Obama seeks $500m for Syria rebels

[Credo]

There is no right answer or solution that does not involve hurting a lot of people even more than they have already been hurt. And more will be in harms way regardless of what Obama comes up with.

As much as I despise Obama, I tend to agree, but I also feel that his feckless foreign policy is what put us into this position. Pretty much everyone around the world knows that he will do almost anything to avoid military conflict, unless he feels that it is a slam dunk and will help him politically. They are starting to take advantage of it and, IMO, it is only going to get worse.

Well, perhaps some of those countries that are tired of the US being the World Policeman could step in and figure out who to support.

It makes little difference who is supported the place was a mess long before the US had any involvement and it will be a mess long after.

[Ulysses G.]

It makes little difference who is supported the place was a mess long before the US had any involvement and it will be a mess long after.

That is for sure. The whole area is one big snafu.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

This means WAR!

Syria TV reports 100-year-old event as breaking news

A Syrian TV channel on Saturday mistakenly reported as a breaking story the news of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria – which happened 100 years ago.

The mix-up came about when the BBC’s Arabic language website tweeted the news of the archduke’s murder to mark the 100th anniversary of the event that is widely thought to have sparked the First World War.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/2014/06/29/Syria-TV-mistakenly-reports-100-year-old-event-as-breaking-news-.html

Edited June 30, 2014 by Morch

[Credo]

I wonder if the whole idea of arming 'moderates' isn't a smoke screen for having money ready to get to groups that might be actively targeting the US. There is some serious bomb making going on and there are indications that foreign targets may be in the cross-hairs.

I don't know, just an idea.

[chuckd]

This means WAR!

Syria TV reports 100-year-old event as breaking news

A Syrian TV channel on Saturday mistakenly reported as a breaking story the news of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria – which happened 100 years ago.

The mix-up came about when the BBC’s Arabic language website tweeted the news of the archduke’s murder to mark the 100th anniversary of the event that is widely thought to have sparked the First World War.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/2014/06/29/Syria-TV-mistakenly-reports-100-year-old-event-as-breaking-news-.html

Morch:

If anything can make me laugh when Obama is wasting another $500 million, you just did it.

Thanks for the humor.

[Johpa]

The West actually does believe that a regional super Islamic state might provide a better means to navigate regional hostilities and ensure more tranquil markets.....

It is a dangerous, decietful game the West plays because they fundamentally do not grasp they are not dealing solely with ideology or national aspirations. A cursory glimpse of Islamic Eschatology clearly reveals they are (the growing Islamic caliphate movement) preparing for the end times, not solely the Shia Twelvers (Returning Mahdi) either. ....

For every single person who has understood these fundamental things about the Islamic Caliphate Jihad it cannot be overlooked that the West has intentionally unseated their local opponents; Syria is more intransigent due to Iran. So, see what you wish to in unfolding events but having read this, don't be surprised later when you see it fits like a puzzle.....

Note: It is absolute nonsense to assert "moderate." There are no moderates in this region of the world because the formula is simple: you are either Sharia, or you are blasphemous. The idea that Islam can be interpreted and applied differently under Sharia is rubbish. Moderate terms are used to feed the Western viewer. The very concept of "moderate" in this regard is an invention, and has zero merit locally. You will never see/hear a body of "moderates" take a stand on this, or that, because there are none! You may have people here or there, but not locally, seeking interfaith dialogue, but they are not moderates, they are blasphemers.

I understand your focus upon the Sharia concepts that divide the world unequivocally into believers (or should I say followers) and non-believers, with very limited tolerance for some non-believers. But I am not yet convinced, as you are perhaps unintentionally implying, that Salafism's fundamentalist peer group in the west gathered at Ivenwald and at their base on C street are actually in control of long term US foreign policy attempting to realize their own eschatology by unseating secular dictators in favor of a Sunni Caliphate. If that is indeed the case, for whatever reason, then the ultimate strategy is not about Shias and Iran, but rather about preparing the ground for their own Messianic delusions. Because I really doubt that secularist interests in the west prefer a Sharia based caliphate in the belief it will bring tranquility, that is profitability, to the "markets" as capitalism has always favored dictatorships that can facilitate the extraction of raw goods and capital.

It is depressing to think that Huntington might have actually gotten something right.

[Steely Dan]

The West actually does believe that a regional super Islamic state might provide a better means to navigate regional hostilities and ensure more tranquil markets.....

It is a dangerous, decietful game the West plays because they fundamentally do not grasp they are not dealing solely with ideology or national aspirations. A cursory glimpse of Islamic Eschatology clearly reveals they are (the growing Islamic caliphate movement) preparing for the end times, not solely the Shia Twelvers (Returning Mahdi) either. ....

For every single person who has understood these fundamental things about the Islamic Caliphate Jihad it cannot be overlooked that the West has intentionally unseated their local opponents; Syria is more intransigent due to Iran. So, see what you wish to in unfolding events but having read this, don't be surprised later when you see it fits like a puzzle.....

Note: It is absolute nonsense to assert "moderate." There are no moderates in this region of the world because the formula is simple: you are either Sharia, or you are blasphemous. The idea that Islam can be interpreted and applied differently under Sharia is rubbish. Moderate terms are used to feed the Western viewer. The very concept of "moderate" in this regard is an invention, and has zero merit locally. You will never see/hear a body of "moderates" take a stand on this, or that, because there are none! You may have people here or there, but not locally, seeking interfaith dialogue, but they are not moderates, they are blasphemers.

