars supporting the Salafi thinking of Islam. They do not support Sunni Islam, they don't support Shi'a Islam. And I noted that, in our report about religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, they don't give money to other Muslims. If they were interested in spreading Islam, they don't give other Muslims. This is the government. ...

Q:Are there any other excerpts you want to read to us from any of these books? It says here, it says number four: It is permissible in Islam to destroy, burn, and vandalize the fortresses of kofar.

A: American or Christians are kofar. And everything that they destroy, everything that they use ... against Muslims ... if the destruction was to support Islam and destroy the kofar. This is very hard.

Q: And Americans are kofar? Yes. American. The United States of America. Why is that?

A: Because you're non-Muslim. You're non-Muslim. You are kofar because you have denials of God. This is what this [is].

Q: And this is an official ... printed by the government?

A: This is an official book. This is printed, yes. This is for ninth grade, printed by the year 2000. This says here, the minister of education decided to teach this book, and print it on its own cost. And this is the first page. And it's distributed... This is to school curriculum. It's taught. It's mandatory for ninth graders in Saudi Arabia.

jec wrote:The only similarity I see is that they are both majority Sunni, and if anything, SA would want to weaken ISIL in any way possible... ISIL threatens the SA monarchy since their ultimate victory would be capturing Mecca and Medina.

Jet wrote: It starts with US, the ones still standing after all this mess. The thing we can affect the most are our own governments actions not to mention it gives credibility to any arguments when we actually try to make change ourselves.

jec wrote: I think the changes have to happen at the same time. The US is never gonna leave if it perceives violence from religious extremists...

Jet wrote:
No its a goal http://www.terrorism-research.com/goals/ Just as ISIS attempting to establish a caliphate is

Jet wrote:
He may not have toppled us economically but he did cause considerable damage http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/bin-ladens-war-against-the-us-economy/2011/04/27/AFDOPjfF_blog.html

Jet wrote:

Yes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Jet wrote:
How was the cartoonist Mohammad Sabbanneh inciting violence? How was the journalist Habedullah Haider Shaye?

Jet wrote:
International law is the only legal recourse we have. Unless you're okay with the widespread use of banned chemical weapons the international laws should be abided by.

Jet wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242073

Ali Al Ahmed wrote:

Ali Al who?

Jet wrote:
Saudi Arabia provides the ideological basis for extremists like ISIS both through its education and its funding. Its not alone in this.

Jet wrote:  
Simultaneous change would be best. But know not to expect meaningful change from others without bringing about some within ourselves.

Jet wrote:
No its a goal http://www.terrorism-research.com/goals/ Just as ISIS attempting to establish a caliphate is

jec wrote:
But for the sake of argument lets say those are indeed goals... You still find it difficult to see why I, and many others consider "Produce widespread fear", "Satisfy Revenge", destruction for the sake of destruction as "evil-ler" than other types of action? Ever heard of the alignment system from D&D? I see islamic terrorism as chaotic evil.

Jet wrote:
He may not have toppled us economically but he did cause considerable damage http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/bin-ladens-war-against-the-us-economy/2011/04/27/AFDOPjfF_blog.html

jec wrote:
Still NOPE... The government is just a one part of the economy... and even if it was damage it's debatable. Saying that they bankrupt the USSR is moot considering their government [b[was[/b] the economy...

Jet wrote:

Yes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

jec wrote:
You are equaling two unequal things again. In the west is common to see living people take legal action against people who spread lies and misinformation about them, in Colombia we call it (Injuria y calumnia - Injury and lie), like when celebrities take tabloids to court over allegations. No one's going to jail just for mocking a religion, a policy or a sociopolitical ideology...

Jet wrote:
How was the cartoonist Mohammad Sabbanneh inciting violence? How was the journalist Habedullah Haider Shaye?

jec wrote:
By probably by suggesting condoning the acts of the terrorists?

Jet wrote:
International law is the only legal recourse we have. Unless you're okay with the widespread use of banned chemical weapons the international laws should be abided by.

jec wrote:
My point is that international law can be changed to suit the needs of the powerful at any given time. Using them to make a point is moot.

