Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 [65] 66 67 ... 136

Author Topic: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.  (Read 203704 times)

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #960 on: February 11, 2016, 06:14:04 am »

Love how how Russia proposes ceasefire in Syria starting from march one. It is their style, "we need some time to finish our operation and then make any kind of counter-attack impossible with a ceasefire."

PS: If they fail to reach their goals they will keep advancing after the ceasefire, pretending that they do maintain it.
Debaltseve was a rather similar situation, no?
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

martinuzz

  • Bay Watcher
  • High dwarf
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #961 on: February 11, 2016, 06:17:47 am »

Turkish president Erdogan held a speech on national television. He says that Turkey is about to open it's borders to Europe and let all refugees through, unless the UN starts making safe zones, with no fly areas and UN troops, in Syria, to shelter refugees in their own country. He blames the UN for not doing enough to stop the "ethnic cleansing in Syria by Iranian forces".

That's not going to happen though, because Russia vetoes ideas that include no fly zones or UN safe zones.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/turkije-dreigt-poorten-naar-europa-open-te-zetten~a4242730/
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 06:22:50 am by martinuzz »
Logged
Friendly and polite reminder for optimists: Hope is a finite resource

We can ­disagree and still love each other, ­unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist - James Baldwin

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73719.msg1830479#msg1830479

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #962 on: February 11, 2016, 09:03:01 am »

So, every Sunni cleric wants to exterminate Alawites? This is rather bigoted and ignorant, don't you think?
No the ones having this debate, I don't see how you can twist what I said that way. Labeling them pagans when they're clearly not is to deprive them of the theological protection given to Muslims or people of the book. I think you know this.

Anyway, the formula is pretty simple. Islam has five pillars. there can be variations in certain things, but these five pillars are mandatory and unchangeable. without believing in all of those you can't be a Muslim. it's like calling yourself a christian while believing in the Greek pantheon of gods.
No, it would be like calling yourself a Christian whilst debating whether the Holy Trinity are three faces of one God or three separate aspects of one God, or like Anglicans carrying on as a Catholic continuation from a protestant reformation. What the bloody hell Anglicans are is debatable, but no one would argue they were pagans or heretics unless they were Spanish invaders from the 17th century.

The First Pillar, the Shahada or Al-Tahwid does not comply with the Alawite believe in a sort of Trinity.
the Alawite belief also conflicts with the Third, Fourth and Fifth Twelvers pillars.
The Alawite triad is not the same in meaning as the Christian trinity, and they are not Sunni so of course they do not comply with Sunni beliefs. They also go on hajj so they do not conflict with the third, and they comply to both the fourth and fifth practices. They're a sect with proud exegetic traditions that do not take scripture literally with fundamentalist fervor that are so tolerant of other creeds they even recognize Christian and Persian holidays, have existed in a state of constant persecution (only times they haven't been under persecution was when foreigners with foreign religions invaded under the Crusaders, Mongols and French) for hundreds of years and right now are fighting a war to stop their entire people from being genocided again. Seems what decides whether they're Muslim or not will be whether they win this war

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #963 on: February 11, 2016, 09:12:22 am »

What the bloody hell Anglicans are is debatable, but no one would argue they were pagans or heretics unless they were Spanish invaders from the 17th century.
Waitwaitwait, Anglicans don't recognize the pope. The Codex Justinianus defines heretics as "everyone who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and to our Orthodox holy Faith". I think that makes it fairly easy to argue that they are indeed heretics as far as the Church is concerned.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #964 on: February 11, 2016, 09:17:47 am »

AFAIK, the only difference between the Anglican Church and the rest of the Catholics is that the King/Queen is the head of the church (Thanks to King Henry the 8th, or some such number, it was the one who offed a bunch of his wives) rather than the Pope.
Logged

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #965 on: February 11, 2016, 09:25:50 am »

Well, that's a pretty fucking big one. In fact, that's also one of only two big differences between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church. The Pope is pretty important to Catholicism, you know?