I understand your focus upon the Sharia concepts that divide the world unequivocally into believers (or should I say followers) and non-believers, with very limited tolerance for some non-believers. But I am not yet convinced, as you are perhaps unintentionally implying, that Salafism's fundamentalist peer group in the west gathered at Ivenwald and at their base on C street are actually in control of long term US foreign policy attempting to realize their own eschatology by unseating secular dictators in favor of a Sunni Caliphate. If that is indeed the case, for whatever reason, then the ultimate strategy is not about Shias and Iran, but rather about preparing the ground for their own Messianic delusions. Because I really doubt that secularist interests in the west prefer a Sharia based caliphate in the belief it will bring tranquility, that is profitability, to the "markets" as capitalism has always favored dictatorships that can facilitate the extraction of raw goods and capital.

It is depressing to think that Huntington might have actually gotten something right.

It's going to be interesting to see the backpedaling by so many of Huntington's detractors. He nailed it from the start.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[arjunadawn]

The West actually does believe that a regional super Islamic state might provide a better means to navigate regional hostilities and ensure more tranquil markets.....

It is a dangerous, decietful game the West plays because they fundamentally do not grasp they are not dealing solely with ideology or national aspirations. A cursory glimpse of Islamic Eschatology clearly reveals they are (the growing Islamic caliphate movement) preparing for the end times, not solely the Shia Twelvers (Returning Mahdi) either. ....

For every single person who has understood these fundamental things about the Islamic Caliphate Jihad it cannot be overlooked that the West has intentionally unseated their local opponents; Syria is more intransigent due to Iran. So, see what you wish to in unfolding events but having read this, don't be surprised later when you see it fits like a puzzle.....

Note: It is absolute nonsense to assert "moderate." There are no moderates in this region of the world because the formula is simple: you are either Sharia, or you are blasphemous. The idea that Islam can be interpreted and applied differently under Sharia is rubbish. Moderate terms are used to feed the Western viewer. The very concept of "moderate" in this regard is an invention, and has zero merit locally. You will never see/hear a body of "moderates" take a stand on this, or that, because there are none! You may have people here or there, but not locally, seeking interfaith dialogue, but they are not moderates, they are blasphemers.

I understand your focus upon the Sharia concepts that divide the world unequivocally into believers (or should I say followers) and non-believers, with very limited tolerance for some non-believers. But I am not yet convinced, as you are perhaps unintentionally implying, that Salafism's fundamentalist peer group in the west gathered at Ivenwald and at their base on C street are actually in control of long term US foreign policy attempting to realize their own eschatology by unseating secular dictators in favor of a Sunni Caliphate. If that is indeed the case, for whatever reason, then the ultimate strategy is not about Shias and Iran, but rather about preparing the ground for their own Messianic delusions. Because I really doubt that secularist interests in the west prefer a Sharia based caliphate in the belief it will bring tranquility, that is profitability, to the "markets" as capitalism has always favored dictatorships that can facilitate the extraction of raw goods and capital.

It is depressing to think that Huntington might have actually gotten something right.

If I've unintentionally implied the west is being "managed" to intact Sharia compliant outcomes, that was not my intent. However, I do think it is partially correct. I subscribe to a well known observation regarding the Left and Islam. There is a point where left is so far left it's right. In essence, it looks the same as fascism in its effects. Indeed, the links between contemporary fascism and Islam are legendary- see, hitler/Grand Mufti Data. For various reasons the modern socialist left elevates Islam to a near protected status. Thus, the foreign policies of such State actors will invariably influence positively Islamic agendas. It's my estimation the Left embraces Islam solely because Islam rejects the West, self determination, and representative republics. Indeed, the Left employs Islam as a stalking horse for their own desires outcomes. In this regard the modern West does facilitate emerging Islamic efforts. Again, my opinion, the Left fosters self loathing and even if not articulated this unholy marriage serves their win aims to reduce the Wester Judeo-Christian tradition to shambles. Indeed, as Obama and advisors note, it is in such crisis that outcomes of our own aims are realized (paraphrase). Thus, the endless self loathing in America. Islam is a tool for those like I've described. They're hardly aware of the inherent dangers of such fallacious, simple calculations.

Furthermore, Jihad is not simply by the sword. See "Law-Fare" related info. The West is also under siege by Islamists taken full advantage of the cozy interference being run by left leaning governments in the west. Indeed, a chief depart of homeland security advisor, elbirady, has repeatedly, including yesterday, declared the USA and Islamic compliant state, and like it or not, a Caliphate is coming. This is the formula for the unholy alliance. It's repugnance is considerable and ironic when you consider the majority of what the Left believes would be first victims to a Sharia state. No; Islamists are not controlling policy. Yes, they are taking advantage of it. Yes, there's a mix of manipulation and outright advocacy of Islamic supremacism in the west.

[Morch]

The West actually does believe that a regional super Islamic state might provide a better means to navigate regional hostilities and ensure more tranquil markets.....

It is a dangerous, decietful game the West plays because they fundamentally do not grasp they are not dealing solely with ideology or national aspirations. A cursory glimpse of Islamic Eschatology clearly reveals they are (the growing Islamic caliphate movement) preparing for the end times, not solely the Shia Twelvers (Returning Mahdi) either. ....

For every single person who has understood these fundamental things about the Islamic Caliphate Jihad it cannot be overlooked that the West has intentionally unseated their local opponents; Syria is more intransigent due to Iran. So, see what you wish to in unfolding events but having read this, don't be surprised later when you see it fits like a puzzle.....

Note: It is absolute nonsense to assert "moderate." There are no moderates in this region of the world because the formula is simple: you are either Sharia, or you are blasphemous. The idea that Islam can be interpreted and applied differently under Sharia is rubbish. Moderate terms are used to feed the Western viewer. The very concept of "moderate" in this regard is an invention, and has zero merit locally. You will never see/hear a body of "moderates" take a stand on this, or that, because there are none! You may have people here or there, but not locally, seeking interfaith dialogue, but they are not moderates, they are blasphemers.

