New IS video shows militants smashing ancient Iraq artifacts

New IS video shows militants smashing ancient Iraq artifacts
In this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the Islamic State group on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015, which has been verified and is consistent with other AP reporting, militants destroy winged-bull Assyrian protective deity in the Ninevah Museum in Mosul, Iraq. The extremist group has destroyed a number of shrines —including Muslim holy sites—in order to eliminate what it views as heresy. The militants are also believed to have sold ancient artifacts on the black market in order to finance their bloody campaign across the region. (AP Photo via militant social media account)

(AP)—The Islamic State group released a video on Thursday showing militants using sledgehammers to smash ancient artifacts in Iraq's northern city of Mosul, describing the relics as idols that must be removed.

The destructions are part of a campaign by the IS extremists who have destroyed a number of shrines—including Muslim holy sites—in order to eliminate what they view as heresy. They are also believed to have sold on the black market in order to finance their bloody campaign across the region.

The five-minute video shows a group of bearded men inside the Mosul Museum using hammers and drills to destroy several large statues, which are then shown chipped and in pieces. The video then shows a black-clad man at a nearby archaeological site inside Mosul, drilling through and destroying a winged-bull Assyrian protective deity that dates back to the 7th century B.C.

The video was posted on social media accounts affiliated with the Islamic State group and though it could not be independently verified it appeared authentic, based on AP's knowledge of the Mosul Museum.

Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city and the surrounding Nineveh province fell to the militants during their blitz last June after Iraqi security forces melted away.

In their push, the extremists captured large swaths of land in both Iraq and neighboring Syria, declared a self-styled caliphate on territories that are under their control, killing members of religious minorities, driving others from their homes, enslaving women and destroying houses of worship.

The region under IS control in Iraq has nearly 1,800 of Iraq's 12,000 registered archaeological sites and the militants appear to be out to cleanse it of any non-Islamic ideas, including library books, archaeological relics, and even Islamic sites considered idolatrous.

New IS video shows militants smashing ancient Iraq artifacts
In this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the Islamic State group on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015, which has been verified and is consistent with other AP reporting, a militant topples an ancient artifact in the Ninevah Museum in Mosul, Iraq. The extremist group has destroyed a number of shrines —including Muslim holy sites—in order to eliminate what it views as heresy. The militants are also believed to have sold ancient artifacts on the black market in order to finance their bloody campaign across the region. (AP Photo via militant social media account)

"Oh Muslims, these artifacts that are behind me were idols and gods worshipped by people who lived centuries ago instead of Allah," a bearded man tells the camera as he stands in front of the partially demolished winged-bull.

"The so-called Assyrians and Akkadians and others looked to gods for war, agriculture and rain to whom they offered sacrifices," he added, referring to groups that that left their mark on Mesopotamia for more than 5,000 years in what is now Iraq, eastern Syria and southern Turkey.

"Our prophet ordered us to remove all these statues as his followers did when they conquered nations," the man in the video adds. The video bore the logo of the IS group's media arm and was posted on a Twitter account used by the group.

A professor at the Archaeology College in Mosul confirmed to the Associated Press that the two sites depicted in the video are the city museum and a site known as Nirgal Gate, one of several gates to the capital of the Assyrian Empire, Ninevah.

"I'm totally shocked," Amir al-Jumaili told the AP over the phone from outside of Mosul. "It's a catastrophe. With the destruction of these artifacts, we can no longer be proud of Mosul's civilization."

He said that very few of the museum pieces are not genuine.

New IS video shows militants smashing ancient Iraq artifacts
In this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the Islamic State group on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015, which has been verified and is consistent with other AP reporting, a militant uses a power tool to destroy a winged-bull Assyrian protective deity at the Ninevah Museum in Mosul, Iraq. The extremist group has destroyed a number of shrines —including Muslim holy sites—in order to eliminate what it views as heresy. The militants are also believed to have sold ancient artifacts on the black market in order to finance their bloody campaign across the region. (AP Photo via militant social media account)

Among the most important sites under the militants' control are four ancient cities—Ninevah, Kalhu, Dur Sharrukin and Ashur—which were at different times the capital of the mighty Assyrian Empire.

The Assyrians first arose around 2500 B.C. and at one point ruled over a realm stretching from the Mediterranean coast to what is present-day Iran. Also in danger is the UNESCO World Heritage Site Hatra, which is thought to have been built in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C. by the Seleucid Empire. It flourished during the 1st and 2nd centuries as a religious and trading center.

The damage to Iraqi artifacts in Mosul is the latest episode in that has targeted the nation's heritage.

New IS video shows militants smashing ancient Iraq artifacts
In this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the Islamic State group on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015, which has been verified and is consistent with other AP reporting, militants attack ancient artifacts with sledgehammers in the Ninevah Museum in Mosul, Iraq. The extremist group has destroyed a number of shrines —including Muslim holy sites—in order to eliminate what it views as heresy. The militants are also believed to have sold ancient artifacts on the black market in order to finance their bloody campaign across the region. (AP Photo via militant social media account)

In January, Islamic State militants ransacked the Central Library of Mosul, smashing the locks and taking around 2,000 books—leaving only Islamic texts. Days later, militants broke into University of Mosul's library. They made a bonfire out of hundreds of books on science and culture, destroying them in front of students.

The day after Baghdad fell to U.S. troops in April 2003, looters burst into the Iraqi National Museum in the Iraqi capital, making off with scores of priceless artifacts and leaving the floor littered with shattered pottery. The U.S. was widely criticized at the time for failing to protect the site.


Explore further

Militants threaten ancient sites in Iraq, Syria

© 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: New IS video shows militants smashing ancient Iraq artifacts (2015, February 26) retrieved 20 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-video-militants-ancient-iraq-artifacts.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
170 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 26, 2015
We will not survive as a species unless we outgrow our pathetic need for self-righteous violence approved of by some Imaginary Companion, one to love us, punish us harshly, and tell us we really won't die.

But we will all return to the nothingness from which we sprung. All our stories of gods and afterlives are lies, and deep down, we all know it.

It is as if we all decided to invent Imaginary Beings, endow them with ridiculous powers, create entire legends around them, . . then kill each other over whose Imaginary Being is the "real" one.

It is time to grow up, before we kill each other over our mental illnesses.

Feb 26, 2015
I believe humans will always find a way to hate each other, if not religion, it would be property, resources, jealousy etc.. It's just convenient to be able to say someone made me do it.

Feb 26, 2015
Ignorant savages.

Feb 26, 2015
Thanks George Bush. And guess what? In 2016 we are heading right back to a Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican President, Conservative Supreme Court and pandering press owned by the same folks who own the foregoing. Talk about never learning.

Feb 27, 2015
Kill every last Isis extremists is the only solution. This makes me want to throw up.

Feb 27, 2015
Thanks George Bush.


Remarkable, I did not know idiots were still blaming Bush for everything wrong in the world, .....especially since Obama has been in office for six years now.

The reason these savages have congealed into existence and are running wild is because Obama had announced way ahead of time, that HE would be pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Idiotic strategy. This advertised a vacuum for these savage cavemen to plan and occupy. The second reason is because Obama is an incompetent community organizer and had/has failed to orchestrate the annihilation of these animals even while they were cattle herding across vast plans of territory with their continued savagery.

Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are created by the very efforts to defeat them. And blaming Bush and the republicans only exposes your willful ignorance further.....

Feb 27, 2015
I guess the actions to organize, train, arm, and excite the Muslims by Reagan was not such a good idea. It led directly to the continuing disasters we have today.

But conservatives never learn the limits of applied and self-righteous violence.

Getting fooled, suckered, by a Connecticut Daddy's Boy in a cowboy outfit screaming "Bring 'em on!" while cowering in some Undisclosed Location is the bottom of the rung of rationality.

Feb 27, 2015

.....

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL)

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Feb 27, 2015
.....

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein .."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

.....and on and on.


Feb 27, 2015
I guess the actions to organize, train, arm, and excite the Muslims by Reagan was not such a good idea. It led directly to the continuing disasters we have today.


By your mush-headed logic, shouldn't you blame the guy that introduced Reagan's grandfather to Reagan's grandmother for all the terrorists we see today? Or maybe some cow wandered off from the herd and ate a bunny back in the five century and.....

Sounds like you're blaming Reagan for regarding middle eastern Muslims as not intrinsically savage.

Should the world treat Muslims differently than other people, since as you two imply, they are 'excitable' and prone to murderous savagery?

Had Reagan treated them differently and had Bush thought it not possible that democracy would ever spread in the middle east,... you would be among the first calling him a racist.

Feb 27, 2015
I'm curious to know if a single person is behind the IS or if it is a group. The article mentions a prophet, but does not specify if it is Muhammed or possibly a current person.
Regardless, these actions are unconscionable and shows the depth of fear of the future that some will act upon by destroying the past.

Feb 27, 2015
I'm curious to know if a single person is behind the IS or if it is a group. The article mentions a prophet, but does not specify if it is Muhammed or possibly a current person.
Regardless, these actions are unconscionable and shows the depth of fear of the future that some will act upon by destroying the past.


The ISIS is an extremist Islamic faction who broke off from Al-Qaeda. They are terrorists and are motivated by their interpretation of Islam.

If you have not been watching the news, the above "destruction of the past", is nothing compared with what they have been up to. Setting people on fire, mass beheadings, raping children, slavery, and on and on.

Feb 27, 2015
Noum, I strongly suggest you look up and read "Blowback from the Afghan Battlefield", and see what Reagan wrought. Then look up Confessions of an Interrogator, and get another view of what Reagan and his band of hateful and self-righteous Christians started.

Want to puke? Read what we did to the poor folk we kidnapped in the Middle East Reagan/Bush Wars.

Feb 27, 2015
Gotta go to a VA appt. Will come back to continue this discussion with Noum.

He is not going to get away from the moral stain of Reagan/Bush.

Feb 27, 2015
I'm curious to know if a single person is behind the IS or if it is a group.

It's someone with money. You can bet on it.
I wouldn't put it past governments or high tech companies to be the ones that sponor IS. They sure benefit from all the arms sales such a terrorist outbreak generates around the globe.

After all: do you really think the US was sponsoring the Taliban or the North Alliance, or all the other factions in the middle east (Iran Contra anyone?) just because they were afraid of the Russkies?* It was good business. A couple of million spent on getting some hotheads delusions of grandeur means a couple of billion in new arms deals.

* you can find similar examples for the russian military-industrial complex. This is not a US specific behavior.

Feb 27, 2015
This makes me question whether the policy of returning archeological artifacts to the region from which they came is wise. The Middle East is not known for stability of governments.

Many priceless artifacts are now lost to the entire world because of the insane, disgusting, savagery of ISIS. They have literally destroyed some of the earliest evidence of civilization.

Imagine what Egypt would look like had the Muslim Brotherhood stayed in power...

Feb 27, 2015
Human ignorance is limitless, especially when religious zealotry takes root.

Feb 27, 2015
Human ignorance is limitless, especially when religious zealotry takes root.

This one shows promise, after all...
Perhaps the dark side is not as rooted in him as we would believe....:-)

Feb 27, 2015
do you really think the US was sponsoring the Taliban or the North Alliance
I should have guessed - ISIS is destroying idols and chopping off heads and it is the fault of the USA.

Radical groups emerge as a natural result of the overgrowth of populations. Religion forces this growth and then explains exactly whose fault the resulting misery is, and what must be done to alleviate it.

The books werent written to be followed in their entirety, all of the time. "There is a Time for peace and a Time for war... a Time to love and a Time to hate." ecc3

The extreme sections were included so that they may be used at the proper Time, to radicalize believers and cause them to attack and overrun their enemies. ALL the books contain these instructions. They are the main reason that these religions alone have survived to the present.

"They say that every society is only three meals away from revolution." -[Either the Romans, Trotsky or Dumas]

-or in this case, jihad

Feb 28, 2015
Only a Noumenon moron would think that shaking a bottle of champagne (arming Iraq against Iran) and then removing the cork (Saddam) would result in a peaceful flow of water.

And as to your litany of dems who fell in line, Obama, who you blame, is not on that list. Oh, snap! You stand corrected!

Feb 28, 2015
Only a Noumenon moron would think that shaking a bottle of champagne (arming Iraq against Iran) and then removing the cork (Saddam) would result in a peaceful flow of water.


No one ever thought that, nor have I stated anything even remotely like that.

And as to your litany of dems who fell in line, Obama, who you blame, is not on that list. Oh, snap! You stand corrected!


Since I never stated that Obama voted for war in Iraq, how do I stand correct?

He WAS, elected president, and a presidents job doesn't begin and end by blaming predecessors. His job is to handled the present state of affairs. Blaming past decisions, out of context, will not work to obscure the accountability of present decisions.

Your 'domino' style of historical analysis is childish.

Feb 28, 2015
Noum, did you read "Blowback from the Afghan Battlefield", and see what Reagan wrought?

