originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: tinner07
The KKK call themselves Christians, do we tar all Christians with the same brush?
We have funded this organisation by arming them, we can't deny that can we? We are spending Billions on weapons in support of Iraqi and Kurdish
forces, yet we will not even contemplate paying a ransom for the life of an innocent aid worker.
Poor innocent aid workers and Journalists, easy targets for such a well organised regime, wouldn't you agree?
They hide behind religion, manipulating disenfranchised individuals and striking fear in everyday western folk, because they are murdering everyday
When will we put boots on the ground and invade Syria? Soon I would think.
The reason your argument about painting all Christians with the KKK fails is because Christianity does not condone or support such actions. The
doctrine of Christianity itself, which is based on the teachings of Jesus and which replaced many of the Jewish Old Testament teachings, does not even
hint at allowing such atrocities. So those using Christianity to justify their actions are wrong since the religion does not allow these things, as
well as being wrong for their actions. Then you take Islam, which does address these things and does allow for jihad, and does call for killing
non-Muslims. THAT is the difference, and that is why the same tired argument fails when comparing the two religions. So while the KKK is wrong in
thinking themselves justified, the Muslim extremists are actually right in the context of their religion.
If the doctrine of Islam did not allow for Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims then of course you could say that these Muslim extremists are
acting on their own, but considering what Islam does allow, these extremists are acting with the authority of their faith. So even if the KKK were
going around and beheading people and claiming it was in the name of Christianity, you couldn't demonize Christianity because of those acts, again
because the doctrine does not allow it, while Islam does. All the claims to the contrary regarding Christianity rely on examples found in the Old
Testament of the Bible, but I cannot stress enough that Christianity and the Old Testament are NOT one in the same. Christianity was based on Judaism,
and the Old Testament are Jewish books, but Christianity essentially discarded any justification for violence. Christians believe, because
Christianity teaches, that Jesus supplanted all of those older Jewish laws and customs and taught one to abide by non-violence, morals, loving
everyone, etc...The Bible states he even condemned and spurned the use of violence to keep himself from being arrested. This is the complete reverse
I just hope I've made my point clear, and that it is all about what the religion teaches and allows. Christianity does not condone violence in any
way, and those who use Christianity for such things do NOT have the backing of Christian doctrine, therefore of course one is not justified in
painting all Christians with the same brush. But it is much more justifiable to paint Muslims with the same brush, because Islamic doctrine does allow
for these insane acts of violence. This is partly why you have so many Muslims joining the fight, because their religion allows it. These people truly
believe they are devout, and there is no way that so many people, who no doubt are religious, would take up arms in this manner if they did not
believe that it was allowed by their religion. And it is. I know I am being highly redundant, but I just wanted to make this clear.
The reason the US or Britain will not pay a ransom is because all it does is increase the incentive for more kidnappings. That is relatively
straightforward. You are correct that journalists and aid workers are easy targets for such extremist groups, and this is precisely why anyone who is
planning on travelling to such a place should assume that something like this could happen to them. The area is volatile and one is literally taking
their life in their own hands by going there, and one should be prepared for as much. If you were not willing to die for whatever it is you are going
to do, then you shouldn't go. You are literally gambling with your own life, therefore wouldn't it make sense that you would be willing to pay that
ultimate price if you chose to go? Those who are not willing to pay that price, in my opinion, did not think anything could happen to them. That is a
You might be right that they are hiding behind religion to some extent, but are they really hiding? Again, their religion allows these things. It
allows them to wage a "holy war" against non-believers, therefore they are not "hiding" so much as they are putting their ideas and motives right out
in the open. And it is quite possible that the reason the entire Muslim community doesn't stand up in defiance to these extremists is because the
non-extremists know that, religiously speaking, the terrorists are justified in their actions.
And calling for boots on the ground in Syria, and thinking it will accomplish the goals laid out by western governments to defeat ISIS, is wishful
thinking. Speaking from the teachings of military doctrine, an insurgent war cannot be won by sheer manpower or technology alone. This has been known
by military theorists for many decades. One telling quote about this idea comes from General Weyand's remark to a North Vietnamese general in
Hanoi...Weyand said "you know, you never beat us on the battlefield." His northern counterpart thought about the comment and replied, "that may be so,
but it is also irrelevant." This comment gets right down to the core of attrition warfare in my opinion, and how the number of enemies you kill or the
number of battles you win does not matter. All that matters is achieving objectives. And what are the objectives of the US and allied forces
attempting to wage war against extremist forces? The strategy is essentially the same as the one that failed in Vietnam: seek and destroy the enemy.
It is not as bad of a theory when we're talking about conventional warfare, but asymmetric warfare is much different, and a guerilla force cannot be
beaten in this manner.
Everyone calling for boots on the ground, including portions of the American military leadership, are to put it simply, wrong in thinking this will
solve the problem or achieve the objective. The allied experiences in Iraq should be enough to support this conclusion, but if it is not there are
many other historical examples. One could think that we succeeded in Iraq because we established some sort of government there, even if that
government is now under threat both from within and without. But I maintain that this is an illusion, and at the end of the day the apparent gains in
that country are irrelevant. They have only prolonged the inevitable, as guerilla forces are not beaten, they simply go underground. So it could even
appear that we have defeated ISIS at some point, but it will not be the case. So unless the US is prepared to stay indefinitely, I say leave the
country to its own devices. And I don't think the US populace, or the population of any western nation involved in this conflict, is prepared to go
the long haul, which along with a change in US strategy to better accommodate this asymmetrical conflict, is the only way to even approach
edit on 10/3/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)