I understand your focus upon the Sharia concepts that divide the world unequivocally into believers (or should I say followers) and non-believers, with very limited tolerance for some non-believers. But I am not yet convinced, as you are perhaps unintentionally implying, that Salafism's fundamentalist peer group in the west gathered at Ivenwald and at their base on C street are actually in control of long term US foreign policy attempting to realize their own eschatology by unseating secular dictators in favor of a Sunni Caliphate. If that is indeed the case, for whatever reason, then the ultimate strategy is not about Shias and Iran, but rather about preparing the ground for their own Messianic delusions. Because I really doubt that secularist interests in the west prefer a Sharia based caliphate in the belief it will bring tranquility, that is profitability, to the "markets" as capitalism has always favored dictatorships that can facilitate the extraction of raw goods and capital.

It is depressing to think that Huntington might have actually gotten something right.

If I've unintentionally implied the west is being "managed" to intact Sharia compliant outcomes, that was not my intent. However, I do think it is partially correct. I subscribe to a well known observation regarding the Left and Islam. There is a point where left is so far left it's right. In essence, it looks the same as fascism in its effects. Indeed, the links between contemporary fascism and Islam are legendary- see, hitler/Grand Mufti Data. For various reasons the modern socialist left elevates Islam to a near protected status. Thus, the foreign policies of such State actors will invariably influence positively Islamic agendas. It's my estimation the Left embraces Islam solely because Islam rejects the West, self determination, and representative republics. Indeed, the Left employs Islam as a stalking horse for their own desires outcomes. In this regard the modern West does facilitate emerging Islamic efforts. Again, my opinion, the Left fosters self loathing and even if not articulated this unholy marriage serves their win aims to reduce the Wester Judeo-Christian tradition to shambles. Indeed, as Obama and advisors note, it is in such crisis that outcomes of our own aims are realized (paraphrase). Thus, the endless self loathing in America. Islam is a tool for those like I've described. They're hardly aware of the inherent dangers of such fallacious, simple calculations.

Furthermore, Jihad is not simply by the sword. See "Law-Fare" related info. The West is also under siege by Islamists taken full advantage of the cozy interference being run by left leaning governments in the west. Indeed, a chief depart of homeland security advisor, elbirady, has repeatedly, including yesterday, declared the USA and Islamic compliant state, and like it or not, a Caliphate is coming. This is the formula for the unholy alliance. It's repugnance is considerable and ironic when you consider the majority of what the Left believes would be first victims to a Sharia state. No; Islamists are not controlling policy. Yes, they are taking advantage of it. Yes, there's a mix of manipulation and outright advocacy of Islamic supremacism in the west.

Liked and agree with most of the first part of your post.

Especially the part regarding the meeting point of far left and right. A nice circle there.

As for the up and coming caliphate, we'll see, I have less faith in it picking up and becoming a reality.

Could be that its shadow will plague the region for a while, though. Borders (lines in the sand) might

change some when the dust settles, but right now (and in the near future) a unified Muslim empire

seems unlikely.

Edit: this added especially as per your previous post - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

Edited July 1, 2014 by Morch

[arjunadawn]

Your a good egg, Morch- really! At a certain point I am overwhelmed by the really smart observations here for the opinions I also hold, and the really smart observations about contrary positions. But I deeply hold this issue among the greatest threats to humanity- ever. Moreover, at some intellectual point I lose the ability to articulate why I find it so threatening and yet I still retain real fear of Sharia insinuating into the West. There is a self evident alarm sounding inside warning me that this is actually really bad. Perhaps it is less to do with Sharia intrinsically being threatening to the West, but as the West declines the vacuum that is created enables the expansion of this once alien ideology. It is not a great intellectual leap to see this; anyone who lives in Denmark, Sweden, Kentucky, Michigan, or even the UK might note the insinuation of once alien jurisprudence, no go areas, coerced compliance with halal, and numerous other insinuations.

I spent years in Iraq- many! I advised at a fairly high, intimate level, and worked with Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. On one particular point I have a hint of sadness- many of these young men are now dead, their homes destroyed, their villages in ruins, their family refugees. I know this is life, but I taught, laughed, played, ate, and slept with these men. Some were in high positions, and others lowly. But watching their cities fall, and knowing that they will never have even a semblance of a meaningful life, is sad. They laughed, played with iphones, liked girls, told dirty jokes, had a sense of humor, wanted to marry or were, had various political beliefs, and otherwise looked like you and me. Many of these men would be loathe to join something like ISIS but were they to come marching into town they would pick up arms and join them; they'd have no choice. This is the "tipping point" mechanics I fear. Funding any of these groups furthers these Supremacist goals. Obama's goals are solely the furtherance of Islam; cui bono?

[Morch]

Your a good egg, Morch- really! At a certain point I am overwhelmed by the really smart observations here for the opinions I also hold, and the really smart observations about contrary positions. But I deeply hold this issue among the greatest threats to humanity- ever. Moreover, at some intellectual point I lose the ability to articulate why I find it so threatening and yet I still retain real fear of Sharia insinuating into the West. There is a self evident alarm sounding inside warning me that this is actually really bad. Perhaps it is less to do with Sharia intrinsically being threatening to the West, but as the West declines the vacuum that is created enables the expansion of this once alien ideology. It is not a great intellectual leap to see this; anyone who lives in Denmark, Sweden, Kentucky, Michigan, or even the UK might note the insinuation of once alien jurisprudence, no go areas, coerced compliance with halal, and numerous other insinuations.