Did you look up Confessions of an Interrogator, and get another view of what Reagan and his band of hateful and self-righteous Christians started?

Don't run away from our conversation.


Feb 28, 2015
Thanks George Bush
Do you really think so? Bush Jr. would nuke the ISS already, so that this mess would never happen. It's the liberals, who are guarding lives of few terrorists in the name of false humanity just for to lose much more lives (and also cultural artifacts) later. And the same liberal scientists delayed the research of cold fusion for the whole century, so that we drained the precious resources of oil of Arabs at the East West. Now these Arabs have nothing, including the perspective of future peaceful life.

Feb 28, 2015
@gkam, No, I did not read that. What is your point?

Feb 28, 2015
And as to your litany of dems who fell in line, Obama, who you blame, is not on that list.


No, but he did vote to fund the war, and he did elect John Kerry as the current Secretary Of State, a man who was all in for removing Saddam.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Feb 28, 2015
Noum,
I posted:
" I guess the actions to organize, train, arm, and excite the Muslims by Reagan was not such a good idea. It led directly to the continuing disasters we have today."

and you replied: "By your mush-headed logic, shouldn't you blame the guy that introduced Reagan's grandfather to Reagan's grandmother for all the terrorists we see today?"

The articles I sent you to were written by troops in those places in those years. I strongly suggest you read how all this modern terrorism got its roots, and who incited it.

Here is the post:
"Noum, I strongly suggest you look up and read "Blowback from the Afghan Battlefield", and see what Reagan wrought. Then look up Confessions of an Interrogator, and get another view of what Reagan and his band of hateful and self-righteous Christians started.

Want to puke? Read what we did to the poor folk we kidnapped in the Middle East Reagan/Bush Wars."

Feb 28, 2015
@gkam,.... All you did was to repost what we had already written.

I reject your premise of simplistic domino history. I'm not reading those sources. How about you summarize, then, I may read them.

Terrorists are motivated by their interpretation of islam. Reagan did not write the Quran. If they were motivated by a historical domino that Reagan knocked over 40 years ago, then they would not be murdering other Muslims as well now.

And as to your litany of dems who fell in line, Obama, who you blame, is not on that list.


.... of course the original point was that blaming Bush for circumstances today is to ignore that many high profile democrats voted and used rhetoric in support of that war; .....Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, John F. Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Henry Waxman, Hillary Clinton, ... 43% of democrats.

Feb 28, 2015
garbage snipped


Bush and your ilk created today's mess over there. It's his and your fault. You have blood on your hands just as if you personally cut heads off. Your ilk cowed the dems that you listed here with threats of "either against us or for us" "with us or with them"; calling anyone who objected "unpatriotic" and "un-American." It takes a great deal of integrity and honor to stand up to that kind of rhetoric and the press caved, as did those dems you cited. But Obama did not. And yet you think he should have put the tooth paste back in the tube in 6 years. You are a fool and a murderer. "Last refuge of a scoundrel."

Feb 28, 2015
Noum, I did NOT talk about the "litany of Dems". You are just still confused.

Go read those articles, unless you are too SCARED, like our "patriots" when those draft-dodgers screamed "Bring 'em on!". They tell you how and why ALL of this started.

Read it!

Feb 28, 2015
Thanks George Bush
Do you really think so?


I know so. Iraq had the highest per capita income, education and most secular nation in the Middle East, including Israel and Turkey. We gave him a wink and a nod on Kuwait. We gave him WMDs. We encouraged his war against Iran. We took him out. We broke it. We left. We now pay the price for our fundamental Conservative Republican stupidity. The same clowns who are in bed with the Saudi Monarchy which also lops off heads and subjugates women and turns a blind eye to Saudi funders of 9/11 and et al.

Feb 28, 2015
huckmuckus, I guess all that "Bring 'em on!" stuff was just adolescent bravado. We lost $4,000,000,000,000 and tens of thousands of troops to serious injuries and death for that Daddy's Boy adventure.

Who among this group fell for it? Fess up!

Feb 28, 2015
For anybody who understand French. This is a appalling documentary on IS. https://www.youtu...BqfA5Gyg I am pretty shure that there is going to be an English version of this.

Feb 28, 2015
Bush and your ilk created today's mess over there. It's his and your fault. You have blood on your hands just as if you personally cut heads off.


You make blaming others, rather than what is patently obvious, look easy,... as a naive bed-wetting liberal is expected to.

Go read those articles, unless you are too SCARED,


I'm not going to be sent off to argue with the internet and to research what your own point is for you. I simply asked you to summarize what point it is you are supposedly trying to make, to which you have declined. Why would I be scared of nothingness?

Feb 28, 2015
You make blaming others, rather than what is patently obvious, look easy,... as a naive bed-wetting liberal is expected to.


The facts have a liberal bias, agreed. It's your fault. Think about that next time you see some American getting his head cut off by some IS freak you let loose on the world. Maybe next time the stars align for you as prophesied in my initial post (2016), you will think twice about wrapping yourself in the flag and dancing to the drums of war. If not, I hope you don the uniform and go. On the other hand, why wait? If you feel so strongly about it, go now.

Feb 28, 2015
I made my point of showing you how WE invented the Muslim terrorists during the Reagan Administration, when he was in the throes of Alzheimer's, and we were organizing other Death Squads in Central America.

I guess you "forgot" about all that. But I do not blame you for not wanting to read something which proves you wrong.

And you ask: "Why would I be scared of nothingness?"

I reply that is the cause of religion. Do you "believe"?

Feb 28, 2015
For anybody who understand French. This is a appalling documentary on IS. https://www.youtu...BqfA5Gyg I am pretty shure that there is going to be an English version of this.


"Unknown a year ago, this start-up of terrorism, born under American occupation, has become a multinational organization of terror."

Not true. They existed even before the attacks on Sept 2001 on America. They were associated with al-quida, even pledging allegiance to them.

Feb 28, 2015
Noum opines: " as a naive bed-wetting liberal is expected to. "
---------------------------------------

I am a Vietnam Vet. How about you? Where were you in 1968, Big Mouth?

Feb 28, 2015
"Unknown a year ago, this start-up of terrorism, born under American occupation, has become a multinational organization of terror."

Not true. They existed even before the attacks on Sept 2001 on America. They were associated with al-quida, even pledging allegiance to them.


There have been many starts ups of Islamic-based terrorism. The article references *this* iteration, which is not the one to which you refer.

Feb 28, 2015
Gosh, Noum, you been sniffing my sheets? You extremists are REALLY weird.

Feb 28, 2015
I made my point of showing you how WE invented the Muslim terrorists during the Reagan Administration, ....

I guess you "forgot" about all that.
I reply that is the cause of religion. Do you "believe"?


I replied by stating that Reagan did not write the quran. That is what is motivating ISIS. They even proclaimed themselves a caliphate. That and the opportunistic vacuum left by arbitrarily pulling the military out of Iraq/Afghanistan.

Noumenon is an agnostic.

Noum opines: " as a naive bed-wetting liberal is expected to. "
---------------------------------------

I am a Vietnam Vet. How about you? Where were you in 1968, Big Mouth?


I didn't exist. Try rereading, I was responding to huckmucus, who promptly agreed.

I think it is deplorable to blame anyone except the terrorist savages themselves and only them. I'm not American, but detest the 'blame America' first band wagon of mindless liberals.

Feb 28, 2015
"Unknown a year ago, this start-up of terrorism, born under American occupation, has become a multinational organization of terror."

Not true. They existed even before the attacks on Sept 2001 on America. They were associated with al-quida, even pledging allegiance to them.


There have been many starts ups of Islamic-based terrorism. The article references *this* iteration, which is not the one to which you refer.


You are misinformed. I WAS correctly referring to the present one, ISIL.

Feb 28, 2015
... wrt ISIL proclaiming a caliphate. It is the entire point of muslim terrorists, ....the sectarian violence among shi'ite / sunni, the car bombings.... a radical means of enacting and forcing everyone else to their particular version of islam. That is their history. Reagan and Bush did not invent their history, only responded to elements of it.

Feb 28, 2015
You are misinformed. I WAS correctly referring to the present one, ISIL.


You are misinformed. The "ISIL" of today is not the one you were referencing. I didn't exist. I'd educate you but that's your job. My job is simply to point out your errors. Check out Ritter and his efforts to school your ilk back in the day.

Feb 28, 2015
. . I was responding to huckmucus, who promptly agreed.


I agreed you were wrong. I think we both agree on that.

Feb 28, 2015
"Unknown a year ago, this start-up of terrorism, born under American occupation, has become a multinational organization of terror."

Not true. They existed even before the attacks on Sept 2001 on America. [...]


There have been many starts ups of Islamic-based terrorism. The article references *this* iteration, which is not the one to which you refer.


You are misinformed. I WAS correctly referring to the present one, ISIL.


You are misinformed. The "ISIL" of today is not the one you were referencing. [It] didn't exist. I'd educate you but that's your job.


"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy described Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as starting his jihadist group 'Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad' [known as ISIL currently], with Jordanian and other Sunni Jihadist militants, in 1999 in Afghanistan with its training camp in Herat, Afghanistan, and with "a small amount of seed money" from Usama bin Laden "which continued until 9/11".

Feb 28, 2015
. . I was responding to huckmucus, who promptly agreed.


I agreed you were wrong. I think we both agree on that.


You agreed with me as follows,...

"The facts have a liberal bias, agreed."

Feb 28, 2015
"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy described Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as starting his jihadist group 'Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad' [known as ISIL currently], with Jordanian and other Sunni Jihadist militants, in 1999 in Afghanistan with its training camp in Herat, Afghanistan, and with "a small amount of seed money" from Usama bin Laden "which continued until 9/11".


Different today. It's like the Republicans of 1864 with those of 2015. On another point, I love how those who beat the drums of war against ISIL are also in bed with Isreal, beating the same drums against Iran. LOL! Can't have it both ways, son.


Feb 28, 2015
You agreed with me as follows,...

"The facts have a liberal bias, agreed."


No, you just agreed with me now. Glad to have you on board and admit you were wrong. Learn your rhetorical devices or stand corrected.

Feb 28, 2015
Hey Noum:

Maybe we should have supported the Soviets in the Stan? Oh, that's rights, commies are worse than your ISIL, new or old.

Feb 28, 2015
"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy described Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as starting his jihadist group 'Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad' [known as ISIL currently], with Jordanian and other Sunni Jihadist militants, in 1999 in Afghanistan with its training camp in Herat, Afghanistan, and with "a small amount of seed money" from Usama bin Laden "which continued until 9/11".


Different today.


It's the SAME group, the same leader, the same core organization, the same radical interpretation of the quran. The only thing that evolved was their name.

On another point, I love how those who beat the drums of war against ISIL are also in bed with Isreal, beating the same drums against Iran. LOL! Can't have it both ways, son.


First of all that is patently false, as the majority of middle eastern countries denounce ISIL and are far from being in bed with Israel. Secondly, how is that 'having it both ways'?

Feb 28, 2015
Want to see how we got the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS? (but no oil)

http://www.nytime...eld.html

http://xtremepeac...are.html

Feb 28, 2015
It's the SAME group, the same leader, the same core organization, the same radical interpretation of the quran. The only thing that evolved was their name.


Uh,no. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been dead for a decade. You'd call the U.S. today the same as the U.S. of that long ago too. As to having it both ways, Iran is a bigger enemy of ISIL than we are but your ilk would invade Iran for Israel in a heartbeat. You just have no concept of ME sociology and politics. Again, consult Ritter.

Feb 28, 2015

I think it is deplorable to blame anyone except the terrorist savages themselves and only them. I'm not American, but detest the 'blame America' first band wagon of mindless liberals.


Which makes nonoUNme a typical tool, unwilling or incapable of perceiving reality outside the realm of Black'n'White.

I take that back --nonoUNme employs willful disunderstanding to justify this one-dimensional, and entirely self-serving, rationalizing.

Denying America's ongoing role in creating the very conditions that enabled ISIL's current ascendency in the region is the rankest of ideologically-driven apologetics.

On the same basis, Europe, Soviets/Russia, Israel, and China can also be excused of any culpability.

Only an unregenerate fool/tool would attempt to do so. It is precisely the meddling by the rest of the developed world, past and current, that has set the stage for this, and those other atrocities, beginning prior to WWI.



Feb 28, 2015
I'm curious to know if a single person is behind the IS or if it is a group. The article mentions a prophet, but does not specify if it is Muhammed or possibly a current person.
Regardless, these actions are unconscionable and shows the depth of fear of the future that some will act upon by destroying the past.
@Gyre
here is some good info
https://en.wikipe...e_Levant

The group is headed and run by al-Baghdadi, with a cabinet of advisers - https://en.wikipe...e_Levant#Leadership_and_governance

and you can bet he is every bit if not MORE dangerous than bin laden
i would love the opportunity to go back there on a "hunting" vacation

i didn't get the chance to stuff any of my other trophies when i was there last time

i am no longer constrained by the rules of engagement, either


Feb 28, 2015
"i am no longer constrained by the rules of engagement, either"
-----------------------------------

Nor I, . . . but the Rules of Marriage are much worse.

