Well, at least, they're releasing the Amelia Earhart files...

[D.o.S.]

All that is to say if the CSA had taken over somewhere the size of Michigan and had a PR team they would be saying a lot of the same shit.

[D.o.S.]

That YouTube clip is lacking in some fundamental perspective. Isis needs to make those sorts of claims, even, and especially, when they're not making tangle advances in building their thousand d year caliphate (and, indeed, are actually losing territory). The fact that they're crazed fundies with an escatological preoccupation with a holy war doesn't mean they don't want the same sort of publicity that more secular (or otherwise not Islamic) terror groups do.

[D.o.S.]

Nice edit, Mr. Huntington. I thought you were dead?

[Faldoe]

That YouTube clip is lacking in some fundamental perspective. Isis needs to make those sorts of claims, even, and especially, when they're not making tangle advances in building their thousand d year caliphate (and, indeed, are actually losing territory). The fact that they're crazed fundies with an escatological preoccupation with a holy war doesn't mean they don't want the same sort of publicity that more secular (or otherwise not Islamic) terror groups do.

The fact that they want publicity doesn't downplay the legitimacy of their claims regarding their analysis of the west's view towards them. And in this case, the west's incorrect view in order to try and deny the 'nature of the beast'

And you're trying to somehow deny the problem they pose by trying to argue other groups use (desire) publicity as well so therefore...

ISIS uses and wants publicity

Secular and other groups want publicity

Therefore: everyone uses/wants publicity?

Therefore: people that make up groups/organizations want publicity?

Whats the point argument? What purpose does it serve?

All that is to say if the CSA had taken over somewhere the size of Michigan and had a PR team they would be saying a lot of the same shit.

What is the CSA and you're again trying to downplay ISIS by making a hypothetical false equivalency? Has someone else here tried to do what ISIS is trying to do? Does there attempts - if they did - in anyway take away the problematic nature of ISIS? I think not.

[Iommic Pope]

Normcore.

I suppose it is a byproduct of "acquiring" your personal identity from a thrift store. The dreck of previous decades becomes kitsch, then
rebellious, then the cornerstone of one's sense of self. But too many Millennials wear Bill Cosby sweaters without thinking through the
implications of an association with Jell-O Pudding Pops and Quaalude-based rape.

The crude, fragile lameness of our own past is the cudgel by which the next generation haunts and mocks us. "Irony" is dead because
the lack of any reaction at all is the new normal by which the status quo is subverted through conformity. Also... facial hair is an
outgrowth of millennials living at home and lacking interest in having relationships.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/scien ... s-sex.html

Sure.
Or just
[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlg9l9CqnM[/youtube]

[Iommic Pope]

Re Isis and publicity: they either think they're spreading a holy message or pumping out propaganda. The fact they are very good/selective about what content does both to which audience is just business these days.
This may seem reductive but I don't honestly believe the assholes smart enough to try and engineer this idea of a caliphate into existence aren't any different from or better than your garden variety despot/dictator/warlord. Faith is a lever, but the game remains mostly the same.

They want the same things. To get fat, remain fat, and not have to do any physical labour.
Which is why religion was invented in the first place.

[D.o.S.]

Bingo

[Chankgeez]

[D.o.S.]

That YouTube clip is lacking in some fundamental perspective. Isis needs to make those sorts of claims, even, and especially, when they're not making tangle advances in building their thousand d year caliphate (and, indeed, are actually losing territory). The fact that they're crazed fundies with an escatological preoccupation with a holy war doesn't mean they don't want the same sort of publicity that more secular (or otherwise not Islamic) terror groups do.

The fact that they want publicity doesn't downplay the legitimacy of their claims regarding their analysis of the west's view towards them. And in this case, the west's incorrect view in order to try and deny the 'nature of the beast'

And you're trying to somehow deny the problem they pose by trying to argue other groups use (desire) publicity as well so therefore...

ISIS uses and wants publicity

Secular and other groups want publicity

Therefore: everyone uses/wants publicity?

Therefore: people that make up groups/organizations want publicity?

Whats the point argument? What purpose does it serve?

All that is to say if the CSA had taken over somewhere the size of Michigan and had a PR team they would be saying a lot of the same shit.