I spent years in Iraq- many! I advised at a fairly high, intimate level, and worked with Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. On one particular point I have a hint of sadness- many of these young men are now dead, their homes destroyed, their villages in ruins, their family refugees. I know this is life, but I taught, laughed, played, ate, and slept with these men. Some were in high positions, and others lowly. But watching their cities fall, and knowing that they will never have even a semblance of a meaningful life, is sad. They laughed, played with iphones, liked girls, told dirty jokes, had a sense of humor, wanted to marry or were, had various political beliefs, and otherwise looked like you and me. Many of these men would be loathe to join something like ISIS but were they to come marching into town they would pick up arms and join them; they'd have no choice. This is the "tipping point" mechanics I fear. Funding any of these groups furthers these Supremacist goals. Obama's goals are solely the furtherance of Islam; cui bono?

I think that many Westerners are ill equipped to comprehend or deal with devoutness ( or zealousness) manifested in Islam. Mainly because of Christianity's decline (not necessarily in numbers as much as an institute), and subsequently the decline of familiar political systems and social order. People just are just not that good at handling uncertainty. Certain modern schools of thought may have further compounded this.

It is not that Islam, with rapid spread and its definitive Sharia is not a threat. It is. Question is if people see it as existential threat, as cultural threat, as a political issue....many dimensions to this.

There's a certain range of possibilities between worst case scenarios and burying one's head in the sand. For most of us, it is very doubtful that things will fundamentally change during our lifetime. Even changes which we perceive as monumental are often not as great as all that when taken in historical context.

Islam is here to stay, nothing much to be said or done about that. How much will it grow in influence and how much will this effect our lives are both a matter of speculation and also somewhat two different topics.

As an immediate threat, it is relevant mostly for people living in Muslim countries, countries with large Muslim minority (Not the UK yet...I know some people were waiting for this comment ), and neighboring countries. That's more to do with outright survival, prosecution and curtailing of personal freedom.

Next level is as you said, certain unholy marriages between Islamic and Western political interests. I don't think we're quite there yet, even if some feel that way. There are some signs of things to come, yes. Short of going the right wing and nationalistic way, hard to see how this can be avoided. Process could be slowed down some, for sure, instead of the current greasing of wheels.

After that...there's an old Jewish proverb saying that from the day the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was given to babes (not as in hotties!) and fools. Looking at history religions tend to mellow down after a while, people get more reasonable when they got more to lose, education unchains bonds and unshackles the mind. But all that takes a very long time. On top of that, there is no guarantee that history will indeed repeat itself or that the outcome will be similar to anything that passed before.

Iraq (and other modern countries in the Middle East) was always a myth, dreamed up by Europeans. Rude awakening is never nice, but this been on the cards for quite a while now. On this level of changes - yes, probably going to see more of the same, and undoubtedly it carries mixed tidings for locals.

To sum...this was an excellent 2006 merlot, and I'm going to get me another glass. And almond Magnum (yes, I know).

Oh, Obama - I'm pretty sure he does not have a master plan of supporting...anything. Least of all radical Islam.

There's another saying, can't remember by whom (probably some variations) - Never attribute to malice that which can

be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

Looking at history religions tend to mellow down after a while

You are an intelligent guy and you know a lot, but you keep repeating this and I very much disagree. Religions do not exist in a vacuum. The problem is not about how long the Muslim religion has been around. The world has progressed a lot over the centuries and too much of Islam is just not keeping up. They seem to want to go back in time to the dark ages and take the rest of the planet with them.

[Morch]

Looking at history religions tend to mellow down after a while

You are an intelligent guy and you know a lot, but you keep repeating this and I very much disagree. Religions do not exist in a vacuum. The problem is not about how long the Muslim religion has been around. The world has progressed a lot over the centuries and too much of Islam is just not keeping up. They seem to want to go back in time to the dark ages and take the rest of the planet with them.

I think that I got into this specific point some time in the past.

Gauging the potential effects of modern day technology (especially communication and information) on the evolution and spread of ideas is tricky. One can say that it facilitates progress (without getting too much into definitions of progress), or one can say see mass and social media as a powerful tool which enables manipulation of public opinion and perception.

Not sure which view I subscribe to.

Technological advancement and social change are not something new. Print, radio, TV, political concepts of equality, new social and political systems....this been going on for a while. It may look to us that we're living in a revolutionary time with regards to some of these changes, but those leaps were globally felt in the past.

When I say Islam is 600 years behind, it does not necessarily mean that it will take it 600 years to come to the same point Christianity (or what stood for the Christian world) is now. Some modern aspects may effect this, and in my humble opinion, some coordinated thinking and dedicated effort could possibly go a long way toward this goal.

Most Islamic countries did not go through the same historical processes experienced by Western (or Christian, definitions can get a but sloppy) nations. Not sure why the outcome is expected to be an emulation of the past. Sort of like an older teacher that's upset his student does not reach an expected level even though he was given the textbook (yes, this may be a somewhat inaccurate and perhaps condescending example).

Islam is not going to "shape up" anytime soon. It's just something the West is going to have to accept one way or the other. Can be reacted to in more than one way, and probably on a few levels. This is hampered by the West hardly being a single unified entity, but a collection of often conflicting interest groups with short to medium range vision. This is, by itself, a good thing - a unified "West" would probably be somewhat reminiscent of darker days in Europe. However, making any long term global effort under this system is certainly problematic.

On the other hand, many people seem to regard Islam as a unified entity. It is not. There's a certain religious bond, yes. Does it always override ethnic, regional, political, economical and personal ties, no. Manipulations and influence can work both ways, could be a wee bit early to tell which way the wind blows on this one. A good example often cited on this forum: Muslim immigrants prefer it Western countries with the added benefits. Can see this as a bad thing, can see it as a sort of subtle indoctrination (not ignoring the side effects to locals).