Feb 28, 2015
Denying America's ongoing role in creating the very conditions that enabled ISIL's current ascendency in the region is the rankest of ideologically-driven apologetics.


Another half-wit who evidently can not comprehend what he reads?

In fact I did blame decisions made by America for enabling conditions for the ascendency of ISIL in the region. Denying what is written in black and white right in front of you is the rankest of ideologically-driven bias.

What I refuted was the notion that America created terrorists, and that decisions made 40 years ago and by Bush wrt Iraq caused the existence of terrorism.

It is merely a truism that a military offensive will result in a concerted counter insurgency,... not the result of some insightful analysis.

That they are specifically terrorists is on account of their interpretation of islam.

Feb 28, 2015
It's the SAME group, the same leader, the same core organization, the same radical interpretation of the quran. The only thing that evolved was their name.


Uh,no. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been dead for a decade.


Irrelevant. It's the same organization that while Zarqawi was still alive pledged allegiance to al-quida and changed their name. They, the same group (not al-quida) is now known as ISIL. Here, are more facts for you to ignore. They were not "born under American occupation".

Feb 28, 2015
Noum garbage snipped


"Terrorist" Terrorism" "weapons of mass destruction" "assault weapon" are all empty, BS terms that no longer (if they ever did) have any objective definition or meaning exclusive to one party and not another. If all you are saying is that people existed before the U.S. stepped on it's crank, then so what? Seeds are not the problem; it's our green thumb.

Feb 28, 2015
Denying America's ongoing role in creating the very conditions that enabled ISIL's current ascendency in the region is the rankest of ideologically-driven apologetics.


Another half-wit who evidently can not comprehend what he reads?

In fact I did blame decisions made by America for enabling conditions for the ascendency of ISIL in the region. Denying what is written in black and white right in front of you is the rankest of ideologically-driven bias.

What I refuted was the notion that America created terrorists, and that decisions made 40 years ago and by Bush wrt Iraq caused the existence of terrorism.


Mm-hmmm.

And very weak tea, indeed, nonoUNme. You want to make a special case of Islamic extremism by removing these developments from their context. Mere lip service to the role of America'n'herpals in creating the environment for extremism to grow and thrive in.


Feb 28, 2015
"Terrorist" Terrorism" [...] are all empty, BS terms that no longer (if they ever did) have any objective definition or meaning


Congratulations, that is the type of stupidity that earns one a place on my ignore list,.... that and ignoring facts presented to you. Good-bye.

It is precisely the meddling by the rest of the developed world, past and current, that has set the stage for this, and those other atrocities, beginning prior to WWI.


It is easy to be a mindless pacifist. It does not require any thought beyond 'war is bad' and that what 'appears to be the perpetrators are actually in fact the victims of the evil developed world'. 'Maybe had ISIL jobs and employment opportunity, they wouldn't be setting people on fire and cutting heads off', hmm?

Your mindset is useless in the face of actual threats.

Feb 28, 2015
In fact, making it INEVITABLE.


It is merely a truism that a military offensive will result in a concerted counter insurgency,... not the result of some insightful analysis.

That they are specifically terrorists is on account of their interpretation of islam.


However deplorable and repugnant these ISIL monsters are, the fact remains that they are not, as you would have us believe, in any way --excepting their particular "Made-in-Islam" brand stamp-- unique, and have a pedigree as ancient and illustrious and as long as recorded history --and most likely even more ancient than that.

And all for precisely the same reasons and justifications.

So, nonoUNme, it is you who are the half-wit "evidently" incapable of sorting out even your own muddle-headed, ideologically-benighted thoughts, much less the thoughts of others which you "read".

Feb 28, 2015
Mere lip service to the role of America [..] in creating the environment for extremism to grow and thrive in.


And you continue to lie and deliberately feign lack of comprehension.

Again, ...I have explicitly stated myself, in this very thread, exactly what it is that you are accusing me of denying. Are you an idiot or a congenital liar?

You want to make a special case of Islamic extremism by removing these developments from their context.


America's actions in that region did not create islamic terrorism. An extremist interpretation of the quran did.


Feb 28, 2015
It is easy to be a mindless pacifist. It does not require any thought beyond 'war is bad' and that what 'appears to be the perpetrators are actually in fact the victims of the evil developed world'. 'Maybe had ISIL jobs and employment opportunity, they wouldn't be setting people on fire and cutting heads off', hmm?

Your mindset is useless in the face of actual threats.


And straightaway another mindless, kneejerk, black'n'white "reading" by the ever-so-skilled willful misinterpreter, nonoUNme.

How you can equate Islamic terrorism's lack of unique status with personal pacifism is a reliable marker for the type of delusionally self important pseudo intellectualism I just described you as cultivating within yourself.




Feb 28, 2015
nonoUnme responds thusly:

Mere lip service to the role of America [..] in creating the environment for extremism to grow and thrive in.

And you continue to lie and deliberately feign lack of comprehension.

Again, ...I have explicitly stated myself, in this very thread, exactly what it is that you are accusing me of denying. Are you an idiot or a congenital liar?

You want to make a special case of Islamic extremism by removing these developments from their context.


And then says this:

America's actions in that region did not create islamic terrorism. An extremist interpretation of the quran did.


So which is it, nonoUNme? Has America had a role in the creation of ISIL, or not?

You are so confused that you don't know your elbow from an ass in the ground.




Feb 28, 2015
However deplorable and repugnant these ISIL monsters are, the fact remains that they are not, as you would have us believe, in any way --excepting their particular "Made-in-Islam" brand stamp-- unique, [...]


I don't know what this post is supposed to mean. Where did I suggest that this particular group of savages, are unique in the history of savages? Why would I "have you believe that"?

And why are you calling them "monsters" when it is your conjecture that they are in fact victims of the developed world? A pacifist is not supposed to be so hurtful to innocent victims of the evil west.

Feb 28, 2015
However deplorable and repugnant these ISIL monsters are, the fact remains that they are not, as you would have us believe, in any way --excepting their particular "Made-in-Islam" brand stamp-- unique, [...]


I don't know what this post is supposed to mean. Where did I suggest that this particular group of savages, are unique in the history of savages? Why would I "have you believe that"?

And why are you calling them "monsters" when it is your conjecture that they are in fact victims of the developed world? A pacifist is not supposed to be so hurtful to innocent victims of the evil west.


Of course you don't, nonoUNme, especially since you have selectively edited --ie decontextualised-- my statement to make it more palatable within your mindless, kneejerk, black'n'white worldview.

Rather than letting yourself become so upset by these challenges to your stupidiosity, why don't you get yourself medicated? Prozac, maybe?

Feb 28, 2015
Has America had a role in the creation of ISIL, or not?

You are so confused that you don't know your elbow from an ass in the ground.


Nope, not confused, ....you're just not honest. I have been consistent in this thread.

Read carefully please,....

I rejected the notion that America had a role in the CREATION of terrorism/terrorists, ... I did NOT reject the notion that America had a role in creating the conditions that enabled ISIL's ascendancy in the region,... in fact I confirmed it explicitly, in this thread, by stating the following,.....

Feb 28, 2015
....

"The reason these savages have congealed into existence and are running wild is because Obama had announced way ahead of time, that HE would be pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Idiotic strategy. This advertised a vacuum for these savage cavemen to plan and occupy. The second reason is because Obama is an incompetent community organizer and had/has failed to orchestrate the annihilation of these animals even while they were cattle herding across vast plans of territory with their continued savagery." - Noumenon

...and this...

"It is merely a truism that a military offensive will result in a concerted counter insurgency,... not the result of some insightful analysis. " - Noumenon

Is this clear enough? America did not write the quran, and has never CREATED terrorists,... whilst America's decision HAS resulted in the spread of an already existent evil group of islamic motivated savages. Or was that clear enough?

Feb 28, 2015
...............IOW, ....I wouldn't ever blame Obama for the Existence of these islamic savages,.... and despite me blaming his decision for the Spread of the islamic-cavemen across vast regions of the middle-east, I would NEVER blame Obama for Their murderous actions. This is in contrast with the deplorable rhetoric above wrt Reagan and Bush.

Feb 28, 2015
Obama is entirely at fault to allowing ISIS to first gain a foot hold, and then, do nothing. But even worse, like Clinton did in Somalia, Obama made empty threats.
Obama signs illegal executive orders to do what he wants, so he is making excuses for not renewing the S.O.F. agreement in Iraq.
Weakness has consequences.
US allies and former allies are appreciating that now.

Feb 28, 2015
"now you've gone and done it, ISIS. For the past three years your goons have rampaged through Syria and Iraq, slaughtering, raping, torturing, crucifying and enslaving anyone standing in the way of your theocratic fascism.

All the time the UN has been less-than-busy looking the other way and doing what it does best; talking about stuff. Either that, or it has been arranging lavish international conferences to fight climate change because, as we know, it's a far greater threat to our age than religiously-motivated terrorism (thanks for the line, Obama).

But THEN you desecrated some statues. Took to them with hammers and drills. Now stand back and quake in fear because the leader of the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO, Irina Bokova, is very, very cross with you."
http://www.breitb...-beings/

Feb 28, 2015
I don't know what this post is supposed to mean. Where did I suggest that this particular group of savages, are unique in the history of savages? Why would I "have you believe that"?

And why are you calling them "monsters" when it is your conjecture that they are in fact victims of the developed world? A pacifist is not supposed to be so hurtful to innocent victims of the evil west.


Noum, you tried to parse them out as separate. Duh. Read your own posts. No one argued they were innocent victims of the evil west. Rather, they are a horrible disease released upon the world by the evil west. There is the difference you pretend to ignore. Again, Duh!

Feb 28, 2015
Congratulations, that is the type of stupidity that earns one a place on my ignore list,.... that and ignoring facts presented to you. Good-bye.


That's what anti-intellectual conservative cowards always say when they can't rebut on the merits. You are a fool.

Feb 28, 2015
nonoUNme
The concept of objective reality or the unknowable ultimate truth of things postulated by Immanuel Kant; from whom noum uses the iconic image as meme.

"Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." Sun Tzu
Unknown a year ago, this start-up of terrorism, born under American occupation, has become a multinational organization of terror.

Not true. They existed even before the attacks on Sept 2001 on America. They were associated with al-quida, even pledging allegiance to them.
In this documentaryJérôme Frittel do not point fingers at anybody. He just tells the story of IS (how it got there) and contrary to what you say, he do not disconnect IS from AQ; he explains why AQ was nothing in comparition to IS.

Feb 28, 2015
released upon the world by the evil west.


How?
Because the west failed to destroy them?

Feb 28, 2015
nonoUNme
The concept of objective reality or the unknowable ultimate truth of things postulated by Immanuel Kant; from whom noum uses the iconic image as meme.

"Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." Sun Tzu
Unknown a year ago, this start-up of terrorism, born under American occupation, has become a multinational organization of terror.

Not true. They existed even before the attacks on Sept 2001 on America. They were associated with al-quida, even pledging allegiance to them.
In this documentaryJérôme Frittel do not point fingers at anybody. He just tells the story of IS (how it got there) and contrary to what you say, he do not disconnect IS from AQ; he explains why AQ was nothing in comparition to IS.


I objected to the notion that ISIL were "born under American occupation". They existed before this. It appears to blame the USA for the existence of ISIL, no?

Feb 28, 2015
...............IOW, ....I wouldn't ever blame Obama for the Existence of these islamic savages,.... and despite me blaming his decision for the Spread of the islamic-cavemen across vast regions of the middle-east, I would NEVER blame Obama for Their murderous actions. This is in contrast with the deplorable rhetoric above wrt Reagan and Bush.


The third and final of consectutive posts devoted exclusively to squirmy, hypocritical, extravagant, increasingly desperate backpedaling by nonoUNme.

Well --at least you got a good workout.

I hear that backpedalcycling is excellent for cardio conditioning!

Feb 28, 2015
I objected to the notion that ISIL were "born under American occupation". They existed before this. It appears to blame the USA for the existence of ISIL, no?
You got exasperated by a futile detail. Please, there is much more to it than that.

Feb 28, 2015
released upon the world by the evil west.


How?
Because the west failed to destroy them?


No, because the west took out Saddam.

Feb 28, 2015
The third and final of consectutive posts devoted exclusively to squirmy, hypocritical, extravagant, increasingly desperate backpedaling by [Noumenon].


I quoted my very first post, how is that backpedaling? My attempt to make clear my position , as it was consistent throughout this thread, was bound to fail with your dishonesty, not unexpected.

Your first post claimed that I had denied that American decisions have caused the spread of ISIL, despite my first posts having stated precisely that. You're even too dishonest to admit that error on your part. Good-bye.