Also you have to distinguish between high church and low church when it comes to Anglicanism. The former basically is Catholicism minus the Pope, while the latter could roughly be described as Protestantism plus the Queen of England.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #966 on: February 11, 2016, 09:28:10 am »

What the bloody hell Anglicans are is debatable, but no one would argue they were pagans or heretics unless they were Spanish invaders from the 17th century.
Waitwaitwait, Anglicans don't recognize the pope. The Codex Justinianus defines heretics as "everyone who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and to our Orthodox holy Faith". I think that makes it fairly easy to argue that they are indeed heretics as far as the Church is concerned.
And the Queen can't be a Catholic without getting beheaded, all the same the Archbishop remains. And I have the distinct suspicion that you are in fact the Spanish inquisition...

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #967 on: February 11, 2016, 09:45:35 am »

*LW becomes an unperson*
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #968 on: February 11, 2016, 10:09:44 am »

I did not expect that

Vilanat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #969 on: February 11, 2016, 10:54:56 am »

No the ones having this debate, I don't see how you can twist what I said that way. Labeling them pagans when they're clearly not is to deprive them of the theological protection given to Muslims or people of the book. I think you know this.

You are implying this debate only has a reason if it is coming from Sunni clerics wanting to exterminate Alawites and i say bollocks. in other words, you are calling anyone who "dare" make such claims an Alawite genocider (and you were even shocked and sent me to review my life because of my bigotry and ignorance). since i am not a Sunni and not even a Muslim i don't give a crap, but if i was a Sunni muslim discussing the well established theological differences between Islam and the Alawites, calling me a genocider, a bigot or ignorant because of it is the real ignorance and bigotry.

Quote
No, it would be like calling yourself a Christian whilst debating whether the Holy Trinity are three faces of one God or three separate aspects of one God, or like Anglicans carrying on as a Catholic continuation from a protestant reformation. What the bloody hell Anglicans are is debatable, but no one would argue they were pagans or heretics unless they were Spanish invaders from the 17th century.

No, because in Islam this debate is not even possible. a core principle in Islam is that there isn't any form of Trinity, which does exist in the Alawite faith. the second you question the strict monotheism of Islam, you stop being a Muslim. this is literally the first thing a Muslim should believe in.

The First Pillar, the Shahada or Al-Tahwid does not comply with the Alawite believe in a sort of Trinity.
the Alawite belief also conflicts with the Third, Fourth and Fifth Twelvers pillars.

Quote
The Alawite triad is not the same in meaning as the Christian trinity, and they are not Sunni so of course they do not comply with Sunni beliefs. They also go on hajj so they do not conflict with the third, and they comply to both the fourth and fifth practices. They're a sect with proud exegetic traditions that do not take scripture literally with fundamentalist fervor that are so tolerant of other creeds they even recognize Christian and Persian holidays, have existed in a state of constant persecution (only times they haven't been under persecution was when foreigners with foreign religions invaded under the Crusaders, Mongols and French) for hundreds of years and right now are fighting a war to stop their entire people from being genocided again. Seems what decides whether they're Muslim or not will be whether they win this war

Omg dude, you are confusing Twelvers and Sunni pillars and making a fruit salad out of everything and i honestly don't get how all that glorification you give them serves anything. this isn't a court sentence trying to decide if the deserve to live or not but a simple theological debate.

Usul Al din, or five pillars of the Twelver Shias:

Belief in Oneness and Unity of God: Al-Tawhid - The Alawite Trinity which give different quality to each separate part clearly contradicts this. their belief in the separation of a good Trinity and bad Trinity also enforces that.

Belief in Divine Justice: Al-Adl - debatable. i'll tend to go with yes.

Belief in Prophethood: Al-Nubuwah - Hmm, now that i revise this, it might be possible that they actually follow this pillar. i suspect they don't, but well, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Belief in Imams: Al-Imamah - Nope, since according to the Alawites, Ali was god, not an Imam.