Jet wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242073

Alright I guess. They fund two.... two or three islamic groups (ISIL not included)... *rolls eyes*

jec wrote:
Ali Al who?

Jet wrote:
Saudi Arabia provides the ideological basis for extremists like ISIS both through its education and its funding. Its not alone in this.

jec wrote:
Even so, the ideological funding does not come from SA's government intentionally... I think it's funny thinking back at how the world flipped out when Bill Maher said Sam Harris said the Islamic world has too much in common with ISIL, the Salafi movement is not exclusive to SA

Jet wrote:  
Simultaneous change would be best. But know not to expect meaningful change from others without bringing about some within ourselves.

jec wrote:
...and viceversa...

Jet wrote:
They arent destroying for the sake of destroying....

Jet wrote:
We were economically damaged as a consequence of his attack, not bankrupted.

Jet wrote:
Dude wtf he lost his job....thats censorship. Stop moving the goal post.

Jet wrote:
When did they condone terrorism?

Jet wrote:
If international law is changed you should take a look at why and who it benefits.

Jet wrote:
They fund groups not just financially, but ideologically.  They also spread the ideology through more than direct funneling. Read the article.

Jet wrote:
The Saudi government KNOWS whats going on, so it does have its tacit approval. And obviously the Salafi movement is not exclusive to Saudi Arabia, theyve been spreading it worldwide for years. As was stated in the articles. Again, not exclusively SA

Jet wrote:  
Simultaneous change would be best. But know not to expect meaningful change from others without bringing about some within ourselves.

jec wrote:
...and viceversa...

Eri wrote:so many times i open this thread by accident. i wanna know what yall are talking about ...but too much text

Jet wrote: They arent destroying for the sake of destroying....

jec wrote: But that's all they are achieving...

Jet wrote: We were economically damaged as a consequence of his attack, not bankrupted.

jec wrote:By what? The debt? That thing that doesn't honestly have real consequences with the monetary system we have?

Jet wrote: Dude wtf he lost his job....thats censorship. Stop moving the goal post.

jec wrote: I'm not moving the goal post...I asked if the west has censored legally someone for mocking the idea or tenents of religion... that Sarcozy case is when someone mocks a living person directly... They are two different things...

Jet wrote: When did they condone terrorism?

jec wrote: I dunno, but that's what they are accusing him for...

Jet wrote: If international law is changed you should take a look at why and who it benefits.

jec wrote: Yeah... and? .

Jet wrote: They fund groups not just financially, but ideologically. They also spread the ideology through more than direct funneling. Read the article.

jec wrote: Alright, I concede the point on the financial funding... Ideologically, I'm not convinced, at least not on ISIL's case.

Jet wrote: The Saudi government KNOWS whats going on, so it does have its tacit approval. And obviously the Salafi movement is not exclusive to Saudi Arabia, theyve been spreading it worldwide for years. As was stated in the articles. Again, not exclusively SA

jec wrote: But they have cracked down on it... how can you say the government approves it? Your article states it: "There has been some progress. This year US officials reported that al-Qaida's fundraising ability had "deteriorated substantially" since a government crackdown. As a result Bin Laden's group was "in its weakest state since 9/11" in Saudi Arabia."

jec wrote: SA's monarchy does not benefit from letting Sunni extremist win....

Jet wrote: Simultaneous change would be best. But know not to expect meaningful change from others without bringing about some within ourselves.

jec wrote: ...and viceversa...

jec wrote: I do... and everyone applauds... people ask for changes to Islam... everyone condemns... That has been my whole point...

Eri wrote:ohhh. war is bad. Mkay

Jet wrote:
No it isnt.  

Jet wrote:
By virtue of all the money spent needlessly on a war we didnt need to fight could have been better served on our citizens.

Jet wrote:

Frankly I dont see the point in the distinction when hes still being charged with anti semitism
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/15/393255/Charlie-Hebdo-lying-about-free-speech

Moreover the hypocrisy isnt limited to religious censorship.

Jet wrote:
Yes the state is claiming the condoning of terrorism without any proof and unjustly imprisons someone with that justification.  Werent you just making a point about government propaganda?