Feb 28, 2015
I objected to the notion that ISIL were "born under American occupation". They existed before this. It appears to blame the USA for the existence of ISIL, no?
You got exasperated by a futile detail. Please, there is much more to it than that.


Perhaps.

Feb 28, 2015
released upon the world by the evil west.


How?
Because the west failed to destroy them?


No, because the west took out Saddam.

So it was acceptable for a Stalinist dictator to murder and torture his 'citizens' and bribe French and British politicians?
How was Saddam any better?

Feb 28, 2015
How was Saddam any better?


Saddam had the most secular, highest educated and wealthy population per capita in the ME, including over Israel and Turkey. That's how. Also, before using the old "he did X to his own people" you must first ask those people if they thought of themselves as his. If not, then they were insurgents and, well, I hear tell it's okay to kill insurgents, eh? Just ask America. In any event, Saddam was nowhere near as bad as ISIS. The Soviets were better than the Taliban and Assad is better than ISIS. But no, the U.S. has to stick it's nose in and make things worse. Ask Iran about the Shah, etc. Democracy my butt. Oh, and you want to talk about bribery? Don't get me started.

Feb 28, 2015
I objected to the notion that ISIL were "born under American occupation". They existed before this. It appears to blame the USA for the existence of ISIL, no?
You got exasperated by a futile detail. Please, there is much more to it than that.


Perhaps.

There is no need for the U.S. to feel any guilt about what is happenning in the middle-est. I am telling you that rom north of the border.

Feb 28, 2015
There are no need for the U.S. to feel any guilt about what is happenning in the middle-est. I am telling you that rom north of the border.


You are correct. Where guilt is a sign of a conscience, the U.S. has no need for guilt.

Feb 28, 2015
There are no need for the U.S. to feel any guilt about what is happenning in the middle-est. I am telling you that rom north of the border.


You are correct. Where guilt is a sign of a conscience, the U.S. has no need for guilt.
Ha! Stupid was I for a moment; I have kinds of misinterpretted your comment.

Do you want to know more about the ennemy?
https://www.youtu...ZzpmbEcs
https://www.youtu...APJDAnQA
https://www.youtu...BNbdUbcA
https://www.youtu...wTOsh__0
https://www.youtu..._THjtXOw

Feb 28, 2015
@TechnoCreed, the cretin huckmucus, rated your post a 1, you then misunderstood his post by rating it a 5. He is saying that America has no conscience therefore can feel no guilt. Huckmucus, an appropriate meme for him, is another deplorable simpleton.

[edit: I see you caught this error. No he and like minded think America and the west is the enemy, and that the savages are mere victims who's evil condition is caused by the developed world. There is no way to rationalize with such stupidity]

Feb 28, 2015
There are no need for the U.S. to feel any guilt about what is happenning in the middle-est. I am telling you that rom north of the border.


You are correct. Where guilt is a sign of a conscience, the U.S. has no need for guilt.
Ha! Stupid was I for a moment; I have kinds of misinterpretted your comment.

Do you want to know more about the ennemy?
https://www.youtu...ZzpmbEcs


I know. Can you believe we unleashed that by taking out Saddam? No conscience.

Feb 28, 2015
@TechnoCreed, the cretin huckmucus, rated your post a 1, you then misunderstood his post by rating it a 5. He is saying that America has no conscience therefore can feel no guilt. Huckmucus, an appropriate meme for him, is another deplorable simpleton.

[edit: I see you caught this error. No he and like minded think America and the west is the enemy, and that the savages are mere victims who's evil condition is caused by the developed world. There is no way to rationalize with such stupidity]


I can't believe you still think we view the cretins that we released upon the world as victims. You didn't learn the lesson I taught you about seeds and making them grow. And now you tell TechnoCreed what he understands and does not understand. Typical of your ilk.

Feb 28, 2015

Your first post claimed that I had denied that American decisions have caused the spread of ISIL, despite my first posts having stated precisely that. You're even too dishonest to admit that error on your part. Good-bye.


Yeah --except that you forgot to quote this part, jackass:

Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are created by the very efforts to defeat them. And blaming Bush and the republicans only exposes your willful ignorance further.....


Goodbye, indeed, backpedaler.


Mar 01, 2015
I know. Can you believe we unleashed that by taking out Saddam? No conscience.
Sadam would just have delayed what was ultimately unavoidable. I would agree that he had nothing to do with 9/11, still it happened.

Mar 01, 2015
I know. Can you believe we unleashed that by taking out Saddam? No conscience.
Sadam would just have delayed what was ultimately unavoidable. I would agree that he had nothing to do with 9/11, still it happened.


Delayed? No, he stopped it dead in it's tracks. He had the most educated, wealthy and secular country in the middle east, with several muslim sects, jews, christians, etc, all under a brutal dictatorship that we propped up. Our meddling in Iran with a Shaw over a democratically elected official, against the Soviets in the Stan (giving rise to the Taliban and a haven for AQ and 9/11), in Iraq with "WMDs" against Iran, then taking out Saddam, it's all our fault. The Russians and Assad and Iran could help us out, but no . . ., we know better.

Mar 01, 2015
Delayed? No, he stopped it dead in it's tracks. He had the most educated, wealthy and secular country in the middle east, with several muslim sects, jews, christians, etc, all under a brutal dictatorship that we propped up. Our meddling in Iran with a Shaw over a democratically elected official, against the Soviets in the Stan (giving rise to the Taliban and a haven for AQ and 9/11), in Iraq with "WMDs" against Iran, then taking out Saddam, it's all our fault. The Russians and Assad and Iran could help us out, but no . . ., we know better.
The war of Irak was not a great idea and stained international relationship with natural allies; if you remember we did not go there and many of you are still pissed with the French. Bush fought the wrong war because he made the mistake of underestimating the real enemy, the jihadist.

Mar 01, 2015
Delayed? No, he stopped it dead in it's tracks. He had the most educated, wealthy and secular country in the middle east, with several muslim sects, jews, christians, etc, all under a brutal dictatorship that we propped up. Our meddling in Iran with a Shaw over a democratically elected official, against the Soviets in the Stan (giving rise to the Taliban and a haven for AQ and 9/11), in Iraq with "WMDs" against Iran, then taking out Saddam, it's all our fault. The Russians and Assad and Iran could help us out, but no . . ., we know better.
The war of Irak was not a great idea and stained international relationship with natural allies; if you remember we did not go there and many of you are still pissed with the French. Bush fought the wrong war because he made the mistake of underestimating the real enemy, the jihadist.


I agree with much of what you say here. I just have not decided whether Bush and company got what they wanted or not.

Mar 01, 2015
@noumenon
The reason these savages have congealed into existence and are running wild is because Obama had announced way ahead of time, that HE would be pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Idiotic strategy..
Not at all, It allowed the international community to finally identify the assailant. Now we just have to determine the proper strategy to deal with it. You are no more the only country who feels threatened by this.

Mar 01, 2015
Both Bush and Obama are to blame for this mess. Bush by going into Iraq in the first place, it was not needed at all, even a dictator is much better than islamists. Obama by pulling out too soon, leaving behind a power vacuum readily exploited by the islamists.

But that is history, the question is, what to do now? One thing is certain, there can be no peace as long as the likes of ISIS exist on our planet.

Mar 01, 2015

Your first post claimed that I had denied that American decisions have caused the spread of ISIL, despite my first posts having stated precisely that. You're even too dishonest to admit that error on your part. Good-bye.


Yeah --except that you forgot to quote this part, jackass:

Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are created by the very efforts to defeat them. And blaming Bush and the republicans only exposes your willful ignorance further.....




Are you really still feigning lack of comprehension? I had objected to the notion that the USA, under any president, had CREATED or "invented" terrorism. I had not objected to the argument that the USA created the conditions that allowed them to spread, in fact made that argument myself.


Mar 01, 2015
,... Now, ShotmanMaslo just made a reasonable and rational argument wrt conditions for which all ready existent Islamic terrorists could take advantage, without the need of stating that the USA had, and I quote, "invented Muslim terrorists" or "created" terrorism,... which was the basis of my entire objection. You still have not admitted your error. I don't expect you too either, as you are dishonest.


Mar 01, 2015
Both Bush and Obama are to blame for this mess. Bush by going into Iraq in the first place, it was not needed at all, even a dictator is much better than islamists.

Legitimate argument, no question. I would only state that the conscious choice was not really simply between a dictator and Islamists. That WOULD have been the choice only if the plan was to take out the Saddam gov and then let them fight it out for control. Instead considerable effort was made to establish a gov that could control the country.

Keep in mind also that Iraq and Iran would have been engaged in a nuclear arms race by now, both suspecting the other. It had already been suggested that Saddam was seeking to do so at the time,... and now we know Iran restarted their nuclear work.

Mar 01, 2015
even a dictator is much better than islamists.

So why did Obama destabilize Libya and Egypt?
Why does Obama employ Muslim brotherhood on his staff?

Mar 01, 2015
One thing is certain, there can be no peace as long as the likes of ISIS exist on our planet.


Absolutely true. It is disheartening that there is of yet little done. Middle eastern countries are ultimately responsible for their annihilation, but will some leadership from the west. There is no question that the Bush admin would not have pulled out from the region for the sake of just "ending the war".

How to destroy them with the mentality that thinks we only end up creating more of them by "meddling" in the region, as some of the above posters suggest.

Mar 01, 2015
One thing is certain, there can be no peace as long as the likes of ISIS exist on our planet.


But how to destroy them with the mentality that thinks we only Create more of them by "meddling" in the region?


Kill them until they stop.

The spread of Islam into Europe a few centuries ago was stopped with force.
Islam has been allowed to invade the west because of 'liberal' multiculturalism and self hate for the success of Western Civilization.
The leaders in the west need to remind the world of its history and how western values have increased the liberty and prosperity of the world.
Citizens must demand their leaders enforce the rule of law instead of selective enforcement or ignoring the law for political gain.
Under Islam, Christians and Jews are second class and pagans are even lower.
Under 'liberalism', some groups are more equal than others.

Mar 01, 2015
Your first post claimed that I had denied that American decisions have caused the spread of ISIL, despite my first posts having stated precisely that. You're even too dishonest to admit that error on your part. Good-bye.


Yeah --except that you forgot to quote this part, jackass:
Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them. And blaming Bush and the republicans only exposes your willful ignorance further.....


If you're referring to the last sentence, I was referring to 'blaming Bush and the republicans' exclusively. This is proven by me from posts immediately following where I post quotes from democrats on the issue, thus implying 'then they are to blame as well'.

Do you agree with gkam that the USA "invented muslim terrorists",... or with me that only the extremist interpretation of the quran is responsible for muslim terrorists"?

Mar 01, 2015
"Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." Sun Tzu [thanks technocreed]

The spread of Islam into Europe a few centuries ago was stopped with force.
Islam has been allowed to invade the west because of 'liberal' multiculturalism and self hate for the success of Western Civilization.
The leaders in the west need to remind the world of its history and how western values have increased the liberty and prosperity of the world.


Absolutely true.

Unfortunately, the pathetic state of the liberal mentality and their disinterested faux intellectualism of seeking "the root cause", has seeped even into the USA state department,... suggesting that if only they had jobs they wouldn't be terrorists.

How to fight this savage evil with this mentality, and the mentality that thinks we create them by fighting them, and refusing to associate radical islam with terrorists motivation?

Mar 01, 2015
What's needed is for moderate Muslims to come forward and explain how the fundamentalists' interpretation is a corrupted form of Islam, as our Western leaders keep telling us.

They just need reminding how Islam was originally spread by peaceful proselytisation, of how grown men would weep at the poetic beauty of Qu'ranic verses, that "islam" means "peace" and that Mohammed used to buy his mum flowers and help old ladies cross the road.

Once they realise their militancy has no scriptural legitimacy they'll all instantly convert to the more docile Sufi and Ahmadiyya sects, who aren't at all apostates and whose Jihad really is a form of peaceful inner struggle, with an eschatology that really is an abstract metaphysical construct and not at all a gravely literalistic prophecy incumbent upon all submitters to bring to fulfillment.

And there'll be bluebirds flocking over pastures green, with free candyfloss and drum circles and people of all walks holding hands singing kumbaya..

Mar 01, 2015
What's needed is for moderate Muslims to come forward and explain how the fundamentalists' interpretation is a corrupted form of Islam


They can't because it is not true.

only the extremist interpretation of the quran is responsible for muslim terrorists"?


It's not extreme. It is the correct and proper interpretation.

Islam was, and is spread by the sword.


Mar 01, 2015
Ryggy wants a Holy War, where there are no rules, and anything goes, because we are Killing for Absolute Good!

Announcing we are at war with Islam kills us all by announcing to a a billion people "You are our enemy!"

What do you expect their response to be?

You folk do it for the attention. Otherwise, you are monsters.