Belief in Day of Resurrection: Al-Ma’ad Nope. they believe in reincarnation which is against Islam. they do not believe in the resurrection day and do not believe Women have a soul to reincarnate or get resurrected.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #970 on: February 11, 2016, 02:56:05 pm »

You are implying this debate only has a reason if it is coming from Sunni clerics wanting to exterminate Alawites and i say bollocks. in other words, you are calling anyone who "dare" make such claims an Alawite genocider (and you were even shocked and sent me to review my life because of my bigotry and ignorance).
Review your life is a joke, don't take it seriously :P
And I am not implying this debate only has that reason, I am saying that's the only context it is used today, same way Nazi interest in Ashkenazi genetics was not academic. There is no daring in making such claims, because they are so easy to make.

since i am not a Sunni and not even a Muslim i don't give a crap, but if i was a Sunni muslim discussing the well established theological differences between Islam and the Alawites, calling me a genocider, a bigot or ignorant because of it is the real ignorance and bigotry.
No it is not the real ignorance and bigotry, you are being the ignorant bigot here by imposing the standards of Sunni Islam against a Shiite minority being genocided by Salafists in order to justify them being pagans who are not even Shiite Muslims, no they are less than that - they are not even Muslim. Never mind we do not use Shiites to talk of Sunni and do not use Sunni to talk of Shiite theological differences for the very reason that sectarian strife and conflicts of interest promotes clashes of civilization, this is another level. It is something you only promote if you wish to promote Muslim infighting and self-destruction, and is one promoted by Salafists to justify exterminating those they call kuffars.

No, because in Islam this debate is not even possible. a core principle in Islam is that there isn't any form of Trinity, which does exist in the Alawite faith. the second you question the strict monotheism of Islam, you stop being a Muslim. this is literally the first thing a Muslim should believe in.
They believe in one God, one final Prophet, do not misrepresent what others believe in or tell them what they should believe in.

Omg dude, you are confusing Twelvers and Sunni pillars and making a fruit salad out of everything and i honestly don't get how all that glorification you give them serves anything. this isn't a court sentence trying to decide if the deserve to live or not but a simple theological debate.
No, because you quoted the pillars and the Shiites do not use the pillars and the Shiites do not hold Shahada which is a Sunni doctrine. Even drawing the comparison between them and fake Christians worshiping the Greek pantheon is an attempt deliberate or accidental at painting them as fake Muslims worshiping a polytheist pagan pantheon when they are Monotheists believing in one God.

Usul Al din, or five pillars of the Twelver Shias:
Belief in Oneness and Unity of God: Al-Tawhid - The Alawite Trinity which give different quality to each separate part clearly contradicts this. their belief in the separation of a good Trinity and bad Trinity also enforces that.
They do not have the pillars, those are the principles, and they conform because they are three emanations of one God, the Holy Trinity does not make God three Gods because in both religious doctrines there is only One.

Belief in Divine Justice: Al-Adl - debatable. i'll tend to go with yes.
Belief in Prophethood: Al-Nubuwah - Hmm, now that i revise this, it might be possible that they actually follow this pillar. i suspect they don't, but well, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Belief in Imams: Al-Imamah - Nope, since according to the Alawites, Ali was god, not an Imam.
Belief in Day of Resurrection: Al-Ma’ad Nope. they believe in reincarnation which is against Islam. they do not believe in the resurrection day and do not believe Women have a soul to reincarnate or get resurrected.
You suspect they don't believe in Prophethood based on what? You call their entire creed a myth based on what? Sounds like prejudice to me. They do not believe Ali was God, they believe Ali was an incarnation of God, if this disqualifies them from Islam than this disqualifies all of the Ismalis from Islam, which conveniently enough is done when justifying destruction of them in Yemen and India. They also believe in Imams, they have them, and they are called Alawites because they follow Caliph Ali. I would not say Christians don't follow Christ because God is an incarnation of Christ and cannot be both emanation and prophet. It just wouldn't make sense at all.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 03:04:22 pm by Loud Whispers »
Logged

Vilanat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #971 on: February 11, 2016, 06:42:44 pm »

The Shia hold the Shahada and it is not the same as the one the Alawites has. the Shia's Shahada is identical to the Sunni, except with an addition at the end that Ali is the friend of Muhammad. getting from friend/imam to god is pretty drastic i might say and usually imply needing a new religion.