Jet wrote:
Thats another point against our supposed superior morality

Jet wrote:
They are building schools through their funding and encouraging the practice of wahhbism even within their own state. Thats spreading it ideologically. I dont believe its a stretch that some of those people would go on to radicalize others.

Jet wrote:
Yet they still allow the teachings of Wahhbism as the state sponsored religion. It has to do with the alliance between the Saud family and the clerics who control the education system. Again, I can only stress you read the articles I posted.  

Jet wrote:
I cant speak for everyone as there are some who arent reasonable, but it probably has more to do with the way that is asked. Ive seen many people "ask" for changes in islam through hostile rhetoric. Rarely is that followed by any mention of our own culpability.

Jet wrote:
No it isnt.

jec wrote:No? Then explain, from a utilitaristic point of view, the benefits that have befallen the general populace of the islamic world from the actions of the discussed organizations and how those benefits exceed those gained by the west.

jec wrote:And after that please explain how casualties befallen from collateral damage just as bad as systematically targeting of innocent civilians.

Jet wrote:
By virtue of all the money spent needlessly on a war we didnt need to fight could have been better served on our citizens.

jec wrote:
Really? That's weak...
If we go back and analyze every monetary decision ever made...

Jet wrote:

Frankly I dont see the point in the distinction when hes still being charged with anti semitism
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/15/393255/Charlie-Hebdo-lying-about-free-speech

Moreover the hypocrisy isnt limited to religious censorship.

jec wrote:
The distinction is needed because one is a form of censorship from a legal basis in the western world and the other isn't.... Anti-Semitism isn't the same as just mocking or rejecting the ideals of Judaism, but also discriminatory practices and violent attacks which could lead to actual harm to real, breathing people. Discrimination is illegal in many western states because of this...

Jet wrote:
Yes the state is claiming the condoning of terrorism without any proof and unjustly imprisons someone with that justification. Werent you just making a point about government propaganda?

jec wrote:
And that's why he's most likely gonna go free since as you said yourself, they have no proof...

Jet wrote:
They are building schools through their funding and encouraging the practice of wahhbism even within their own state. Thats spreading it ideologically. I dont believe its a stretch that some of those people would go on to radicalize others.

jec wrote:
By that logic the state of Costa Rica encourages the systematic butt fucking of children by catholic priests since that's their state religion and they also build catholic schools all over the place. Any form of teaching can be corrupted and twisted to suit one's psychopathic desires...

Jet wrote:
Yet they still allow the teachings of Wahhbism as the state sponsored religion. It has to do with the alliance between the Saud family and the clerics who control the education system. Again, I can only stress you read the articles I posted.

jec wrote:

But hey (II), let's say its true.... lets say radicalization is caused because some governments adhere to wahhabism and thus, wahhabism is common in a large percent of the Muslim crowd and taking into account that wahhabism starts in the eighteenth century, we should thus blame the inherently violent nature of the religion as the main source of islamic extremism...(I do this because your whole point with SA sounds contrary to your former points of blaming most of it on the west)

Jet wrote:
I cant speak for everyone as there are some who arent reasonable, but it probably has more to do with the way that is asked. Ive seen many people "ask" for changes in islam through hostile rhetoric. Rarely is that followed by any mention of our own culpability.

jec wrote:
Because that's all MSM allows you to see. The media has to cuddle muslims by calling to their debates, civilized and sliver tongued muslim apologists vs easy to write off as racists biggots far right extremists. I suppose I can't blame them, the last time some media outlet stood up to islam, it got 12 of its staff members killed.

Jet wrote:
Ive already explained the benefits that have befallen Muslim Extremists(Not regular everyday muslims) is in giving them exactly what they want. Which is the attention of the world, to make themselves be seen as a bigger threat to the west than they really are. The 'clash of civilizations' ideal that you are helping propel. They want citizens to overreact and ostracize the muslim community, which, again only helps recruit them to their cause.

Jet wrote:
Though I suspect if we were to measure by body count we'd find weve killed a lot more in the ME alone than extremists have of us. I simply dont view the worst of us as any more moral than the worst of them.