Mar 01, 2015
How to fight this savage evil with this mentality, and the mentality that thinks we create them by fighting them, and refusing to associate radical islam with terrorists motivation?


What could be more effective than to have a brutal dictator do our bidding and keep them down? It wasn't the liberals that set this disease loose upon the Earth. It was neo-Con idiots like yourself. I have no problem wiping this scourge out with violence. However, before I get on board with it, the likes of you must first admit your mistake and then allow the likes of me to run the war. Until then, I enjoy watching you wring your hands and fret over the likes of Obama.

Mar 01, 2015
It wasn't the liberals that set this disease loose upon the Earth.


Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran.

Obama helped kill or depose the dictators in Libya and Egypt and threatened to do the same for Syria's dictator.

Obama is a neo-con?

Mar 01, 2015
Ryggy wants a Holy War.

Send him!

Mar 01, 2015
It wasn't the liberals that set this disease loose upon the Earth.


Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran.

Obama helped kill or depose the dictators in Libya and Egypt and threatened to do the same for Syria's dictator.

Obama is a neo-con?


We installed the Shah over a democratically elected leader in a country that was not unlike Iraq under Saddam, only without the brutality. After Bush ruined the world and spread "democracy" with social media, all the crap you blame on Obama happened as a result. And is still happening, in Syria, Libya, Egypt and maybe, someday, Saudi. Oh, but wait, there is oil there so I guess that won't happen. In other words, Obama merely failed to double down on neo-con mistakes. Some folks learn from the past. Don't like it? Go clean up your mess yourself. Where is your uniform and rifle?

Mar 01, 2015
Ryggy wants a Holy War, where there are no rules, and anything goes, because we are Killing for Absolute Good!

Announcing we are at war with Islam kills us all by announcing to a a billion people "You are our enemy!"


Stop deliberately inventing straw-men. The west would not proclaim a war on Islam generally. It would not be a religious war as in Christians against Muslims.

It would be primary muslims fighting against other radical terrorist Muslims who have proclaimed a caliphate and thus authority over all muslims. It IS a religious war, or should be, but amongst Muslims routing out the literal terrorist interpretation of Islam.

Mar 01, 2015
Go, Noum, go!

I went in 1967, and learned my lesson.

GO!!

Mar 01, 2015
It would be primary muslims fighting against other radical terrorist Muslims who have proclaimed a caliphate and thus authority over all muslims. It IS a religious war, or should be, but amongst Muslims routing out the literal terrorist interpretation of Islam.


Uh, isn't that what Obama is trying to do? With a little air support? Noum, you need to saddle up and ride. Get a rifle and go over there where your rhetoric meets the road.

Mar 01, 2015
Go, Noum, go!

I went in 1967, and learned my lesson.

GO!!


The USA/Canadian military does need target practice every few years. But I did not see anyone suggest that the ground troops should be of the west, did you? Is that another straw-man of yours designed for convenient and easy defeat? Any ground force should be a coalition of regional countries supported with western tech and air, or whatever strategy the experts decide is the best.

Mar 01, 2015
Go, Noum, go!

I went in 1967, and learned my lesson.

GO!!


The USA/Canadian military does need target practice every few years. But I did not see anyone suggest that the ground troops should be of the west, did you? Is that another straw-man of yours designed for convenient and easy defeat? Any ground force should be a coalition of regional countries supported with western tech and air, or whatever strategy the experts decide is the best.


You sound like Obama. LOL!

Mar 01, 2015
Go, Noum, go!

I went in 1967, and learned my lesson.

GO!!


The USA/Canadian military does need target practice every few years. But I did not see anyone suggest that the ground troops should be of the west, did you? Is that another straw-man of yours designed for convenient and easy defeat? Any ground force should be a coalition of regional countries supported with western tech and air, or whatever strategy the experts decide is the best.


You sound like Obama. LOL!


Not even close. I would be doing twenty times the bombing campaigns,.. giving massive aid to the Kurdish, pressuring Turkey, embarrassing the Muslim world in allowing these savages to pollute Islam and ignoring the challenge present by the savages.

Mar 01, 2015
" I would be doing twenty times the bombing campaigns,.. giving massive aid to the Kurdish, pressuring Turkey, embarrassing the Muslim world in allowing these savages to pollute Islam and ignoring the challenge present by the savages."
------------------------------------------------

Well, of course, you would, . . while cowering in some Undisclosed Location!

No, Noum, . . YOU GO!

Mar 01, 2015
Not even close. I would be doing twenty times the bombing campaigns,.. giving massive aid to the Kurdish, pressuring Turkey, embarrassing the Muslim world in allowing these savages to pollute Islam and ignoring the challenge present by the savages.


Hey, I thought you blocked me? I guess you can't be taken at your word. I think you should go over there and fight. If you don't have the courage of your convictions then what good are you? You talk like a tough neo-con but those punks were chicken hawks. You fit right in.

Mar 01, 2015
Noum opines: " as a naive bed-wetting liberal is expected to. "
---------------------------------------

I am a Vietnam Vet. How about you? Where were you in 1968, Big Mouth?
Correction: you are an unrepentant liar who feels he can get away with posting shit like this:
... Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km, that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide, that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, that plutonium is raining down on idaho, that high-energy alpha radiation cant penetrate skin, etcetcetc
-as well as claiming to be an engineer, which by your own admission you're not. So your declaration of service is most likely a lie as well,

Mar 01, 2015
So, GhostofOtto, are you a stalker, highjacking this thread with unrelated stuff from some other argument? I can't and won't comment on the merits of your post (because it's irrelevant and out of context) but in my experience such conduct is usually the result of an ego having had it's butt handed to it elsewhere and who can't let it go. Try to stay on topic.

Mar 01, 2015
Go see someone to help you out of your hate and fears, otto.

Ask Stumpy, one I trust here, and to whom I sent copies of my story now owned by Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine, plus a copy of the check, and a pdf of Desert Wings, the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center with my picture on the front page, a copy of my business card as Senior Engineer for PG&E.

I will also send some copies of my AF performance reports, if you continue to challenge me. They contain some embarrassments for you. But you will dismiss all of this in some silly fashion.

Anybody else got an address for me to send this proof to? Then, perhaps we can debate with trusted folk.

Mar 01, 2015
If anybody sends me an address, I'll also include recounts of what it was like on the flightline at Edwards AFB, back when we were flying Blackbirds, XB-70's, rocket-powered aircraft, and strange experimental aircraft, some without wings or power.

Mar 01, 2015
@Noumenon
Absolutely true.

Unfortunately, the pathetic state of the liberal mentality and their disinterested faux intellectualism of seeking "the root cause", has seeped even into the USA state department,... suggesting that if only they had jobs they wouldn't be terrorists.

How to fight this savage evil with this mentality, and the mentality that thinks we create them by fighting them, and refusing to associate radical islam with terrorists motivation?
A simpleton would say that; not a liberal.

???? Come on, you are not a Randianist are you? (This hodgepodge of sophistry)

Implying that any western ideology is the culprit is as senseless as suggesting that any American president was the cause of it. Islamism is in the realm of the cognitive Muslim word so only Muslim scholars could truly clarify its nature for us. Whatever it is, it goes against freedom of expression, as we have seen in the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.

Mar 01, 2015
Implying that any western ideology is the culprit is as senseless as suggesting that any American president was the cause of it.


You are correct and I did not suggest that liberalism is the culprit or cause of it. I simply asked how to fight the threat when liberals have even actively avoided using the phrase 'radical Islam'. And yes, liberals have indeed said what I listed above.

Mar 01, 2015
Noum lied when he said:

. . . I did not suggest that liberalism is the culprit . . . .


Because he said:

Islam has been allowed to invade the west because of 'liberal' multiculturalism and self hate for the success of Western Civilization.


Mar 01, 2015
Noum lied when he said:

. . . I did not suggest that liberalism is the culprit . . . .


Because he said:

Islam has been allowed to invade the west because of 'liberal' multiculturalism and self hate for the success of Western Civilization.



Are you lying now? You quoted ryggesogn2's post.

Unlike you, I have not blamed a western ideology or president for the existence of terrorism.

Mar 01, 2015
Noum lied when he said:

. . . I did not suggest that liberalism is the culprit . . . .


Because he said:

Islam has been allowed to invade the west because of 'liberal' multiculturalism and self hate for the success of Western Civilization.



Are you lying now? You quoted ryggesogn2's post.

Unlike you, I have not blamed a western ideology or president for the existence of terrorism.


You quoted him and said: "Absolutely true." So, are you back-peddling now? Liar.

Oh, and if you had critical and analytic reading skills you will see I NEVER blamed western ideology or a president for the existence of terrorism; I blamed them for letting it out of the box. Remember the lesson I taught you about the champagne bottle? No? I didn't think so. You stand corrected but don't even know it.

Mar 01, 2015
I have not blamed a western ideology or president for the existence of terrorism.


I blame the West for not actively opposing totalitarian ideologies, whether Islamic or socialistic.

The West didn't create the tactics or the tyrants, but it enables them with their cowardice.

Mar 01, 2015
@huckmucus
Islam has been allowed to invade the west because of 'liberal' multiculturalism and self hate for the success of Western Civilization.
Do not attribute to Noumenon the words of Ryggy; this guy has is steering wheel locked to the right and will go nowhere with his arguments (Has I said before Randianism is just sophistry). Noumenon is much more of a conservative Tory (I might be wrong there) he have also much more nuance.

I was about to post this comment when I noticed that Noum. already replied on it. Still it is worthy of posting (I want to get some reaction from it).


Mar 01, 2015
Some believe Islam will be peaceful if they have a Reformation as Christians did with Luther and Calvin. This Reformation was to pull the Church back to the teachings of Christ, of peace.

Islamists are now engaging in their reformation. Pulling Muslims back to their violent origins.

Mar 01, 2015
The West didn't create the tactics or the tyrants, but it enables them with their cowardice.


I guess it all depends upon how you define "create." We didn't conceive Saddam or the Shaw of Iran or the House of Saud or any number of South American tyrants, in the bedroom; but we certainly nurtured, fed, watered and fertilized them. As to tactics, we turned blind eyes, taught at the School of the Americas and utilized surrogates to employ those tactics on our behalf. And, it's easy to question the tactics of those who lack F-16s, Stingers, Daisy Cutters, etc. It's like Skynet calling John Conner a coward for using the tactics he used. He should have come out in the open and fought fair. It's easy from the cat bird seat.

Mar 01, 2015
Noum lied when he said:

. . . I did not suggest that liberalism is the culprit . . . .


Because he said:

Islam has been allowed to invade the west because of 'liberal' multiculturalism and self hate for the success of Western Civilization.



Are you lying now? You quoted ryggesogn2's post.

Unlike you, I have not blamed a western ideology or president for the existence of terrorism.


You quoted him and said: "Absolutely true." So, are you back-peddling now? Liar.


I agreed with the totality of his post in the context in which it was made, not the context in which you quoted it. Further, you falsely attributed that post to me, but now claim that I agreed with it. Are you backpedaling?

Mar 01, 2015
@huckmucus
Islam has been allowed to invade the west because of 'liberal' multiculturalism and self hate for the success of Western Civilization.
Do not attribute to Noumenon the words of Ryggy; this guy has is steering wheel locked to the right and will go nowhere with his arguments (Has I said before Randianism is just sophistry). Noumenon is much more of a conservative Tory (I might be wrong there) he have also much more nuance.

I was about to post this comment when I noticed that Noum. already replied on it. Still it is worthy of posting (I want to get some reaction from it).



Noum quoted Ryggy and said "Absolutely true." He owned it.

Mar 01, 2015

I agreed with the totality of his post in the context in which it was made, not the context in which you quoted it. Further, you falsely attributed that post to me, but now claim that I agreed with it. Are you backpedaling?


You said "Absolutely true." You didn't qualify anything. You owned it. I also note that you fail to distinguish the context, or Ryggy, because you can't. What he said, and what you absolutely agree with is that liberalism is the culprit. So, were you lying then or are lying now?

Mar 01, 2015
Do not attribute to Noumenon the words of Ryggy; this guy has is steering wheel locked to the right and will go nowhere with his arguments (Has I said before Randianism is just sophistry). Noumenon is much more of a conservative Tory (I might be wrong there) he have also much more nuance.


I have read Ayn Rand and admire her wrt Egoism being a good, a natural instinct and key element in capitalism, as expressed a bit Here. However, I can not follow her into her Objectivism, as I'm more of an Kantian, as expressed Here, and hundreds of other threads.

Mar 01, 2015
Noumenon . . . he have also much more nuance.


True. Here is some nuance:

". . . I did not suggest that liberalism is the culprit . . . .

Compare:

"The reason these savages have congealed into existence and are running wild is because Obama had announced way ahead of time, that HE would be pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan."