I quoted the Shia "Pillars of the Religion" and if you are not playing semantics on me, then that's exactly what they are, only they named them Roots of the Religion. the difference is that the Shia still hold the Sunni pillars, but as secondary duties. this is totally besides the point, because as i said if the Alawite's core belief contradicts with any one of these "Pillars" or "Roots" then they can't be called Shia. since Alawites contradict the first pillar (Which in this case is shared both by Sunni and Shia as the Sunni Shahada is identical in essence to Al-Tahwid), they can't even be called Muslims. as for the other pillars, sorry, but this discussion is not interesting enough for me to waste time on it since it doesn't really matter.

Now, you can argue philosophy all day long, but what we are debating is religious theology and in this case Islam totally and unconditionally rejects any sort of Trinity, emanations or god incarnated and it doesn't matter to them nor me if you can't seem to grasp the difference between Islam's monotheism and the Alawites Trinity.

Alawites are called Alawites because the French decided to call them that seeing how they were a separate religion from Islam that follows Ali as a god. (The Alawites officially requested the french to look at them as such, a request signed by no other than Bashar Al Assad's grandfather)

I really think this discussion has ran its course.
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #972 on: February 11, 2016, 07:57:54 pm »

So, some kind of ceasefire was decided on (slightly more detailed BBC article). I'm assuming that it's supposed to be between the Syrian government and the rebels, but neither article actually says who the ceasefire is between or if it's a blanket ceasefire.

Complicating matters is the fact that Al-Nusra front is a rebel group as well as a terrorist group and last I recall, the Kurds were left out of it entirely. Also, I'd have gone with within 24-48 hours, not a week.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #973 on: February 11, 2016, 08:07:01 pm »

The Shia hold the Shahada and it is not the same as the one the Alawites has. the Shia's Shahada is identical to the Sunni, except with an addition at the end that Ali is the friend of Muhammad. getting from friend/imam to god is pretty drastic i might say and usually imply needing a new religion.
Shahada and Tawhid are not identical, it's the whole reason for the different meanings of Imams in Sunnism and Shiite religion. Meaning here, means everything.

I quoted the Shia "Pillars of the Religion" and if you are not playing semantics on me, then that's exactly what they are, only they named them Roots of the Religion. the difference is that the Shia still hold the Sunni pillars, but as secondary duties. this is totally besides the point, because as i said if the Alawite's core belief contradicts with any one of these "Pillars" or "Roots" then they can't be called Shia. since Alawites contradict the first pillar (Which in this case is shared both by Sunni and Shia as the Sunni Shahada is identical in essence to Al-Tahwid), they can't even be called Muslims. as for the other pillars, sorry, but this discussion is not interesting enough for me to waste time on it since it doesn't really matter.
You quoted the Sunni pillars of Islam and said they're identical to the Shiite Principles. If you were being honest, you would've posted the Shiite principles, and you would've also noted the Nusayri hold onto the pillars in addition to their exegetic tradition that does not hold scripture literally as fundamentalists do and add spiritualism to it. The Hajj is not just a physical journey from one place to another, for them it is as much a spiritual journey from a place of one understanding to a higher one. There are similarities, but the differences are the reason why Sunni and Shiite are not both Sunni or both Shiite, why Alawite are not Twelver. That is before even taking into account the different prescriptions and emphasis on the Sunni pillars vs the Shiite principles and the sect differences. So far you have demonstrated that Alawites are not Sunni, which is besides the point, because they are not Sunni. If we are to believe you, then the Zaidiyyah, the Ismali - heck, even the Twelvers would be non-Muslims, which is completely ludicrous. And they don't contradict the first principle, and if you haven't taken care, you will learn that the meaning of words prescribe beliefs which are at the core of the interstrife, you are yet to demonstrate so without resorting to comparisons to polytheists when they're clearly monotheists who believe in one God. If this discussion is not interesting enough for you, why did you start it by posting lies in a politics thread? This was not an academic point of interest, you posted this in the politics thread to alter the political discourse. Now the big question is why would you have any motive to reduce sympathy for Alawites by declaring them non-Muslim polytheists in a politics thread when the topic is Alawites fighting a life or death struggle against Salafists who use the line that they're non-Muslim polytheists to justify ethnically cleansing them? You either cared so little about your words that you unthinkingly reposted ISIS propaganda from /pol/ or you are actually being malevolent here, my faith in humanity leads me to believe it's the former.