[arjunadawn]

Looking at history religions tend to mellow down after a while

You are an intelligent guy and you know a lot, but you keep repeating this and I very much disagree. Religions do not exist in a vacuum. The problem is not about how long the Muslim religion has been around. The world has progressed a lot over the centuries and too much of Islam is just not keeping up. They seem to want to go back in time to the dark ages and take the rest of the planet with them.

I didn't previously comment regarding "religions tend to mellow" because I like Morch, and I wanted to leave room for other people besides my big mouth. The cat is now out of the bag.

I understand Morch's assertion but I think it is an error in observation/conclusion. What may be termed "mellow[ing]" may be the dissolution of a previously existing faith, the increased syncreatism of other orthodoxy watering down the primary religion, or a combination. From a relative point of view, yours, it may seem Judaism has matured, and Christianity has finally found its spiritual-politico niche, but for your position to remain valid Islam would have to be in genesis, again, because what is burgeoning now in the Islamic world looks decidedly like the early days following the death of their prophet (even during his life)- not "mellow[ing]." After 632CE Islam spread rapidly. Part of the reason for this success was the total annihilation or subjugation of the territories entered. The model of emulation is no less than the prophet himself. Indeed, the Hadith contains numerous examples of the life of the prophet, thus little is being made-up or fabricated by contemporary Islamic Supremacists. Islamic historians have expended great effort to ensure the life of the prophet was recorded properly. What we are seeing in the Levant is a very accurate translation of the behavior and commandments of their prophet. It is irresponsible to continue seeing such Supremacists as outliers, they are not! They reflect a time tested, proven formula for Jihad and conquest. Indeed, the source documents they refer to are in many ways no less than a map for domination and expansion.

So, contemporary Islamic affairs, generally, do not represent a "mellow[ing]" rather they represent a return to first principles, imperatives, and "surrender" in their faith. They are orthodox, but not radical. They are believers, but not extremists. Until the West stops referencing these activities from their own moral compass they will never be prepared nor grasp what is happening. Extreme? Radical? Islamist? In relation to whom? They abide by Islamic Sharia and exegesis! Period. They have no reference point for democracy, a justice system, equal rights, child marriage rights, human rights, or any other license granted by temporal authority. They don't understand! Moreover, they cannot be made to grasp this as all these things originate from man, not revelation.

I challange any of you to spend a few hours, or more if your fancy suggests, and read up on the the expansion waves of Isam, particulary with regard to the Indian subcontinent. The countless millions (literally) who were killed, ravaged, and subjugated during these waves make pale all subsequent genocides of history; similar category observations can be made regarding some other religions, but not near the scope or magnitude. Caution: Wikipedia and other online sources are often a target of "managing" the perceptions of history, with regard to this subject. If you are inclined to know this, go off the beaten path a bit and read up.

Again, conclusion: Do not give any money to any faction fighting in the middle east. Islam has a doctrine which specifically requires treaties be entered into, if necessary, long enough to regroup, or otherwise refresh forces, all to ultimately further Jihad. They are authorized to lie about anything as long as the goal is the furtherance of Jihad. Any effort will return to haunt the West.

[Morch]

Looking at history religions tend to mellow down after a while

You are an intelligent guy and you know a lot, but you keep repeating this and I very much disagree. Religions do not exist in a vacuum. The problem is not about how long the Muslim religion has been around. The world has progressed a lot over the centuries and too much of Islam is just not keeping up. They seem to want to go back in time to the dark ages and take the rest of the planet with them.

I didn't previously comment regarding "religions tend to mellow" because I like Morch, and I wanted to leave room for other people besides my big mouth. The cat is now out of the bag.

I understand Morch's assertion but I think it is an error in observation/conclusion. What may be termed "mellow[ing]" may be the dissolution of a previously existing faith, the increased syncreatism of other orthodoxy watering down the primary religion, or a combination. From a relative point of view, yours, it may seem Judaism has matured, and Christianity has finally found its spiritual-politico niche, but for your position to remain valid Islam would have to be in genesis, again, because what is burgeoning now in the Islamic world looks decidedly like the early days following the death of their prophet (even during his life)- not "mellow[ing]." After 632CE Islam spread rapidly. Part of the reason for this success was the total annihilation or subjugation of the territories entered. The model of emulation is no less than the prophet himself. Indeed, the Hadith contains numerous examples of the life of the prophet, thus little is being made-up or fabricated by contemporary Islamic Supremacists. Islamic historians have expended great effort to ensure the life of the prophet was recorded properly. What we are seeing in the Levant is a very accurate translation of the behavior and commandments of their prophet. It is irresponsible to continue seeing such Supremacists as outliers, they are not! They reflect a time tested, proven formula for Jihad and conquest. Indeed, the source documents they refer to are in many ways no less than a map for domination and expansion.

So, contemporary Islamic affairs, generally, do not represent a "mellow[ing]" rather they represent a return to first principles, imperatives, and "surrender" in their faith. They are orthodox, but not radical. They are believers, but not extremists. Until the West stops referencing these activities from their own moral compass they will never be prepared nor grasp what is happening. Extreme? Radical? Islamist? In relation to whom? They abide by Islamic Sharia and exegesis! Period. They have no reference point for democracy, a justice system, equal rights, child marriage rights, human rights, or any other license granted by temporal authority. They don't understand! Moreover, they cannot be made to grasp this as all these things originate from man, not revelation.

I challange any of you to spend a few hours, or more if your fancy suggests, and read up on the the expansion waves of Isam, particulary with regard to the Indian subcontinent. The countless millions (literally) who were killed, ravaged, and subjugated during these waves make pale all subsequent genocides of history; similar category observations can be made regarding some other religions, but not near the scope or magnitude. Caution: Wikipedia and other online sources are often a target of "managing" the perceptions of history, with regard to this subject. If you are inclined to know this, go off the beaten path a bit and read up.