So yeah, I guess it's not liberalism, just Obama. I failed to parse that hair. I'd also pull his quote about not blaming a president. But I'm starting to understand Noumian nuance. I stand corrected.

Mar 01, 2015
Some believe Islam will be peaceful if they have a Reformation as Christians did with Luther and Calvin. This Reformation was to pull the Church back to the teachings of Christ, of peace
Ahaahaaaa Luther was a Jew hater and overall bigot. He was directly responsible for the 30 years war where peaceful Protestants chased Catholics into churches and set them on fire.

And Calvin taught that only certain individuals were born with gods grace and were guaranteed a place in heaven. Conversely, everyone else was born condemned. Another extreme form of bigotry don't you think?

You're a typical religionist - like ISIS a you want to rewrite history to suit and erase whatever doesn't fit.

There's no difference between today's islamists and the Protestant Knights hospitaller who plied the Mediterranean in search of moslems to murder and enslave.

Mar 01, 2015
Some believe Islam will be peaceful if they have a Reformation as Christians did with Luther and Calvin. This Reformation was to pull the Church back to the teachings of Christ, of peace.

Islamists are now engaging in their reformation. Pulling Muslims back to their violent origins.


Someone else in this thread opined that the resolution of that issue rests with Muslim scholars, not outsiders. I agree. As an outsider who could care less about any religion's internal schisms, I focus on the externalizations of their dispute. I certainly won't put any stock in the opinion of yet another outsider who bases an opinion on individual excerpts fed to him by one of the parties. I really think the only thing that separates Westboro Baptist Church, or Pat Robinson, from ISIS-type conduct is the fact they are outnumbered and out gunned and bought off with bread and circuses that they don't want to lose.

Mar 01, 2015
Some believe Islam will be peaceful if they have a Reformation as Christians did with Luther and Calvin. This Reformation was to pull the Church back to the teachings of Christ, of peace
Ahaahaaaa Luther was a Jew hater and overall bigot. He was directly responsible for the 30 years war where peaceful Protestants chased Catholics into churches and set them on fire.

And Calvin taught that only certain individuals were born with gods grace and were guaranteed a place in heaven. Conversely, everyone else was born condemned. Another extreme form of bigotry don't you think?

You're a typical religionist - like ISIS a you want to rewrite history to suit and erase whatever doesn't fit.

There's no difference between today's islamists and the Protestant Knights hospitaller who plied the Mediterranean in search of moslems to murder and enslave.


Agreed. We could put them all in a Colosseum as far a I'm concerned.

Mar 01, 2015
nonoUNme says:

Your first post claimed that I had denied that American decisions have caused the spread
of ISIL, despite my first posts having stated precisely that. You're even too dishonest to admit that error on your part. Good-bye.


My response:

"Yeah --except that you forgot to quote this part, jackass:"

Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them. And blaming Bush and the republicans only exposes your willful ignorance further.....


I'm going to repost the whole comment, just so that it can be viewed entire, without having to scroll up'n'thread to follow the exchange...a favorite tactic of this clownz is to react to a single snippet at a time, and attempt to frustrate any response.

If they can wear you out, cause you to lose interest, or otherwise go unchallenged, then they win.

At least in their own minds.

cts with second half

Mar 01, 2015
Someone else in this thread opined that the resolution of that issue rests with Muslim scholars
The Quran is very clear on what to do with infidels and apostates, and they never change. Further the bible contains the very same instructions, which are there for the same literal interpretation and activity by whoever feels they can get away with it.

The ONLY REASON xians aren't still acting like they did in the 16th century, and as Islamists are acting today, is because they have been FORCED to abandon their evil ways by a secular society comprised of rational people who had had enough of them . This took centuries of wars revolutions, destruction, and the deaths of millions.

For instance it took the French Revolution and the napoleonic wars to wrest power away from the church and return it to the people. And it is going to take the same level of death and destruction to separate islam from the people.

Mar 01, 2015
And here's the other half of nonoUNme's post:

If you're referring to the last sentence, I was referring to 'blaming Bush and the republicans' exclusively. This is proven by me from posts immediately following where I post quotes from democrats on the issue, thus implying 'then they are to blame as well'.

Do you agree with gkam that the USA "invented muslim terrorists",... or with me that only the extremist interpretation of the quran is responsible for muslim terrorists"?


First, let's examine nonoUNme's opening claim:

Your first post claimed that I had denied that American decisions have caused the spread
of ISIL, despite my first posts having stated precisely that. You're even too dishonest to admit that error on your part. Good-bye.


Denying, in effect, this earlier statement:

Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them.


ctd

Mar 01, 2015
You said "Absolutely true." [..] you fail to distinguish the context[...] What he said, and what you absolutely agree with is that liberalism is the culprit.


Culprit of what exactly (?),.... the Existence of terrorism .... or the Spread of radical islam? You are vague and conflate the two, and as a result your posts seem to blame the "neo-con's" for the existence of terrorists, especially when you go all the way back and blame Bush but avoid mentioning Obama.

You are also vague on which it is you are accusing me of in which context. I have been careful to stipulate the above difference. Why? Because gkam has explicitly stated that Reagan "invented muslim terrorists", and you and him were giving each other hand-jobs all along.

I do not blame liberalism nor any president for the Existence of radical islamists. I have blamed both the presidential decision and ideology for creating the conditions for radical islamism for spreading. I agreed with Ryggs post.

Mar 01, 2015
ctd

Blatant --SCREAMING-- dishonesty, a STARK contradiction of yourself, and all in your own words, nonoUNme.

Shot by your own gun, and damned out of your own mouth.

The rest of the post is just a desperate, irrelevant attempt at distraction(ie, backpedalling)

You owe all of us an apology, jackass.

Get off your backpedalcycle, be a man(?), and do it now.

Mar 01, 2015
Further the bible contains the very same instructions, which are there for the same literal interpretation and activity by whoever feels they can get away with it.


When someone like myself points that out, I am often thrown in the "you're against us" bin with the "enemy." But I think Sun Tsu would have us know ourselves as well as our enemy before marching out to slaughter these Islamic zealots. And if we know ourselves, we may not want to march out with our own home-grown Christian zealots by our side. If they are a religion of peace, then they should stay home and pull those teachings from their bible/koran/whatever and let rational people clean house.

Mar 01, 2015
Noum garbage snipped.

I taught you a long time ago the difference between the seed and making it grow; corked champagne vs shaking it and letting it flow. Yet you continue to argue that my position is contrary to that. When your own argument is defeated, rather than try to bolster it, you try to tell the opposition what it is that they think, even though they've never said such a thing. Bush, et al, did not create the evil and I never said they did. They let it out of the box and nurtured it. While you try to tell me I said Bush created the evil, you say Obama/liberals did. Everyone sees your lies. You are a loser but don't know it.

Mar 01, 2015
Your first post claimed that I had denied that American decisions have caused the SPREAD of [an already existing] ISIL, despite my first posts having stated precisely that. - Noumenon


Denying, in effect, this earlier statement: - Caliban
Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them. - Noumenon


There is no incompatibility here, if you have any sense of logical thought. As already pointed out to you multiple times,.... the difference here lies in the word "created" as opposed to "enabling conditions for the spread of".

As I stated, I made this distinction because we had a poster here, gkam, who had stated that the Reagan admin. "invented the Muslim terrorists",.... as in Created them.

It is also a typical leftist argument that the USA has created terrorists. This is either sloppy language or deliberate belief.

Mar 01, 2015
I'm not interested in playing 'gotcha' with you two drive-by hacks.

Mar 01, 2015
I'm not interested in playing 'gotcha' with you two dingbats.


Promise? You said you blocked me once before. What changed? The fact that you've had your butt handed to you with your own words? It's funny how you try to parse hairs when it suits you and generalize when it won't, but you fail to accept a hair that has already been parsed for you, as well as a generalization that is clearly just that. First know yourself. Admit the neo-cons screwed the pooch and then we can talk about how to fix it better than Obama is trying to do. Until then, you lack the integrity and honor required to proceed.

Mar 01, 2015
Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them. - Noumenon


It's called the law of unintended consequences. Your statements are inconsistent. Let's say, in an effort to defeat terrorism, I enter your house, rough you up, toss your wife's panty drawer, humiliate you in front of your son, and then leave when I find no evidence that you were a terrorist. What does that little boy do when he grows up? Who created him? Oh, that's right, you did. I didn't. (Sarcasm)

Mar 01, 2015
There is a distinct difference between claiming that the "USA creates terrorists" and claiming that the "USA enabled conditions for them to spread". The former I have not blamed liberals nor presidents,.... that later I have.

Now, if you two dingbats could only wrap you heads around that one simple point it would have saved dozens of posts.

I made myself as clear as possible in the above few posts, now that's the end of it, as i'm have the impression i'm debating with children.

Mar 01, 2015
There is a distinct difference between claiming that the "USA creates terrorists" and claiming that the "USA enabled conditions for them to spread". The former I have not blamed liberals nor presidents,.... that later I have.

Now, if you two dingbats could only wrap you heads around that one simple point it would have saved dozens of posts.

I made myself as clear as possible in the above few posts, now that's the end of it, as i'm have the impression i'm debating with children.


So, in an effort to save your own ego and sense of self, you are coming around to agreeing with everything I've said while, at the same time, pretending I didn't say it and I've just come around to seeing it your way? That's rich. Hey, before you go off with your tail between your legs, read my post below teaching you about creation and the law of unintended consequences. Oh, and use Bush's name in a sentence regarding enabling.

Mar 01, 2015
Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them. - Noumenon


It's called the law of unintended consequences. Your statements are inconsistent. Let's say, in an effort to defeat terrorism, I enter your house, rough you up, toss your wife's panty drawer, humiliate you in front of your son, and then leave when I find no evidence that you were a terrorist. What does that little boy do when he grows up? Who created him? Oh, that's right, you did. I didn't. (Sarcasm)


That is not what causes spoiled rich kids to blow up airplanes or slit throats on Youtube.

Mar 01, 2015
It's called the law of unintended consequences. [..] Let's say, in an effort to defeat terrorism, I enter your house, rough you up, toss your wife's panty drawer, humiliate you in front of your son, and then leave when I find no evidence that you were a terrorist. What does that little boy do when he grows up? Who created him? Oh, that's right, you did


If as you had just previously stated that you never accused Bush of Creating terrorists, then I will stand corrected and accept that stance,..... but now it again appears that you are indeed suggesting that fighting terrorists in fact creates them. So now I retract my retraction.

Your scenario is not a law of unintended consequences at all, but rather, a simple truism, ...known in advance, ....that a military offensive will result in a concerted counter insurgency,... and is not the result of some insightful analysis on your part.

The quran creates terrorists, not fighting them.

Mar 01, 2015
Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them. - Noumenon


It's called the law of unintended consequences. Your statements are inconsistent. Let's say, in an effort to defeat terrorism, I enter your house, rough you up, toss your wife's panty drawer, humiliate you in front of your son, and then leave when I find no evidence that you were a terrorist. What does that little boy do when he grows up? Who created him? Oh, that's right, you did. I didn't. (Sarcasm)


Do you think the local dictator would not have done the same thing. Saddam's sons would cruise town and kidnap women for rape rooms.
How many terrorists were created by Saddam to oppose Saddam?

Mar 01, 2015
Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them. - Noumenon


It's called the law of unintended consequences. Your statements are inconsistent. Let's say, in an effort to defeat terrorism, I enter your house, rough you up, toss your wife's panty drawer, humiliate you in front of your son, and then leave when I find no evidence that you were a terrorist. What does that little boy do when he grows up? Who created him? Oh, that's right, you did. I didn't. (Sarcasm)


That is not what causes spoiled rich kids to blow up airplanes or slit throats on Youtube.


Actually, it is. That and overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh, supporting the Shaw, arming the Mujaheddin, supporting the House of Saud, supporting Bush's "My Lacky" Shiite against Sunnis who align with ISIS as a result, etc. The list goes on.

Mar 01, 2015
"This week the British advocacy group CAGE held a press conference in which it claimed Mohammed Emwazi aka Jihad John, was radicalised by the security services after he was questioned by its officers. "
http://www.breitb...exposed/

LIes told to fools and believed by more fools.

Mar 01, 2015
but now it again appears that you are indeed suggesting that fighting terrorists in fact creates them. So now I retract my retraction.


Oh, so Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, et all were incorrect that we'd be welcome with open arms and parades? But, but you just said we knew better??? That we knew the consequences. Better get back on your retraction bandwagon.

Mar 01, 2015
Do you think the local dictator would not have done the same thing. Saddam's sons would cruise town and kidnap women for rape rooms.
How many terrorists were created by Saddam to oppose Saddam?


Uh, none. Well, unless you include Iran which we paid and supplied Saddam to fight. Starting to see the picture now? Besides, Saddam was Bath and more Sunni so how many ISIS thugs did he have cutting off American heads? None. 9/11? None. Ask Saud. Oh, and as to rape rooms, etc. I heard that from the same folks who told me about yellow cake and etc. so consider the source.

Mar 01, 2015

Your first post claimed that I had denied that American decisions have caused the SPREAD of [an already existing] ISIL, despite my first posts having stated precisely that. - Noumenon

Denying, in effect, this earlier statement: - Caliban

Only a moron, or one irresponsibly disinterested, would suggest that terrorists are CREATED by the very efforts to defeat them. - Noumenon

There is no incompatibility here, if you have any sense of logical thought. As already pointed out to you multiple times,.... the difference here lies in the word "created" as opposed to "enabling conditions for the spread of".


...except for now, nonoUNme has to lubricate the hairsplitting chain on his backpedalcycle with
[ADDED] EMPHASIS to make it run a little more smoothly through it's unnatural reverse drive.

And now --nonoUNme doesn't wanna play Gotcha! after being gotten first.

Fine.

Backpedal your cycle away over the hill; begone!


Mar 01, 2015
Uh, none.


Really?

Why not? You think all Iraqis loved and adored Saddam?

Or why Iraqi officers, like the Soviets, would shoot soldiers who ran from the line in the first Gulf War?
Thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse to US forces when they could.

"Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened, fill a bookshelf. Jail cells, with dried blood on the floor and rusted shackles bolted to the walls, line the corridors. And the screams of what could be imprisoned men in an underground detention center echo through air shafts and sewer pipes."
http://usatoday30...at_x.htm

Mar 01, 2015
@caliban
What is in [ ] makes zero difference, skip over it if it confuses you. I actually suspected that you and your lawyers would latch onto that. If you still can not comprehend my previous few posts, then you must be trolling. Not interested. I have no need to "backpedal" as I stand by every statement that I have made, and it is me that decides what I said, not you.

Mar 01, 2015
" Tramping through the ruins of the Olympic building, one finds charred letters to Uday from senior officials of the International Olympic Committee, including Juan Antonio Samaranch, the Spaniard who was long its president.

They show no trace of any effort by the international committee's headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland, to distance itself from the Iraqi committee and its head, despite years of reports by Western human rights organizations that the Baghdad building was being used for torture and killing. "
"Those reports suggested that the victims of Mr. Hussein's terror, over 24 years, ran into the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. On the basis of the horrors now being disclosed, many Iraqis fear that the figure may run much higher still. "
http://www.nytime...ORT.html

Mar 01, 2015
Uh, none.


Really?

Why not? You think all Iraqis loved and adored Saddam?


No, not all Iraqis loved Saddam. As I've stated before, he was a brutal dictator but he was a cork in a bottle of champagne that had not been shaken. We shook it and popped the cork. Nuom might argue that Saddam couldn't create terrorists anyway. But regardless, Saddam would have killed ISIS. Just as Assad would do. Funny how Assad bad, Saudi good. Whatever.

Mar 01, 2015
" Tramping through the ruins of the Olympic building, one finds charred letters to Uday from senior officials of the International Olympic Committee, including Juan Antonio Samaranch, the Spaniard who was long its president.


I'll take that over 30,000+ dead and wounded Americans, 4 trillion dollars of debt, a trashed national and world economy, ISIS, and an ever growing problem in the ME and world. Saddam was our bitch. We could have brought him to heel. OBL and 9/11 should have been criminals and a crime, not warriors and acts of war. But hey, neocons are chicken hawks and their corporate buddies saw some money to be made. So here we are, debating whether Saddam and Bush can create terrorists or merely encourage them. You can beat the hell out of a Pit Bull but if you keep it in a cage who cares if God made him that way or you did?

Mar 01, 2015
We shook it and popped the cork.

No, we did not.

Having brutal dictators keep subversives in control works as long as the dictator can be controlled and contained.
Qadaffi was controlled and contained after the US invaded Iraq. He turned over his nuclear materials to the US and UK. But then Obama had him murdered.
Saddam was contained until he invaded Kuwait and the USSR collapsed.

Iran has been supporting all sorts of attacks throughout the middle east since 1979 and Obama wants to reward their efforts.

Mar 01, 2015
We shook it and popped the cork.

No, we did not.


Yes, we did. Not only did we prop him up with intel and WMDs against Iran (learn about how we screwed them with the Shaw), we gave him a wink and a nod when he told us about his eye on Kuwait, and then we manufactured lies to invade. Then we alienated his Baathist army and turned them over to ISIS while supporting My Lacky who was in bed with Iran. All that other crap about Libya, Egypt, Syria; it's all fall out from Bush and his Arab Spring. Speaking of the Soviets falling, how about those Afghans, eh? That worked out real well didn't it. We're doing the same with Assad. Saddam was contained until Bush had him murdered.

Mar 01, 2015
Well, people, I'm going back to my life. It's been fun arguing with you. This all would have been avoided if Scalia had not appointed Bush, if 9/11 were treated as a crime instead of an act of war, and if we had been more careful about the corks we chose to use in plugging various bottles, and how to remove those corks, if at all. And no, this is not Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I knew it all precisely the second I heard about the first attempt on the World Trade Center in the early 90s and speculated about what would have happened had they been successful then. And I'm not the only one who knew this. It's just that our voices, including many in our intelligence communities, have been drowned since the early 1900s. Follow the money (New Zealand Real Estate). Adios.

Mar 01, 2015
I have read Ayn Rand and admire her wrt Egoism being a good, a natural instinct and key element in capitalism, as expressed a bit . However, I can not follow her into her Objectivism, as I'm more of an Kantian.
Quite perplexing, you understand that the ultimate nature of objects and concepts are beyond our senses, yet you fall for the Randian concept of objetivism witch rejects the same transcendental nature of things. What? Do you flip a coin to decide which one to apply to a particular case, or do you choose the one who seems to fit the best in a particular situation? Tell me, how can you formulate that the concept of egoism as a moral standard and even elevate this as an individuals' ideal,.when concepts like ethic and ideal are noumenals? You know why Ayn Rand despised Kant to the point of calling him a monster? Because her ideology crumbled in front of his philosophy and appeared in its real nature; sophic trickery.

Mar 01, 2015
More sophistry here than you can shake a stick at.

Mar 01, 2015
I have read Ayn Rand and admire her wrt Egoism being a good, a natural instinct and key element in capitalism, as expressed a bit . However, I can not follow her into her Objectivism, as I'm more of an Kantian.
Quite perplexing, you understand that the ultimate nature of objects and concepts are beyond our senses, yet you fall for the Randian concept of objetivism witch rejects the same transcendental nature of things. What?


What is perplexing is how it is you could have misread my post. Try again. Clearly I stated I do NOT follow her into her Objectivism, on account of being more of an Kantian.

Mar 01, 2015
I have read Ayn Rand and admire her wrt Egoism being a good, a natural instinct and key element in capitalism, as expressed a bit . However, I can not follow her into her Objectivism, as I'm more of an Kantian.
Quite perplexing, you understand that the ultimate nature of objects and concepts are beyond our senses, yet you fall for the Randian concept of objetivism witch rejects the same transcendental nature of things. What?


What is perplexing is how it is you could have misread my post. Try again. Clearly I stated I do NOT follow her into her Objectivism, on account of being more of an Kantian.

I am asking for explainations, because I see a lot of contradictions; that is all. I am sure that you can formulate proper answers.

Mar 01, 2015
I have read Ayn Rand and admire her wrt Egoism being a good, a natural instinct and key element in capitalism, as expressed a bit . However, I can not follow her into her Objectivism, as I'm more of an Kantian.
Quite perplexing, you understand that the ultimate nature of objects and concepts are beyond our senses, yet you fall for the Randian concept of objetivism witch rejects the same transcendental nature of things. What?


What is perplexing is how it is you could have misread my post. Try again. Clearly I stated I do NOT follow her into her Objectivism, on account of being more of an Kantian.

I am asking for explainations, because I see a lot of contradictions; that is all. I am sure that you can formulate proper answers.


So far the contradiction cited by you is faulty. You stated "you fall for the Randian concept of objectivism",... when in fact I stated precisely the opposite. Start by acknowledging this error.

Mar 01, 2015
One other point about about Arab Muslims, and Muslims in general, is they have an inferiority complex.
Palestine under the control of Arabs was a desert. After Jews started buying land and moving before WWI, they began turning the desert into productive land.
After WWII, and the creation of Israel, the Arabs thought they would surround the Jews and wipe them out. They failed, again and again.
Most Muslim states are economically depressed. In the oil producing states, the well connected are wealthy and the rest are on welfare or paid marginal salaries depending upon nationality.

Mar 01, 2015
@TechnoCreed,... and then retract that particular question. If you have further questions it would be interesting to here them and I will answer if I have an answer,... but will have to be tomorrow. As I explained in the above link, I reject "scientific realism" and have a "positivist" pov ,.... quite opposite of Rand. I doubt if Rands epistemology was based on philosophy of science.

Mar 01, 2015
So far the contradiction cited by you is faulty. You stated "you fall for the Randian concept of objectivism",... when in fact I stated precisely the opposite. Start by acknowledging this error.

Fine with me, I had already acknowledge your former answer with a 5.

Mar 01, 2015
@TechnoCreed,... and then retract that particular question. If you have further questions it would be interesting to here them and I will answer if I have an answer,... but will have to be tomorrow. As I explained in the above link, I reject "scientific realism" and have a "positivist" pov ,.... quite opposite of Rand. I doubt if Rands epistemology was based on philosophy of science.

Then you understand why I am surprised by the admiration that you showed for her.

Mar 01, 2015
I restate: You understand that the ultimate nature of objects and concepts are beyond our senses. How can you formulate that the concept of egoism as a moral standard and even elevate this as an individuals' ideal,.when concepts like ethic and ideal are noumenals? You know why Ayn Rand despised Kant to the point of calling him a monster? Because her ideology crumbled in front of his philosophy and appeared in its real nature; sophic trickery.

Mar 02, 2015
I restate: You understand that the ultimate nature of objects and concepts are beyond our senses. How can you formulate that the concept of egoism as a moral standard and even elevate this as an individuals' ideal,.when concepts like ethic and ideal are noumenals? You know why Ayn Rand despised Kant to the point of calling him a monster? Because her ideology crumbled in front of his philosophy and appeared in its real nature; sophic trickery.


And the reason why you won't get any meaningful response from nonoUNme wrt your question, Techno, is for the simple reason that nonoUNme is a CryptoRandite dressed in Kant's clothing.

After having read many thousands of posts, eventually, a character begins to resolve.
nono is firmly in the self-interest uber alles camp, yet tries to don the Mantle of Ethics to create the illusion of (actual) objectivity.

Don't expect any real honesty --intellectual or otherwise-- and, what you've gotten so far?

Expect more of the same.

Mar 02, 2015
I restate: You understand that the ultimate nature of objects and concepts are beyond our senses. How can you formulate that the concept of egoism as a moral standard and even elevate this as an individuals' ideal,.when concepts like ethic and ideal are noumenals?


I don't think you quite understand what Kant's use of Noumenal is supposed to imply. Concepts are not noumenals. The 'Noumenon' is to contrast with 'phenomenon' as a something unknowable in itself (you have that part right). It refers to Reality, as it is in itself (unconceptualized), external to us and is a limiting concept.

Though Rand used language wrt Egoism like a 'moral good of the highest order' and I would as well as a manner of speaking,.... in fact I don't even regard it as a morality per say. Rather, it is an intrinsic or inherent condition for human behavior. It is an a-priori natural component of motive behavior in us......

Mar 02, 2015
.... it is not a morality because morality presumes choice, and since Egoism is a 'hard-wired' condition for our behavior, it can not be said to be a morality.

To oppress ones egoism and individualism for the collective is to trap one between two forces, one that is purely natural and one that is artificial, external, and counter to nature.

Mar 02, 2015
You know why Ayn Rand despised Kant to the point of calling him a monster? Because her ideology crumbled in front of his philosophy and appeared in its real nature; sophic trickery.


Ayn Rand's problem as a philosopher was to proclaim an air-tight self contained philosophical system. So it is inevitable that if one part of such a system has a crack then the entire structure becomes questionable. Wittgenstein claimed to have solved all of philosophies problems for example.

My feeling is that they each have discovered some truths without me accepting that a self-contained unitary system of truth even has meaning in itself. So, no I don't follow Rand into Objective Realism, nor go beyond Kant into Idealism, nor follow Kant with every word.

Mar 02, 2015
Humans must either consider themselves of value (egoism) and act accordingly, or consider society as a collective, as having more value than themselves. Since the latter is an unnatural thought being counter to our instincts, they must be forced or coerced to act AS IF the collective was of more value than their individualism....

So my political economic ideology leans toward liberty, free capitalism, libertarianism without the artificial isolationist component,... and yes indeed toward Rand's political philosophy wrt egoism. The social engineering and social justice component of Liberal Progressivism works counter to the grain of nature. Whatever system is more in line with Natural forces internal and external to us, is the one most likely to succeed.

