search results matching tag: ISIS

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (107)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (18)     Comments (248)   

Enzoblue (Member Profile)

Bill Maher: Richard Dawkins – Regressive Leftists

SDGundamX says...

Since you brought up unusual punishments, let's take stoning people for adultery (which exists in both the Koran and the Bible). When was the last time someone was stoned to death by a group in the U.S., U.K., Australia, or even Malaysia for adultery? Hundreds of millions of Muslims and Christians around the world seem perfectly fine ignoring that part of their holy texts. Just because something that we find distasteful today is written in the holy text doesn't automatically make the religion evil nor does it suddenly force the practioners to behave like savages.

You need to look at the specifics. Take a look at the countries where stoning actually does still occasionally happen and who actually carries it out: Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Invariably when it does occur it happens in rural areas where there are people who still actually live like it is the middle ages, with extreme poverty and little education to speak of (other than religious). Sure, the book gave them the idea but it wasn't the only factor in play and to ignore these other factors or the fact that honor killings are in fact common across a wide number of cultures with varying religious backgrounds (even the Romans did it) is what would be truly intellectually dishonest.

As for extremists--they exist in all religions including Christianity. It wasn't a mob of Muslims who attacked Charlie Hedbo--it was two deranged individuals. And while some Muslims might have applauded the attack others denounced it, such as the hunderds of thousands of Chechen protestors who who were upset with the cartoons but didn't think violence was the right response (see article here).

Again, it's a complex issue that can't be boiled down to "Islam = Good/Bad." Islam as practiced by ISIS or Boko Haram? Yeah, there's some dark shit going on there. Islam as practiced by average citizens in Kuala Lumpur or Boston? Not so much.

But again, moderate statements based on reason and facts are not what sell books, generate online clicks, or fill lecture halls to capacity.

Barbar said:

When a holy book includes an unusual punishment for something, and that punishment is carried out, and when asked afterwards why they did it they point at the book, it seems dishonest to discount the book as ever being a possible inspiration.

When someone decides to smite the neck of an infidel for drawing a picture of the prophet, how can that be construed as something other than a religious grievance? It's a religious punishment for a religious transgression.

The reformations and toning down of the BS in the other monotheisms came following massive popular pressure. I'm hoping for more pressure against these insanities.

RT-putin on isreal-iran and relations with america

coolhund says...

I never said to rely on Putin or RT solely. I just tried to explain that ignoring him and RT because of stupid reasons like that is not very wise, because the west isnt much better. You have to see all the sides to make a proper judgement.

A, B and C are irrelevant. Ownership is irrelevant because the western media is also "owned" by people with an agenda. But even between those different people there is a common agenda. You can see that in Germanys media right now very well. They are outright lying collectively to the people just to stay politically correct.

Reputation also is irrelevant because objectivity > reputation.

Funding is also irrelevant, as you said yourself. You can see it very well that it doesnt change much where they get their money from. The agenda matters. Also very well observable lately.

Putin first and foremost is a counterweight. He makes the western mistakes more obvious. He also has very good points when defending his own countries actions. Even the homosexual ones, if you ever listened to him on that topic. Yes, as a political leader he is of course manipulating, but he makes much more sense, actually uses facts and doesnt nearly lie as much as any politician I have ever seen.
You of course need to have and acknowledge those facts to realize that. But you made it clear that you arent. Comparing Russias imperialism with Americas shows just how much. Its pretty much clear the USA was involved in that coup detat once again. Now imagine how the USA would have reacted if Russia did that in Canada or Mexico. Or imagine how the USA would react to being completely surrounded by Russian military bases, having decades of history of destabilizing and overthrowing countries and whole regions, breaking and ignoring international law, even threatening the country where the international court sits to never dare to bring one of their before their court and then Russia claiming that the USA is the aggressor.

Actually Russia has long been very passive about the eastern expansion of NATO and they forgave that bleeding out of Russia towards the west in the 90s. Something like that happening at their doorstep actually justifies much MUCH harsher reactions, but they didnt use them. Instead they actually took another (hypocritical) slap in the face rather passively and silently with those sanctions.

Syria... I am surprised you even bring that up, because thats just stupid to use that for your argument. Syria has been a long ally of Russia and they asked for help after the US and NATO started bombing their infrastructure instead of ISIS. The war in Syria is even more obviously an externally funded war, not a civil war, while in the Ukraine you can actually see parts of a civil war, it started like that, because those people didnt want the new government. Also again mostly due to America and their support of other totalitarian regimes in that region.
You should read this:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/31/holes-in-the-neocons-syrian-story/

RedSky said:

1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Migrants and Refugees

newtboy jokingly says...

Oh, and one more last thing....this random, unconnected train video was from 2010 (or before) , well before ISIS or the Syrian civil war refugee crisis even existed.

ChaosEngine said:

The internet is full of the kind of bullshit that was shown on the train.

"Those refugees have an ISIS flag!"
No, they're not refugees

"This guy fought for ISIS!"
No, you fucking liar, he fought AGAINST ISIS

and plenty more

Oh, and one last thing. They're not migrants, they're refugees. There's a big difference.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Migrants and Refugees

Understanding the Refugee Crisis in Europe and Syria

coolhund says...

Extremely one sided "explanation". His view is pretty much the same as an extreme right winger, just from the opposite direction.

He says that people say that immigrants and refugees is the same in this crisis. The thing is for some countries it is. If they are in that country, even if they are not accepted as immigrants, they are allowed to stay. Look at Germany for example. Only EXTREMELY few people get deported from there. Period. If youre lucky enough to get into Germany, you will most likely stay there.