Again, conclusion: Do not give any money to any faction fighting in the middle east. Islam has a doctrine which specifically requires treaties be entered into, if necessary, long enough to regroup, or otherwise refresh forces, all to ultimately further Jihad. They are authorized to lie about anything as long as the goal is the furtherance of Jihad. Any effort will return to haunt the West.

Yes, maybe a better way of putting it than "mellowing down". Was after the end result, not so much a definition of the process getting there. Basically, that moment when a religion can exist without undue aggression toward other religions, heretics and blasphemers. Using "orthodox" instead of "radical" or "extremist" works too, probably better. But again, was not so hung on definition as much as on the way beliefs are manifested.

"They have no reference point for democracy, a justice system, equal rights, child marriage rights, human rights, or any other license granted by temporal authority." - Not sure I would put it that harshly. Not in a way precluding the possibility of change (without being too hopeful on this front). It is correct to say that expecting certain concepts to be present or to be readily and willingly adopted out of the blue is an exercise in futility. That "they" cannot grasp these things - if this refers to current reality it could be partially true. However, if one sees "this things" as an antithesis of orthodox religion (in this case, Islam), there is some hope that in the long term, a change is possible (but that would entitle a decline of orthodox Islam as we know it now).

Saying that what we see now is a repeat of historical events, and that they are bound to unfold in a similar fashion, is not something that I feel can be asserted with much confidence. It would require assuming that all conditions remained similar and that events are at least partially predetermined. With regard to Islam's expansion and horrors visited on the unbelievers, not sure how the total body count compares with Christianity and some empires. Also, does this require treating Islam as a cohesive unified ongoing effort at world domination? I think not. How do these expansion compare when considered separately and within other contexts?

All this, to finally agree with your conclusion - the slogan ought to be: "No money for you!".

[Ulysses G.]

I didn't previously comment regarding "religions tend to mellow" because I like Morch, and I wanted to leave room for other people besides my big mouth. The cat is now out of the bag.

I understand Morch's assertion but I think it is an error in observation/conclusion.

I agree that it an error, but not because "Judaism has matured, and Christianity has finally found its spiritual-politico niche." It is because of modernization, the spread of education and the realization by most people that divisive religions are mostly a bunch of BS. Educated people do not take them as seriously as they used to. It is about time that Islam wakes up and gets with the program.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Johpa]

If I've unintentionally implied the west is being "managed" to intact Sharia compliant outcomes, that was not my intent. However, I do think it is partially correct. I subscribe to a well known observation regarding the Left and Islam. There is a point where left is so far left it's right. In essence, it looks the same as fascism in its effects. Indeed, the links between contemporary fascism and Islam are legendary- see, hitler/Grand Mufti Data. For various reasons the modern socialist left elevates Islam to a near protected status. Thus, the foreign policies of such State actors will invariably influence positively Islamic agendas. It's my estimation the Left embraces Islam solely because Islam rejects the West, self determination, and representative republics. Indeed, the Left employs Islam as a stalking horse for their own desires outcomes. In this regard the modern West does facilitate emerging Islamic efforts. Again, my opinion, the Left fosters self loathing and even if not articulated this unholy marriage serves their win aims to reduce the Wester Judeo-Christian tradition to shambles. Indeed, as Obama and advisors note, it is in such crisis that outcomes of our own aims are realized (paraphrase). Thus, the endless self loathing in America. Islam is a tool for those like I've described. They're hardly aware of the inherent dangers of such fallacious, simple calculations.

Let us not forget that there were also links between western conservative organizations to facism prior to WWII. There was the shadowy affair of "the Business Plot" brought up by Smedley Butler. There were the pro-facists business groups in Boston and elsewhere, with Prescott Bush being just one name linked to pro-facist leanings. It was not until Hitler incorporated racism and genocide that facism became such a disparaged philosophy in the west. Today there are still influential groups on the right. such as those follwing in the footsteps of Abraham Veride on the Christian right, that admire the more generalized form of facism that does not include ideas of genetic superiority. And although I agree that there are a few on the furthest reaches of the left that converge towards some points of agreement with those on the far right, there still remain distinct differences between delusional socialistic Utopias and delusional right wing facist Utopias.

As one who clearly incorporates many, but not all, "leftist" ideas into my personal world view, I am not comfortable with the idea that the generic left fosters self-loathing. That is a bit of a collective ad hominem attack that perhaps shows that you loath some of the people on the left. On the other hand, I do find some of the ideas on the left to be incredibly naive, such as the concept of cultural relativity, a concept that causes many on the left to misunderstand the nature of the threat from Islam which I belileve you more correctly understand. One only need to look at the flag of ISIS or the flag of Saudi Arabia (Yo, that symbol of Islam is not a crescent moon) to understand the fundamental differences between Islam and the other major religions of the world. Simply having an attractive young woman sitting in the third row of every TED lecture wearing a hajib does not a religion of peace make. Islam, in its commonly found orthodox variant promoted by Salafism, is indeed a despicable meme.

[arjunadawn]

If I've unintentionally implied the west is being "managed" to intact Sharia compliant outcomes, that was not my intent. However, I do think it is partially correct. I subscribe to a well known observation regarding the Left and Islam. There is a point where left is so far left it's right. In essence, it looks the same as fascism in its effects. Indeed, the links between contemporary fascism and Islam are legendary- see, hitler/Grand Mufti Data. For various reasons the modern socialist left elevates Islam to a near protected status. Thus, the foreign policies of such State actors will invariably influence positively Islamic agendas. It's my estimation the Left embraces Islam solely because Islam rejects the West, self determination, and representative republics. Indeed, the Left employs Islam as a stalking horse for their own desires outcomes. In this regard the modern West does facilitate emerging Islamic efforts. Again, my opinion, the Left fosters self loathing and even if not articulated this unholy marriage serves their win aims to reduce the Wester Judeo-Christian tradition to shambles. Indeed, as Obama and advisors note, it is in such crisis that outcomes of our own aims are realized (paraphrase). Thus, the endless self loathing in America. Islam is a tool for those like I've described. They're hardly aware of the inherent dangers of such fallacious, simple calculations.

