Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[SirRumpole]

90%. That's 9 in 10 Muslims being killed by drone strikes, by the coalition, being civilian. Had that stopped the drone programme? And this is assuming that its intended target are actual terrorist, I mean, they can't come back to tell us they're not a terrorist right?

Do you have any links to that data ?

 

[noco]

We in the West are outraged, and rightly so, when terrorists attack and kill innocent people. But... but when it's our terrorism, when we take out innocent Muslims, that's OK? That's part of war? ISIS are using them as human shields so we obviously can't have that and so take out the shields too?

Wake up to yourself noco.

It's that kind of "reasoning" that allow the slaughtering of literally millions of innocent people, so far. And nothing is being done about it.

When ISIS or some nutjob who happen to also be a Muslim commit murder, we're all upset and add it to a list of Islamic crimes. When our missile take out a Mosque, a hospital, a school... meehhhh... It's war, what can you do.

That's messed up man. You cannot justify the killing of innocent people. The moment we start doing that, we're no better than ISIS and terrorists.


The US can obviously take all of North Korea out. But can they take out China too? All of them? All before they let loose a nuke or two back at us?

Even if they didn't, or couldn't. That's freaking genocidal. But ey, Trump is great. He's a real tough guy. Dodging the Vietnam War drafts, spending his entire life screwing business partners, investors and employees... now he's a real hero because he let the generals do whatever the heck they want.

Anyway.

Why would ISIS rebels kill innocent refugees Luu?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/syria-rebels-bomb-refugees/news-
story/7bb2161daa2262c8b505a38c41dd0878

Who are the aggressors?

Just like WW11 the Germans and the Japanese were the aggressors and had to be stopped.

You still have not answered my question from the past.

Would you like to see the whole of Australia come under Sharia law?

 

[Tisme]

Do you know what's the civilian to terrorist kill ratio the US military admitted to? Under Obama?

.

What does that ratio mean; soldiers versus civilians?

here's a body count site https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

[dutchie]

The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) just published in February its yearly threat assessment. It concluded -- as did its threat assessment for 2016 -- that Norway might experience an Islamic terrorist attack from Islamic State (ISIS) sympathizers acting upon ISIS's call to carry out independent attacks.

There you go, Norway is getting as smart as Sweden (rape capital of the world) and GB,France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Australia etc. Who would of thought they had it in them.

 

[Tisme]

The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) just published in February its yearly threat assessment. It concluded -- as did its threat assessment for 2016 -- that Norway might experience an Islamic terrorist attack from Islamic State (ISIS) sympathizers acting upon ISIS's call to carry out independent attacks.

There you go, Norway is getting as smart as Sweden (rape capital of the world) and GB,France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Australia etc. Who would of thought they had it in them.

Europe still hasn't recovered emotionally from WWII. Australia is preoccupied with playing hide & seek with motorists and punishing civilians for having an opinion.

 

[luutzu]

Do you have any links to that data ?

The Intercept

Strikes often kill many more than the intended target

The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”

 

[luutzu]

What does that ratio mean; soldiers versus civilians?

here's a body count site https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Badly worded maybe, but meant to say the ratio of civilian/terrorist in an average strike. That is, for every terrorist we take out, how many civilians also get killed.

Answer, according to Obama's admin, is none. Until those dead or their relative can come into a US consulate and prove it.

There's also the "double tap" isn't there? One strike take out "the bad guys", then the drone circle around and assume that anyone who rushes in to save those terrorist are also terrorist themselves - so a second strike clears the area.

Some estimate put the Iraqi deaths since Jr. had it liberated at 2 million. I'm assuming that that total include deaths caused by all war parties... how many of those 2 million do you reckon are terrorists or soldiers?

Remember US General Wesley Clark quoting some Pentagon officer who used to work for him? That after 911, people on top are planning to take out 7 different ME countries in 5 years?

Of those countries named, only two are left standing: Lebanon and Iran.

 

[luutzu]

Why would ISIS rebels kill innocent refugees Luu?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/syria-rebels-bomb-refugees/news-
story/7bb2161daa2262c8b505a38c41dd0878

Who are the aggressors?

Just like WW11 the Germans and the Japanese were the aggressors and had to be stopped.

You still have not answered my question from the past.

Would you like to see the whole of Australia come under Sharia law?

I answered that before noco.

Why would I want any religion ruling Australia, or any country for that matter.

Western Democracies are secular. They've long ago remove Christianity and put "the market" and freedom and other catchphrases in its place.

Just so you know, no country ever fought another country because of its religion.

 

[noco]

I answered that before noco.

Why would I want any religion ruling Australia, or any country for that matter.

Western Democracies are secular. They've long ago remove Christianity and put "the market" and freedom and other catchphrases in its place.

Just so you know, no country ever fought another country because of its religion.

Is that so.....Why did Germany eliminate 6 million Jews if it was not about religion.

Why are we fighting Islam if is not about religion.....What is the Syrian war all about?
Just one bad religion fighting another bad religion.
Your argument does not hold water..

 

[SirRumpole]

The Intercept

I have never heard of "The Intercept". You can quote anyone you like but that doesn't make them correct.

Some estimate put the Iraqi deaths since Jr. had it liberated at 2 million. I'm assuming that that total include deaths caused by all war parties... how many of those 2 million do you reckon are terrorists or soldiers?

80 people killed today in Syria by a roadside bomb.

The Allies again ?

 

[luutzu]

Is that so.....Why did Germany eliminate 6 million Jews if it was not about religion.

Why are we fighting Islam if is not about religion.....What is the Syrian war all about?
Just one bad religion fighting another bad religion.
Your argument does not hold water..

The Nazi didn't set out to murder the Jews. They started with calling them parasites who should be expelled from Germany. That the Jews were bad because their religion and culture does not fit in with whatever it was that was pure about the Aryan master race.

So yea, there was religion and racial supremacy. But the Nazi didn't start any war over the Jewish religion.

In fact, they sent the Jews away. Let them go to the US and wherever they want. Just the other Western countries didn't want them after a few ship load. So they were shipped back home.

So much for Judeo-Christian value.

Since Hitler and the Nazi call the Jews parasites and all that, the next "rational" step, according to those farkers, was to murder them. Along with all other "parasites" and undesirables.

Maybe there's a lesson there. i.e. stop calling other race and religion bad names. It does not end with name calling!

Just look at Trump and his banning of Muslims.

-----------------

Syria has always been on the cards for the US and its allies. As far back as 2005 they were planning it.

It's since become a series of proxy wars. Not just between the US and Russia, that's just one of them. But between Saudi Arabia and Iran; Turkey and the Kurds.

From the little that I heard of Syria, it was a secular society. There were elections, just so happen that the Assads always win gov't. I guess we're better because ours switch between the Liberals and Labor now and again.

Another report I heard for the war in Syria was that the Saudi and Qatari wanted a pipeline into Syria. Assad says no because he sides with the bad godless commies in Moscow who doesn't want a competitor for their fossil into Europe.

Hence, it's all about freedom and democracy and god's beautiful babies.

 

[luutzu]

I have never heard of "The Intercept". You can quote anyone you like but that doesn't make them correct.


80 people killed today in Syria by a roadside bomb.

The Allies again ?

Scahill is one of the few real journalists working in the Middle East. I'd take his investigation over any other "news" organisation's quoting of the Pentagon or the Kremlin's figures.

Not all bombings and violence are done by the Allies [I think the prefer term is the Coalition of the Willing]. So let's not pick sides and argue whose murder is "better" for the dead.

Though it is quite incredible that we think any country have the right to decide whether the gov't of another country get to stay or go. Imagine China or Russia or North Korea decides, in their infinite wisdom, and all for our own good, that our gov't ought to be replaced by people who they find more agreeable. What would we do? Agree with them?

 

[SirRumpole]

Though it is quite incredible that we think any country have the right to decide whether the gov't of another country get to stay or go. Imagine China or Russia or North Korea decides, in their infinite wisdom, and all for our own good, that our gov't ought to be replaced by people who they find more agreeable. What would we do? Agree with them?

It depends on what you think is the better form of government, democracy , imperfect as it is, or rule by despots.

I know which one I would prefer, how about you ?

 

[luutzu]

It depends on what you think is the better form of government, democracy , imperfect as it is, or rule by despots.

I know which one I would prefer, how about you ?

So if China think "socialism" like theirs is better for us, they have the right to replace our democracy and capitalist form of gov't?

It's illegal, under international law, and probably under most people's common sense, to interfere in other people's homeland. Even if it's done for their own good.

But say democracy and all that freedom is worth it. Name one country that's better off since their dictator was taken out.

The estimated 2 million dead Iraqis might not think it's a good idea to overthrow their dictator. Not that they like the bastard, but it's better than not dying. And is there democracy or peace in Iraq? Maybe once the oil ran out or something.

Just take a look at the US. Half its population is literally poor. Some 300 of its cities are drinking lead-poisoned water from old and corroded piping. Some 7 million of its own children goes to bed hungry... but sure, they'd go half way round the world to liberate and bring democracy to brown Muslims.

All those trillions of dollars show how much the US gov't love other people's freedom.

 

[SirRumpole]

Name one country that's better off since their dictator was taken out.

Germany ?

 

[SirRumpole]

It's illegal, under international law, and probably under most people's common sense, to interfere in other people's homeland. Even if it's done for their own good.

So if China decided to convert us to our way of government, it would be illegal for the US to come in and help us ?

It certainly would be 'illegal' for China to invade us, but hey what is international law if they want our resources ?

International Law is rubbish, countries only observe it when it is in their interests to do so.

 

[noco]

We are already being invaded along with the rest of the Western world by Islam....Isn't that against International law and what is the useless UN doing about it?

NOTHING.

So we will just have to take the law into our own hands.....I believe there is already a civilian army building up because our useless government are blind in one eye and can't see out the other.

 

[luutzu]

So if China decided to convert us to our way of government, it would be illegal for the US to come in and help us ?

It certainly would be 'illegal' for China to invade us, but hey what is international law if they want our resources ?

International Law is rubbish, countries only observe it when it is in their interests to do so.

If we Aussies invite the US to come to our aid in that scenario, then it is not illegal.

For the US, or China or any country, to wake up one day and decided they don't like what our dear leaders is doing in Canberra... so they thought to tell them, and us plebs, to either vacate or else they'll send in the marines. That'd be illegal.

So take Assad and his Syria. Whatever we think of Assad, it's his country and his people. So what right does anyone have to decide he should be removed?

Likewise, whatever we think of Russia and Iran, the government of Syria invited those two in to aid them against what they consider invaders. hmmm... I guess they don't know what they're talking about. We're the good guys who want freedom and democracy for all people, including the Saudis' Arabia.


Yes, true that International Laws are for fun and locking up African dictators or something. But it is a law agreed to by most of the countries of the world.

To break it mean we don't really have any legal basis to talk about upholding law and order and rule of law and freedom and stuff. That'd be like a gangster going into our home because they can and there's nothing the police can do about it. Just because they can does not make it right.

 

[luutzu]

We are already being invaded along with the rest of the Western world by Islam....Isn't that against International law and what is the useless UN doing about it?

NOTHING.

So we will just have to take the law into our own hands.....I believe there is already a civilian army building up because our useless government are blind in one eye and can't see out the other.

Islam couldn't even invade their own country, forget about taking on another in their home turf.

Again noco, it's talks like that that permit the slaughtering of innocent people. Might be a good idea to not denigrate an entire people. It never end well. And that's not being politically correct. It's just being correct.

 

[luutzu]

Germany ?

That's a long time between drinks. I mean, the US had been involved in at least 200 intervention abroad since WWII, according to Gore Vidal, and the only instance is Germany.

Well, there's Japan and South Korea I guess.

But those examples are not quite the exception, and its success was not intended anyway.

Take Germany... the Allied didn't go in to liberate the German people. They went in to smash their enemy to kingdom come.

Then as Berlin fell, Stalin's Soviet and US divvy up Germany and most of Europe among themselves.

In one of his lectures in the 90s - in his collected works, Understanding Power - Chomsky points out the US plan the post-war world. It is quite an eye opener for those who want to look into Rea'l Politik at work.

Again, this is not going against Americans or the West or whatever... it's what imperial powers do, all of them.

So start with that generous Marshall Plan.. the one we're all told was the reason Europe managed to rebuild itself.

Turns out that the US rigged the system. They give incentives and other enticements so that practically all the capital of Europe freely flow to the US. You know, the rich European elite and anyone with any savings... their capital was taken out of Europe and invested into US industries.

Then Europeans were forced to take on loans from the US through that Marshall Plan. Loans come with interests and conditions. Conditions like having to buy American made manufacturing, singing over military bases and other installations.

This was confirmed in a book and lecture - Global Minotaur [?] - by the former Greek Finance Minister, that Marxist with the motorbike who was forced to resigned a couple years ago.

But anyway, like you said, all countries do whatever serves their interests. Though we could argue that it better serves their interests, i.e. make them more money, if they do things other than blowing people's country's up. But what the heck do we plebs know about grand strategies and power.

Seeing how that's the case, it's still a bit much to believe that anyone's in the ME to free the Muslims of their dictators. I mean, if general observations about imperial power isn't enough, just look and see what dictators are still our best friend over there. Yah, they're the ones who take orders from us rather than from Moscow or Beijing.

That and when your actions kinda cause the death of some 2 million people and pushing tens of millions more into refugee camps... you might want to stop and rethink whether your good work is producing the desired good results. Or maybe their deaths are sacrifices we're willing to make, for their own good.

Dam, you can't make these stuff up.