Now, you can argue philosophy all day long, but what we are debating is religious theology and in this case Islam totally and unconditionally rejects any sort of Trinity, emanations or god incarnated and it doesn't matter to them nor me if you can't seem to grasp the difference between Islam's monotheism and the Alawites Trinity.
Lecture me all day if you actually know what you're talking about, but by your own admission you don't give a crap about the topic and you don't know the basic differences between even Sunni and Shiite, let alone between the sects of Shiite Islam. The Alawite triad is not the same as having three Gods, it is not even the same to the Christian Trinity. It is the emanation of one God, it is divinity that originates from one God. That you're using Sunni mainstream Orthodoxy to attack a sect within the Shiite branch already has alarm bells ringing.

Alawites are called Alawites because the French decided to call them that seeing how they were a separate religion from Islam that follows Ali as a god. (The Alawites officially requested the french to look at them as such, a request signed by no other than Bashar Al Assad's grandfather)
I really think this discussion has ran its course.
1. They do not follow Ali as a god, so no. They follow Ali as the emanation of the essence of God, through which they can grasp the essence of God. "I turn to the Gate; I bow before the Name; I adore the Meaning" - the Gate, the Name, the Meaning, all are emanations of God, no single one is a God, treated as a God or can even be treated as a God.
2. They've been called Alawi since the 11th century and asked foreign visitors to refer to them as Alawi before the French mandate in the 19th century, so no.
3. I wonder, of the Jews who believe in reincarnation despite it never being mentioned explicitly in the Torah, are they Gentile or Jews, or is it possible that they are all Jews? In the modern world, one that has learned from the devastating purges Christianity wrecked upon itself in purging heretics according to mainstream Orthodoxy in the year of our Lord -2000 and the years since, I would say yes, they are all Jews, trying to find the correct interpretations in texts so multilayered they demand many interpretations.

Put another way, the human civilization has long learned the peril of defining Scotsmen as false when it suits the majority's fear. They would do well to not forget those lessons.

So, some kind of ceasefire was decided on (slightly more detailed BBC article). I'm assuming that it's supposed to be between the Syrian government and the rebels, but neither article actually says who the ceasefire is between or if it's a blanket ceasefire.
Complicating matters is the fact that Al-Nusra front is a rebel group as well as a terrorist group and last I recall, the Kurds were left out of it entirely. Also, I'd have gone with within 24-48 hours, not a week.
Ah, pleasing news. Progress. Sadly one can't be too hopeful, but it's one step, one of a thousand to be taken to rebuilding Syria

TheDarkStar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.
« Reply #974 on: February 11, 2016, 08:12:12 pm »

Yeah, it would be nice if this ceasefire finally holds, but the previous several haven't. Also, I highly doubt that it will include everyone because (as smjjames pointed out) several of the groups see each other as terrorists.
Logged
Don't die; it's bad for your health!

it happened it happened it happen im so hyped to actually get attacked now
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 [65] 66 67 ... 136