What is the CSA and you're again trying to downplay ISIS by making a hypothetical false equivalency? Has someone else here tried to do what ISIS is trying to do? Does there attempts - if they did - in anyway take away the problematic nature of ISIS? I think not.

The CSA is the Cross, the Sword, and the Arm (?). Google it. I'm not downplaying the Islamic thing, I'm emphasising the fundamentalist aspect. If you're basing your viewpoint on ideas from the seventh century you're going to be a stupid fuck, IMO, regardless of which imaginary friend you claim. They're hyper orthodox and antiquated, but that doesn't make them any more "true" to Islam's fundamental nature than any other religious group. Christianity is also based on unending struggle, and that's why I have the same beef with fundies of every stripe.

[Faldoe]

Re Isis and publicity: (1) they either think they're spreading a holy message or pumping out propaganda. The fact they are very good/selective about what content does both to which audience is just business these days.
This may seem reductive but I don't honestly believe the assholes smart enough to try and engineer this idea of a caliphate into existence aren't any different from or better than your garden variety despot/dictator/warlord. Faith is a lever, but the game remains mostly the same.

They want the same things. To get fat, remain fat, and not have to do any physical labour.
Which is why religion was invented in the first place.

(1) - Does it have to be one of the other? It would make sense because they are so hell-bent on enacting their vision that they would use propaganda, as well as it being a necessity since they feel some much of the world is blind - willfully or otherwise - to God's true message and are thus living sinful lives.

Certainly it's all similar since war and religion - everything we do as humans - takes place on the human stage and seeking power is part of it. And thus warlords and dictators use similar types of manipulation and violence against those that resist. It seems as though such a response as yours kind of suggests a "well, all evil people do it, so...?" The point is that there seems to be an immense downplaying of how Islam, and many of it's adherents - look at the call for Sharia in the UK - want something that is incompatible with common sense values in the 21st century.

I agree that kind of backwardness and unreason it's isolated to Islam. Christian certainly has similar intolerances and are being played out like in Uganda with the heavy anti-gay sentiment there, and the calls for death to gay people.

That YouTube clip is lacking in some fundamental perspective. Isis needs to make those sorts of claims, even, and especially, when they're not making tangle advances in building their thousand d year caliphate (and, indeed, are actually losing territory). The fact that they're crazed fundies with an escatological preoccupation with a holy war doesn't mean they don't want the same sort of publicity that more secular (or otherwise not Islamic) terror groups do.

The fact that they want publicity doesn't downplay the legitimacy of their claims regarding their analysis of the west's view towards them. And in this case, the west's incorrect view in order to try and deny the 'nature of the beast'

And you're trying to somehow deny the problem they pose by trying to argue other groups use (desire) publicity as well so therefore...

ISIS uses and wants publicity

Secular and other groups want publicity

Therefore: everyone uses/wants publicity?

Therefore: people that make up groups/organizations want publicity?

Whats the point argument? What purpose does it serve?

All that is to say if the CSA had taken over somewhere the size of Michigan and had a PR team they would be saying a lot of the same shit.

What is the CSA and you're again trying to downplay ISIS by making a hypothetical false equivalency? Has someone else here tried to do what ISIS is trying to do? Does there attempts - if they did - in anyway take away the problematic nature of ISIS? I think not.

The CSA is the Cross, the Sword, and the Arm (?). Google it. I'm not downplaying the Islamic thing, I'm emphasising the fundamentalist aspect. If you're basing your viewpoint on ideas from the seventh century you're going to be a stupid fuck, IMO, regardless of which imaginary friend you claim. They're hyper orthodox and antiquated, but that doesn't make them any more "true" to Islam's fundamental nature than any other religious group. Christianity is also based on unending struggle, and that's why I have the same beef with fundies of every stripe.

Yes, fundamentalism in all areas is no good, and we should be able to discuss them openly so as to show - by argument - why they should never be enacted. I agree regarding Christian fundamentalism, etc. etc. But it's pretty much allowed by mainstream society and certainly the political left, to discuss, mock, and trash all the idiocy and backwardness in Christianity, but it's a no-no to do so when it comes to Islam, because of the rhetoric by many to conflate Islam as an ideology with a race, as well as coupling criticism of the doctrine with 'Islamaphobia."