Let us not forget that there were also links between western conservative organizations to facism prior to WWII. There was the shadowy affair of "the Business Plot" brought up by Smedley Butler. There were the pro-facists business groups in Boston and elsewhere, with Prescott Bush being just one name linked to pro-facist leanings. It was not until Hitler incorporated racism and genocide that facism became such a disparaged philosophy in the west. Today there are still influential groups on the right. such as those follwing in the footsteps of Abraham Veride on the Christian right, that admire the more generalized form of facism that does not include ideas of genetic superiority. And although I agree that there are a few on the furthest reaches of the left that converge towards some points of agreement with those on the far right, there still remain distinct differences between delusional socialistic Utopias and delusional right wing facist Utopias.

As one who clearly incorporates many, but not all, "leftist" ideas into my personal world view, I am not comfortable with the idea that the generic left fosters self-loathing. That is a bit of a collective ad hominem attack that perhaps shows that you loath some of the people on the left. On the other hand, I do find some of the ideas on the left to be incredibly naive, such as the concept of cultural relativity, a concept that causes many on the left to misunderstand the nature of the threat from Islam which I belileve you more correctly understand. One only need to look at the flag of ISIS or the flag of Saudi Arabia (Yo, that symbol of Islam is not a crescent moon) to understand the fundamental differences between Islam and the other major religions of the world. Simply having an attractive young woman sitting in the third row of every TED lecture wearing a hajib does not a religion of peace make. Islam, in its commonly found orthodox variant promoted by Salafism, is indeed a despicable meme.

I think I can incorporate much of what you have noted into my worldview and modify, or qualify my points. You are not incorrect. However, I loathe none. It is a dangerous thing to surmise another's motivations in the absence of facts. I never reveal hostility for any people, because none exists within me. By the way, an ad hominen attack requires a significant digression from the facts to impugn. I make no diversion from the facts. I generally remain focused and leave emotional deportment aside; I try. Any who has ever known me knows I always avoid ad homenin and you will not find it in my posts; they are intellectual weakness. I do have objective, measurable concerns regarding the topic of this thread, however. Funding Islamic... anything (other than humanitarian) is to loan legitimacy to Jihad!

I am equally concerned about those on the right, for differing reasons, and their complicity in the subject matter we discuss here. And yes, the complicity between those on the right and left are present; I know. I choose to make the point between Nazi Germany and the Muslim Brotherhood not as an indictment on the left, for surely they were not party, rather to show that such alliances have a valid history. I suspect I then leaped to my current concerns about the Left and Islam and left the door wide open to your perception. I am concerned about the left in the USA particularly. No, my point would be false logic to suggest the left therefore has a connection to the Nazi past, per se. I didn't intend just that. I cannot be called conservative or liberal. My worldview cannot really accommodate left or right and while I can throw stones all day at "right" politics and the consequences also, it is the marriage of Left and Islam that concerns me on this thread. On this point I do not recant. The Western Left is an enabler of that very end that, if realized by Islamists, will first seek out the Left for destruction. Its really quite suicidal. Do not fund any Jihadist groups!

But self loathing? At least in the USA, I do hold this position to be valid as well, and relevant to this post. As you have noted, the absurdity of cultural relativity then has equality in the norms and mores accepted and practiced and when validated as equal by our leaders, causes consternation and cultural isolation in our very homeland. Islam is simply not compatible with the West (Source: Islam). However, the West is compatible with Islam.

(Note: Self Loathing aims to assign "white guilt," feelings of resource rape, revision of history to mitigate the industrious and elevate exploitation as the real "manifest destiny," and cultural relativity. This point is indeed vital because it is in this contemporary cultural wasteland of destroyed national identity, binding glue, exceptionalism, and "guilt" that the next wave of Islamic expansion will access the West. I am interested to see the upcoming documentary of Dineash De'souza regarding the very point I raise above).

[Johpa]

Funding Islamic... anything (other than humanitarian) is to loan legitimacy to Jihad!

I take a far more radical tact to deligitimizing Jihad, and that is by denying the existence of a god. But I try to do it with a smile and some humor and take some style points from Bill Maher's film Religulous. Of course this also greatly upsets my Christian and Jewish friends, but better to cause consternation than to see the possibility of prejudicial and extreme violence emanating from the region around Har Magiddo. Oh well, as they say throughout the Middle East, every dog has his day.

[arjunadawn]

Funding Islamic... anything (other than humanitarian) is to loan legitimacy to Jihad!

I take a far more radical tact to deligitimizing Jihad, and that is by denying the existence of a god. But I try to do it with a smile and some humor and take some style points from Bill Maher's film Religulous. Of course this also greatly upsets my Christian and Jewish friends, but better to cause consternation than to see the possibility of prejudicial and extreme violence emanating from the region around Har Magiddo. Oh well, as they say throughout the Middle East, every dog has his day.

See, this is one of the points I've made. You and I know well that denying be existence of god may be worthy of curious debate, satire, or parody but it's certainly not radical. Yet to Islamists your at the top of the list. Yes, judeao Christians have no use for you as well but they've hardly the mandate to make your slaughter a priority. People of the west are under seige from both their own politics of self loathing and th ascendency of Islam. It's most certainly not mellowing as our friend suggested.