Jet wrote:
Im sure the people who have gone to bed hungry and could have used healthcare with some of the trillions spent in the last decade would agree with you.

Jet wrote:
French Law on free speech is hypocritical and contradictory. They dont have to comform to US standards but if youre going to have a rally on the basis of free speech you better make sure that it is equally free. Even Bill could see that tonight.

Jet wrote:
So you dont see anything wrong with being jailed for months in israel with no charge or likewise years in yemen at the behest of the US?

Jet wrote:
So youre saying the spread of the extremist ideology has no bearing in the radicalization?

Jet wrote:
There are many more peaceful muslims than there are those who go out and kill and that has been so for years, so that premise falls flat. Also to absolve ourselves of the role our government played would be to ignore how Iraq went from this

Jet wrote:
The sort of vitriol I see on social media and article comments not so much MSM(outside of fox which is a joke) just like you do. Just as there are apologists their right/left wing counterparts who place the blame, again, solely on islam exist as well.

Jet wrote:
Ive already explained the benefits that have befallen Muslim Extremists(Not regular everyday muslims) is in giving them exactly what they want. Which is the attention of the world, to make themselves be seen as a bigger threat to the west than they really are. The 'clash of civilizations' ideal that you are helping propel. They want citizens to overreact and ostracize the muslim community, which, again only helps recruit them to their cause.

jec wrote:
Yeah.... that's the problem... it benefits only a few Islamic commanders who end up dead sooner or later, and if they "achieve" something, it's usually in the detriment of everyone.
My comparison is with the enterprise it creates in the west. For example, a lot of innocent civilians work for private/public military firms both directly and indirectly. War is described as using a 100 million dollar aircraft, dropping a 60 grand bomb on a 10 dollar tent... what you are not seeing is that to build those aircraft and bombs, you have to use outside parties for parts. In other words, stimulating economic activity in which dividends benefit all those directly and indirectly involved...

Jet wrote:
Though I suspect if we were to measure by body count we'd find weve killed a lot more in the ME alone than extremists have of us. I simply dont view the worst of us as any more moral than the worst of them.

jec wrote:
That's not true... The 2011 NCTC report found that the vast majority of deaths from religious terrorism were in fact Muslims. " In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years."

Jet wrote:
Im sure the people who have gone to bed hungry and could have used healthcare with some of the trillions spent in the last decade would agree with you.

jec wrote:
Really? Osama Bin Laden is the blame to why people in the US went hungry (Thus damaging the economy) and not say, corporate greed and the non existing "safety net" of the US economy?

Jet wrote:
French Law on free speech is hypocritical and contradictory. They dont have to comform to US standards but if youre going to have a rally on the basis of free speech you better make sure that it is equally free. Even Bill could see that tonight.

Free speech has always had its limitations... The limitations both cultures imposes however, are not the same...

Jet wrote:
So you dont see anything wrong with being jailed for months in israel with no charge or likewise years in yemen at the behest of the US?

Of course I see a lot of shit wrong with that... but they aren't in their predicament for taunting ideas...

Jet wrote:
So youre saying the spread of the extremist ideology has no bearing in the radicalization?

jec wrote:
I'm sure most of wahhabist would not agree on calling their movement radical...

Jet wrote:
There are many more peaceful muslims than there are those who go out and kill and that has been so for years, so that premise falls flat. Also to absolve ourselves of the role our government played would be to ignore how Iraq went from this

jec wrote:

You're equaling two unequal things again. Iran is shia and Iraq has more religious diversity than other muslim countries (Shias, Kurds, etc), thus have nothing to do with the conservative ideology of Wahhabism which is intrinsic to sunni islam... As my boss would say, the devil's in the details...

Jet wrote:
The sort of vitriol I see on social media and article comments not so much MSM(outside of fox which is a joke) just like you do. Just as there are apologists their right/left wing counterparts who place the blame, again, solely on islam exist as well.

jec wrote:
Of course they exists... but if MSM doesn't give smart, non apologistic people air time, it won't stimulate thoughtful discussion on matters...