211–220 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this. We shouldn't forget that Muhammad was basically a military leader. Anyway, we are in danger that this narrative and others similar becomes the only explanation in the mainstream media, instead of only a factor that probably is not very relevant. After all, the majority of Muslims don't believe that they should go to war with other countries.
We shouldn't forget that Joshua was basically a military leader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there are answers: ISIS just attacked NATO -- definitely Darwin award material. NATO can "wipe the desert clean" in less than an hour anytime NATO is willing to do what ISIS does -- create civilian casualties. By clean , in the ISIS areas, no more buildings, oil infrastructure, vehicles, tents, flocks, camels, or people. None. Then, the end of ISIS and whatever beliefs, determination, goals, history, etc. D…
France isn't a part of NATO, and hasn't been for 50 years. Which is probably one of the reasons they were selected as a target. Armies are good at breaking down nation-states by destroying the opposing military and means of production. Putting the middle east aside, as it's still happening, I think the history of the 20th century aptly demonstrates that organized military force isn't effective in defeating revolution…
(2) France has something they label the 'force de frappe', which, though vastly reduced could turn a relatively large area of desert into a parking lot overnight, so even if they are part of NATO they don't actually need it to respond on an extremely high casualty level if the French get pissed off enough. Fortunately, France is one of the more levelheaded nuclear powers and has - to date - not even put that option on the table. But I would not take that as a given or forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever a woman earns -- after taking care of her primary/general responsibility of largely being the minister/secretary of (informal) education, cultural and internal affairs within the realm of a budding family -- remains with her and is not obliged to spend for the basic subsistence of the family. She still gets her inheritances. Besides, as the last of the Abrahamic religions today, Islam presents itself as the…
> [..] as the last of the Abrahamic religions today, Islam [..] I presume you mean "latest" here? The term "last" implies that Christianity and Judaism are no longer practiced today...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [..] as the last of the Abrahamic religions today, Islam [..] I presume you mean "latest" here? The term "last" implies that Christianity and Judaism are no longer practiced today...
And actually that's Mormonism anyways. They were the last to be visited by god, and had the most-recent prophet, according to whom their mortal leaders speak ex-cathedra. Mormonism is even growing faster than Islam. It is the ultimate(1) Abrahamic religion. Mormonism is even truly a religion of peace. Its leader was under persecution at the time and he does not speak out for killing and injustice. 1) Judging all reli…
That point reminds me though of a particular set of standards employed by an academic on that very topic: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/528/viewall/miraculous...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one says "keeping up the articles of Magna Carta, rather than resort to catastrophic violence on the part of the powerful outlawed states, would likely help lessen some of the chaos in today's world", does it imply that one is physically calling to go back to the thirteenth century? Similarly, Americans calling to restore the fourth amendment may not mean taking the clock back to the nineteenth century. Salafism i…
>In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so yes.
Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions; that is, from a materialistic viewpoint (which I presume is Fukuyama's and many of the fellows' here), how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after (or any other event, such as a massacre by some of the humans, in the universe, for that matter).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Daesh What do you think of this piece by Maajid Nawaz? Why Not Calling ISIS “Islamic” Hurts Muslim Reformers: http://jrbenjamin.com/2015/03/06/maajid-nawaz-why-not-callin...
I couldn't care less about Islamic. I'm not calling it "state".
The sad reality is that it is both quintessentially Islamic, and a state. If we refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation today, we have no chance of destroying it in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In the world of Fukuyama et al, rather than a basic religious worldview with precise tenets, is there a solid framework of meaningfully defining/determining good/triumph/progress? Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so yes.
Though Fukuyama reportedly distanced himself from this later, I appreciate your answer. But don't you think it's redundantly tautological and circular/self-referential to approach it like "Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so it is the supreme progress/triumph (end of history?) to have that". Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis o…
I had considered you to be asking about Fukuyama's views. In my views, history doesn't have an end, except possibly for everyone dying out.
>Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions;
The what now?
>how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after
It's significant to the people living through it! How's that supposed to not count as significant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the article, up to 25% of the youth in these areas show some form of support for ISIS.
Showing "Some support" is very very very far from being part of such an extreme organization. Or else we would all be dead .
Imagine if 25% of American kids said they could relate to the Sandy Hook shooter, wouldn't that be worrying? Regardless of whether they'd be out to kill as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't care less about Islamic. I'm not calling it "state".
Unfortunately it has courts, police, and a military. It has nearly 10 million citizens, and in articles about its territorial gains, it even appears on maps. It even collects taxes, repairs roads and runs electric utilities. The sad reality is that it is both quintessentially Islamic, and a state. If we refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation today , we have no chance of destroying it in the future.
I concur it's advantageous they are positioning themselves as a state though. It immediately translates their military defeats into social and political ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Industrialise child raising, like everything else. Artificial wombs. Group day-care. Have women donate eggs, men donate sperm and combine them randomly. Make it the duty of every person to be a parent to 2 to 3 children with fines for not doing their part until they hit 30/40 years of age. The babies will be born never knowing their biological parents. Then they're sent to child-raising facilities, either government…
I certainly hope there is some sarcasm intended with this. A world where raising children is turned into an industry (makes me think of Orwell's 1984) is one that I would not enjoy being a part of. It does however seem that the flow of the economy, the fact that no one is willing to slow down for anything, and everything needed to be finished yesterday, certainly hinders people from things such as having children. Co…
Fortunately, I'm pretty sure we'll run out of resources long before our greed for growth pushes us that far.
Edit: of course companies are emotionless. They aren't people. You should view any company of more than about 200 people as a super-organism. Every actor in the company acts in their own best interest, while kept in check by the people on top. The emergent behaviour is one of calculated exploitation.