Your not radical to me. I will not express my deeper thoughts on this issue as I enjoy the opinions of some really smart people here and prefer to remain focused. However, my conclusions have as the only emotional element fear. As I find all religions wrong I fault none from this perspective. I fault based on the objective impact others exercising thier right to worship injure others. I fear because I have seen this evil very personal for long periods. I quite like the YouTube channel of Brit Pat Condel. This man is funny, insightful, articulate, and doesn't give a damn. I wonder his comments on further funding ISIS. After all, Isis is near totally created by the USA.

Note: I've previously stated here or another thread that the declaration of a cali

[arjunadawn]

Break

I've previously stated on this or another thread the declaration of a caliphate does not make a caliphate. Well, a number of other events also coincided with this including the Shura- religious council- giving their approval. Technically, the call to jihad takes on an even greater calling when a legitimate caliph is actually sitting. It's fair to say baghdadi is seen by many as a legitimate caliph. Attacking IS now will be far more interesting, whether from the West or regional despots. IS can now legitimately call for allegiance far and wide, with the Shuras blessing, potentially extending this 'caliphate, transnationally, and greatly increasing the complexity.

[Exsexyman]

Break

I've previously stated on this or another thread the declaration of a caliphate does not make a caliphate. Well, a number of other events also coincided with this including the Shura- religious council- giving their approval. Technically, the call to jihad takes on an even greater calling when a legitimate caliph is actually sitting. It's fair to say baghdadi is seen by many as a legitimate caliph. Attacking IS now will be far more interesting, whether from the West or regional despots. IS can now legitimately call for allegiance far and wide, with the Shuras blessing, potentially extending this 'caliphate, transnationally, and greatly increasing the complexity.

I must confess you have lost me totally. The topic of this thread is, "Obama seeks $500 million for Syrian rebels. The examples of Iraq and Libya clearly show that material support for so called rebels in these two countries have resulted in said material aid ending up in the hands of radical Islamic extremists, Al Qaeda, etc, who will use this aid, (in reality,arms, supplied by the West), and turn them on us, ie, blowback, as Ambassador Stevens found out to his cost. Anyone who believes that supplying these arms to so called rebels in Syria would somehow be different is deluding themselves. President Obama and his advisers know this, they know that supplying this aid to rebels in Syria will result in Al Qaeda and affiliated Islamic Jihadists, (who lets face it are no friends of The West), being strengthened, and will enable them to become even more of a threat to us than they are already. Yet this current administration in The White House, knowing this will be the outcome, still want to proceed with this policy. The question must be posed, and they should be made to answer, Why? Whose side are you on? Whose interests are you serving?

[arjunadawn]

Break

I've previously stated on this or another thread the declaration of a caliphate does not make a caliphate. Well, a number of other events also coincided with this including the Shura- religious council- giving their approval. Technically, the call to jihad takes on an even greater calling when a legitimate caliph is actually sitting. It's fair to say baghdadi is seen by many as a legitimate caliph. Attacking IS now will be far more interesting, whether from the West or regional despots. IS can now legitimately call for allegiance far and wide, with the Shuras blessing, potentially extending this 'caliphate, transnationally, and greatly increasing the complexity.

I must confess you have lost me totally. The topic of this thread is, "Obama seeks $500 million for Syrian rebels. The examples of Iraq and Libya clearly show that material support for so called rebels in these two countries have resulted in said material aid ending up in the hands of radical Islamic extremists, Al Qaeda, etc, who will use this aid, (in reality,arms, supplied by the West), and turn them on us, ie, blowback, as Ambassador Stevens found out to his cost. Anyone who believes that supplying these arms to so called rebels in Syria would somehow be different is deluding themselves. President Obama and his advisers know this, they know that supplying this aid to rebels in Syria will result in Al Qaeda and affiliated Islamic Jihadists, (who lets face it are no friends of The West), being strengthened, and will enable them to become even more of a threat to us than they are already. Yet this current administration in The White House, knowing this will be the outcome, still want to proceed with this policy. The question must be posed, and they should be made to answer, Why? Whose side are you on? Whose interests are you serving?

It is an arrogant thing to presume that what we don't understand must therefore be wrong. Indeed, to employ sarcasm to make this point makes you look rude. You employ me as your entry point, and conclude with some rather offensive questions. It is reasonable to conclude they too pertain to me, and are not rhetorical.

The insertion of "caliphate" into this thread was introduced earlier by another, and I sort of rejected that as relevant. However, he was correct. It is indeed relevant as the borders or the previous middle east disappear overnight. My quote above was a continuation of the previous post where the internet dropped. Curiously, you say the same thing as myself and previous posters yet define your different position by objecting to the commentary on a "caliphate," for which you are plainly incorrect in any event. The artificial borders of the middle east were always uneasy and will likely not be regained by current regimes in any meaningful way. The hourly developments of the declaration of a caliphate in that region, the endorsement from Shura authorities and the frankly Islamo-legal authority for al Baghdadi's actions are indeed relevant to commentary on funding "Syrian" Jihadists.

I will not even loan legitimacy to your ending questions; they are just ridiculous. You are stating nothing most of us disagree with; I for one agree totally with your post. However, isn't it possible you are missing something?

[simple1]

Another commentry and analysis of the announced caliphate:

The trouble with the announcement is that the Islamic State does not have a caliphate and probably never will. No amount of new monikers will change the fact that geography, political ideology and religious, cultural and ethnic differences will prevent the emergence of a singular polity capable of ruling the greater Middle East.

In recent years, the term "caliphate" has become somewhat warped; it has become more of a slogan for radical Islamist groups than an actual political objective. Even the Islamic State, which has made impressive territorial gains quickly, has only an emirate, which encompasses a far smaller geographic area than a caliphate. Establishing an emirate is not terribly remarkable.

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/iraq-examining-professed-caliphate?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20140703&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore

Edited July 3, 2014 by simple1