Mar 02, 2015
I like Viktor Frankl's approach in 'Man's Search for Meaning'.

"

For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment.

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

Viktor E. Frankl

The responsibility for ISIS lies with its participants. No one else.

Mar 02, 2015
After having read many thousands of posts, eventually, a character begins to resolve.
nono is firmly in the self-interest uber alles camp, yet tries to don the Mantle of Ethics to create the illusion of (actual) objectivity. - Caliban


Your Jerry-Springer accusation style of argument will bring you closer to completing your faux caricature, but not any closer to understanding me to actually engage in a discussion.

I don't have a "Mantle of Ethics",... so right off the bat, you just made that up.

You also repeatedly feigned lack of comprehension wrt my distinguishing "creating terrorists" and "causing conditions in which they take advantage of". You continued to ignore why I had made that distinction in the first place and have not answered the question posed to you wrt that reason; i.e. gkam comment that Reagan "invented Muslim terrorists", created them. So, your character has resolved clearly.

Mar 02, 2015
My statement "I don't have a "Mantle of Ethics" ,... is likely one to which your lawyers will advise you latch onto, so I will clarify.....

I regard a 'system of ethics' to be an artificial construct, not necessarily objectively based, but instead subjective and arbitrary ,... as in religion, and as in liberal progressivism wrt the notions of "fairness" and "social injustice".

When an artificial ethics conflicts with natural instincts it is oppression,... thus egoism is a moral good of the highest order,... if I'm to use the word "moral".

Mar 02, 2015
My statement "I don't have a "Mantle of Ethics" ,... is likely one to which your lawyers will advise you latch onto, so I will clarify.....

I regard a 'system of ethics' to be an artificial construct, not necessarily objectively based, but instead subjective and arbitrary ,... as in religion, and as in liberal progressivism wrt the notions of "fairness" and "social injustice".

When an artificial ethics conflicts with natural instincts it is oppression,... thus egoism is a moral good of the highest order,... if I'm to use the word "moral".
Well that's rubbish. Ethics derived from the tribal dynamic which is often in conflict with natural instinct. Tribes which weren't able to maintain internal cohesiveness based on trust and altruism among members, and a willingness to surrender personal interests for the good of the tribe, would tend to succumb to tribes which could.

Look up group selection and ponder how it has made us human.

Mar 02, 2015
A willingness to surrender the instinct of egoism for the collective is an unnatural act and requires a form of government that is oppressive of natural instincts, ....and in any case such a willingness is not a prerequisite for a society to exist. Humans are social only to the extent that they benefit personally,... no one thinks and acts for the collective over themselves as individuals. The primary element is egoism, the secondary phenomenon as a result is society. IOW a free society comes about on account of egoism.

Mar 02, 2015
I read Critique of Pure Reason in my early twenties, more than 30 years ago. It was much too cerebral to be enjoyable but, I think, I still do understand very well Kant's philosophy.

In Rands ideological realm, the actions of Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa or Nelson Mendela makes no sense. Now those are great heroes and models to follow. Rand do not define egoism as a 'moral good of the highest order' she defined it as THEE 'moral good of the highest order'. In other word the 'ideal' to pursue. Now, what kind of exalted revelation did she have to conclude that is beyond me.

Cont.

Mar 02, 2015
...
Wrt Rand vs Kant, I think you pretty much understand what I meant. For others who followed our discussion key word (google, Rand, Kant, monster). You answered like a politician to avoid downgrading one or the other. I also do understand that every person have its own 'way' and appreciate Frankl's reference to it even if I do not know the man. Still I think you are full of contradictions. I do not mean that as an insult, I am pretty sure that if I would expose myself as much as you did, you would find contradictions in my personality too. Thank you for your answers it was most enjoyable.

Mar 02, 2015
Sorry, I just now noticed that the reference to Frankl comes from Ryggy. I thoght it sounded reasonnable anyway. I never thought I could ever appreciate one of his comments.

Mar 02, 2015
I'm sure I'm full of contradictions also, as I don't follow any sweepingly self contained philosophical system. Do you see any in particular?

Kant's epistemology is useful to me in philosophy of physics especially wrt quantum mechanics. Rand's notion of Egoism as a good, interpreted as a Kantian'esque a-priori form for motive behaviour is useful to me as a basis for a political and economic ideology.

If a non-bias "social physicist" determined to find a law that could explain how it is possible that with several hundred millions of people, such a high average standard of living could be possible in western society,... imo, it would all boil down to the natural law of egoism,... not altruism or forces that counter our instincts.

Mar 02, 2015
natural law of egoism

What challenges some is that each individual has a unique 'self-interest'.

From what I could gather from Atlas Shrugged, Rand despised others or society defining what was in the individual's self interest.
Rand went too far in projecting what she thought everyone's self-interest should be.

Criticizing astronaut Frank Borman for reading from the Bible as they came out from the dark side of the moon on Christmas Eve is telling. She believed men like Borman should be arrogant and proud of their accomplishments.
What she failed to appreciate is the path men like Borman took to get where they are and how luck and faith played significant roles. I wonder how many test pilot colleagues 'bought the farm' and why hadn't Borman?
Borman was doing exactly what Rand said he should be doing to fulfill his egoism. And Borman had the humility to appreciate his good fortune.

Mar 02, 2015
In Rands ideological realm, the actions of Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa or Nelson Mendela makes no sense.


Why? They each received accolades and personal validation of what they sought in themselves of having done good things and the promise of more in the afterlife. This is not meant to be cynical,... all great people leave value for others in their wake, from the industrial barons to Mother Theresa.

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - Mother Theresa

She said this because she believed being poor brought one closer to Jesus. It's only an obscured Egoism at its surface, but one non-the less.

Mar 02, 2015
In Rands ideological realm, the actions of Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa or Nelson Mendela makes no sense.


Why? They each received accolades and personal validation of what they sought in themselves of having done good things and the promise of more in the afterlife. This is not meant to be cynical,... all great people leave value for others in their wake, from the industrial barons to Mother Theresa.

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - Mother Theresa

She said this because she believed being poor brought one closer to Jesus. It's only an obscured Egoism at its surface, but one non-the less.

Distorded

Mar 02, 2015
They each received accolades and personal validation of what they sought in themselves of having done good things and the promise of more in the afterlife.


Which is why these individuals were not altruistic. They obtained personal satisfaction doing what they did.

If M. Terese used guilt as solicit donations, I suspect Rand would not approve.

Mar 02, 2015
@ TechnoCreed, why distorted?

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - Mother Theresa

What she is saying here is that the 'suffering of the poor' is sustenance to her, to feed her passion of Christ. IOW, it's about her benefiting by helping the poor. This is egoism. Yes? Again I'm not being cynical here as I don't regard egoism as 'greed' or an evil as many liberals do.

Mar 02, 2015
A willingness to surrender the instinct of egoism for the collective is an unnatural act and requires a form of government that is oppressive of natural instincts
... and yet it is what has made us human. Tribal warfare began with the apes. Tribes whose members were able to follow orders, sacrifice themselves for their fellows, and surrender reproductive rights in order to maintain tribal cohesion and mutual trust, were more effective in battle against their less organized foes.

And so they defeated their enemies. They would kill all the males and impregnate all the females, thereby reinforcing this very unnatural behavior.

Natural law says that males must impregnate as many females as possible. But females must choose the very best possible mate for each and every child she chooses to bear. To do this they will initiate competition among suitors.

This natural behavior destroys tribal cohesion. Leaders began to domesticate tribal members with spectacular results.

Mar 02, 2015
Modern religions are the ultimate expression of the tribal dynamic. In their most literal form they seek to diminish differences among members; women are covered from head to toe and males all grow beards and dress alike. In this way the temptation to seek better mates is minimized.

Further, The strictest moral laws are the ones which ban non-procreative sex and sex outside of marriage. Women are forced to do nothing else but make and raise babies, thereby ensuring an ample supply of warriors. And polygamy is mandated in order to employ widows to replacing their fallen husbands.

Finally, unbelievers are deemed evil, and tribal members are encouraged to victimize them and take what they need. And they need quite a bit as these religions obviously force chronic overgrowth for the sole purpose of outgrowing and overrunning their less prolific adversaries.

Religions too have been shaped by group selection. We are left with only the most virulent and caustic of them today.

Mar 02, 2015
How religionists are supposed to react to moral transgressions
http://www.thedai...men.html

-Its clearly spelled out in the books.

Mar 03, 2015
Ayn Rand's problem as a philosopher was..[q/]

That she wasn't a philosopher --"per say"", she was a sophist, rationalizing "mememememe", nonoUNme.

Humans must either consider themselves of value (egoism) and act accordingly, or consider society as a collective, as having more value than themselves.


Pure sophistry, nonoUNme! This is precisely how Selfists --such as yourself-- seek to legitimise their self-centered, self-interested selfishness in order to justify their heinous disregard for their fellow earthlings and earth itself.

Grownups know that it is a dynamic balance between the two.

I'm sure I'm full of contradictions also, as I don't follow any sweepingly self contained philosophical system.


Besides mememememememe! And a vague half-truth --Bravo!

Thanks for sharing.

Oh, and --nonoUNme? You might want to change hands before the one you're using gets a cramp from all the ego self-stroking it's been doing for the last ten posts.


Mar 03, 2015
You also repeatedly feigned lack of comprehension wrt my distinguishing "creating terrorists" and "causing conditions in which they take advantage of".


Still trying to hairsplit your way out of your error.

Pathetic.

Oh, and --I may be taking liberties here, and quite possibly be putting words into Techno's mouth-- but I believe that his use of "distorted" in response to your poetics about Mother Terry, Mandela, and Gandhi, was his polite way of hissing "sociopath!"

If I have misinterpreted your meaning, then I hereby humbly apologise, Techno!

Mar 03, 2015
You also repeatedly feigned lack of comprehension wrt my distinguishing "creating terrorists" and "causing conditions in which they take advantage of".


Still trying to hairsplit your way out of your error.


Nope, the distinction was made clear in my very first post in this thread,... and subsequently elaborated upon to make even clearer, on account of gkam's silly post blaming Reagan for having "invented Muslim terrorists". Now, I'll ask for the third time,... do you agree with gkam that Reagan "invented Muslim terrorists",... implying Reagan Created them?

Mar 03, 2015
If you do not agree with him,... then why spend your energy attacking me for "denying" what in fact I had already by then confirmed, when you could have attack him for his outrageous post?

... and why did you troll rate my Kant posts, when it's obvious you know zero about his ideas? It's as dishonest and bias for not rating ones deserving post positively because they are perceived as "right-wingers" or "religious" or entertained crank theories unrelated to the post in question.

It is why Phys.Org should disable comment ratings as it presumes the raters are themselves competent and unbias,... which is usually not true with the liberal troll rating cabal here.

Mar 03, 2015
They're only doing it due to AGW, the science is settled.

Mar 03, 2015
Pure sophistry, nonoUNme! This is precisely how Selfists --such as yourself-- seek to legitimise their self-centered, self-interested selfishness in order to justify their heinous disregard for their fellow earthlings and earth itself.

Grownups know that it is a dynamic balance between the two.


If it wasn't for Egoism and survival of the fittest, you wouldn't have evolved to become so emotionally irrational.

When I use the word 'egoism' above it is not intended to be a moral distinction as is the case in common use,.... it is rather meant as a dispassioned analysis of human motive in behaviour. But then again, you have demonstrated little interest in understanding me, only interest in Jerry-Springer attacks.

Mar 03, 2015
why did you troll rate my Kant posts, when it's obvious you know zero about his ideas?
Nou himself is inextricably bound by his tribal inclinations. Early on he identified with the philo tribe which is replete with its own language, it's own gods, and its own esoteric descriptions of how the world works. He says 'you can't understand because you know zero' which translates to 'you can't understand because you're not a member'.

His philospeak explains nothing, is worthless for communicating with non-members, and makes no objective sense whatsoever as it is composed of esoteric terms impossible to define in standard terms. But the feeling of 'true humanity' nou gets from displaying it outweighs any need to satisfy these requirements.

In Little Big Man the Indians translated the word for tribal members as 'human beings' implying that non-members were not human. Nou regards non-philos with similar contempt. Only natural.

Mar 03, 2015
It's as dishonest and bias for not rating ones deserving post positively because they are perceived as "right-wingers" or "religious" or entertained crank theories unrelated to the post in question
Dishonest meaning immoral. But within the tribal dynamic it is completely moral to treat non-members immorally. It is expected, encouraged, required. Nous tribal posture elicits an antithetical tribal response from non-members.

Tribalism - we were selected for it over 1000s of gens. The need to belong supercedes the need to procreate and to survive. Our tribal affinities become the basis of our personalities; they dictate our opinions and our choices.

"I therefore had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith' -kant

-This statement reflects the power that the tribal dynamic has over universal ethics and rational thought.