He also says that most people arriving in Europe are refugees. Thats also bullshit. Only about a third are refugees from unstable countries. Thanks to speeches like that of Merkel and her politics people are streaming into Europe in hope for a better life, because everyone expects the land of milk and honey.
The fact of the matter is that nobody would care much if it all were refugees, who will be there only temporary.

He also puts most blame on Assad and Iran and Russia, blah blah. He even puts the chemical attack on Assad, even though NOTHING has been proven and actually point more towards the extremists incl. ISIS. The USA, UK and France started that war by supporting those extremists from day one and even before that! The country was stable before that! Same mistake like in Iraq and Libya! And their allies in that region supported them too! And then he wonders why they dont take refugees. LOL! Unbelievable...

Here is a MUCH better explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB4WWYSnXmM
Notice how they avoid to talk about the real cause of this crisis, yet get a huge applause when they mention it. Guess why. Same reason most western media avoids it.

I just lost a lot of respect for this guy. Because if he doesnt get this right, he wont get other things right either.

Whoopi Goldberg Defends 10 Surprising Things

GenjiKilpatrick says...

..what the actual fuck.. @_@..

Your justification to defense of heinous behavior is..
"but at least he was funny or 'naturally' talented"?!

That is batshit crazy logic. (and waaay creepier considering your username and avatar)

Firstly:
You could literally make this argument about every awful person/thing on the planet.

"ISIS? They're not ALL bad. They support the local economy"

"Jim Jones of Jonestown Massacre? He helped a lot of people find happiness and acceptance. "

"Sure the Atlantic Slave Trade was bad. But think of all the great civil rights leaders that.. um.. we wouldn't have had.. to have had.. otherwise.."


Secondly:
Awful shit is just awful!
And should ALWAYS overshadow any "good" accomplishments a person does.

Disgrace, dishonor, shame, scorn, condemnation, disdain are all words that represent an idea for a reason.

If society doesn't distinguish and stigmatize shitty people & their supporters.. it validates and normalizes their actions & behavior.

You're effectively arguing that as long as someone does at least ONE noteworthy or impressive accomplishment..

Society should still admire them to a degree.. or at least not solely define them by.. their overwhelmingly disgusting, fundamentally wrong behavior.



Again.. @_@ wtaf??!?

MilkmanDan said:

In many cases, even if it is 100% proven that somebody did some very bad things, I don't personally think that should (necessarily) negate our respect for the good things they did.

gorillaman (Member Profile)

CNN Found an 'ISIS Flag' at London LGBT Pride

CNN Found an 'ISIS Flag' at London LGBT Pride

Roman Army Structure

300 Foreign Military Bases? WTF America?!

Praetor says...

Its a matter of chicken vs egg. They don't need huge military expenditures because security is provided by the US. But if they and all their neighbors had to provide sufficient defense, mostly against the people who are most likely to invade them (i.e. their neighbors), you get an arms race like you have with India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia. The indirect savings and the refocusing of capital and human resources away from the military in all of these allies countries makes the world a much safer place, since war no longer becomes the go to solution for states to resolve differences.

US bases do fall into 2 categories. Allies who don't want to get invaded again, and enemies who lost and became allies. As for Kuwait, that didn't work out well for Iraq, and Kuwait is still independent and an ally. Ukraine has no US bases, Russia would go ballistic if there were (surprisingly appropriate use of the word). ISIS is the anomaly, but right now you can put that down to the fact that Obama really, really doesn't want to put US troops on the ground (think he would hesitate if ISIS invaded England or Australia for example?), and that Iraq's military is trying to handle this as much as possible on their own and clearly having trouble.

I don't know if we need all 800 bases currently or if some are just vestigial. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on the necessity of them, though

300 Foreign Military Bases? WTF America?!

newtboy says...

Not the one's in Germany...or Japan...or to some extent any in the middle east....but I do get your point. While those two are now allies, the reason the bases are there is because they were enemies, so we denied them the right to have their own military.

Yes, for the same level of effective military, replaced by the countries each of these bases are in, it would cost more overall, I'm sure you're right. BUT...most of them don't need anywhere near the level of military we supply, and they would still be our allies, so have our huge, advanced military backing even if they supplied their own military instead of relying SOLEY (or even mostly) on ours. Also, that $100B per year would be spread out over nearly 300 countries, so far easier to pull off.

About not being invaded...just to name 3....Kuwait had a US military base when Saddam invaded, Iraq has many, and they aren't dissuading ISIS. I actually think we have one in the Ukraine too, but I'm not sure (we certainly have a treaty that said clearly that we were supposed to defend them with the full force of our military if they were ever invaded...so much for that promise though). It's often a deterrent for considerate governments, but not all military agencies are thoughtful or consider the repercussions of their actions (I think the US policy proves that clearly).

Praetor said:

Except almost all these bases are in allied countries, not as an occupying force (Guantanamo predates the Communist Revolution,so tough luck for Havana). These bases provide mutual defense and security.

Countries with US bases in them don't get invaded. How much do you think it would cost to have every single allied country try and run and maintain a truly effective military for their own defense instead of using the US as a strategic partner? Way more than $100b a year.

(P.S. loving the irony of the guy with the handle of Praetor and the avatar of the Emperor arguing he doesn't live in an empire, lol)

Should gay people be allowed to marry?

StukaFox says...

God may have created the institution of marriage, but humans created the system of legal rights and benefits surrounding it. If you're going to claim the first to deny the second, you're no better than ISIS or the Taliban.

shinyblurry said:

But if God created it, then we are accountable to Him and have no right to modify it.

ant (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon