Steely Dan

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Fair enough; but how about responding to the on topic refutations by Bangkok Herps of the points by raised by you and your fellows?

Such as those in the post above yours?

You can't, so you first make the absurd excuse for not responding quoted, and then you present an article on a blog site written by a director of Jihad Watch as your evidence.

Jihad Watch is one of the sites which made the ludicrous claim that the death a few of months ago of two pedestrians in a road traffic collision in England must have been a jihadist attack because one (just one) of the four (yes, four) drivers arrested was Muslim!

That is a source you present to us as being informed and neutral!

Now we have Boko Haram pledging allegiance to ISIS, I wonder where the western interference is there, aside from half Nigeria being born Christian. I guess the apologists will be busy working on more dishonest claptrap to declare Boko Haram aren't Isiamic either. Indeed why not go the whole hog and declare all Muslim terrorist groups as nothing to do with Islam..., Hang on, the POTUS has already done that.

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Here is an excellent piece detailing some of the strategies used by some of our esteemed members in order to pretend the Islamic state is not Islamic. The KKK is mentioned, along with Zionist terrorists of yesteryear and not forgetting of course it's the west's fault for absolutely everything bad that ever came out of the world of Islam.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/02/28/how-the-western-intelligentsia-denies-islams-history-of-war-and-crime/

Your video source comes from MEMRI TV: Middle Eastern Media Research Institute.

The Instute was co-founded in 1989 by Yigal Carmon and Meyrav Wurmser. Yigal Carmon was a former Israeli intelligence officer in counter-terrorism advisor to Shamir and Rabin.

Meyrav Wurmser is an Israeli born American political scientist.

MEMRI TV is known in the middle east to be the Israeli 'voice' for Arab speakers. There's a part that has been snipped out of the video in your link...

Why providing such a subjective source in this thread ?

I guess Mossad must have broken into the Jordanian television station and staged the whole thing. It's either factual or it isn't. As for being subjective, I guess the MSM are always objective and never exercise editorial control as to what's shown and what's omitted.

The BBC have got out their 'Asian' word again, this time in my home city, which is as enriched as Bradford in some places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

Michael Curtis absolutely nails it when commenting on the petulance of Nancy Pelosi and her boss Narcissus.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5682/queen_esther_and_netanyahu

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Here is an excellent piece detailing some of the strategies used by some of our esteemed members in order to pretend the Islamic state is not Islamic. The KKK is mentioned, along with Zionist terrorists of yesteryear and not forgetting of course it's the west's fault for absolutely everything bad that ever came out of the world of Islam.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/02/28/how-the-western-intelligentsia-denies-islams-history-of-war-and-crime/

Here are the results of a journalist filming his walk through Manchester and Bradford, two culturally enriched areas. It seems he got much more on film than his counterparts in Germany, Sweden or France got. Let's see the anti-Zionists try and spin this one.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/uk-video-youre-a-jew-not-a-muslim-jew-jew-jew-run

Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see this coming a mile off. The Saudis are facing the same existential threat as Israel and so Kerry doesn't have a snowball in hells chance of persuading them that the P-6 deal with Iran is to be trusted.

I can see three scenarios.

1. Iran refuse the deal. I find this the least likely scenario. It all depends on who they want to place in the most difficult spot Israel or Obama.

2. The deal is agreed. Saudi Arabia presses ahead with their own nuclear weapons program causing Iran to rennage on the deal and an arms race begins. Good luck with an oil embargo on Saudi Arabia.

3. Israel decides to take out the Iranian nuclear program. If this happens my money would be on them overflying Saudi airspace seeing as I suspect Obama would order any Israeli planes shot down if he could.

Good points. Now I wonder how many US fighter jockeys would follow orders to shoot down planes. I realize that military members are steeped in following orders, but at some point wouldn't someone say "this is crazy - the POTUS is a loon"?

Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see this coming a mile off. The Saudis are facing the same existential threat as Israel and so Kerry doesn't have a snowball in hells chance of persuading them that the P-6 deal with Iran is to be trusted.

I can see three scenarios.

1. Iran refuse the deal. I find this the least likely scenario. It all depends on who they want to place in the most difficult spot Israel or Obama.