And on those points, the ISIS piece is right in terms of how the media gives into trying to cleanup the messes done in the name of Islam and saying "oh, but it's a religion of piece."

[Chankgeez]

"oh, but it's a religion of piece."

I'm just scared of all religions that're stuck in a certain period of time.

[Faldoe]

lol. fail

[D.o.S.]

Oh, yeah, I agree with you -- I don't think any of the three major Middle Eastern religions are 'religions of peace (or piece)', and I also agree that there are a lot of people who are willing to conflate Islam (and Christianity) with ethnicity, which is equally appalling, I just think that anything that talks about 'the fundamental nature of Islam' is usually just more fuel for some arbitrary 'clash of civilizations' nonsense when the reality is that people of all stripes and locales are simply attempting to have everyone behave according to some arbitrary social mores from 1200+ years ago. The only difference comes with familiarity, IMO.

The calls for Sharia in the UK as just as laughable as the calls for outlawing abortion in the US, right -- and that's part of the reason why France, which has a notable record of enforced secularity, has become such a target for Islamic fundamentalists in recent years. I think you have to treat all of these assholes like the assholes they are, regardless of which folks they're praying to.

Which means we have to fuck them. We have to fuck those assholes. All of them.

[psychic vampire.]

Maybe one day people will stop writing think pieces on Millenials and ISIS. A girl can dream.

[Faldoe]

Oh, yeah, I agree with you -- I don't think any of the three major Middle Eastern religions are 'religions of peace (or piece)', and I also agree that there are a lot of people who are willing to conflate Islam (and Christianity) with ethnicity, which is equally appalling, I just think that anything that talks about 'the fundamental nature of Islam' is usually just more fuel for some arbitrary 'clash of civilizations' nonsense when the reality is that people of all stripes and locales are simply attempting to have everyone behave according to some arbitrary social mores from 1200+ years ago. The only difference comes with familiarity, IMO.

The calls for Sharia in the UK as just as laughable as the calls for outlawing abortion in the US, right -- and that's part of the reason why France, which has a notable record of enforced secularity, has become such a target for Islamic fundamentalists in recent years. I think you have to treat all of these assholes like the assholes they are, regardless of which folks they're praying to.

Which means we have to fuck them. We have to fuck those assholes. All of them.

You had me till the bolded portion. There are plenty of Christians that believe being gay is a sin but still live within the boundaries of law and semi-reason despite being an idiot when it comes to being gay. That is not the case for ISIS as well as many in the Muslim world. I do think there are those - perhaps more than people in the west may know - in the middle east that are not as extreme in their views towards gays, women, etc. but that can't speak their true feelings for fear of reprisal. My point being that there is a kind of clash of civilizations going on. I realize and appreciate how people can overly simply that and bring it down to a "America is perfect and the greatest, fuccckkk teeeerrr, everywhere else is shit," which isn't helpful and not what I believe.

I also don't know how we can have a frank discussion about such a divide without it ultimately being perceived as something so simplistic which the clash of civilizations - as a rhetorical tool - is not utilized as such.

I think the banning of head coverings in France is a little foolish but I don't think blaming France's hyper secularism is the answer. Christians and Muslims may both be idiots for believing different and similar myths but their actions in the world - which come from their beliefs - aren't equally the same. Look at Arab Christians in the Middle east. Are they blowing themselves up? No. In many respects they have experienced similar hardships as their Arab Muslim neighbors yet don't act out the same way, and thats because of their core belief/ideological view of the world.

I don't think the anti-Abortion stuff is the same as Sharia. While I'm pro-abortion - or the right to have one - I can see peoples' points to being against it. Also people that oppose abortion fall into various camps - those that want to ban it all together and those that want to ban federal funding going towards it. If I were a Christian or someone that opposed abortion, I could see the point in being against one's money - tax payer dollars - being used to fund an act you found morally reprehensible. While being anti-abortion, such a person still seems to agree with the rest of the bill of rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens - to be religious, or not. That a women can wear shorts and a shirt with some cleavage - if she wants.

Sharia allows for none of that and also includes death for leaving Islam, stoning adulterers, etc. and Sharia is something that is all encompassing to life and society. So while I don't agree with the anti-abortion crowd, comparing them to Sharia advocates isn't even.