2. The deal is agreed. Saudi Arabia presses ahead with their own nuclear weapons program causing Iran to rennage on the deal and an arms race begins. Good luck with an oil embargo on Saudi Arabia.

3. Israel decides to take out the Iranian nuclear program. If this happens my money would be on them overflying Saudi airspace seeing as I suspect Obama would order any Israeli planes shot down if he could.

Regarding Alexandria, yes of course it has been burnt several times. I was thinking of the recent spree of destruction that followed Morsi being ousted.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/culture/2013/08/egypt-morsi-ouster-islamists-erase-cultural-identity.html#

Not forgetting AQIP burning books at Timbuktu

Actually this show of hyper-piety is completely consistent with purist Islamic thought and must be seen as an attempt to boost their credentials as true followers of Islam. Here is a piece by the Economist again forgetting the liberal party line that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Other groups of the most pious have at various times done similar. For example giving the Sphinx a nose job, burning down the library of Alexandria, destroying the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Churches are periodically destroyed by all the main Islamist groups, the older the better as far as they are concerned.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21645749-jihadists-are-attacking-more-regions-people-destroying-historys

As an aside a recent ISIS fatwa allows their members to play table football, provided the heads are removed from all the figures.

It will lead to a capitulation on the question of Iran's nuclear program by an Obama regime anxious to avoid boots on the ground. It will lead to a blind eye when it comes to Iran and their proxies occupying Syrian territory next to the Golan and in Southern Lebanon. It may lead to a large scale Sunni-Shia war, but I think we all know that.

Iran have to fight ISIS for their own reasons, no need to aid them in doing so any more than it would be wise to aid ISIS to fight Iran. Should we get a large scale conflict between the two let's hope in the words of Henry Kissinger that they both lose.

The support level for ISIS in Egypt of 3% is explained by the decades in which the Muslim Brotherhood built their power base there, it is not a sign of moderation. Indeed from the OP an Al-Azhar Imam pronounced Takffir on ISIS stating they should be crucified or have opposing hands and feet cut off. This is the epitome of a religious turf war, which is a common occurrence in Islam, when they take time off from slaughtering Kuffar.

Once again, your logic has gigantic holes. The Muslim Brotherhood has less than 25% support in Egypt (I would estimate around 15% before the recent turn of events made it drop even further), so how does that explain 97% of the Egyptian population being against ISIS? Or course, the 15% or so that supports the Muslim Brotherhood is probably among the most radical part of the population, so perhaps they could steal the ISIS support base in that way...but that would only be true if the radical base was less than 15% to begin with.

The truth is, the large majority of the Egyptian population hates the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the most obvious thing about Egypt's current political situation that anyone with any awareness of Egyptian politics knows, so to claim that MB support is the thing keeping 97% of Egyptians from supportng ISIS is completely ridiculous.

And you must have missed it, but we already discussed the Al-Azhar Imam - according to the article, he specifically said that the "perpetrators" of the Jordanian pilot's torture and death deserved to be tortured and killed themselves. A murderer should be murdered, and a lot of people are hoping that they suffer in the process. That's not the least bit different than what millions of Western commentators have said. Have you seen the poll numbers in favor of torturing terrorists? Did you not see the comments on this very thread saying that they should all be killed, even their women? Do you expect to that surgically, or with lots of bombs and dismemberments and suffering?

Whilst we are on the subject of Egypt Al-Sisi courageously called on Al-Azhar to urgently address areas of scripture which were being used by Islamists to destabilize the Muslim world whilst antagonizing everyone else. Now if ISIS are nothing to do with Islam then such a plea would be a non sequitur. It isn't because of cause ISIS are Islamic through and through. Only liberals trying to cloud the waters argue otherwise, this is more than a pity because beating an enemy you don't understand is a fools errand.

Edit here is an interview with Sam Harris discussing the Atlantic article which caused frantic liberals to attempt to bury it.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-true-believers

P.s A few days ago yet another U.S trained group of Syrian moderates joined ISIS. The suppression of an expansionist Iran and maintenance of regimes suppressing Sunni militants was the optimum strategy for keeping the Middle East relatively quiet. The Obama administration has done the exact opposite.

The Obama administration was not in power when an Islamic State was declared in Iraq in 2006.

And China and Russia prevented the US getting involved in Syria, which has proved to be a breeding ground for IS Sunni extremism thanks to Assad's genocide.

So I think you are apportioning blame to the wrong parties.

As for the moderates joining ISIS, can you post a link?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/01/main-u-s-backed-syrian-rebel-group-disbanding-joining-islamists.html

There you go, be my guest and go all sniffy about the source as if that somehow means it didn't happen. The quote from the U.S analyst who declared the implosion of the main U.S sponsored rebel group was 'absolutely remarkable' is itself absolutely remarkable as it shows the delusion and naivety of the Obama administration.

Back to reality, as of March 2nd the IAEA stated they are still not receiving satisfactory answers from Iran. Meanwhile that buffoon Kerry jets off to Riyadh trying to sell their capitulation to Iran as a good thing. Riyadh has long stopped listening and has arranged to take delivery of nuclear technology from Pakistan and ICBM's from China.

Now that IS worth worrying about! (excuse the pun) ISIS will not take Iran, but they have a growing movement within the young of Saudi. 16 Saudi's out of 19 executed the plan on 9/11 I don't recall any Iranians participating. Saudi with nukes is very worrying (Pakistan is bad enough), the House of Saud is vulnerable and may not last that long. What then?

P.s A few days ago yet another U.S trained group of Syrian moderates joined ISIS. The suppression of an expansionist Iran and maintenance of regimes suppressing Sunni militants was the optimum strategy for keeping the Middle East relatively quiet. The Obama administration has done the exact opposite.

Even fiercely anti-Israel sources believe Netanyahu is correct that Iran must be dealt with. How anyone can look at a temporary moratorium for Iranian nuclear development without asking what the Sunni states would do in such a circumstance truly beggars belief.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192090

ISIS is Islamic fundamentalism. It has nothing to do with traditional Islam.

Islamic fundamentalism is a response to the evolution in modernity and the ties with the West. It's historically a recent phenomenom. For some others a trend and/or a cult image.

They reject their modern evolution and the Western ties by applying strict Sharia Law.

Furthermore they equalize wrongly their radical perspective of Islam to their political ideology.

Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Lybia, Egypt, Mali, Syria and other traditional Islamic governments are fighting for decades against Islamic Fundamentalism. That's for me the best point I can give you that traditional Islam and fundamentalism are not the same.

You can't ignore the revolt, struggle of traditional Islamic population, even if the fundamentalists win democratically the elections in their countries.

OP comments are correct.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran.

The philosophical context however it's different. In terms of essentialism and dualism you will observe clear, major differences between the fundamentalists and the tranditional Muslims.

Both layers of interpretation are essential to make difference between both coming from one devine script.

Again, comments in OP are correct.

So please explain to me the dual nature and many interpretations possible of this verse;

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12)

Does that not clearly incite it's followers to cut off the heads of all non-Muslims?

Why do people who dislike Fundamentalists then proceed to try to imitate them? You quoted a piece of the verse, not the whole verse, and then proceed to take it completely out of context in addition to that.

The actual verse starts with "God said to the angels", which makes it sound a bit ambiguous...is he speaking to men or to angels? It also puts it in the past tense, which raises questions. These ambiguities mean that extreme Islamists and Islamophobes alike will steer clear from actually quoting the whole verse.

But if you actually read the whole chapter, the ambiguities are resolved. It does appear that Mohammed was intending men to be the target (or at least angels carrying out the actions of men), however:

1) The chapter is in the context of battle.
2) It is talking about a specific event that happened in a specific battle, not some general command for all time.
3) It is referring to something that happened already in a PAST battle, explaining why they won and did what they did, not giving any sort of command for what should proceed in general life in the future.

So no, the verse doesn't remotely suggest that its followers should cut off the heads of all non-Muslims. He's talking about specific actions of war that occurred in a specific situation, and it's already said and done with.

I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I don't follow Islam, and I don't believe it is a very good way to try to get to God. I disagree with a lot in the Koran. But when I was younger and tried to tell people how awful the Koran was, I actually looked up the proof-verses I wanted to use...and found that in context most of my arguments kind of sucked. Nearly all of the violence is in the context of battles, as often started by the Muslims opponents as themselves, and differs little from the justifications for violence given by most of the world until very recent memory (actually, probably by most of the world even now).

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

The demand that no deal is better than what is invariably called a "bad" deal means any deal is a bad deal so there should be no deal whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as a good deal? And why is any or every possible nuclear deal with Iran a "bad" deal ?

Sanctions will not stop Irans nuclear program.

Only option if theres no deal is military action against Iran.

Then I would like to ask people that advocate military action this question:

What will happen after Irans nuclear facilities gets bombed?

Iran is not afraid of nuclear weapons. It will not be a deterrent cause they know nuclear weapons wont be used in a way as to kill people or destroy cities.

Indeed and there is a central point about superpower and mega-state total war in the 21st century that needs to be stated openly. The reference is to countries such as the US, Russia, China and Iran if Iran might at some point sooner or later produce nuclear weapons (apart from whether or not there is an agreement).

No state with nuclear weapons wants to initiate use of them even in the most dire of circumstances. Retaliation is another matter as it by definition is not first use.

The initiator of a World War III does not want to inherit a nation or a continent of radiated and glazed over rubble, which is what they'd get if they initiated a nuclear war. Never mind the sanity of it, look at the gaming of it at the Pentagon and in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran.

Initiator of a WWIII wants to kill people but not destroy infrastructure that can be used immediately after conquest. Which is why the CCP Boyz in Beijing are developing genetic biological warfare. It is genetically possible to develop biological agents that affect people of a certain race or ethnicity only. It is far from perfect and still being developed and refined, but it has a definite efficacy.

Chemicals are not discrete but biological agents get very discreet. The trick is simply to commit enough unlimited budget and resources to make it work, eventually, sooner or later. Beijing has made this commitment.

The CCP Boyz in Beijing figure if they can manage and control the killing of 250 million Americans by genetic biological warfare, they can leave the infrastructure throughout the vast country intact while reducing the population to the point it could not resist assault and attack. That would occur after the Chinese military would incapacitate US satellite and cyber war capabilities...a high tech power outage which could be done by any number of means.

Russia and the US on the other hand give a low priority to biological (or chemical) warfare. The US is bound by a biological and chemical warfare treaty and would suffer greatly if it were producing such agents and were somehow Snowdened to the world on such a policy or doctrine. Russia sees no point to it.

The US and Russia instead do rely on cyber warfare and the US relies on cyber warfare and satellite hi-tech warfare. Beijing knows that during the invasion of Iraq the US used more than 80% of all US satellites in space to include those owned privately, the latter being commandeered instantly without appeal or recourse, on the basis of national security statutes. That confirmed to Beijing the US hi-tech cyber and satellite war strategy and doctrine.

The Russian invasion of Georgia confirmed to everyone Moscow's cyber warfare strategy and doctrine which is formidable. Russia's plans are to win its all out war using its very hi-tech and highly developed cyber capabilities to clear the way for heavy ground forces and powerful air forces.

The US is well aware of Beijing's focused knockout strategy against US high tech warfare capabilities, so the Pentagon has developed the doctrine of withstanding a knockout cyber attack against its highly sophisticated capabilities on land, sea, in the air, in cyberspace, and for its satellites in earth orbit. After withstanding a first electro-magnetic and hi-tech cyber assault and missile blows against its military capabilities, the US would then launch an integrated and devastatingly sophisticated "star wars" counterattack. Neither side would go nuclear however.

The point being none of the existing three big state nuclear actors -- the US, Russia, China -- ever plan to use their nuclear arsenal except possibly all or more likely in part as a retaliatory strike force.

So regardless of whether Iran might at some point develop ten nuclear weapons or 200+ of them, civilian and military policy makers together among the major powers and of course in Israel would need to determine how the ayatollahs might think of an all out war (and a lower intensity use of a nuclear weapon). Would the ayatollahs regard a nuclear arsenal as their first strike preference and in fact doctrine? Or would Iran take one of the other approaches used variously by China, or Russia, or the US? Or something else yet again that might be uniquely Persian in its nature?

The doctrine of using nuclear weapons as a first strike offensive line of deterrence and defense is actually so very Cold War, so un-21st century.